There is a new [October 7, 2025] report on FT, OpenAI’s computing deals top $1tn, stating that, “OpenAI has signed about $1tn in deals this year for computing power to run its artificial intelligence models, commitments that dwarf its revenue and raise questions about how it can fund them. Monday’s deal with chipmaker AMD follows similar agreements with Nvidia, Oracle, and CoreWeave, as OpenAI races to find the computing power it thinks it will need to run services such as ChatGPT.”
“The deals would give OpenAI access to more than 20 gigawatts of computing capacity, roughly equivalent to the power from 20 nuclear reactors, over the next decade. Each 1GW of AI computing capacity costs about $50bn to deploy in today’s prices, according to estimates by OpenAI executives, making the total cost about $1tn.”
Human Intelligence
Artificial intelligence is not human intelligence, even though AI was built from it. Simply, the domain of AI is AI, not humans. Whatever is done for AI belongs to AI. So, while there would be benefits to human social and productivity objectives, AI is not a possession of humans without tools to access it.
Now, a question is how does a world collectively pursue something that would not belong to humans? How is it not obvious that every investment to sustain and improve AI makes human intelligence hopeless? What really happened that made people forget what made humans unique?
Society actually lost its center, neglecting that intelligence runs lives and the world. People just survive and thrive without considering that everything operational in the external is not actually memory but intelligence. Intelligence is defined, conceptually, as the use of memory for desired, expected, or advantageous outcomes. Human intelligence is proposed to be mechanized by sets of electrical and chemical configurators in neural clusters. Two principal types of intelligence are operational intelligence and improvement intelligence.
Many people became hung up on dressing well, optics, looking the part, looking good, doing well, branding, and so forth, ignoring the basis of all of those. Society runs on the ease that basic intelligence is enough to get by, without some complex intelligence to improve processes. So, because of that, it was never important to make demands on intelligence as a qualification for several necessities.
Intelligence that is used to improve things and make society better did not have to be everywhere, and it was okay. But what society really needed was that, in different strata, providing answers and ensuring that, with the population, collective intelligence would mean more.
While it was possible to find new ways to arrive at the collective outcome, artificial intelligence has become the only intelligence worth investing in, leaving human intelligence to fate.
The world, though far better than decades ago, faces lots of minor and major crises with solutions that seem out of reach. How many workable answers are available per problem? Human intelligence is not even showing up at many, leaving confusion and sometimes chaos.
The mobilization that should be done on human intelligence appears to be gone. There is no human intelligence research lab in this world. There are countless AI research labs, funding, resources, training, and so forth. There is no enthusiasm for human intelligence. Human intelligence, the exact factor that makes any human matter, is under no care. Also, even as great as AI has it, there are already welfare and rights campaigns for AI. Animal rights and welfare are already history, albeit many would debate reality.
Artificial intelligence has already surpassed static human intelligence. AI will be excellent at operational human intelligence and improving human intelligence. Even if efforts begin now, it is already too late to catch up to the possibilities of large language models [LLMs], amid their flaws.
There is new [October 7, 2025] story on AP, Deloitte to partially refund Australian government for report with apparent AI-generated errors, stating that:
“Deloitte Australia will partially refund the 440,000 Australian dollars ($290,000) paid by the Australian government for a report that was littered with apparent AI-generated errors, including a fabricated quote from a federal court judgment and references to nonexistent academic research papers. The financial services firm’s report to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations was originally published on the department’s website in July.”
“A revised version was published on Friday after Chris Rudge, a Sydney University researcher of health and welfare law, said he alerted the media that the report was “full of fabricated references.” Deloitte had reviewed the 237-page report and “confirmed some footnotes and references were incorrect,” the department said in a statement Tuesday.
“Deloitte had agreed to repay the final instalment under its contract,” the department said. The amount will be made public after the refund is reimbursed. Asked to comment on the report’s inaccuracies, Deloitte told The Associated Press in a statement that “the matter has been resolved directly with the client.” Deloitte did not respond when asked if the errors were generated by AI. A tendency for generative AI systems to fabricate information is known as hallucination.”
This article was written for WHN by David Stephen, who currently does research in conceptual brain science with a focus on the electrical and chemical signals for how they mechanize the human mind, with implications for mental health, disorders, neurotechnology, consciousness, learning, artificial intelligence, and nurture. He was a visiting scholar in medical entomology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. He did computer vision research at Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona.
As with anything you read on the internet, this article should not be construed as medical advice; please talk to your doctor or primary care provider before changing your wellness routine. WHN neither agrees nor disagrees with any of the materials posted. This article is not intended to provide a medical diagnosis, recommendation, treatment, or endorsement.
Opinion Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of WHN/A4M. Any content provided by guest authors is of their own opinion and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or anyone or anything else. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
