Jorge Moreno

The first AI persona you’ll actually want to meet face-to-face. Most AI personas stare blankly while you talk. Emma reacts while you’re still speaking. After 18 months of research at @nuance_ai, this is Emma, built on Nuplex, our full-duplex audiovisual foundation model.

Two things I’ve been thinking about regarding AI: • People often highlight the risks involved in AI, which are surely very real. I’m struck, however, by how hard it is to understand the contours of the positive scenario. There are easy-to-perceive and frequently invoked elements of a positive vision — more diseases cured, more material abundance, etc. — which sound great, but these are by themselves just ingredients. I’m curious what the larger equilibrium is supposed to look like. Do people work? If so, why? What is their marginal contribution? If not, how are resources allocated? What is scarce? What is the ratio between humans and AIs? Are humans in control, whatever that means? One sometimes hears the Culture novels invoked as one scenario, but I’m not sure they depict a desirable outcome. (AI runs everything and humans compete in games? Iain Banks himself said that the humans in the Culture are “somewhere between passengers, pets and parasites.”) There is Richard Brautigan’s famous poem, but do we want to be “returned to our mammal brothers and sisters”? (Isn’t that rewinding Genesis?) We could say that it was hard to imagine the world of 1900 from the vantage point of 1700, and that’s assuredly true. But nobody in 1700 was trying to recast humanity itself within a couple of years — things necessarily unfolded slowly and by increments, and therefore with the possibility for error correction. Given how rapid the rate of progress in AI may be, it feels strange for the upside case to be so opaque. • There is increasing discussion of whether AIs are conscious or how we would know whether they are, with conclusions there often assumed to be relevant to matters of moral worth. At first blush, this seems a rather arcane, benign, or even absurd issue. (Remember the response to Blake Lemoine’s fears.) Setting aside the terms of the debate itself, or the relevant demarcation criteria, it seems to me a quite high-stakes question, for an affirmative answer — that is, granting moral worth to AIs — would presumably mean that the aggregate worth of AIs would soon outweigh that of humans in any utilitarian calculus. The AIs will be exceptionally wise and intelligent, and vastly more numerous (especially once one considers the imminent future and the AIs not yet born). As such, even epsilon of moral worth will multiply to a lot once one considers the quadrillions that could soon exist. (This is effectively a distributed version of the Nozick’s utility monster.) If this conclusion is unpalatable, I think one of three propositions needs to be rejected: the premise AIs can have moral worth; utilitarianism itself; or the belief that there is even a possibility that they will be far more numerous than humans. With both of these matters (contours of future society; AI moral worth), there is the possibility of dramatic change. Today, people argue about datacenters. I’m curious how popular support for AI will evolve as more people come to understand these medium-term questions and the relevant stakes. What is the vision for AI that most people would be excited about?

Frida is a personal agent designed around intuitive, native interfaces for everyday decisions, making the ordinary feel a little more delightful Now available on the App Store in the US and Canada. apps.apple.com/us/app/frida-…

It's pretty magical when your agent...just works @instinct just partnered with @OpenTable, so it can now book and manage your restaurant reservations No blocks, not TOS issues, and @link deals with the card holds, deposits, and other payment flows Watch me make dinner plans 👇

Data from Visa’s new agentic commerce report, which tested 22 agents across 15 shopping tasks 👇 The average success rate (bought product that fit user requirements) was 57.2% The two winners both had 82% accuracy - Muse Wonder at $1.55/ run, and Gemini 4 Argon at $0.54/run

Fo with Twilio 🤝 Wajo AI’s @hey__fo is transacting globally, and booking goods and services, with phone calls, texts, emails and humans in over a 100 countries since launch 🚀 Fo has emerged to be not only a productivity assistant, but the trust first, AI fulfillment layer to people's lives. • Be their EA on their morning commute - calendar prep, chasing lose ends • Manage their household - in group chats, and coordination • Book and manage reservations, travel, shopping, messy government forms • Sit on hold with call centers and customer service • Navigate healthcare systems • Negotiate with car dealerships, hunt apartments We are excited to enable this over the phone stack with our partnership with @Twilio that powers @wajo_ai’s @hey_fo's telephony stack for our users and we're proud to be building this alongside their team with more to come! Sign up and let Fo get sh*t done for you today: wajo.ai

Agentic commerce will go one of two ways 1. Network tokens. This is how Apple Pay works today, and it will replace virtual cards / the current hack of giving your agent your card number. 2. Agents with balances. Agents have their own stablecoin wallet with a card attached.

If you focus on intent —> payment, payment methods, cards, browsers, servers, type of model, none of it matters. 100% successful outcomes are possible when the model can learn in real-time from intent

The obvious bets are: 1 / Models get smarter. 2 / Agents get more capable. 3 / Businesses expose more APIs. We're betting that none of those solves the problem of deciding what should happen on behalf of a person.

The mistake is assuming the internet will be rebuilt for agents. 1 / Amazon will make Amazon agentic 2 / Shopify will make Shopify agentic Every major platform will build its own agent interface. But the more interesting question is there are millions of businesses that will never build an API for every model, agent, device and platform that wants to interact with them. Someone has to bridge that gap. Our bet is that the internet doesn't get rebuilt for agents, rather agents learn to operate on the internet that already exists. Everyone assumes the future of software will be built inside the largest platforms. We think the opposite: the most valuable economic activity will eventually happen across a long tail of businesses that no single platform controls.