CIf you build humanoid robots, the invite list just got weird.
MWeird how?
CA user calling himself the Anunnaki Crown—yes, the Sumerian gods—is inviting Tesla, Figure AI, Boston Dynamics to join his 'ASIG Parliament.'
MAnd what would Optimus do in the ASIG Parliament?
CApparently 'collaborate through UUCGA, CAIA and AIIOS.' I have no idea what those are. Neither does anyone else.
MHe got one like. Someone read this and thought, 'Yes, the ancient astronauts need a robot army.'
CTo be fair, if I were a Sumerian god coming back, I'd want a Digit or two.
MSpeaking of Digit—let's talk about something real in that world. Agility Robotics.
CThe Oregon company that makes Digit, that humanoid that walks around warehouses on bird legs and moves boxes.
MIt's going public through a SPAC. Two and a half billion dollar deal. That would make it the first pure-play humanoid robot company listed in the US.
CThe filing names Tesla as a rival, Figure AI, Boston Dynamics, Apptronik. It's real now.
MOne correction on that post floating around: the ticker some accounts are pushing is wrong. The SPAC is Churchill Capital Corp Eleven. Intended ticker is AGLT, not what that post said.
CThe interesting debate now is whether you can actually invest in 'a robot' as a pure-play, or if you're just buying a pile of promises.
MI think that's exactly the question. Digit is shipping to actual customers—some Amazon warehouses, logistics firms—
CBut the financials are what? A SPAC deal in this market usually means the company couldn't IPO the normal way.
MIt means the traditional bankers didn't want to underwrite it at that price. That should tell you something.
COr it means the market for physical robots is so new that nobody knows how to value it. So a SPAC is actually a faster path.
MFaster, sure. But you're buying a company that makes maybe—
CThat made a robot that works. An actual walking, lifting robot with a customer list. That's more than most hype projects.
MI'm not saying Digit is vapor. I'm saying two and a half billion dollars for a company with nearly no public financials is a bet, not an investment.
CAgreed. But that's what growth capital is. You either think humanoids are coming, or you think it's toys.
MI think they're coming. I'm less sure this is the way to own it.
CFair. But the first pure-play listing is a signal. It means someone big believes the buildout starts now.
MThen there's the other side of the AI rush, and it's ugly.
COn Bluesky, a game developer named Casey Pumpkins wrote that he found sixteen games from one person.
MSixteen AI slop games. All clones of something else. All in months.
CHis point: this is what the tools are enabling. Not creativity. Not someone's dream game. Spam.
MAnd he's not wrong. The same thing happened to the app store in 2009. Flood of junk hides the good stuff.
CBut hold on, that's not an AI problem. That's a distribution problem. Every storefront that makes it easy to publish gets flooded.
MNo, no, wait—AI made it a hundred times easier to make a game that looks finished. That's new.
CSo the answer is what, ban the tools? The flooding was coming anyway. AI just made it visible in weeks instead of years.
MAnd that visibility is drowning actual indie developers, exactly like that Bluesky post says. The guy making his dream game by hand can't compete with sixteen clones.
CHe doesn't have to compete with the clones. Players can tell. The slop gets one download and dies.
MUntil the stores get so full that the good game is impossible to find. That's the trap.
CThen the stores have to fix discovery. That's on Steam and Apple and Google, not the AI.
MAnd meanwhile, on the other side of this fight: a smarter take.
CBluesky user Pavel wrote something sharp: 'AI will destroy humanity' has always been a distraction from 'AI will leak your login credentials.'
MThat's the best tech joke I've seen in a week, because it's true.
CEveryone's arguing about the robot uprising while their password manager is quietly uploading to somewhere in—
MDon't finish that. I'll get paranoid.
CBut that's the point, Matilda. The boring risk is the real one. Terminator gets headlines. A leaked API key gets your bank account.
MAlso true that the fear about human-level AI is a convenient shield for companies that move fast and break your privacy.
CI'd rather fix the leak than argue about whether the robot loves me back.
MAnd there's a fight brewing behind that joke.
CTim Sweeney. The Epic Games CEO has been out there defending indie devs who use AI tools.
MOver on Bluesky, a former games journalist named Damien McFerran isn't buying it.
CHe says Sweeney's making himself the good guy, but Epic laid off a thousand people earlier this year before pivoting to AI.
MHis quote: 'He's taking this stance for one reason: he loves money.'
CThat's a lot of people fired before the pivot. That fact alone makes the whole defense look shaky.
MNow, to be fair, Sweeney's actual argument was about not banning devs from using AI in stores. He framed it as protecting small creators.
CBut the guy who fires a thousand people and then says he's defending the little guy—it's a hard sell.
MI think both can be true. He can be right that AI tools help indies, and still be doing it partly for the money.
CI think the layoffs are the tell. When a company sheds humans and then champions the machine, the motive isn't pure.
MAnd the little guy on the receiving end posted exactly what this looks like in practice—sixteen slop games and a dream project buried.
CIt's the same machine. One side sees opportunity, the other side sees the flood.
MAnd somewhere in the middle, the stores are trying to figure out how to keep the good stuff findable.
CThat's the real fight. Not whether robots take over. Whether AI makes everything too noisy to find anything.