u/Unlikely-Contest1523

'Acharya Prashant demands honesty over comfort' ~ Book review of Truth Without Apology by Zee News

"Truth Without Apology is not a book for every mood or every reader. It asks for something the self-help genre has largely stopped asking for: not effort, but honesty. In that sense, the title keeps its promise."

Read Full Review: https://zeenews.india.com/industry-updates/book-review-truth-without-apology-acharya-prashant-3067261.html

🏹 Is Death☠️ just particularly related to cessation or transformation of body or continuously live🌬️ & decide in self-ignorance🤨?

In one of the gita exams. A really interesting question on Gymming was asked:

Alex and Harry have been going to the same gym for the past two years. They usually work out together and follow similar routines. During most exercises, Harry manages to do only two or three more repetitions than Alex. Yet, over time, Harry has developed a noticeably stronger and more muscular physique.

Alex becomes increasingly envious. He keeps thinking, "He only does a couple more reps than I do. How can his body look so much better than mine?" Instead of examining his own training, nutrition, sleep, and consistency, Alex becomes preoccupied with comparing himself to Harry.

In the light of this situation, which of the following statement(s) is/are correct?

Options:

A. Visible success is usually the result of luck rather than accumulated effort.

B. Harry's physique proves that some people are naturally destined to succeed, regardless of effort.

C. Small daily improvements compound over time into remarkable results. Never underestimate the power of doing a little more each day.

D. Harry's physique proves that genetics is the only factor that matters.

E. The best way for Alex to improve is to focus on outperforming Harry rather than understanding his own training and habits.

Please explain the choice you selected

AI has now designed viruses that did not exist before.

Scientists have used AI models trained on the genetic information of about 2 million bacteriophages to design new viral genomes. In the laboratory, 16 of these AI-designed viruses proved viable, and a combination of them successfully killed strains of E. coli that were resistant to naturally occurring bacteriophages.

The potential benefit is enormous: AI could help design highly targeted bacteriophages to fight antibiotic-resistant infections and potentially transform phage therapy.

But the same breakthrough raises an uncomfortable question: if AI can design useful viruses, could it eventually design harmful ones?

The researchers deliberately excluded viruses that infect humans, animals and plants from their training data. Experts also point out that designing a completely new dangerous pathogen is currently far more difficult than modifying an existing pathogen.

Nevertheless, the technology has crossed an important threshold: AI can now generate genetic instructions that can be turned into functioning viruses.

The concern is therefore not that a dangerous virus has been created today, but that our ability to design biology may be advancing faster than our systems for governing it.

Experts argue that safety cannot depend on regulating AI models alone. It will require multiple layers—responsible AI development, research oversight, screening of synthetic DNA, and strong laboratory biosafety and biosecurity.

The question is no longer only what AI can create. It is whether humanity can develop the wisdom and safeguards to decide what should never be created.

Acharya Prashant often warns that knowledge without self-knowledge is potentially dangerous.

This deveopment raises that very question.

AI has now been used to design viruses that did not previously exist. The technology itself is neither good nor evil. It can potentially help us develop new ways of fighting antibiotic-resistant infections. But the same capability, placed in the hands of an ego driven by power, profit, fear, competition or domination, can be directed towards very different ends.

The danger, therefore, may not lie in the tool itself, but in the consciousness of the one who wields it.

As our technological power grows, our capacity to create—and consequently to destroy—grows with it. But if inner understanding does not grow at the same pace, knowledge can become an extraordinarily powerful servant of an ignorant ego.

Perhaps the real question is not merely:

“What can we create?”

but:

“Who is the one creating, and what does he want to do with his creation?”

Without self-knowledge, greater knowledge may simply give the ego greater instruments to fulfil its agenda.

The more powerful the tool, the more dangerous the unconscious user.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/aug/06/safety-fears-as-scientists-make-first-viruses-designed-by-ai?CMP=share\_btn\_url

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aec2657