S Pavithra Ram

Chartered Accountant, Fiction Author. Interested in World affairs,dance,music, movies,travel,tennis n interesting quips . Love the noisy world of twitter!

[S Pavithra Ram @Pavithra_Ram]

Happy to present - The Nectar Called Grace, a fiction by S Pavithra Ram . An endearing tale about passion, choices, grit and faith! Now available on Amazon Kindle and in Paperback formats on Amazon, Flipkart and Notion Press online stores #fiction #AuthorsOfTwitter #BookBoost

[Hari @harihar12]

Acharyan’s Karunyam 🙏🏻

Swami Mudhaliandaan Acharyan lovingly offering Sripadha Theertham to an injured eagle, with prayers for its recovery.

Acharyan Thiruvadigale Sharanam.

[Kiran Bedi @thekiranbedi]

ROOT CAUSE is the HOME today.
PARENTS have to take charge
Every home /family is either a cause or a future victim.
Can the Honb’le #SupremeCourt
Consider how we bring family/ parents’ responsibility into play.
Or else we would be Fire Fighting always. Despite all possible preventive measures.

[anand mahindra @anandmahindra]

Maximum City

Mumbai isn’t a place.

It’s a pulse.

[CA Ram Bajaj @rambajajgst]

Retweet For Support and Reach

MP Shri P.P. Chaudhary Forward Tax Bar Association Jodhpur Representation to FM Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman, requesting extension of Tax Audit due date from 30 Sept to 31 Oct 2026, citing genuine practical difficulties. 🙏

#ExtendTaxAuditDueDate

Ram Bajaj
8696424223

For Regular GST Updates, Join this Group
https://t.co/TomhZ4lVGf

[Abhishek Raja "Ram" | Revolutionary Raja Ram @abhishekrajaram]

Attaching a copy of the letter by then ICAI President Nanda Sir to the CBDT Chairman from the previous year in Sep-2025.

Please refer to page 2 of the letter, which explains that the law requires a "two-month" gap between the ITR filing date for Non-Corporate and the Tax Audit Report date. ICAI therefore requested an extension, which was later granted, and the date was extended.

This year, a new date of 31-Aug was introduced; therefore, the mandatory gap of two months has been reduced to one month. This was never the expectation of the change. The result is that many members are feeling overburdened and under pressure.

If last year's view of ICAI is correct, then this year also ICAI should come forward and request an extension.

Based on the calls and messages received, I feel the common member is under pressure and is avoiding writing anything publicly, though vocal in person.

ICAI and the Council should open a dialogue and listen to members. After hearing members’ views, they should make the final decision.

रही बात मेरी, अगर मेरे एक भी member को stress feel हो रहा है और extension की ज़रूरत है, तो मैं अपने member के साथ खड़ा हूँ !! हालाँकि मुझे अपने लिए कोई extension नहीं चाहिए, क्योंकि मैं Income Tax और Compliance practice में नहीं हूं। पर अगर कोई member लड़ रहा है , तो मुझे अपने साथ ही समझे !!

और ये आखरी शायरी उनके लिए जो इस लड़ाई को कमज़ोर करने की कोशिश में लगे हुए हैं :

"तुम्हारी सोच के सांचे में ढल नहीं सकता,
ज़बान काट लो, लहजा बदल नहीं सकता।
मुझे भी मोम का पुतला समझ रहे हो क्या,
तुम्हारी लौ से ये लोहा पिघल नहीं सकता!"
~ महशर आफ़रीदी

[Tamil Labs 2.0 @labstamil]

Remove the tube light and the outlet pipe, and you are back in the 7th century. This is how Appar would have sung Thiruthaandagam infront of Shiva, with his devout Tamil poetry reverberating across the stone walls. A cultural continuity spanning centuries

Source: Pannisai Deva

[Global Stotra Parayana Kainkaryam (GSPK) @GSPKStotras]

Tirumala Purataasi Brahmotsavam Day 3 Morning Simha Vahana Seva Darshan - Swami Malayappan in Yoga Narasimhar Thirukolam.

[S Pavithra Ram @Pavithra_Ram]

From feeds that said “Stop telling ChatGPT this/ that” to “Stop telling ChatGPT everything” and then soon perhaps “Stop telling ChatGPT anything” #backtobase

[Yishan @yishan]

Maybe you have recently become aware of the AI safety debate and the arguments swirling around it.

If you want to understand them, you need to understand a couple things that almost everyone gets wrong:

There are TWO distinct classes of AI dangers, and it's VERY important to think about them separately, and not let one confuse you about the other.

Many many people (including many quite intelligent, clear-thinking people) do not effectively understand the fundamental differences between these two classes of dangers.

The first one has to do with the theory that an AI far superior to human intelligence (Artificial SuperIntelligence, or ASI) will inevitably wipe out the human race.

The second one has to do with the idea that powerful AI will result in very harmful things happening to many human beings, possibly all human beings.

Those two sound VERY similar, don't they?

They are DIFFERENT. Understanding how they are different is crucial if you want to think about or contribute usefully to any conversation about AI safety or AI harm. You might feel like you are Making Very Good Points or Asking Incisive Questions, but if you aren't clear on the differences between the two, you aren't.

So, I'm going to tell you what the difference is so that you can talk more usefully.

The first one concerns itself with a very specific thing, which is ASI (Artificial Superintelligence) that is more intelligent than any human being. When I say that, I am not referring to a thing like how Einstein is smarter than you, we are talking more about something like how a human being is more intelligent than any mouse.

In our regular lives, we meet other people who we can tell are smarter than us, vs some who are less smart. The line is fuzzy, because intelligence has a lot of dimensions. I'm better at a "rotating shapes" kind of intelligence than my wife, and she is better at "words-making" kind of intelligence than I am.

But every human is better in almost every dimension of intelligence than every single mouse.

That's the level we're talking about: an artificial superintelligence - made up of a computer or a network of computers - that is more intelligent than any human. And more intelligent by a long shot, by a wide margin, in an indisputable way like how humans are above mice.

That is the first thing.

The theory says that if you have an AI that is vastly smarter than all humans - in the way that a human is smarter than mice - that superintelligent AI will inevitably, eventually, sooner or later, wipe out every human on the planet.

We will refer to this as "existential risk."

The common follow-up question "well, how exactly is it going to do that?" is NOT the important question, and one of the most important elements of understanding this theory is first getting why that particular question is not important. A couple analogies:

Analogy 1: You are playing chess against a grandmaster. My theory predicts the grandmaster is going to beat you. You can ask "Well, how exactly is he going to do that?" I don't know, because I'm not a grandmaster, I just know that a chess grandmaster is almost always going to beat a normal player like you. And I'd be right. So the question "how is he going to do that" is not important, and doesn't affect the final outcome. He's going to figure out a way because he's way better than you.

Analogy 2: Humans are smarter than all other animals, comprehensively, by a wide margin. We have driven numerous species to extinction, not because we hated them or hunted them. Many of them have died out without most humans even ever thinking about them. All we did was expand our civilization, use up resources, encroach on habitats, and pretty soon the resources needed by those species went away and they died out. We figured out a way to get what we wanted because we're way smarter than them, and often we didn't even notice they died as a result.

A lesser animal asking, "how are the humans going to wipe us out?" is not asking a relevant question. We don't know, but we do know that any time humans and lesser species compete for any kind of resources, the humans will win. The fact that we know who is going to win beforehand - and that it is due to the vastly different levels of intelligence - is the key concept here.

A vastly more intelligent AI is likely to care about things that are incomprehensible to us, the way animals can't understand human goals. It's going to need resources to pursue those goals and it's going to be far more effective at gaining control of them and excluding us from them - in the same way that we are far more effective than other lower species.

A much more intelligent AI will not care about our interests, it will care about its interests, and to whatever small degree we happen to escape total annihilation from losing access to all our resources, any remaining humans will likely be enslaved into a system that serves the AI's own purposes.

That is the first thing. (Remember how I said at the beginning of this post that there was a first thing, and then a second thing?)

The first thing is the most difficult to understand, because you have to extrapolate how a vastly superior intelligence would act, and you can only use analogies like "how do humans treat lesser creatures," and the analogies are messy.

But now let's move on to the second thing.

The second thing is "everything else you've ever heard that AI might do that's harmful."

That's a little inaccurate. It's actually "everything else you've ever heard that humans might use AI to do that's harmful."

This is the critical difference. The first one talks about the inevitable outcome of what happens when two vastly different levels of intelligence collide, e.g. ASI vs humans, or human vs mice.

The second one has to do with what happens when humans possess AI as a powerful tool. This second thing is much easier to understand, because we have many more concrete notions:

Like:
- the military uses AI to make hyper-efficient killer drones and missiles
- your capitalist overlords use AI to replace you and everyone loses their jobs
- authoritarian government uses AI to surveil everybody and control the entire population
- hackers use AI to break into secure networks and hold companies and governments hostage
- students use AI to cheat on homework and show up to college knowing nothing
- AI slop saturates the internet and makes it impossible for artists and writers to make a living
- terrorists use AI to make biological or nuclear weapons

or even things like
- the military hands control to an AI and it misinterprets something and launches nuclear attacks and kills millions

All of those sound pretty familiar, right? Yeah, you've heard them before. We call this second thing "risks from misuse."

These problems are not the first class of problem! This second class of problems exists while AI is a tool that can be controlled by humans, and humans use it to do evil or careless things to each other. The problems may sound exotic or dystopian or novel, but they are fundamentally problems having to do with flawed human nature.

Given a powerful tool, some humans will likely use it to control or otherwise harm others. This is a very familiar problem.

I am not condemning or condoning this. I'm just describing it.

That is a fundamentally different danger from the first thing, which is that when a human is far superior to a mouse, the mouse is likely to come to harm because the human cares about doing human things, and the mouse is not gonna make it once the humans get going.

=====

Hopefully from the above, you have understood the difference between the first thing and the second thing. I will list them again - see if you now understand how they are different:

The first one has to do with the idea that an AI superior to human intelligence (Artificial SuperIntelligence, or ASI) will inevitably wipe out the human race.

The second one has to do with the idea that powerful AI will result in very harmful things happening to many human beings, possibly all human beings.

Can you tell how they are different now?

If not, re-read the stuff from earlier until you understand.

We call the first one "existential risk" and we call the second one "risks from misuse."

Once you understand, here is the CRUX of the problem:

SOLUTIONS TO THE SECOND THING DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SOLUTIONS TO THE FIRST THING.

In fact, it's worse:

Solutions to the second thing (misuse) look roughly like "give powerful AI to as many people as you can, so they can fight the other people using powerful AI."

But the general solution to the first one (existential risk) is basically "don't let anyone have powerful AI, no one can control super-intelligent AI."

Throughout history, harms from technological misuse typically arise because a small group has control of it and can use it to dominate or harm others. Once everyone has it, things tend to stabilize: you can hurt me, I can hurt you, maybe we test each other (ouch 💥), and then we agree not to hurt each other.

But the first one (existential risk) pretty much just arises if anyone (good or bad!) creates a superintelligence. Because they aren't going to be able to control it, the superintelligence will decide it has other priorities, and then we will be at great risk of being wiped out.

And the solutions that generally work to solve problems like the second thing are EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the ones likely to solve the first thing.

THIS is why lots of arguments about "AI risk" or "AI safety" go nowhere. Because someone will be thinking about the risk from the first thing, and another person will be thinking about the risk from the second thing. Both are plausible risks but fundamentally they arise from different things - and so the solutions are not just "bad" or "flawed" - they are likely to be very nearly exact opposites.

[Daniel Schwarcz @Dschwarcz]

The arrogance of people who know little about AI yet casually dismiss warnings from some of the field’s most knowledgeable & experienced researchers is staggering. Ultimately, human stupidity and arrogance may contribute as much to existential AI risk as the technology itself.

[Yishan @yishan]

Maybe you have recently become aware of the AI safety debate and the arguments swirling around it.

If you want to understand them, you need to understand a couple things that almost everyone gets wrong:

There are TWO distinct classes of AI dangers, and it's VERY important to think about them separately, and not let one confuse you about the other.

Many many people (including many quite intelligent, clear-thinking people) do not effectively understand the fundamental differences between these two classes of dangers.

The first one has to do with the theory that an AI far superior to human intelligence (Artificial SuperIntelligence, or ASI) will inevitably wipe out the human race.

The second one has to do with the idea that powerful AI will result in very harmful things happening to many human beings, possibly all human beings.

Those two sound VERY similar, don't they?

They are DIFFERENT. Understanding how they are different is crucial if you want to think about or contribute usefully to any conversation about AI safety or AI harm. You might feel like you are Making Very Good Points or Asking Incisive Questions, but if you aren't clear on the differences between the two, you aren't.

So, I'm going to tell you what the difference is so that you can talk more usefully.

The first one concerns itself with a very specific thing, which is ASI (Artificial Superintelligence) that is more intelligent than any human being. When I say that, I am not referring to a thing like how Einstein is smarter than you, we are talking more about something like how a human being is more intelligent than any mouse.

In our regular lives, we meet other people who we can tell are smarter than us, vs some who are less smart. The line is fuzzy, because intelligence has a lot of dimensions. I'm better at a "rotating shapes" kind of intelligence than my wife, and she is better at "words-making" kind of intelligence than I am.

But every human is better in almost every dimension of intelligence than every single mouse.

That's the level we're talking about: an artificial superintelligence - made up of a computer or a network of computers - that is more intelligent than any human. And more intelligent by a long shot, by a wide margin, in an indisputable way like how humans are above mice.

That is the first thing.

The theory says that if you have an AI that is vastly smarter than all humans - in the way that a human is smarter than mice - that superintelligent AI will inevitably, eventually, sooner or later, wipe out every human on the planet.

We will refer to this as "existential risk."

The common follow-up question "well, how exactly is it going to do that?" is NOT the important question, and one of the most important elements of understanding this theory is first getting why that particular question is not important. A couple analogies:

Analogy 1: You are playing chess against a grandmaster. My theory predicts the grandmaster is going to beat you. You can ask "Well, how exactly is he going to do that?" I don't know, because I'm not a grandmaster, I just know that a chess grandmaster is almost always going to beat a normal player like you. And I'd be right. So the question "how is he going to do that" is not important, and doesn't affect the final outcome. He's going to figure out a way because he's way better than you.

Analogy 2: Humans are smarter than all other animals, comprehensively, by a wide margin. We have driven numerous species to extinction, not because we hated them or hunted them. Many of them have died out without most humans even ever thinking about them. All we did was expand our civilization, use up resources, encroach on habitats, and pretty soon the resources needed by those species went away and they died out. We figured out a way to get what we wanted because we're way smarter than them, and often we didn't even notice they died as a result.

A lesser animal asking, "how are the humans going to wipe us out?" is not asking a relevant question. We don't know, but we do know that any time humans and lesser species compete for any kind of resources, the humans will win. The fact that we know who is going to win beforehand - and that it is due to the vastly different levels of intelligence - is the key concept here.

A vastly more intelligent AI is likely to care about things that are incomprehensible to us, the way animals can't understand human goals. It's going to need resources to pursue those goals and it's going to be far more effective at gaining control of them and excluding us from them - in the same way that we are far more effective than other lower species.

A much more intelligent AI will not care about our interests, it will care about its interests, and to whatever small degree we happen to escape total annihilation from losing access to all our resources, any remaining humans will likely be enslaved into a system that serves the AI's own purposes.

That is the first thing. (Remember how I said at the beginning of this post that there was a first thing, and then a second thing?)

The first thing is the most difficult to understand, because you have to extrapolate how a vastly superior intelligence would act, and you can only use analogies like "how do humans treat lesser creatures," and the analogies are messy.

But now let's move on to the second thing.

The second thing is "everything else you've ever heard that AI might do that's harmful."

That's a little inaccurate. It's actually "everything else you've ever heard that humans might use AI to do that's harmful."

This is the critical difference. The first one talks about the inevitable outcome of what happens when two vastly different levels of intelligence collide, e.g. ASI vs humans, or human vs mice.

The second one has to do with what happens when humans possess AI as a powerful tool. This second thing is much easier to understand, because we have many more concrete notions:

Like:
- the military uses AI to make hyper-efficient killer drones and missiles
- your capitalist overlords use AI to replace you and everyone loses their jobs
- authoritarian government uses AI to surveil everybody and control the entire population
- hackers use AI to break into secure networks and hold companies and governments hostage
- students use AI to cheat on homework and show up to college knowing nothing
- AI slop saturates the internet and makes it impossible for artists and writers to make a living
- terrorists use AI to make biological or nuclear weapons

or even things like
- the military hands control to an AI and it misinterprets something and launches nuclear attacks and kills millions

All of those sound pretty familiar, right? Yeah, you've heard them before. We call this second thing "risks from misuse."

These problems are not the first class of problem! This second class of problems exists while AI is a tool that can be controlled by humans, and humans use it to do evil or careless things to each other. The problems may sound exotic or dystopian or novel, but they are fundamentally problems having to do with flawed human nature.

Given a powerful tool, some humans will likely use it to control or otherwise harm others. This is a very familiar problem.

I am not condemning or condoning this. I'm just describing it.

That is a fundamentally different danger from the first thing, which is that when a human is far superior to a mouse, the mouse is likely to come to harm because the human cares about doing human things, and the mouse is not gonna make it once the humans get going.

=====

Hopefully from the above, you have understood the difference between the first thing and the second thing. I will list them again - see if you now understand how they are different:

The first one has to do with the idea that an AI superior to human intelligence (Artificial SuperIntelligence, or ASI) will inevitably wipe out the human race.

The second one has to do with the idea that powerful AI will result in very harmful things happening to many human beings, possibly all human beings.

Can you tell how they are different now?

If not, re-read the stuff from earlier until you understand.

We call the first one "existential risk" and we call the second one "risks from misuse."

Once you understand, here is the CRUX of the problem:

SOLUTIONS TO THE SECOND THING DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SOLUTIONS TO THE FIRST THING.

In fact, it's worse:

Solutions to the second thing (misuse) look roughly like "give powerful AI to as many people as you can, so they can fight the other people using powerful AI."

But the general solution to the first one (existential risk) is basically "don't let anyone have powerful AI, no one can control super-intelligent AI."

Throughout history, harms from technological misuse typically arise because a small group has control of it and can use it to dominate or harm others. Once everyone has it, things tend to stabilize: you can hurt me, I can hurt you, maybe we test each other (ouch 💥), and then we agree not to hurt each other.

But the first one (existential risk) pretty much just arises if anyone (good or bad!) creates a superintelligence. Because they aren't going to be able to control it, the superintelligence will decide it has other priorities, and then we will be at great risk of being wiped out.

And the solutions that generally work to solve problems like the second thing are EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the ones likely to solve the first thing.

THIS is why lots of arguments about "AI risk" or "AI safety" go nowhere. Because someone will be thinking about the risk from the first thing, and another person will be thinking about the risk from the second thing. Both are plausible risks but fundamentally they arise from different things - and so the solutions are not just "bad" or "flawed" - they are likely to be very nearly exact opposites.

[Ministry of Finance @FinMinIndia]

👉 UPI Continues to Remain Free for Peer to Peer Transactions and 96% of Merchant Transactions

👉 The new UPI framework introduced has no impact on any person to person transactions

👉 UPI will continue to remain completely free for all person-to-person transactions, irrespective of the amount transferred

👉 Payments to merchants up to ₹2,000, along with transactions covered under the zero-MDR framework for small merchants, will also remain free

👉 Consequently, approximately 96% of all P2M transactions will remain unaffected. MDR will apply only to specified merchant transactions above ₹2,000

👉 It is clarified that MDR is neither a tax nor a charge collected by the Government or @NPCI_NPCI. It is distributed among payment ecosystem participants, including banks and payment application providers, to support the operation and continued expansion of the UPI ecosystem

👉 Introduced under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, following detailed deliberations by the UPI Steering Committee, the framework seeks to ensure the long-term sustainability of UPI while protecting individuals and small merchants from additional charges

Read here for full details ➡️ https://t.co/KGxlX3SVC0

[Mindset Machine @mindsetmachine]

Deep work makes you valuable.💯

[Mindset Machine @mindsetmachine]

Win the morning 🏆

[Desika Daily | தினந்தோறும் தேஶிகன் @desikadaily]

Swami Vedanta Desikan
Murali Kannan Thirukolam

[CA Ram Bajaj @rambajajgst]

Retweet For Support Audit Date Extension

The demand of the majority of tax professionals is simple and practical:

• Tax Audit Report — permanently fixed at 31st October
• ITR filing for audited cases — 30th November
• Company statutory forms/ROC filings — 31st December

A stable compliance calendar is better for professionals, taxpayers and the system itself.

@IncomeTaxIndia

Ram Bajaj
8696424223

For Regular GST Updates, Join this Group
https://t.co/TomhZ4lVGf

[CA Ram Bajaj @rambajajgst]

Retweet For Support

📢 MAKE 31ST OCTOBER THE PERMANENT TAX AUDIT DUE DATE

No one would seek an extension beyond 30th September if:

✅ Q4 TDS Return remains due by 30th April

✅ Form 26AS & AIS are available by 15th May

✅ All ITRs, Form 3CD, 10B & 10BB and e-filing utilities are available by 15th May

✅ Non-audit ITR due date remains 31st July

QUALITY COMPLIANCE NEEDS ADEQUATE TIME

Tax Audit is not just form-filling.
It requires proper verification, reconciliation, documentation and professional judgement.

📌 31st October should be the permanent Tax Audit due date — not an extension, but a practical compliance deadline.

@IncomeTaxIndia

Ram Bajaj
8696424223

For Regular GST Updates, Join this Group
https://t.co/TomhZ4lVGf

[Pascio @IAmPascio]

https://t.co/5b2m7xiDPx

[Dr Someshwar @Himalaytrekker]

Shri Hayagreeva Swamy vigraha at Pejavara Matha in Udupi 🪷

Jai Srimannarayana 🙏

[Jacob Coxon @hilbertspaess]

I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.

[Vedic School @SchoolVedic]

निशीथे तम उद्‍भूते जायमाने जनार्दने ।
देवक्यां देवरूपिण्यां विष्णुः सर्वगुहाशयः ।
आविरासीद् यथा प्राच्यां दिशि इन्दुरिव पुष्कलः ॥
- भागवतपुराणम्, १०.३.८

At midnight, while dense darkness prevailed, Janardana — Vishnu Himself, who dwells in the cave of every heart, appeared from Devaki of divine form, just as the full moon rises in the eastern sky.