When I look at the world of AI, I see two forces driving attention: hype and fear.

This is a space that almost everyone is watching and trying to understand, yet much of that understanding is formed through headlines. From the inside, the reality looks different. The model is far from the headline. It is a powerful tool, but it makes mistakes. It can explain without context and speak with confidence when it is wrong, just like us. 

Public narratives tend to cluster around extremes.

One is fear. There are real and righteous concerns, but much of the discourse feels driven by emotional escalation rather than careful evidence.

Then there is the marketing materials. The future is often presented as already here, making it difficult for people to distinguish reality from fiction.

The problem: We lack a middle language. 

A way to acknowledge what these tools can do now and what they are already changing in our lives, while also holding space for uncertainty and longer-term development. 

One thing I want to be clear about is this: recognizing the power of the tool ≠ endorsing the concentration of power in the hands of a selected few. What we are seeing now is a mass centralization of resources and attention, and that deserves scrutiny. 

We need more public town halls. 

And as I dig deeper, the number of questions only grows. Some are alarming. Some are exciting. Very few feel settled.

What troubles me is how easily we become trapped in a narrow sense of time. The future is often framed only through the lens of the next breakthrough. But there are children who will grow into adults. There will be policies written and systems implemented. There will be mass adoption of technology. All of these processes are HUMAN.

I find it extremely dangerous when AI is framed as an all knowing or soon to be all knowing god-like entity, especially when public understanding remains low and headlines become the primary source of truth.

On another hand, AI could be a powerful tool for addressing urgent questions in health, perhaps climate, and for relieving people from repetitive labor that is tedious and consuming. I also look at areas that were traditionally hard to fulfill. A 3D video like the one I concepted above would have cost thousands or more if it were produced ten years ago. I find it genuinely exciting that independent creators/builders can now make things they have long wanted to create but lacked the resources to realize. At the same time, this raises ethical questions around fair use and copyright. Is it possible to create a middle ground where tools enhance creativity rather than replace it, where power is given rather than taken?

Could we bring nuance back into these conversation. Could we explore the spaces in between and define a playground where innovation and creativity can thrive without it beinus a weapon of destruction. I am genuinely curious.

But I am not seeing this happen. The web feels increasingly divided in a factional way where everyone is forced to take a side and where it becomes difficult to hold a conversation in the middle.

This is where Open Frame births.

Like the title suggests, it is about pausing and looking at something with intention. We frame what we see, and how we frame the world shapes the reality we move toward. Whatever you believe, if we do not create that space together, decisions will still be made. They will simply be shaped by polarization rather than collective understanding. I know I am not the only person tired of seeing the world this way, and I am trying to make something I want to see.

I might do a bad job. I might fail. Or maybe no one will care. That is fine. This is me practicing agency. Learning by doing, not learning by algorithm.