Big Brain AI
@realBigBrainAI • 14,556 subscribers
Learn to not get left behind when AI takes over
Shorts
Videos
Architects used to draw every parking space by hand, this TestFit AI does the whole lot in seconds.
Big Brain AI3,565,030 views • 11 hours ago
One person just made a Transformers-level VFX sequence on a single GPU.
Big Brain AI691,332 views • 19 days ago
This installation by Kim Seonghyun makes AI's invisible logic visible in real time.
Big Brain AI2,427,317 views • 2 months ago
Andrew Ng, co-founder of Google Brain and Coursera, on the worst career advice being given about AI right now: He doesn't mince words about what he's hearing from supposed experts: "As early as earlier this year and certainly last year, there are a few people advising others to stop learning to write code because AI will automate it." His reasoning is rooted in a historical pattern most people miss: "As something becomes easier, more people should do it, not fewer. When the world moved from assembly language to COBOL, there were actually articles saying, 'Well, we now have COBOL. Programming is so easier. Looks like we don't need programmers anymore.' But the opposite happened." Andrew believes the same thing is happening now with AI-assisted coding: "As we now have AI assisted coding, a lot more people should be coding. And I think the demand for software, custom software, has no practical ceiling. So the cost of software engineering comes down, which it is, we'll just get more and more great software out in the world." But here's where the advice gets uncomfortable for experienced engineers. Andrew Ng is honest about what he's seeing on the ground: "It is true that a fresh college grad that is really on top of AI will outperform a full stack engineer with 10 years of experience that is still doing things they were back in 2022, 3 years ago before GenAI." However, there's a nuance most people miss when they hear that stereotype: "The other piece that is less well appreciated is the best engineers I know are not fresh college grads. They're actually very experienced engineers that deeply understand architecture and the conceptual framework of how to think about computers and additionally are on top of AI and on top of these AI skills."
Big Brain AI210,853 views • 9 days ago
XPeng's new AI parking feature lets you draw your spot on the screen and the car does the rest.
Big Brain AI1,275,961 views • 1 month ago
The creator of Linux, Linus Torvalds, just unknowingly obliterated Elon Musk in one sentence:
Big Brain AI1,145,691 views • 1 month ago
Former U.S. presidential candidate Andrew Yang on why "learn to code" went from the safest career advice to the worst in just 4 years: Yang recently returned from an AI conference out west and what he heard alarmed him. "They said to me that what we're going to see in the next 6 months outstrips what we've seen in the last 10 years cuz the rate of change is on a hockey stick and heading up. And I got to say I'm pretty up to date on this stuff and it blew my mind on some of the stuff I was seeing." One example stuck with Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸. "There was one company that is selling autonomous coding for enterprises to big businesses and their revenue is up 100-fold in the last 12 months." The implication is significant: "If that continues, it's going to eat a lot of the tech budgets from major corporates that used to go to humans. And so you're seeing the employment of recent computer science graduates fall off a cliff from a lot of programs." Yang points out the irony of how quickly the advice has flipped: "If you rewind what 4 years ago, what would we tell young people for a secure career, learn to code? And now the opposite of that is true." On where this is heading long term, Yang cites Anthropic's CEO: "Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, laid it out very clearly and he's been doing so repeatedly, saying we're going to automate away up to 50% of entry-level white collar jobs in the next several years. And I believe him." His reasoning for why entry-level roles get hit first is blunt: "The easiest people to fire are the people you haven't hired yet, which again is why you see the hiring of recent college graduates heading down." And the data backs it up: "The underemployment rate over 50%, the unemployment rate among college graduates is now the same or higher than non-college graduates for the first time in history."
Big Brain AI345,442 views • 17 days ago
Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter (now X) and Block, on why treating AI as a "copilot" is a losing strategy: jack argues that most companies are approaching AI in a way that will make it nearly impossible for them to survive. "I think most of the industry is thinking about AI as like a co-pilot, as something that is augmented onto, rather than like how do you just rebuild our whole company with this as the core." His concern is that bolting AI onto existing structures produces companies that look indistinguishable from each other, and from the AI labs themselves. "If it doesn't make sense for your business to do that and you end up being or looking very similar or rhyming too closely with the frontier labs, then I think it's going to be very, very challenging to differentiate and survive." This thinking has been driving his decisions since early 2024, when these tools "really came to bear." That's when his team began building Goose, an agent coding harness, as part of a broader effort to rebuild around AI rather than layer it on top. The core insight? Speeding up old workflows with AI is a short-term gain every competitor will match. Real differentiation comes from rebuilding the company itself around intelligence.
Big Brain AI860,800 views • 1 month ago
Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, offers a sobering view: The biggest technological shift in human history is happening, and almost no one is talking about it. Schmidt opens with a startling industry prediction: "We believe as an industry that in the next one year the vast majority of programmers will be replaced by AI programmers. We also believe that within one year you will have graduate level mathematicians that are at the tippy top of graduate math programs." He explains why this matters so much. Programming and math aren't just two fields among many: "Programming plus math are the basis of sort of our whole digital world." And the AI labs are already using AI to build better AI: "The research groups in OpenAI and anthropic and so forth… around 10 or 20% of the code that they're developing in their research programs is being generated by the computer. That's called recursive self-improvement." Eric Schmidt then lays out the timeline most people haven't grasped: "Within 3 to 5 years we'll have what is called general intelligence AGI which can be defined as a system that is as smart as the smartest mathematician physicist artist writer thinker politician." He gives this belief system a name: "I call this by the way the San Francisco consensus because everyone who believes this is in San Francisco it may be the water." But the truly unsettling part comes next. Once AI starts improving itself, humans become optional to the process: "The computers are now doing self-improvement… they don't have to listen to us anymore. We call that super intelligence or ASI… computers that are smarter than the sum of humans. The San Francisco consensus is this occurs within six years." And here's where Schmidt sounds the alarm. The conversation isn't keeping pace with the technology: "This path is not understood in our society. There's no language for what happens with the arrival of this. This is happening faster than our human that our society, our democracy, our laws will address." His closing thought captures why this matters: "That's why it's underhyped. People do not understand what happens when you have intelligence at this level which is largely free."
Big Brain AI632,942 views • 1 month ago
Roger Penrose, Nobel Prize-winning physicist and mathematician, explains why we should stop calling it AI and start calling it "artificial cleverness": He believes the entire field is mislabelled, and the label itself is doing damage. His objection is simple but cuts deep: "The name is wrong. It's not artificial intelligence. It's not intelligence. Intelligence would involve consciousness. Well, if it's a machine, it's not conscious." For Penrose, people have confused raw computing power with genuine understanding. "People have lost the plot. They've lost it in the power of computing. The thing is that computers have got so powerful that they've lost the thread of what they're doing. But I think consciousness is something different. It's not computational." He believes the term itself has hypnotized people into a category error: "People are so hypnotized. The trouble is that AI is a bad term. It means artificial intelligence. Now intelligence in my view is conscious. That's what intelligence is about." So he proposes a rename. Artificial Cleverness. AC instead of AI. To illustrate the distinction, Penrose draws on his experience teaching mathematics: "You have mathematics students. Some of them understand what they're doing. Some are just clever. They can repeat what they've learned. They know how to do it very cleverly. They can calculate very well, but they don't necessarily understand what they're doing." That gap, between calculating well and actually understanding, is the gap Penrose sees between today's machines and genuine intelligence. Cleverness can be manufactured. Consciousness, in his view, cannot. So the question worth sitting with: when we call a system "intelligent," are we describing what it does, or quietly assuming something about what it is?
Big Brain AI115,601 views • 13 days ago
Jonathan Ross, Founder and CEO of AI chip company Groq, offers a contrarian view: AI won't destroy jobs, it will create a labour shortage. He outlines three things that will happen because of AI: First, massive deflationary pressure. "This cup of coffee is going to cost less. Your housing is going to cost less. Everything is going to cost less." He explains this will happen through robots farming coffee more efficiently and better supply chain management, meaning people will need less money. Second, people will opt out of the economy. "They're going to work fewer hours. They're going to work fewer days a week, and they're going to work fewer years. They're going to retire earlier because they're going to be able to support their lifestyle working less." Third, entirely new jobs and industries will emerge. Jonathan points to history as evidence: "Think about 100 years ago. 98% of the workforce in the United States was in agriculture. When we were able to reduce that to 2%, we found things for those other 98% of the population to do." He continues: "The jobs that are going to exist 100 years from now, we can't even contemplate." Software developers didn't exist a century ago. In another century, they won't exist either, "because everyone's going to be vibe coding." The same applies to influencers, a career that would have been unthinkable 100 years ago but now earns people millions. His conclusion: deflationary pressure, workforce opt-outs, and new industries we can't yet imagine will combine to create one outcome... "We're not going to have enough people."
Big Brain AI1,380,203 views • 4 months ago
Peter Steinberger, creator of OpenClaw, on why AI agents still produce "slop" without human taste in the loop: "You can create code and run all night and then you have like the ultimate slop because what those agents don't really do yet is have taste." Peter is direct: raw capability without direction still produces mediocre output. "They are spiky smart and they're really good at things, but if you don't navigate them well, if you don't have a vision of what you're going to build, it's still going to be slop. If you don't ask the right questions, it's still going to be slop." Great AI-assisted work is defined by the human guiding it. Peter Steinberger 🦞 describes his own creative process when starting a new project: "When I start a project, I have like this very rough idea what it could be. And as I play with it and feel it, my vision gets more clear. I try out things, some things don't work, and I evolve my idea into what it will become." Most people skip this part entirely, front-loading everything into a single prompt and wondering why the result feels hollow. "My next prompt depends on what I see and feel and think about the current state of the project." Each step informs the next. The work itself is the feedback loop. "But if you try to put everything into a spec up front, you miss this kind of human-machine loop. And then I don't know how something good can come out without having feelings in the loop — almost like taste." The agentic trap is what happens when you remove yourself from the process too early.
Big Brain AI486,885 views • 1 month ago
AI is now fixing your posture: this smart stand finds your ideal screen position for you.
Big Brain AI261,449 views • 1 month ago
Stephen Wolfram, founder of Wolfram Research, explains how LLMs are quietly dismantling our deepest assumptions about consciousness: He argues that large language models have done something philosophy and neuroscience couldn't: "In terms of consciousness, I have to say, the idea that there's sort of something magic that goes beyond physics that leads to sort of conscious behavior, I kind of think that LLMs kind of put the final nail in that coffin." His reasoning is that LLMs keep doing things people assumed they couldn't: "There were all these things where it's like, oh, maybe it can't do this, but actually it does. And it's just an artificial neural net." Wolfram then challenges a core assumption about conscious experience: the feeling that we are a single, continuous self moving through time. "I think our notion of consciousness is a lot related to the fact that we believe in the single thread of experience that we have. It's not obvious that we should have a persistent thread of experience." He points out that physics doesn't actually support this intuition: "In our models of physics, we're made of different atoms of space at every successive moment of time. So the fact that we have this belief that we are somehow persistent, we have this thread of experience that extends through time, is not obvious." Then Wolfram offers a striking origin story for consciousness itself. Stephen Wolfram suggests it traces back to a simple evolutionary pressure: the moment animals first needed to move. "I kind of realized that probably when animals first existed in the history of life on Earth, that's when we started needing brains. If you're a thing that doesn't have to move around, the different parts of you can be doing different kinds of things. If you're an animal, then one thing you have to do is decide, are you going to go left or are you going to go right?" That single binary choice, he argues, may be the seed of everything we now call awareness: "I kind of think it's a little disappointing to feel that this whole wanted thing that ends up being what we think of as consciousness might have originated in just that very simple need to decide if you are an animal that can move. You have to take all that sensory input and you have to make a definitive decision about do you go this way or that way." The takeaway is unsettling but clarifying. If LLMs can produce complex behavior from simple rules, then consciousness may not be a mystical add-on to physics. It may just be what happens when a layered enough system has to make a decision.
Big Brain AI193,773 views • 26 days ago
Yann LeCun (AMI Labs Founder): "The AI industry is completely LLM-pilled. Everybody is working on the same thing. They're all digging the same trench." LeCun explains why no lab dares break from the pack: "They are stealing each other's engineers. So they can't afford to do something different because if they start going on a tangent, they're going to fall behind the other guys. And so they're all doing the same thing." This groupthink is exactly what drove him out of Meta. "Meta also became LLM-pilled with sort of recent reshuffling. And it's fine, a strategic decision that maybe makes sense for them. It's just not what I'm interested in." For Yann LeCun, the problem runs deeper than strategy. LLMs are missing something essential about how intelligence actually works: "I cannot imagine that we can build agentic systems without those systems having an ability to predict in advance what the consequences of their actions are going to be. The way we act in the world is that we can predict the consequences of our actions and that's what allows us to plan." His broader critique is that the industry has mistaken fluency for intelligence. Language turned out to be the easy part. The hard part is the physical world. It's why we still don't have domestic robots or level-five self-driving cars, even though today's systems can pass the bar exam and write code.
Big Brain AI287,755 views • 1 month ago
Citadel CEO Ken Griffin on why the AI boom might be the most overhyped tech cycle we have ever seen: This year alone, data center spending in the United States is projected to exceed $500 billion. And Griffin wants to know what all of that money is actually buying. "You're not going to generate this kind of spend unless you're going to make a promise. You're going to profoundly change the world." In his view, the scale of the capital commitment demands the scale of the promise. And when the promise has to be that big, hype becomes inevitable. "Is it hype? Of course." Griffin isn't arguing that AI is worthless. He sees real impact in certain areas like call centers and software engineering. But for the broader white collar workforce, he's far less convinced. He points to a recent Harvard paper that coined the term "AI work slop." It looks impressive on the surface, but falls apart the moment you look closer. He saw it firsthand inside Citadel. A colleague running their commodities business handed him a report generated by an AI engine. "The first few sentences like, 'Wow, that's really insightful.' And then you go down below that and it's all garbage." For Griffin, this is the defining tension of the current AI cycle. The industry needs to promise transformation to justify the investment. But the actual productivity gains, for most jobs, haven't shown up yet. We have seen this pattern before. Transformative technology attracting massive capital well ahead of proven results. When the hype finally settles, will AI have actually changed anything at all?
Big Brain AI399,828 views • 2 months ago