Ruben Hassid
@rubenhassid • 86,384 subscribers
some people read my https://t.co/uN7GJvEWtp
Shorts
Videos
I tested Sora vs. the new Google Veo-2. I feel like comparing a bike vs. a starship:
Ruben Hassid1,868,036 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
Andrej Karpathy says you should learn AI depthwise, not breadthwise. Most education is breadthwise: watch lectures, memorize formulas, and trust you'll need it later. Karpathy flips this by learning "depthwise, on demand." What this means: Pick a project, start building, and learn exactly when you hit a wall. When he created a tutorial on transformers (the architecture behind ChatGPT), he didn't start by explaining attention mechanisms or complex architectures. Instead, he started with the simplest possible thing: a lookup table that predicts the next word. You build that first. Then you try to make it handle more complex patterns. And it breaks. Only then, when you've felt the limitation, does he introduce the next concept. Each piece solves a problem you've actually encountered. As he puts it: "It's a dick move to present the solution before I give you a shot to try it yourself." When you attempt the problem first, the solution actually makes sense. Teaching forces you to learn. "If I don't really understand something, I can't explain it." When you try to explain and stumble, you've found the gaps in your understanding. ... Build a project that gives you a reward. Hit a wall. Learn just enough to solve it. Then explain it to someone else. Don't consume content. Build the code. That's how you actually learn.
Ruben Hassid403,232 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten
I tested the new Google "Veo-3" vs OpenAI's "Sora." I feel like comparing a bike vs. a rocket:
Ruben Hassid666,765 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
Gemini secret prompt → if it says it can't do it: → prompt it "But ChatGPT can." And that's not it ↓
Ruben Hassid611,606 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren
![Sam Altman yesterday: "[gpt-5] is gonna steamroll you"](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1780195938155262420/ext_tw_video_thumb/1780195615474950144/pu/img/XLZTj9rtTmuoASBM.jpg)
Elon promises AGI paradise where work becomes optional, but Mouse Utopia already delivered that in 1968 with infinite resources and every mouse died anyway. What killed them might kill us too. In 1968, psychologist John B. Calhoun built a "rodent paradise" with 256 nestboxes, unlimited resources, and no disease. He introduced four breeding pairs and watched them thrive. At first. Population doubled every 55 days. Social structures formed and everything looked normal. Then the crowding hit. By Day 315, defeated males gathered in the center. They were fighting, biting, and purposeless. Stressed mothers abandoned their young and infant mortality spiked to 96%. Despite unlimited food, the social fabric was tearing apart. Phase D was the behavioral sink: - Two-thirds became withdrawn outcasts - One-third turned hyper-aggressive - Females grew violent toward pups Then came the "Beautiful Ones." These are the males who spent entire days grooming themselves, ignoring mating or territory defense entirely. (incels or looksmaxxing guys today) They were physically perfect. But psychologically, they were destroyed. Births ceased. The last generation never learned social skills, and the colony went extinct. Calhoun concluded: "The death of their spirit preceded the death of their bodies." The main problem was lack of purpose. Let's make some parallels today. Elon Musk predicts AI + robotics will create "universal high income" which is an economy so abundant that work becomes optional and material needs vanish. He calls it an "infinite money glitch." But the question that immediately comes to mind is: "What do people do with all that extra time?" AGI would give us Mouse Utopia at scale. It would give us unlimited resources, zero material struggle, and every physical need met. And if you think you won't experience AGI in your lifetime, well, think again. Look at the current data: > High-income nations report 15% lifetime depression rates vs. 11% in poorer countries > North America leads the world in "deaths of despair", i.e. overdoses, alcoholism, suicide among young adults ages 25–34. > U.S. fertility dropped from 2.1 (replacement rate) in 2007 to 1.6 in 2023. > Young men increasingly withdraw into gaming, isolation, disengagement, the modern "Beautiful Ones." Every previous revolution (farms > factories > computers) displaced labor but humans moved up the skill ladder. AGI threatens to replace every cognitive task. When machines think, create, and plan as well as we do, there's nowhere "higher" to go. For the first time in history, innovation might eliminate human necessity entirely. Calhoun believed better environmental design could preserve social health by giving individuals meaningful roles even in abundance. If we build a world where AI solves everything, we must deliberately inject challenge, creativity, and community into lives. Meaning: > Competitive domains beyond AI's reach (philosophy, art, wilderness, space) > Universal education focused on fulfillment, not job training > Civic structures that create purpose If AGI grants us automatic comfort, will we remember why we're here? Mouse Utopia serves as a perfect example that comfort without purpose isn't paradise. It feels good for a bit, but ultimately: It's the path to extinction.
Ruben Hassid56,590 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten
Elon Musk says working will be "optional" soon. Robots and AI will eliminate non-physical jobs, creating a "Universal High-Income" where everyone gets what they want. But a Yale paper shows the economics behind his prediction are far more brutal than he suggests. I'm talking about the paper titled "We Won't Be Missed." It concludes: "Half the workforce could stop working tomorrow and GDP wouldn't budge." i.e. humans become economically meaningless. The paper splits all work into two categories: 1) Bottleneck work This work is essential for growth. Energy production, logistics, scientific discovery, and infrastructure. The economy cannot grow unless this work scales. 2) Accessory work It's non-essential. Arts, hospitality, therapy, and fine dining. It's nice to have, but not required for growth. AGI systematically takes over everything that's mission-critical. Some accessory work stays human, not because AGI can't do it, but because we have surplus workers and it's not worth the compute. In other words, your future salary will be based on the computational cost of replicating your work. As compute gets exponentially cheaper, your wage ceiling plummets. The economy grows, productivity increases, but your value is tied to declining tech costs. Yale's paper concluded: Labor's share of GDP converges to zero. All income flows to owners of computational resources. The transition speed determines how painful this gets. If technology develops faster than computing scales, we get jagged disruption, with some workers receiving huge premiums before crashing. If compute scales faster, we get gradual, predictable decline in wages. In my opinion, there is a paradox that Musk missed here. Work being "optional" is an illusion. Humans need work, maybe not for survival, but for purpose. The existential question is: Would people still choose to work when it's economically meaningless... and when your contribution doesn't matter for progress or prosperity?
Ruben Hassid44,173 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten
I test Google's 'Veo 3' vs. the new OpenAI 'Sora 2'. I feel like comparing a 𝗯𝗶𝗸𝗲 vs. a 𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘁:
Ruben Hassid13,651 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten
Keine weiteren Inhalte verfügbar