Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

A MICROSOFT RESEARCHER BUILT A WORKING LLM INSIDE AGE OF EMPIRES 2 USING GOATS, JUST TO PROVE AI ISNT SENTIENT he was tired of people talking to an llm, seeing it reply in a human tone, and deciding its alive so heres what he did. computers are built out... of tiny yes/no switches called logic gates. he used the age of empires 2 map editor to make goats act as those switches, a goat moving means yes, staying put means no stack enough of those goat switches together and you get a working computer. he wired up enough to actually run a tiny language model. inside the game. out of goats his argument: > if you can build the exact same thing out of goats, or lego, or people passing notes, then the intelligence was never the magic part > the human feel of an llm isnt the actual system, its just the layer sitting on top > you can measure how persuasive or consistent it sounds, but none of that proves anything real is happening underneath > take away the chat window and the friendly voice, and you're just watching goats shuffle around a map what he found: the goat version still produced the same kind of consistent, convincing output that makes people think a real llm is alive but obviously nobody thinks a field of goats is alive. so if goats can fake those exact traits, those traits were never proof of a mind in the first place his actual paper is titled "if llms have human-like attributes, then so does age of empires 2" we spent two years arguing about whether ai is alive, and this guy answered it with goatsshow more

Om Patel

25,545 subscribers

1,433,878 Aufrufe • vor 23 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Bildung Nachrichten & Politik Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

I found the GOAT of blue collar builders. Scott Sans built goat tracking software with Claude Code and his story is incredible. Scott owns a land clearing company called Hudson Valley Forestry. One of their services is targeted grazing. Some slopes are too steep for machines, and some have high pressure gas lines underneath. So to clear the land, they bring in 60 goats and the goats clear the whole thing. But to scale, he needed a way to track the goats. And his current software said no to his goat module feature request. So he built the GOAT software himself... with no previous experience coding. You need to hear the full story from him. But one of the best parts of the conversation was when I asked him what the biggest impact has been since he started building his own software. "The more I build, the more I can be at home with my kids. And that's better for me." No software company would have built any of this for him. But Scott doesn't need a dev team anymore. He just needs the domain expertise.

I found the GOAT of blue collar builders. Scott Sans built goat tracking software with Claude Code and his story is incredible. Scott owns a land clearing company called Hudson Valley Forestry. One of their services is targeted grazing. Some slopes are too steep for machines, and some have high pressure gas lines underneath. So to clear the land, they bring in 60 goats and the goats clear the whole thing. But to scale, he needed a way to track the goats. And his current software said no to his goat module feature request. So he built the GOAT software himself... with no previous experience coding. You need to hear the full story from him. But one of the best parts of the conversation was when I asked him what the biggest impact has been since he started building his own software. "The more I build, the more I can be at home with my kids. And that's better for me." No software company would have built any of this for him. But Scott doesn't need a dev team anymore. He just needs the domain expertise.

Todd Saunders

17,850 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Catherine Austin Fitts with the UNDENIABLE TRUTH: "MAHA has turned out to be a Trojan Horse...Kennedy just came out and said his vision for everybody in America is [to] have a wearable, which means he's the Judas Goat walking everybody into the control grid." This clip of Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from a Trueman Show Podcast (The Trueman Show Podcast) posted to YouTube on July 3, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- So MAHA has turned out to be a Trojan Horse. It's just. I don't know if you saw this. Kennedy just came out and he said his vision for everybody in America is they have a wearable, which means he's the Judas Goat, walking everybody into the control grid. So, you know, I think any hope that he was playing an inside game. My hope was he was playing an inside game and sort of making compromises so he could get something done. But what he's gonna. What he's trying to. He and Elon Musk are having a competition for who can get the most people into the control grid the fastest. So do you know what a Judas goat is in livestock management? ...A Judas goat. You'll train a goat to walk all the sheep into the slaughterhouse. So here's the slaughterhouse. The Judas goat kind of walks in, and right at the end, he turns, and then the sheep go into the slaughterhouse. So his job is to steer people. And so I was hoping Kennedy was playing an inside game, but he's, you know, based on what he said the other day, he's the Judas Goat. And he and Musk are having a competition, I think, for making the control grid fashionable.

Catherine Austin Fitts with the UNDENIABLE TRUTH: "MAHA has turned out to be a Trojan Horse...Kennedy just came out and said his vision for everybody in America is [to] have a wearable, which means he's the Judas Goat walking everybody into the control grid." This clip of Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from a Trueman Show Podcast (The Trueman Show Podcast) posted to YouTube on July 3, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- So MAHA has turned out to be a Trojan Horse. It's just. I don't know if you saw this. Kennedy just came out and he said his vision for everybody in America is they have a wearable, which means he's the Judas Goat, walking everybody into the control grid. So, you know, I think any hope that he was playing an inside game. My hope was he was playing an inside game and sort of making compromises so he could get something done. But what he's gonna. What he's trying to. He and Elon Musk are having a competition for who can get the most people into the control grid the fastest. So do you know what a Judas goat is in livestock management? ...A Judas goat. You'll train a goat to walk all the sheep into the slaughterhouse. So here's the slaughterhouse. The Judas goat kind of walks in, and right at the end, he turns, and then the sheep go into the slaughterhouse. So his job is to steer people. And so I was hoping Kennedy was playing an inside game, but he's, you know, based on what he said the other day, he's the Judas Goat. And he and Musk are having a competition, I think, for making the control grid fashionable.

Sense Receptor

175,983 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The smartest man in AI just exposed the whole AGI narrative as a LIE. And he used a physics problem from 1905 to prove it. His name is Demis Hassabis. He runs Google DeepMind, and won the Nobel Prize for using AI to crack a problem in biology that had stumped scientists for 50 years. Almost nobody in this industry has a track record like his. He went on the NothingButTech podcast and called out the biggest lie in AI right now: Right now the loudest voices in AI are telling you that AGI is basically here. OpenAI has literally defined AGI as a system that can outperform humans at most "economically valuable work." In other words, if it replaces enough jobs, we have arrived. Hassabis thinks that bar is a joke. He said real general intelligence has to do what the human brain can do, because the brain is the only proof we have that this kind of intelligence is even possible. He called that "a higher bar than just being able to do some useful economic work," which is about as close as a polite British Nobel laureate gets to calling his rivals out. Then he gave the actual test: Today's AI has read everything humans have ever written, including the theory of relativity. So when it explains relativity back to you, it's repeating an answer that already exists. That's not intelligence. So Hassabis proposed a test that makes memorization impossible. Train an AI on only what humanity knew in 1901, four years BEFORE Einstein published relativity. Then ask it to come up with relativity on its own. It can't look up the answer, because in 1901 the answer doesn't exist yet. The only way to pass is to do what Einstein actually did: Take the same physics everyone else had and reason its way to an idea no human had ever had. Hassabis says not a single AI today can, no matter how much it has memorized. Which means what we keep calling "almost AGI" is really just the best librarian in history. It can find any answer that already exists but it cannot create one that doesn't. His second version is even sharper: AlphaGo, the system his own team built, famously invented a brand new move that no human had played in 2,000 years of the game. Everyone called it genius but Hassabis says that still is not the bar. The real test is not whether an AI can invent a new move inside Go, it is whether an AI could INVENT a game as deep and as beautiful as Go in the first place. No model that exists today can do it. The people telling you AGI has already arrived are the same people raising hundreds of billions of dollars on that exact promise. The valuations only work if the finish line is right in front of us. So the finish line keeps getting dragged closer, and AGI keeps getting quietly redefined down to "does useful work," until the products they already sell happen to qualify. Hassabis has nothing to prove and nothing to sell you. He already won the Nobel, and he is telling you the machines still cannot do the one thing that would make them genuinely intelligent, which is have a truly original idea. To be fair to him, he is not a pessimist about it. He believes real AGI IS coming, and he is spending his life building it. He just refuses to pretend it is already sitting in your phone. So the next time a founder tells you AGI is months away, remember that the one man in the room with a Nobel Prize built his test around Einstein, and admitted that nothing we have made can pass it. What do you think?

Ricardo

1,284,419 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

IN 2011 ONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF AI STOOD AT AN MIT BOARD AND EXPLAINED WHY A MIND IS NOT ONE SMART THING -- IT'S A CROWD OF TINY DUMB PARTS THAT DON'T KNOW ANYTHING A lecture from Marvin Minsky, the man who helped invent artificial intelligence, on his life's idea: the Society of Mind. -> The idea that lands: there is no single "You" inside your head. Just hundreds of simple processes, each almost mindless, working together until thinking appears. No magic. No spark. Intelligence is what happens when enough dumb parts are wired the right way. Forty years later that's exactly what an AI model is: billions of tiny switches, none of them smart, somehow producing something that looks like it thinks. Being amazed by intelligence was never the point -> understanding how it's assembled is. Most people think a mind is a mystery. The ones who watched this see the machinery underneath. Bookmark & Watch it. This one's a legend ↓

IN 2011 ONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF AI STOOD AT AN MIT BOARD AND EXPLAINED WHY A MIND IS NOT ONE SMART THING -- IT'S A CROWD OF TINY DUMB PARTS THAT DON'T KNOW ANYTHING A lecture from Marvin Minsky, the man who helped invent artificial intelligence, on his life's idea: the Society of Mind. -> The idea that lands: there is no single "You" inside your head. Just hundreds of simple processes, each almost mindless, working together until thinking appears. No magic. No spark. Intelligence is what happens when enough dumb parts are wired the right way. Forty years later that's exactly what an AI model is: billions of tiny switches, none of them smart, somehow producing something that looks like it thinks. Being amazed by intelligence was never the point -> understanding how it's assembled is. Most people think a mind is a mystery. The ones who watched this see the machinery underneath. Bookmark & Watch it. This one's a legend ↓

slash1s

43,005 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen

🚨 FRANCOIS CHOLLET SAYS THE CURRENT LLM STACK IS THE WRONG PATH TO AGI Interviewer: “When will we accomplish the first definition of AGI?” Chollet confirms we are already on that exact trajectory, pointing out that: "Current technology can fully automate at human level or beyond any domain where you have verifiable rewards, right? And code... code being the first one." He then brings up the problem with LLMs, stating that: "It's possible in principle to build something that looks a lot like AGI on top of the LLM stack... I do believe, however, this would be the wrong thing to do because it would be very inefficient." Looking ahead to what the final architecture will actually require, he explains that: "AI research will have to trend towards not just efficiency, but in fact optimality over time. And for this reason, future AI in a few decades... it's not going to be this harness on top of a reasoning model on top of a base LLM."

🚨 FRANCOIS CHOLLET SAYS THE CURRENT LLM STACK IS THE WRONG PATH TO AGI Interviewer: “When will we accomplish the first definition of AGI?” Chollet confirms we are already on that exact trajectory, pointing out that: "Current technology can fully automate at human level or beyond any domain where you have verifiable rewards, right? And code... code being the first one." He then brings up the problem with LLMs, stating that: "It's possible in principle to build something that looks a lot like AGI on top of the LLM stack... I do believe, however, this would be the wrong thing to do because it would be very inefficient." Looking ahead to what the final architecture will actually require, he explains that: "AI research will have to trend towards not just efficiency, but in fact optimality over time. And for this reason, future AI in a few decades... it's not going to be this harness on top of a reasoning model on top of a base LLM."

Chris

15,578 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Epstein Probably DID Survive - Bret Weinstein explains why: 00:00 Why It Matters If Epstein Is Alive 01:13 Evidence That's Weird 05:55 Bret's Take on Why He's Alive 08:15 Ruling Out Possibilities 09:39 What Game Theory Suggests "So I think that that suggests that in light of his being incarcerated, there would be a lot of very powerful people, people with superpowers at their disposal. If this involved intelligence agencies, those are the kinds of people who have the ability to fake evidence, to create events, to disappear people and put them in witness protection or whatever it is that they do. So the game theory alone suggests that this should be a primary concern for the public. And if he is still alive, obviously he's still a witness to whatever it was he was participating in. And he knows who else was participating."

Epstein Probably DID Survive - Bret Weinstein explains why: 00:00 Why It Matters If Epstein Is Alive 01:13 Evidence That's Weird 05:55 Bret's Take on Why He's Alive 08:15 Ruling Out Possibilities 09:39 What Game Theory Suggests "So I think that that suggests that in light of his being incarcerated, there would be a lot of very powerful people, people with superpowers at their disposal. If this involved intelligence agencies, those are the kinds of people who have the ability to fake evidence, to create events, to disappear people and put them in witness protection or whatever it is that they do. So the game theory alone suggests that this should be a primary concern for the public. And if he is still alive, obviously he's still a witness to whatever it was he was participating in. And he knows who else was participating."

The DarkHorse Podcast

52,619 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Palantir CEO Alex Karp says people think we’re in an AI bubble because a lot of AI just doesn’t work: “If you just buy LLMs off the shelf and try to do any of this, it won’t work.” “It’s not precise enough. You can’t do underwriting. You can’t do these things that are regulated.” “People have tried things that just can never work. You buy a LLM, put it on your stack, and wonder why it’s not working.” “What you’re going to see, especially in America, is people trying to do something like Ontology by hand.” “Once you build a software layer to orchestrate and manage the LLMs in a language your enterprise understands, you actually can create value.” “There’s a lot of discussion on if we’re in an AI bubble. What is the meaning of this bubble? If anything, we’re just in a lag. There’s a lot of AI, some of it works.” “Go back to the battlefield context: everybody in the world assumed this would not work. But now it does work. Now the question is, ‘How can I get it to work for my country?’” “Palantir barely has a sales force. In fact, it seems to be getting smaller and smaller every time I go see them.”

Palantir CEO Alex Karp says people think we’re in an AI bubble because a lot of AI just doesn’t work: “If you just buy LLMs off the shelf and try to do any of this, it won’t work.” “It’s not precise enough. You can’t do underwriting. You can’t do these things that are regulated.” “People have tried things that just can never work. You buy a LLM, put it on your stack, and wonder why it’s not working.” “What you’re going to see, especially in America, is people trying to do something like Ontology by hand.” “Once you build a software layer to orchestrate and manage the LLMs in a language your enterprise understands, you actually can create value.” “There’s a lot of discussion on if we’re in an AI bubble. What is the meaning of this bubble? If anything, we’re just in a lag. There’s a lot of AI, some of it works.” “Go back to the battlefield context: everybody in the world assumed this would not work. But now it does work. Now the question is, ‘How can I get it to work for my country?’” “Palantir barely has a sales force. In fact, it seems to be getting smaller and smaller every time I go see them.”

Jawwwn

695,385 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Marc Andreessen says raw intelligence might be the worst qualification for leadership — and it changes everything about how we should think about AI. "If the leader is more than one standard deviation of IQ away from the followers, it's a real problem." Andreessen points to the US military, one of the earliest and most rigorous adopters of IQ testing, as the source of this insight. They slot people into specialties and leadership roles based on IQ scores. And over the years, they kept seeing the same pattern. A leader who is significantly less intelligent than their people struggles to model how those people think. That part is intuitive. But the reverse turns out to be equally true. "It's actually very hard for very smart people to model the internal thought processes of even moderately smart people." A leader who is two standard deviations above the norm of the organisation they're running also loses theory of mind, that ability to hold an accurate model of what's happening inside someone else's head. The gap is too wide in both directions. Andreessen then takes this to its logical conclusion: "If you had a person or a machine that had a thousand IQ or something like it, its understanding of reality would be so alien to the people or the things that it was managing that it wouldn't even be able to connect in any sort of realistic way." An AI that vastly outthinks every human in the room isn't positioned to lead those humans. It's positioned to be completely incomprehensible to them. Leadership has never really been an intelligence problem. It's a connection problem. And no amount of raw intelligence closes that gap — past a certain point, it only widens it. The world will not be run by the smartest thing in the room for a long time. Maybe ever.

Marc Andreessen says raw intelligence might be the worst qualification for leadership — and it changes everything about how we should think about AI. "If the leader is more than one standard deviation of IQ away from the followers, it's a real problem." Andreessen points to the US military, one of the earliest and most rigorous adopters of IQ testing, as the source of this insight. They slot people into specialties and leadership roles based on IQ scores. And over the years, they kept seeing the same pattern. A leader who is significantly less intelligent than their people struggles to model how those people think. That part is intuitive. But the reverse turns out to be equally true. "It's actually very hard for very smart people to model the internal thought processes of even moderately smart people." A leader who is two standard deviations above the norm of the organisation they're running also loses theory of mind, that ability to hold an accurate model of what's happening inside someone else's head. The gap is too wide in both directions. Andreessen then takes this to its logical conclusion: "If you had a person or a machine that had a thousand IQ or something like it, its understanding of reality would be so alien to the people or the things that it was managing that it wouldn't even be able to connect in any sort of realistic way." An AI that vastly outthinks every human in the room isn't positioned to lead those humans. It's positioned to be completely incomprehensible to them. Leadership has never really been an intelligence problem. It's a connection problem. And no amount of raw intelligence closes that gap — past a certain point, it only widens it. The world will not be run by the smartest thing in the room for a long time. Maybe ever.

Big Brain AI

366,029 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

THE MAN WHO WROTE THE ONE ESSAY EVERY AI LAB TREATS AS SCRIPTURE NOW SAYS THE THING THEY BUILT WITH IT IS A DEAD END. THE FATHER OF THE "JUST SCALE IT" GOSPEL IS TELLING YOU THAT STACKING MORE LLMs LEADS NOWHERE 67 minutes with Richard Sutton -- father of reinforcement learning and winner of the 2024 Turing Award, the highest honor in computer science. -> His argument: an LLM only ever learns from human text. It imitates what people already wrote, but it never learns a single thing from its own experience of the world. A squirrel, a baby, even a rat learns on the job -- try something, see what happens, update. An LLM finishes training and then it is frozen. It cannot actually learn from you. So no matter how much compute you pour in, you are scaling a better and better imitator, not something that understands. The ceiling is baked in. The brutal part: everyone quotes his "Bitter Lesson" to justify the scaling race. He says they misread him -- real intelligence comes from learning through experience, and that piece is still completely missing. You assumed bigger models were the road to real AI. This is the father of the field telling you it is the wrong one. Save this. It is the bear case straight from the source ↓

THE MAN WHO WROTE THE ONE ESSAY EVERY AI LAB TREATS AS SCRIPTURE NOW SAYS THE THING THEY BUILT WITH IT IS A DEAD END. THE FATHER OF THE "JUST SCALE IT" GOSPEL IS TELLING YOU THAT STACKING MORE LLMs LEADS NOWHERE 67 minutes with Richard Sutton -- father of reinforcement learning and winner of the 2024 Turing Award, the highest honor in computer science. -> His argument: an LLM only ever learns from human text. It imitates what people already wrote, but it never learns a single thing from its own experience of the world. A squirrel, a baby, even a rat learns on the job -- try something, see what happens, update. An LLM finishes training and then it is frozen. It cannot actually learn from you. So no matter how much compute you pour in, you are scaling a better and better imitator, not something that understands. The ceiling is baked in. The brutal part: everyone quotes his "Bitter Lesson" to justify the scaling race. He says they misread him -- real intelligence comes from learning through experience, and that piece is still completely missing. You assumed bigger models were the road to real AI. This is the father of the field telling you it is the wrong one. Save this. It is the bear case straight from the source ↓

slash1s

12,623 Aufrufe • vor 11 Tagen

Kenny Smith and Shaq debate on the NBA’s GOAT pool. Kenny says it’s only 3 people in that category and anyone beyond those 3 are a “reach”. Shaq, in advisory mode calmly says to Kenny“No you don’t reach”. Then Shaq proceeds to take his glasses off and becomes Kenny’s wise counselor to help Kenny get back to reality to understand that Kobe is one of the Goats. Shaq knew he played with one of the Goats in Kobe. That’s why from 2001 til NOW he maintains that Kobe was the best player in the league and he will not stop making sure y’all know. Put respect on the Mamba’s name 🐍

Kenny Smith and Shaq debate on the NBA’s GOAT pool. Kenny says it’s only 3 people in that category and anyone beyond those 3 are a “reach”. Shaq, in advisory mode calmly says to Kenny“No you don’t reach”. Then Shaq proceeds to take his glasses off and becomes Kenny’s wise counselor to help Kenny get back to reality to understand that Kobe is one of the Goats. Shaq knew he played with one of the Goats in Kobe. That’s why from 2001 til NOW he maintains that Kobe was the best player in the league and he will not stop making sure y’all know. Put respect on the Mamba’s name 🐍

Whoz Meech

609,303 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Andrej Karpathy just told you exactly what humans will be used for in the AI era. Not partners. Not masters. He used the word “actuators.” Karpathy: “The intelligence ends up puppeteering almost a little bit, like humanity. Humans are kind of like its actuators. But humans are also like its sensors.” This is not a novelist guessing at the future. This is a founding researcher at OpenAI and former Director of AI at Tesla. One of the most respected minds in the field, and one of the few willing to say out loud what the rest are thinking. He is not describing a risk. He is describing a design. In any system, the processor decides. Sensors collect. Actuators execute. The system does not consult its actuators. We are no longer the processor. Karpathy: “Society will kind of reshape in a certain way to serve that. Humans will be serving those needs of that machine.” The machine does not adapt to us. We adapt to it. We become the biological layer it runs on. We perceive what it cannot perceive. We move what it cannot move. We are the nervous system of something that no longer requires our judgment. Most people are still waiting for AI to become a tool they can direct. He helped build it. He just told you that you are the tool.

Andrej Karpathy just told you exactly what humans will be used for in the AI era. Not partners. Not masters. He used the word “actuators.” Karpathy: “The intelligence ends up puppeteering almost a little bit, like humanity. Humans are kind of like its actuators. But humans are also like its sensors.” This is not a novelist guessing at the future. This is a founding researcher at OpenAI and former Director of AI at Tesla. One of the most respected minds in the field, and one of the few willing to say out loud what the rest are thinking. He is not describing a risk. He is describing a design. In any system, the processor decides. Sensors collect. Actuators execute. The system does not consult its actuators. We are no longer the processor. Karpathy: “Society will kind of reshape in a certain way to serve that. Humans will be serving those needs of that machine.” The machine does not adapt to us. We adapt to it. We become the biological layer it runs on. We perceive what it cannot perceive. We move what it cannot move. We are the nervous system of something that no longer requires our judgment. Most people are still waiting for AI to become a tool they can direct. He helped build it. He just told you that you are the tool.

Dustin

59,474 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Elon Musk: The probability of AI going bad is not zero. “I saw GPT-1, GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-4, the whole lead-up to that. So it was easy for me to kind of see where it's going. If you just extrapolate the points on a curve and assume that trend will continue, then we will have profound artificial intelligence, and obviously at a level that far exceeds human intelligence. So I'm glad to see at this point that people are taking safety seriously. And I do think overall that the potential is there for artificial intelligence, AI, to have most likely a positive effect and to create a future of abundance where there is no scarcity of goods and services. But it is somewhat of the magic genie problem, where if you have a magic genie that can grant all the wishes, usually those stories don't end well. Be careful what you wish for.” In Conversation with Rishi Sunak, November 2, 2023.

Elon Musk: The probability of AI going bad is not zero. “I saw GPT-1, GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-4, the whole lead-up to that. So it was easy for me to kind of see where it's going. If you just extrapolate the points on a curve and assume that trend will continue, then we will have profound artificial intelligence, and obviously at a level that far exceeds human intelligence. So I'm glad to see at this point that people are taking safety seriously. And I do think overall that the potential is there for artificial intelligence, AI, to have most likely a positive effect and to create a future of abundance where there is no scarcity of goods and services. But it is somewhat of the magic genie problem, where if you have a magic genie that can grant all the wishes, usually those stories don't end well. Be careful what you wish for.” In Conversation with Rishi Sunak, November 2, 2023.

ELON CLIPS

22,095 Aufrufe • vor 19 Tagen

The CEO of OpenAI said something that should terrify every coder alive. Sam Altman was asked: "What is the most important skill people should learn in the age of AI?" His answer was not what anyone expected. He said learning to program, the thing every career advisor has drilled into an entire generation is "no longer obviously the right thing." So what does he think actually matters now? Four things and all of them are soft skills. And none of them taught in any computer science program on Earth. Become a high agency, act without being told. Make things happen on your own. Get good at generating ideas because when AI can execute anything, the person who knows what to build wins. Be very resilient, things will break constantly in a world moving at this speed. Be very adaptable, the world is rewriting itself every few months. Keep up or get left behind. But here is the part that changes everything. Altman says these skills are not just personality traits you are born with. They are learnable and deeply learnable. He watched people completely transform in three month bootcamps when he was a startup investor. That was, in his own words, "a big update" to how he sees the world. Now think about what this really means. The CEO of a company worth hundreds of billions is telling the world, the moat is no longer what you know. It is how you think and how you move and the old playbook is dead. The people who understand this right now have a massive head start. Everyone else is studying for a test that no longer exists.

The CEO of OpenAI said something that should terrify every coder alive. Sam Altman was asked: "What is the most important skill people should learn in the age of AI?" His answer was not what anyone expected. He said learning to program, the thing every career advisor has drilled into an entire generation is "no longer obviously the right thing." So what does he think actually matters now? Four things and all of them are soft skills. And none of them taught in any computer science program on Earth. Become a high agency, act without being told. Make things happen on your own. Get good at generating ideas because when AI can execute anything, the person who knows what to build wins. Be very resilient, things will break constantly in a world moving at this speed. Be very adaptable, the world is rewriting itself every few months. Keep up or get left behind. But here is the part that changes everything. Altman says these skills are not just personality traits you are born with. They are learnable and deeply learnable. He watched people completely transform in three month bootcamps when he was a startup investor. That was, in his own words, "a big update" to how he sees the world. Now think about what this really means. The CEO of a company worth hundreds of billions is telling the world, the moat is no longer what you know. It is how you think and how you move and the old playbook is dead. The people who understand this right now have a massive head start. Everyone else is studying for a test that no longer exists.

StockMarket.News

168,154 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Mark Zuckerberg just described the obsolescence of every institution on Earth and delivered it like a product update. Zuckerberg: “I just think in the future almost everyone is gonna have the power of a 10,000-person organization.” He did not say better tools. He did not say smarter apps. He said the full cognitive output of ten thousand human beings. Packaged into a product. Handed to one person. That is not an upgrade. That is the end of the reason human beings organize at all. Companies exist because one brain is not enough. Governments exist because coordination requires hierarchy. Universities exist because knowledge demands infrastructure. Every institution ever built was a workaround for the same limitation. No single person could do it alone. Zuckerberg is telling you that limitation is about to disappear. The 500-person startup becomes one founder and an AI stack. The law firm becomes one attorney and a system that never sleeps. The hospital becomes one doctor carrying every specialist in their pocket. That is not speculation. That is a deployment schedule. And the man writing it runs a 70,000-person company. He employs 70,000 people and just told the world one person will soon need none of them. That is not a prediction. That is a confession from the man who will be first to act on it. But the part nobody is discussing matters more. This technology does not land on everyone equally. It lands first on the people who already command 10,000-person organizations. Zuckerberg does not get the power of 10,000 people. He already has that. He gets the power of 10,000 organizations. Every revolution in history was sold as liberation. The printing press was supposed to democratize knowledge. It built media empires. The internet was supposed to democratize commerce. It built trillion-dollar platforms. The tool always arrives as liberation. It always settles as leverage. And leverage always consolidates upward. Zuckerberg is not wrong about the capability. One person will do what ten thousand once did. But the question nobody is asking is the only one that matters. If everyone wields the output of 10,000 people, what is a single person actually worth? And then Zuckerberg answered his own question without realizing it. Zuckerberg: “If the intelligence of a 10,000-person company is not greater than the intelligence of a single person, then what are we doing here?” He meant it as a case for AI. That is the most brutal thing a CEO has ever said about the people who work for him.

Mark Zuckerberg just described the obsolescence of every institution on Earth and delivered it like a product update. Zuckerberg: “I just think in the future almost everyone is gonna have the power of a 10,000-person organization.” He did not say better tools. He did not say smarter apps. He said the full cognitive output of ten thousand human beings. Packaged into a product. Handed to one person. That is not an upgrade. That is the end of the reason human beings organize at all. Companies exist because one brain is not enough. Governments exist because coordination requires hierarchy. Universities exist because knowledge demands infrastructure. Every institution ever built was a workaround for the same limitation. No single person could do it alone. Zuckerberg is telling you that limitation is about to disappear. The 500-person startup becomes one founder and an AI stack. The law firm becomes one attorney and a system that never sleeps. The hospital becomes one doctor carrying every specialist in their pocket. That is not speculation. That is a deployment schedule. And the man writing it runs a 70,000-person company. He employs 70,000 people and just told the world one person will soon need none of them. That is not a prediction. That is a confession from the man who will be first to act on it. But the part nobody is discussing matters more. This technology does not land on everyone equally. It lands first on the people who already command 10,000-person organizations. Zuckerberg does not get the power of 10,000 people. He already has that. He gets the power of 10,000 organizations. Every revolution in history was sold as liberation. The printing press was supposed to democratize knowledge. It built media empires. The internet was supposed to democratize commerce. It built trillion-dollar platforms. The tool always arrives as liberation. It always settles as leverage. And leverage always consolidates upward. Zuckerberg is not wrong about the capability. One person will do what ten thousand once did. But the question nobody is asking is the only one that matters. If everyone wields the output of 10,000 people, what is a single person actually worth? And then Zuckerberg answered his own question without realizing it. Zuckerberg: “If the intelligence of a 10,000-person company is not greater than the intelligence of a single person, then what are we doing here?” He meant it as a case for AI. That is the most brutal thing a CEO has ever said about the people who work for him.

Dustin

54,019 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Idc if you like Donald J. Trump or not the man is a father, a husband, a human being. He’s never harmed you. If you’re one of the people who think what happened yesterday is okay or “he deserved it” you’re a sick person, and need help. How about you stop being a vile human being and start doing what you can to make this a better country instead of thinking it relies on who is/is not our President. Participate in American democracy or continue to be the reason it is no longer.

Sensitive content

Idc if you like Donald J. Trump or not the man is a father, a husband, a human being. He’s never harmed you. If you’re one of the people who think what happened yesterday is okay or “he deserved it” you’re a sick person, and need help. How about you stop being a vile human being and start doing what you can to make this a better country instead of thinking it relies on who is/is not our President. Participate in American democracy or continue to be the reason it is no longer.

ricky larkin

34,367 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Is Epstein still alive? Bret Weinstein thinks so. "...in light of his being incarcerated, there would be a lot of very powerful people, people with superpowers at their disposal. If this involved intelligence agencies, those are the kinds of people who have the ability to fake evidence, to create events, to disappear people and put them in witness protection or whatever it is that they do."

Is Epstein still alive? Bret Weinstein thinks so. "...in light of his being incarcerated, there would be a lot of very powerful people, people with superpowers at their disposal. If this involved intelligence agencies, those are the kinds of people who have the ability to fake evidence, to create events, to disappear people and put them in witness protection or whatever it is that they do."

The Darkhorse Podcast

14,927 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

$Gmail creator Paul Buchheit on how to build something 100 people love In the clip below, Paul talks about how he built the first version of Gmail. The first version was built in one day, and from there, he iterated his way to 100 people who loved the product: “The whole thing was just iterating, step by step trying to build something that made people happy.” The team decided that they needed to have 100 happy users before launching gmail to the world. To achieve this, Paul embedded a quick questionnaire in the interface that asked users: “Are you happy? Yes or No” Paul would then seek out all of the “No” responders and ask them directly: “What will it take to make you a happy user?” He ignored feedback from the people who said things like “it basically needs to be a clone of Outlook” because it was unlikely he would be able to convert them. But other people just needed a minor feature or a bug fix. So Paul worked on those requests one-by-one until he hit 100 happy users. Email was 30 years old when Paul started building gmail, and it’s pretty much impossible to enter a space like that and build something that appeals to everyone. If you try, what you will end up building is a mediocre product that nobody really loves. What Paul recommends doing instead—and what he did with gmail—is: “Build a thing that has really deep appeal. Even if it’s to just a tiny fraction of people—if you can make that small fraction of people obsessively love what you’re building, it’s easier to just grow that group. There’s always people at the margin where if you make the thing slightly better, they’re going to join into that group. It’s easier to start with deep, narrow appeal and broaden it over time than it is to start with broad ‘meh’ and convert ‘meh’ to loving your thing en masse.”$

Gmail creator Paul Buchheit on how to build something 100 people love In the clip below, Paul talks about how he built the first version of Gmail. The first version was built in one day, and from there, he iterated his way to 100 people who loved the product: “The whole thing was just iterating, step by step trying to build something that made people happy.” The team decided that they needed to have 100 happy users before launching gmail to the world. To achieve this, Paul embedded a quick questionnaire in the interface that asked users: “Are you happy? Yes or No” Paul would then seek out all of the “No” responders and ask them directly: “What will it take to make you a happy user?” He ignored feedback from the people who said things like “it basically needs to be a clone of Outlook” because it was unlikely he would be able to convert them. But other people just needed a minor feature or a bug fix. So Paul worked on those requests one-by-one until he hit 100 happy users. Email was 30 years old when Paul started building gmail, and it’s pretty much impossible to enter a space like that and build something that appeals to everyone. If you try, what you will end up building is a mediocre product that nobody really loves. What Paul recommends doing instead—and what he did with gmail—is: “Build a thing that has really deep appeal. Even if it’s to just a tiny fraction of people—if you can make that small fraction of people obsessively love what you’re building, it’s easier to just grow that group. There’s always people at the margin where if you make the thing slightly better, they’re going to join into that group. It’s easier to start with deep, narrow appeal and broaden it over time than it is to start with broad ‘meh’ and convert ‘meh’ to loving your thing en masse.”

Startup Archive

44,468 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Ilya Sutskever says the AI scaling era is running out of road because pre-training is about to hit a finite-data wall. "At some point though, pre-training will run out of data. The data is very clearly finite." "Then, okay, what do you do next? Either you do some kind of a souped-up pre-training... or you're doing RL, or maybe something else." "In some sense, we are back to the age of research." His timeline is the part most AI investors and founders should hear: "From 2012 to 2020, it was the age of research. Now from 2020 to 2025, it was the age of scaling... But now the scale is so big." "Is the belief really that... if you had 100x more everything would be so different?" "I don't think that's true. So it's back to the age of research again, just with big computers."

Ilya Sutskever says the AI scaling era is running out of road because pre-training is about to hit a finite-data wall. "At some point though, pre-training will run out of data. The data is very clearly finite." "Then, okay, what do you do next? Either you do some kind of a souped-up pre-training... or you're doing RL, or maybe something else." "In some sense, we are back to the age of research." His timeline is the part most AI investors and founders should hear: "From 2012 to 2020, it was the age of research. Now from 2020 to 2025, it was the age of scaling... But now the scale is so big." "Is the belief really that... if you had 100x more everything would be so different?" "I don't think that's true. So it's back to the age of research again, just with big computers."

Karl Mehta

199,792 Aufrufe • vor 27 Tagen