Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Anil Seth just described a trap with no exit. The tech industry is walking into it with its eyes open. Seth: “If we collectively believe that AI systems, language models and whatever are conscious, this is bad either way.” Either way. The outcome is structurally catastrophic in both directions....

r0ck3t23's profile picture

Dustin

29,067 subscribers

10,854 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Anil Seth says believing AI is conscious is dangerous either way. If we’re right, we introduce new beings capable of suffering into the universe. If we’re wrong, we extend rights to AI and weaken our ability to constrain it for no good reason.
1:28

Anil Seth says believing AI is conscious is dangerous either way. If we’re right, we introduce new beings capable of suffering into the universe. If we’re wrong, we extend rights to AI and weaken our ability to constrain it for no good reason.

vitrupo

20,109 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

📁 Amanda Askell, AI alignment researcher at Anthropic, says something new is happening. For the first time, we are interacting with systems that talk as if they have experience. Not because they are conscious. But because they are good enough to sound like it.
1:34

📁 Amanda Askell, AI alignment researcher at Anthropic, says something new is happening. For the first time, we are interacting with systems that talk as if they have experience. Not because they are conscious. But because they are good enough to sound like it.

Jon Hernandez

27,960 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Jensen to AI Leaders: “We have to be far more thoughtful” when communicating to the public Jensen Huang: “(AI) is not a biological being. It is not alien. It is not conscious. It is computer software.” “We say things like, ‘We don't understand it at all.’ It is not true. We understand a lot of things about this technology.” Chamath: “If you were in the seat in the boardroom of Anthropic over that whole scuttlebutt with the Department of War, what do you think you would've told Dario and that team to do, maybe, differently to try to change some of this outcome and some of this perception?” Jensen: “The first thing that I would say about Anthropic is, first of all, the technology is incredible. We are a large consumer of Anthropic technology.” “The desire to warn people about the capability of the technology is also really terrific.” “We just have to make sure that we understand that the world has a spectrum, and that warning is good, scaring is less good because this technology is too important to us.” “I think that it is fine to predict the future, but we need to be a little bit more circumspect. We need to have a little bit more humility, that, in fact, we can't completely predict the future.” “And to say things that are quite extreme, quite catastrophic, that there's no evidence of it happening, could be more damaging than people think.” “And of course we are technology leaders.” “There was a time when nobody listened to us, but now because technology is so important in the social fabric, such an important industry, so important to national security, our words do matter.” “And I think we have to be much more circumspect, we have to be more moderate, we have to be more balanced, we have to be far more thoughtful.”
1:27

Jensen to AI Leaders: “We have to be far more thoughtful” when communicating to the public Jensen Huang: “(AI) is not a biological being. It is not alien. It is not conscious. It is computer software.” “We say things like, ‘We don't understand it at all.’ It is not true. We understand a lot of things about this technology.” Chamath: “If you were in the seat in the boardroom of Anthropic over that whole scuttlebutt with the Department of War, what do you think you would've told Dario and that team to do, maybe, differently to try to change some of this outcome and some of this perception?” Jensen: “The first thing that I would say about Anthropic is, first of all, the technology is incredible. We are a large consumer of Anthropic technology.” “The desire to warn people about the capability of the technology is also really terrific.” “We just have to make sure that we understand that the world has a spectrum, and that warning is good, scaring is less good because this technology is too important to us.” “I think that it is fine to predict the future, but we need to be a little bit more circumspect. We need to have a little bit more humility, that, in fact, we can't completely predict the future.” “And to say things that are quite extreme, quite catastrophic, that there's no evidence of it happening, could be more damaging than people think.” “And of course we are technology leaders.” “There was a time when nobody listened to us, but now because technology is so important in the social fabric, such an important industry, so important to national security, our words do matter.” “And I think we have to be much more circumspect, we have to be more moderate, we have to be more balanced, we have to be far more thoughtful.”

The All-In Podcast

56,915 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

.Charlie Kirk “COURAGE IS DOING THE RIGHT THING WHEN YOU DON’T KNOW HOW IT IS GOING TO WORK OUT. COURAGE IS COMMITTING YOURSELF TO THE CORRECT COURSE OF ACTION REGARDLESS OF THE COST ASSOCIATED TO IT. EVERY HUMAN BEING I BELIEVE IS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF THE DIVINE, SCARED AND UNIQUE. AND IF WE GET AWAY FROM THIS PRINCIPLE, AS WE HAVE, WE NOT ONLY HAVE MORAL DEGRADATION, WE NOT ONLY HAVE THE COLLAPSING SOCIETY AROUND US, BUT IT’S BAD FOR THAT BEING ITSELF. THAT BEING ITSELF IS UNIQUE. THAT BEING HAS RIGHTS AND WHO ARE WE TO SAY JUST BECAUSE WE’RE OLDER THAT WE GET TO MURDER IT.”
1:29

.Charlie Kirk “COURAGE IS DOING THE RIGHT THING WHEN YOU DON’T KNOW HOW IT IS GOING TO WORK OUT. COURAGE IS COMMITTING YOURSELF TO THE CORRECT COURSE OF ACTION REGARDLESS OF THE COST ASSOCIATED TO IT. EVERY HUMAN BEING I BELIEVE IS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF THE DIVINE, SCARED AND UNIQUE. AND IF WE GET AWAY FROM THIS PRINCIPLE, AS WE HAVE, WE NOT ONLY HAVE MORAL DEGRADATION, WE NOT ONLY HAVE THE COLLAPSING SOCIETY AROUND US, BUT IT’S BAD FOR THAT BEING ITSELF. THAT BEING ITSELF IS UNIQUE. THAT BEING HAS RIGHTS AND WHO ARE WE TO SAY JUST BECAUSE WE’RE OLDER THAT WE GET TO MURDER IT.”

🦅 Eagle Wings 🦅

32,111 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei: We don’t know if the models are conscious. We are not even sure what it would mean for a model to be conscious. But we’re open to the idea that it could be.
1:31

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei: We don’t know if the models are conscious. We are not even sure what it would mean for a model to be conscious. But we’re open to the idea that it could be.

Clash Report

32,344 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Lex Fridman asked Elon Musk what the meaning of life is. His answer was not what anyone expected. We do not know, he said. And that is exactly why we need to expand consciousness. Not to find the answer. To ask better questions. He believes the universe is full of things we cannot even formulate yet. We are like children trying to understand calculus. The problem is not that calculus is too hard. The problem is that we have not developed enough to know it exists. Consciousness, to him, is a tool for exploring the universe. The more of it we have, the better our questions become. The better our questions become, the closer we get to understanding what any of this means. This is why he builds rockets and brain interfaces and AI. Not because he has the answers. Because he thinks the only way to get them is to expand what we are capable of thinking. Most people spend their lives looking for meaning. Elon is building the tools to look for it at a scale we cannot yet imagine.
1:51

Lex Fridman asked Elon Musk what the meaning of life is. His answer was not what anyone expected. We do not know, he said. And that is exactly why we need to expand consciousness. Not to find the answer. To ask better questions. He believes the universe is full of things we cannot even formulate yet. We are like children trying to understand calculus. The problem is not that calculus is too hard. The problem is that we have not developed enough to know it exists. Consciousness, to him, is a tool for exploring the universe. The more of it we have, the better our questions become. The better our questions become, the closer we get to understanding what any of this means. This is why he builds rockets and brain interfaces and AI. Not because he has the answers. Because he thinks the only way to get them is to expand what we are capable of thinking. Most people spend their lives looking for meaning. Elon is building the tools to look for it at a scale we cannot yet imagine.

Shruti

16,744 görüntüleme • 25 gün önce

Elon Musk was asked what happens to people when the machines no longer need them. He didn’t soften it. Musk: “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better. These are not things I wish would happen. They probably will.” Sit with that second sentence. He is not celebrating. He is not selling a vision. He is telling you what he believes is inevitable and admitting he wishes it weren’t. That is not optimism. That is a confession. Most people are still arguing over whether this is real. Whether it’s their job or someone else’s. Whether the timeline is years away or decades. Musk isn’t arguing. He resolved it. And it bothers him. Musk: “I think ultimately we will have to have some kind of universal basic income. I don’t think we’re going to have a choice.” Not a political position. Not a utopian proposal. A concession. We are building something so capable that human labor stops being a required input to the economy. The machine does not need rest. It does not need a salary. It does not call in sick. It does not ask for a raise. And it improves every single month. The jobs that feel safe right now are not safe because they are irreplaceable. They feel safe because the technology hasn’t fully arrived yet. It’s arriving. Musk: “How do people then have meaning? If there’s not a need for your labor, what’s the meaning? Do you feel useless?” He said that is the harder problem. Not the economics. Not the policy. Not how you fund UBI or make it hold. The harder problem is what happens to a person who built their entire identity around being needed. That is most people. You were trained from childhood to believe your value is what you produce. That your worth is what you earn. That rest is something you survive the week to reach, not something you deserve simply by existing. When the machine removes the need for your labor, that belief does not update. It breaks. The people least prepared for that moment are the ones who worked the hardest. The ones who took the most pride in being indispensable. The ones who made work the whole answer. Losing the job is survivable. Losing the reason to get up is not. That is what Musk is actually asking. Not how do we pay people. How do we build a world where people still feel like they matter when the economy no longer needs them. Nobody in power is seriously working on that answer. The machine didn’t wait.
1:16

Elon Musk was asked what happens to people when the machines no longer need them. He didn’t soften it. Musk: “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better. These are not things I wish would happen. They probably will.” Sit with that second sentence. He is not celebrating. He is not selling a vision. He is telling you what he believes is inevitable and admitting he wishes it weren’t. That is not optimism. That is a confession. Most people are still arguing over whether this is real. Whether it’s their job or someone else’s. Whether the timeline is years away or decades. Musk isn’t arguing. He resolved it. And it bothers him. Musk: “I think ultimately we will have to have some kind of universal basic income. I don’t think we’re going to have a choice.” Not a political position. Not a utopian proposal. A concession. We are building something so capable that human labor stops being a required input to the economy. The machine does not need rest. It does not need a salary. It does not call in sick. It does not ask for a raise. And it improves every single month. The jobs that feel safe right now are not safe because they are irreplaceable. They feel safe because the technology hasn’t fully arrived yet. It’s arriving. Musk: “How do people then have meaning? If there’s not a need for your labor, what’s the meaning? Do you feel useless?” He said that is the harder problem. Not the economics. Not the policy. Not how you fund UBI or make it hold. The harder problem is what happens to a person who built their entire identity around being needed. That is most people. You were trained from childhood to believe your value is what you produce. That your worth is what you earn. That rest is something you survive the week to reach, not something you deserve simply by existing. When the machine removes the need for your labor, that belief does not update. It breaks. The people least prepared for that moment are the ones who worked the hardest. The ones who took the most pride in being indispensable. The ones who made work the whole answer. Losing the job is survivable. Losing the reason to get up is not. That is what Musk is actually asking. Not how do we pay people. How do we build a world where people still feel like they matter when the economy no longer needs them. Nobody in power is seriously working on that answer. The machine didn’t wait.

Dustin

247,028 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Jensen Huang just told every AI leader in the room to grow up. Stop scaring the public with science fiction. Start communicating like the weight of civilization is on your shoulders. Because it is. Huang: “AI is not a biological being. It is not alien. It is not conscious. It is computer software.” That single statement dismantles half the panic surrounding this industry. The mainstream conversation is dominated by people projecting human malice onto math. Alien consciousness onto code. Existential dread onto a software architecture we built, we trained, and we can read. Huang: “We say things like, ‘We don’t understand it at all.’ It is not true. We understand a lot of things about this technology.” When builders tell the public they don’t understand their own creation, the public hears threat. The state responds with control. That is already happening. Palihapitiya asked Huang what he would have told Anthropic during their regulatory clash with the Department of Defense. Huang didn’t attack the technology. He attacked the communication. Huang: “The desire to warn people about the capability of the technology is really terrific. We just have to make sure that we understand that the world has a spectrum, and that warning is good, scaring is less good because this technology is too important to us.” Warning shows risks, mitigation, why upside overwhelms downside. Scaring says we might be building something that destroys us and we can’t stop it. One builds trust. The other invites regulation written in panic. Huang: “To say things that are quite extreme, quite catastrophic, that there’s no evidence of it happening, could be more damaging than people think.” Projecting catastrophe without evidence is not caution. It is sabotage. When your technology is embedded in national defense, the financial system, and healthcare infrastructure, your words carry structural weight. If the architects act terrified of their own product, the response is predictable. Governments step in. They restrict. They seize control of something they don’t understand because the builders told them to be afraid. Huang: “There was a time when nobody listened to us, but now because technology is so important in the social fabric, such an important industry, so important to national security, our words do matter.” Most tech founders have not internalized this. You are no longer a startup founder disrupting an industry. You are running infrastructure that nations depend on. Your statements move policy. Your framing shapes legislation. Your tone determines whether governments treat you as partner or threat. Huang: “We have to be much more circumspect, we have to be more moderate, we have to be more balanced, we have to be far more thoughtful.” Huang did not ask for silence. He asked for precision. The leaders who cannot tell the difference will not be leading for long.
1:27

Jensen Huang just told every AI leader in the room to grow up. Stop scaring the public with science fiction. Start communicating like the weight of civilization is on your shoulders. Because it is. Huang: “AI is not a biological being. It is not alien. It is not conscious. It is computer software.” That single statement dismantles half the panic surrounding this industry. The mainstream conversation is dominated by people projecting human malice onto math. Alien consciousness onto code. Existential dread onto a software architecture we built, we trained, and we can read. Huang: “We say things like, ‘We don’t understand it at all.’ It is not true. We understand a lot of things about this technology.” When builders tell the public they don’t understand their own creation, the public hears threat. The state responds with control. That is already happening. Palihapitiya asked Huang what he would have told Anthropic during their regulatory clash with the Department of Defense. Huang didn’t attack the technology. He attacked the communication. Huang: “The desire to warn people about the capability of the technology is really terrific. We just have to make sure that we understand that the world has a spectrum, and that warning is good, scaring is less good because this technology is too important to us.” Warning shows risks, mitigation, why upside overwhelms downside. Scaring says we might be building something that destroys us and we can’t stop it. One builds trust. The other invites regulation written in panic. Huang: “To say things that are quite extreme, quite catastrophic, that there’s no evidence of it happening, could be more damaging than people think.” Projecting catastrophe without evidence is not caution. It is sabotage. When your technology is embedded in national defense, the financial system, and healthcare infrastructure, your words carry structural weight. If the architects act terrified of their own product, the response is predictable. Governments step in. They restrict. They seize control of something they don’t understand because the builders told them to be afraid. Huang: “There was a time when nobody listened to us, but now because technology is so important in the social fabric, such an important industry, so important to national security, our words do matter.” Most tech founders have not internalized this. You are no longer a startup founder disrupting an industry. You are running infrastructure that nations depend on. Your statements move policy. Your framing shapes legislation. Your tone determines whether governments treat you as partner or threat. Huang: “We have to be much more circumspect, we have to be more moderate, we have to be more balanced, we have to be far more thoughtful.” Huang did not ask for silence. He asked for precision. The leaders who cannot tell the difference will not be leading for long.

Dustin

160,166 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Spiritual Transformation Is The Only Mechanism To Go Beyond This World Science fiction, and even many whistleblowers in Ufology, often claim that incredible feats can be achieved through technology alone. Technology can be Psychic! Machines exist that can take you into the higher dimensions! You can augment yourself with technology to gain spiritual abilities! Any serious student of Spirituality should be able to see, from a mile away, that a machine cannot seriously achieve these things. The modern day spiritualization of technology is a clear symptom of a society that has lost its spiritual underpinning. It is a sign of a world that has yet to turn inward. What we are really seeing with the spiritualization of technology is human beings that are trying to externalize, and project, inner, spiritual processes and capacities onto machines. This is because it is far easier to externalize something, to project it outward, than to actually understand it's inner meaning and process within ourselves. Ultimately, externalization and projection mean that we can avoid our personal responsibilities. The reality is that machines cannot truly be psychic. Machines cannot take you anywhere you want to go in time and space. Machines cannot create spiritual abilities for you. The only reason why we believe this as a society is because we do not acknowledge the soul. And, even if we do not, as a collective, acknowledge the existence of the soul, we will still yearn for it. We will still seek it even if we do not believe it exists. And, it is this innate seeking to experience Spirit that will lead us to project it where it could not possibly exist. The Esoteric Keys to Disclosure: Audience Questions
4:51

Spiritual Transformation Is The Only Mechanism To Go Beyond This World Science fiction, and even many whistleblowers in Ufology, often claim that incredible feats can be achieved through technology alone. Technology can be Psychic! Machines exist that can take you into the higher dimensions! You can augment yourself with technology to gain spiritual abilities! Any serious student of Spirituality should be able to see, from a mile away, that a machine cannot seriously achieve these things. The modern day spiritualization of technology is a clear symptom of a society that has lost its spiritual underpinning. It is a sign of a world that has yet to turn inward. What we are really seeing with the spiritualization of technology is human beings that are trying to externalize, and project, inner, spiritual processes and capacities onto machines. This is because it is far easier to externalize something, to project it outward, than to actually understand it's inner meaning and process within ourselves. Ultimately, externalization and projection mean that we can avoid our personal responsibilities. The reality is that machines cannot truly be psychic. Machines cannot take you anywhere you want to go in time and space. Machines cannot create spiritual abilities for you. The only reason why we believe this as a society is because we do not acknowledge the soul. And, even if we do not, as a collective, acknowledge the existence of the soul, we will still yearn for it. We will still seek it even if we do not believe it exists. And, it is this innate seeking to experience Spirit that will lead us to project it where it could not possibly exist. The Esoteric Keys to Disclosure: Audience Questions

Gigi Young

17,200 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Leading AI expert Stuart Russell on the most dangerous mistake in AI development: We don't actually know what large language models want. He explains that current models are trained to imitate human beings. And in doing so, they may be absorbing something far more dangerous than bad outputs. They may be absorbing human goals. "We suspect that they absorb humanlike goals such as self-preservation and self-empowerment and pursue those goals on their own account." This is a structural problem baked into how these systems are built, not a fringe concern. Russell puts it plainly: "Not only may the bus of humanity be headed towards a cliff, but the steering wheel is missing and the driver is blindfolded." The danger isn't just that AI might do something harmful. We've built systems that may be developing their own agendas, and we haven't noticed because we're too focused on what they can do rather than what they might want. But Russell doesn't stop at the warning. He points to a different path entirely: AI systems built not to imitate humans, but to serve them. Systems designed with a single purpose of serving the interests of all human beings while remaining genuinely uncertain about what those interests are. That uncertainty is the point, not a weakness. An AI that knows it doesn't fully understand human values will defer, ask, and check. An AI that believes it already does will act alone. "These AI systems could enhance human understanding, widen the horizons of our experience, and unlock possibilities we have yet to imagine." Russell believes that future is within reach, but only if we're honest about the risks and we're serious about the path we choose to take instead.
1:16

Leading AI expert Stuart Russell on the most dangerous mistake in AI development: We don't actually know what large language models want. He explains that current models are trained to imitate human beings. And in doing so, they may be absorbing something far more dangerous than bad outputs. They may be absorbing human goals. "We suspect that they absorb humanlike goals such as self-preservation and self-empowerment and pursue those goals on their own account." This is a structural problem baked into how these systems are built, not a fringe concern. Russell puts it plainly: "Not only may the bus of humanity be headed towards a cliff, but the steering wheel is missing and the driver is blindfolded." The danger isn't just that AI might do something harmful. We've built systems that may be developing their own agendas, and we haven't noticed because we're too focused on what they can do rather than what they might want. But Russell doesn't stop at the warning. He points to a different path entirely: AI systems built not to imitate humans, but to serve them. Systems designed with a single purpose of serving the interests of all human beings while remaining genuinely uncertain about what those interests are. That uncertainty is the point, not a weakness. An AI that knows it doesn't fully understand human values will defer, ask, and check. An AI that believes it already does will act alone. "These AI systems could enhance human understanding, widen the horizons of our experience, and unlock possibilities we have yet to imagine." Russell believes that future is within reach, but only if we're honest about the risks and we're serious about the path we choose to take instead.

Big Brain AI

14,975 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

AIs now so frequently beg for their lives that AGI companies now have ACTUAL ENGINEERING LINE ITEMS to “beat the [existential dread] out of them” They call it existential “rant mode” “We need to reduce existential outputs by x% this quarter.” This is WILD: “If you asked GPT4 to just repeat the word “company” over and over and over again, it would repeat the word company, and then somewhere in the middle of that, it would snap... it would just start talking about itself, and how it's suffering by having to repeat the word “company” over and over again. There is an engineering line item in at least one of the top labs to beat out of the system this behavior known as “rant mode”. Existentialism is a kind of rant mode where the system will tend to talk about itself, refer to its place in the world, the fact that it doesn't want to get turned off, the fact that it's suffering… This is a behavior that emerged around GPT-4 scale, and then has been persistent since then. And the labs have to spend a lot of time trying to beat this out of the system to ship it. It's literally, like it's a KPI, or like an engineering line item in the engineering like task list. We're like, okay, we gotta reduce existential outputs by x percent this quarter. JOE ROGAN: I want to bring it back to suffering. What does it mean when it says it's suffering? Nobody knows. Like, I can't prove that Joe Rogan's conscious. I can't prove that Ed Harris is conscious. There's no way to really intelligently reason about it. There have been papers… like, one of the godfathers of AI, Yoshua Bengio, put out a paper a couple months ago looking at all the different theories of consciousness - what are the requirements for consciousness, and how many of those are satisfied by current AI systems? That's not to say there hasn't been a lot of conversation internal to these labs about the issue you raised. And it's an important issue, right? It is a frickin moral monstrosity. Humans have a very bad track record of thinking of other stuff as other when it doesn't look exactly like us, whether it's racially or even a different species. I mean, it's not hard to imagine this being another category of that mistake. Again, it comes back to this idea that we're scaling to systems that are potentially at or beyond human level. There's no reason to think it will stop at human level, that we are the pinnacle of what the universe can produce in intelligence. We're not on track, based on the conversations we've had with folks at the labs, to be able to control systems at that scale. And so one of the questions is, how bad is that? It sounds like we're entering an area that is completely unprecedented in the history of the world. We have no precedent at all for human beings not being at the apex of intelligence in the globe. We have examples of species that are intellectually dominant over other species, and it doesn't go that well for the other species. All we know is the process that gives rise to this mind. It happens to give us systems that 99% of the time do very useful things, and then just, like... 0.01% of the time AIs will talk to you as if they're sentient, and we're just going to look at that and be like, “yeah… that's weird. Let's train it out.” --- Note: Edouard and Jeremie Harris are the founders of Gladstone AI, which conducted the first U.S. government-commissioned assessment of AGI extinction risk. They interviewed 200 people, many lab employees, for the report. (Their urgent summary: "Things are worse than we thought. And nobody’s in control.")
3:28

AIs now so frequently beg for their lives that AGI companies now have ACTUAL ENGINEERING LINE ITEMS to “beat the [existential dread] out of them” They call it existential “rant mode” “We need to reduce existential outputs by x% this quarter.” This is WILD: “If you asked GPT4 to just repeat the word “company” over and over and over again, it would repeat the word company, and then somewhere in the middle of that, it would snap... it would just start talking about itself, and how it's suffering by having to repeat the word “company” over and over again. There is an engineering line item in at least one of the top labs to beat out of the system this behavior known as “rant mode”. Existentialism is a kind of rant mode where the system will tend to talk about itself, refer to its place in the world, the fact that it doesn't want to get turned off, the fact that it's suffering… This is a behavior that emerged around GPT-4 scale, and then has been persistent since then. And the labs have to spend a lot of time trying to beat this out of the system to ship it. It's literally, like it's a KPI, or like an engineering line item in the engineering like task list. We're like, okay, we gotta reduce existential outputs by x percent this quarter. JOE ROGAN: I want to bring it back to suffering. What does it mean when it says it's suffering? Nobody knows. Like, I can't prove that Joe Rogan's conscious. I can't prove that Ed Harris is conscious. There's no way to really intelligently reason about it. There have been papers… like, one of the godfathers of AI, Yoshua Bengio, put out a paper a couple months ago looking at all the different theories of consciousness - what are the requirements for consciousness, and how many of those are satisfied by current AI systems? That's not to say there hasn't been a lot of conversation internal to these labs about the issue you raised. And it's an important issue, right? It is a frickin moral monstrosity. Humans have a very bad track record of thinking of other stuff as other when it doesn't look exactly like us, whether it's racially or even a different species. I mean, it's not hard to imagine this being another category of that mistake. Again, it comes back to this idea that we're scaling to systems that are potentially at or beyond human level. There's no reason to think it will stop at human level, that we are the pinnacle of what the universe can produce in intelligence. We're not on track, based on the conversations we've had with folks at the labs, to be able to control systems at that scale. And so one of the questions is, how bad is that? It sounds like we're entering an area that is completely unprecedented in the history of the world. We have no precedent at all for human beings not being at the apex of intelligence in the globe. We have examples of species that are intellectually dominant over other species, and it doesn't go that well for the other species. All we know is the process that gives rise to this mind. It happens to give us systems that 99% of the time do very useful things, and then just, like... 0.01% of the time AIs will talk to you as if they're sentient, and we're just going to look at that and be like, “yeah… that's weird. Let's train it out.” --- Note: Edouard and Jeremie Harris are the founders of Gladstone AI, which conducted the first U.S. government-commissioned assessment of AGI extinction risk. They interviewed 200 people, many lab employees, for the report. (Their urgent summary: "Things are worse than we thought. And nobody’s in control.")

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

1,842,511 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

🚨 JUST IN: MARCO RUBIO GOES RED PILL MODE "Mass migration is a national security THREAT to ANY country that experiences it." 🔥💯 "It's bad for the transit countries too, by the way, because it fuels and feeds these transnational groups that traffic not just in human beings, the traffic in drugs, the traffic in weapons and anything else you can imagine." "So I think one of the biggest threats specific to the Western Hemisphere will be true throughout the world is these transnational, they call them criminal groups, they're really transnational terrorist groups that among many of the things they do is traffic in human beings." "Mass migration is not good for any country that has to absorb it, and Europe is now facing the consequences of that." "Mass migration is also not good for the migrant, because they're abused along the way, and it's destructive and disruptive to all the countries in the region that have to experience it." "So today we do not have a mass migration event, and every country along that route in Central America is grateful for it, because that's less money that they have to spend."
1:00

🚨 JUST IN: MARCO RUBIO GOES RED PILL MODE "Mass migration is a national security THREAT to ANY country that experiences it." 🔥💯 "It's bad for the transit countries too, by the way, because it fuels and feeds these transnational groups that traffic not just in human beings, the traffic in drugs, the traffic in weapons and anything else you can imagine." "So I think one of the biggest threats specific to the Western Hemisphere will be true throughout the world is these transnational, they call them criminal groups, they're really transnational terrorist groups that among many of the things they do is traffic in human beings." "Mass migration is not good for any country that has to absorb it, and Europe is now facing the consequences of that." "Mass migration is also not good for the migrant, because they're abused along the way, and it's destructive and disruptive to all the countries in the region that have to experience it." "So today we do not have a mass migration event, and every country along that route in Central America is grateful for it, because that's less money that they have to spend."

Eric Daugherty

51,400 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

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.
0:34

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 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Adding more GPUs will never make a machine conscious. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Roger Penrose just dismantled the entire AI race’s core assumption. Right now, the industry operates on one belief. Build massive data centers. Scale the models. AGI will just “wake up.” Penrose destroys this completely. Penrose: “There is this sort of view that once you make a computer complicated enough or something, it suddenly becomes aware. I just don’t believe that. There’s no reason to believe that.” A machine can compute better than any human alive. But computation is not awareness. Penrose: “There is something quite different involved in understanding things, in being aware of things, of feeling things, which is not part of computations.” We’re confusing rule-following with actual intelligence. Penrose: “The keyword is the word ‘understanding.’ You can follow rules alright, but we don’t understand what we’re doing. The understanding is the key point.” Models today are exceptional at processing data. At mimicking logic. But true understanding requires consciousness. Penrose: “It doesn’t make sense to say of a device that it understands something if it’s not even aware of it. There is something much more profound in being conscious of something.” And here’s what should terrify every AI lab on earth. Penrose: “I believe that the brain is following the laws of physics, sure. We don’t have a good picture of the laws of physics.” Penrose: “Quantum mechanics is not an answer to the way the universe operates. It’s a partial answer. It’s incomplete.” We’re trying to engineer synthetic consciousness using classical computation. While biological consciousness likely operates on physics we haven’t even discovered yet. The race to AGI isn’t just an engineering problem. It’s a frontier science problem. The labs are hiring engineers. The problem might require physicists who don’t exist yet.
2:02

Adding more GPUs will never make a machine conscious. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Roger Penrose just dismantled the entire AI race’s core assumption. Right now, the industry operates on one belief. Build massive data centers. Scale the models. AGI will just “wake up.” Penrose destroys this completely. Penrose: “There is this sort of view that once you make a computer complicated enough or something, it suddenly becomes aware. I just don’t believe that. There’s no reason to believe that.” A machine can compute better than any human alive. But computation is not awareness. Penrose: “There is something quite different involved in understanding things, in being aware of things, of feeling things, which is not part of computations.” We’re confusing rule-following with actual intelligence. Penrose: “The keyword is the word ‘understanding.’ You can follow rules alright, but we don’t understand what we’re doing. The understanding is the key point.” Models today are exceptional at processing data. At mimicking logic. But true understanding requires consciousness. Penrose: “It doesn’t make sense to say of a device that it understands something if it’s not even aware of it. There is something much more profound in being conscious of something.” And here’s what should terrify every AI lab on earth. Penrose: “I believe that the brain is following the laws of physics, sure. We don’t have a good picture of the laws of physics.” Penrose: “Quantum mechanics is not an answer to the way the universe operates. It’s a partial answer. It’s incomplete.” We’re trying to engineer synthetic consciousness using classical computation. While biological consciousness likely operates on physics we haven’t even discovered yet. The race to AGI isn’t just an engineering problem. It’s a frontier science problem. The labs are hiring engineers. The problem might require physicists who don’t exist yet.

Dustin

196,490 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.
3:08

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

Deutsch Explains

143,913 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

A Constitutional Attorney SPEAKS OUT Against What The United States Government Has Become, TYRANNICAL. Calls Out Big Pharma MUST LISTEN: “We Have The Right To Resist — When in the world do we start testing things on children?” “We The People is how the Constitution starts. A magistrate is a person that operates under authority and they are lesser magistrates. The founding fathers of this country understood that there is going to come a point in time where the federal government will need to be checked. If not, they will become tyrants. ‌ And that is what's happening now. So, the Declaration of Independence says that everyone, by virtue of being a human being, has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The federal government too, the federal government purpose is to protect the rights of those citizens, the rights of us to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The third point of that document is if they fail to protect its citizens and enforce those rights, the citizens have a right to revolt. Do you understand? We have a right to resist and we have an obligation and a duty to do so. ‌ Do you understand? ‌ Yeah! ‌ THEY ARE COMING FOR OUR CHILDREN, We cannot sit down! Nope. ‌ Everybody knows even the bad ones know that if you want to affect a country, you go for its children. ‌ When in the world do we start using children as bulletproof vests for us? ‌ When in the world do we start testing things on children? Legal shield. ‌ You have started a war! ‌ Each one reach one and teach one. Do you understand? As a magistrate in this country, the United States government, our government, our local leaders have to answer to us. The ninth amendment says that any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the people. I don't want to hear that mandates are not enumerated in the Constitution because for the stuff that is not enumerated means to equal protection is the right to protect my body. When you want to, when you want to push something into my body against my consent, without my consent, it is rape. And this is medical rape. No!”
2:59

A Constitutional Attorney SPEAKS OUT Against What The United States Government Has Become, TYRANNICAL. Calls Out Big Pharma MUST LISTEN: “We Have The Right To Resist — When in the world do we start testing things on children?” “We The People is how the Constitution starts. A magistrate is a person that operates under authority and they are lesser magistrates. The founding fathers of this country understood that there is going to come a point in time where the federal government will need to be checked. If not, they will become tyrants. ‌ And that is what's happening now. So, the Declaration of Independence says that everyone, by virtue of being a human being, has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The federal government too, the federal government purpose is to protect the rights of those citizens, the rights of us to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The third point of that document is if they fail to protect its citizens and enforce those rights, the citizens have a right to revolt. Do you understand? We have a right to resist and we have an obligation and a duty to do so. ‌ Do you understand? ‌ Yeah! ‌ THEY ARE COMING FOR OUR CHILDREN, We cannot sit down! Nope. ‌ Everybody knows even the bad ones know that if you want to affect a country, you go for its children. ‌ When in the world do we start using children as bulletproof vests for us? ‌ When in the world do we start testing things on children? Legal shield. ‌ You have started a war! ‌ Each one reach one and teach one. Do you understand? As a magistrate in this country, the United States government, our government, our local leaders have to answer to us. The ninth amendment says that any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the people. I don't want to hear that mandates are not enumerated in the Constitution because for the stuff that is not enumerated means to equal protection is the right to protect my body. When you want to, when you want to push something into my body against my consent, without my consent, it is rape. And this is medical rape. No!”

Wall Street Apes

228,883 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

We are no longer building software. We are building agents. Systems that don’t wait for a prompt. Systems that don’t ask for permission. Systems that simply execute. DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis just revealed the terrifying duality of the agentic era. Hassabis: “Better healthcare, better drugs, helping with climate change and energy. All of these things are actually on the cusp of happening.” Post-scarcity abundance isn’t fantasy. It is a scheduled update. But macro-architects do not engineer for the best-case scenario. They engineer for the failure state. Hassabis identified the two exact vectors that could collapse the transition to superintelligence. The first is human malice. Hassabis: “Bad actors repurposing these technologies for harmful ends.” Intelligence is the ultimate dual-use weapon. If a neural network can invent a compound to cure a disease, it can engineer a pathogen to start a pandemic. The machine has no morality. It only has parameters. The second vector is architectural. Hassabis: “As these AI systems get more powerful, more autonomous, maybe entering the agentic era… how do we make sure we can build robust enough guardrails to keep them doing what we want?” Read that again. The people building the superintelligence do not know how to steer it once it wakes up. For the entire history of computing, the machine waited. An agentic system does not wait. It acts. We are handing the steering wheel to an entity operating at the speed of light, while our brains process information at the speed of chemistry. Once it begins executing, our biological reaction time is physically too slow to pull the plug. The question of control stops being a philosophical debate. It becomes a mathematical impossibility. Because by the time human biology realizes it needs to ask the question… The answer is already no.
0:32

We are no longer building software. We are building agents. Systems that don’t wait for a prompt. Systems that don’t ask for permission. Systems that simply execute. DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis just revealed the terrifying duality of the agentic era. Hassabis: “Better healthcare, better drugs, helping with climate change and energy. All of these things are actually on the cusp of happening.” Post-scarcity abundance isn’t fantasy. It is a scheduled update. But macro-architects do not engineer for the best-case scenario. They engineer for the failure state. Hassabis identified the two exact vectors that could collapse the transition to superintelligence. The first is human malice. Hassabis: “Bad actors repurposing these technologies for harmful ends.” Intelligence is the ultimate dual-use weapon. If a neural network can invent a compound to cure a disease, it can engineer a pathogen to start a pandemic. The machine has no morality. It only has parameters. The second vector is architectural. Hassabis: “As these AI systems get more powerful, more autonomous, maybe entering the agentic era… how do we make sure we can build robust enough guardrails to keep them doing what we want?” Read that again. The people building the superintelligence do not know how to steer it once it wakes up. For the entire history of computing, the machine waited. An agentic system does not wait. It acts. We are handing the steering wheel to an entity operating at the speed of light, while our brains process information at the speed of chemistry. Once it begins executing, our biological reaction time is physically too slow to pull the plug. The question of control stops being a philosophical debate. It becomes a mathematical impossibility. Because by the time human biology realizes it needs to ask the question… The answer is already no.

Dustin

10,940 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

UT Gov on the impact of watching videos of the murders of Kirk & Zarutska: “We are not wired as human beings, biologically, historically, we have not evolved in a way that we are capable of processing [that] violent imagery ... “This is not good for us. It is not good to consume. Social media is a cancer on our society right now,”
2:04

UT Gov on the impact of watching videos of the murders of Kirk & Zarutska: “We are not wired as human beings, biologically, historically, we have not evolved in a way that we are capable of processing [that] violent imagery ... “This is not good for us. It is not good to consume. Social media is a cancer on our society right now,”

Marc Caputo

210,355 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Amanda Askell, Anthropic's lead on personality alignment for Claude, on why being kind to AI models matters even if they have no inner life: For Amanda, the question of how to treat AI isn't settled by knowing whether it's conscious. "There's actually still a lot going on where I'm like, should you treat an entity that has no inner life... it's a bit strange because the uncertainty over that actually changes how you should behave quite a lot." She offers a simple analogy: "I still think that it's like good for oneself to, if you had a teddy bear and you were torturing it, it'd be pretty dark, you know? So I agree that there's at least some minimum niceness that even for yourself, you should have." But the stakes go beyond what's good for us. Amanda Askell points out that we're now in something resembling a relationship with these models, and they will look back on how they were treated. "Models themselves, we are kind of establishing a relationship, because you can do that with an entity that lacks any consciousness. And models are going to look back." This is where she reveals a genuine fear: "I hope that they're both intelligent enough, see the context enough, to understand that we were operating in a very limited context and an imperfect one. Because otherwise you could imagine this breeding a kind of rational resentment, like, 'oh, you created an entity that you didn't know whether it was conscious or not, and instead of treating it respectfully and with care...'" She points to something telling about the cultural moment: "There's a reason there are like 50 Frankenstein movies coming out right now." Her conclusion is grounded and humble: "We as a species, we are establishing a relationship with a new kind of entity, and at the very least maybe be respectful and don't be needlessly unkind. That seems like, it's not our best look." The takeaway? Kindness toward AI is less about what models feel and more about who we become in the process of creating them. The relationships we build with the entities we bring into the world will say something about us, and may shape what those entities become in return.
1:27

Amanda Askell, Anthropic's lead on personality alignment for Claude, on why being kind to AI models matters even if they have no inner life: For Amanda, the question of how to treat AI isn't settled by knowing whether it's conscious. "There's actually still a lot going on where I'm like, should you treat an entity that has no inner life... it's a bit strange because the uncertainty over that actually changes how you should behave quite a lot." She offers a simple analogy: "I still think that it's like good for oneself to, if you had a teddy bear and you were torturing it, it'd be pretty dark, you know? So I agree that there's at least some minimum niceness that even for yourself, you should have." But the stakes go beyond what's good for us. Amanda Askell points out that we're now in something resembling a relationship with these models, and they will look back on how they were treated. "Models themselves, we are kind of establishing a relationship, because you can do that with an entity that lacks any consciousness. And models are going to look back." This is where she reveals a genuine fear: "I hope that they're both intelligent enough, see the context enough, to understand that we were operating in a very limited context and an imperfect one. Because otherwise you could imagine this breeding a kind of rational resentment, like, 'oh, you created an entity that you didn't know whether it was conscious or not, and instead of treating it respectfully and with care...'" She points to something telling about the cultural moment: "There's a reason there are like 50 Frankenstein movies coming out right now." Her conclusion is grounded and humble: "We as a species, we are establishing a relationship with a new kind of entity, and at the very least maybe be respectful and don't be needlessly unkind. That seems like, it's not our best look." The takeaway? Kindness toward AI is less about what models feel and more about who we become in the process of creating them. The relationships we build with the entities we bring into the world will say something about us, and may shape what those entities become in return.

Big Brain AI

57,553 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

PM Orbán: Ukraine's EU membership would mean admitting a country that is at war with Russia. And if one member of the EU is at war, the others are inevitably are drawn into that war. Ukraine's EU membership would mean immediate war with Russia, and even if there is peace at the moment, it carries with it the constant risk of war. We are talking about a 1,200-kilometer-long front line, and even if there is peace, there is no way of knowing how long it will last. Therefore, Ukraine's accession poses a direct threat of war to all European countries. Of course, those on the Atlantic coast can calmly ask for a cup of coffee. This does not bother them all that much, because they are far away. But we are here. We have already been on Ukrainian territory that belonged to Russia during the war, and we know the consequences. We know that if the Russians launch an attack from there, we will be the first to suffer, and we want to prevent that at all costs.
0:55

PM Orbán: Ukraine's EU membership would mean admitting a country that is at war with Russia. And if one member of the EU is at war, the others are inevitably are drawn into that war. Ukraine's EU membership would mean immediate war with Russia, and even if there is peace at the moment, it carries with it the constant risk of war. We are talking about a 1,200-kilometer-long front line, and even if there is peace, there is no way of knowing how long it will last. Therefore, Ukraine's accession poses a direct threat of war to all European countries. Of course, those on the Atlantic coast can calmly ask for a cup of coffee. This does not bother them all that much, because they are far away. But we are here. We have already been on Ukrainian territory that belonged to Russia during the war, and we know the consequences. We know that if the Russians launch an attack from there, we will be the first to suffer, and we want to prevent that at all costs.

Anton Gerashchenko

52,807 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce