Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Another piece from the Sasha Rush conversation, this time on rewards for coding RL. He said Cursor uses a mix. Some rewards look at the tool calls themselves, some only at the final output. Everything end-to-end, no process rewards guessing what happens in the middle. I agree with him...

ziv_ravid's profile picture

Ravid Shwartz Ziv

12,050 subscribers

14,826 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Q: So this second place is enough for you and Ferrari? "I think in true performance this is where this is great you know. Ultimately, the two Mercedes should be ahead of us. So, to get to the second, and in the end would have been a third as well, there would have been really good points for the team, but the conditions were tricky out there so...." "That's why I want to thank everyone back at the factory. We have to keep pushing, because its only the beginning of the season and we're right there, we're right there... so we're going to hunt these guys down."
0:36

Q: So this second place is enough for you and Ferrari? "I think in true performance this is where this is great you know. Ultimately, the two Mercedes should be ahead of us. So, to get to the second, and in the end would have been a third as well, there would have been really good points for the team, but the conditions were tricky out there so...." "That's why I want to thank everyone back at the factory. We have to keep pushing, because its only the beginning of the season and we're right there, we're right there... so we're going to hunt these guys down."

sim 🇧🇷🇲🇽🇸🇳🇫🇷🇭🇹

22,297 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

I have a friend who doesn't read anything published in the past 50 years, and the more I think about it, the more I think he's onto something. The reason is that time is the best filter we have for quality. People are bad at judging quality in the moment but very good at getting rid of junk over time. — — "History is not very good at capturing all that is great in art. It is not good at that. There are many great symphonies that have been lost permanently, there are many great painters that died unknown and their paintings are gone, there's novels that have been written that no one will ever read. So history is not good at capturing all this great art. But history is very good at discarding all that is mediocre. And the amount of time that that takes, it's something like 50 years. So over the course of 50 years, what will happen is a lot of stuff that was prominent will be re-filtered and re-filtered and re-filtered, and you'll end up with a smaller group of things which have survived that test of time. So if you think about it right now, if you go back and look at the bestseller lists for 1974, 1973, there's a lot of that that would have been highly regarded at the time, which people do not read anymore for a variety of reasons, and there's some that has survived, and that's a very telling distinction. So in a world where I'm turning 60 this year, you have a limited amount of time, all four of us have active lives, we want to make sure that if we're going to sit down, we're going to read carefully, we're going to meet and we're going to discuss it in detail, we want to make sure that the work is rewarding. And the best way to ensure that is by drawing from the past." amor towles
1:31

I have a friend who doesn't read anything published in the past 50 years, and the more I think about it, the more I think he's onto something. The reason is that time is the best filter we have for quality. People are bad at judging quality in the moment but very good at getting rid of junk over time. — — "History is not very good at capturing all that is great in art. It is not good at that. There are many great symphonies that have been lost permanently, there are many great painters that died unknown and their paintings are gone, there's novels that have been written that no one will ever read. So history is not good at capturing all this great art. But history is very good at discarding all that is mediocre. And the amount of time that that takes, it's something like 50 years. So over the course of 50 years, what will happen is a lot of stuff that was prominent will be re-filtered and re-filtered and re-filtered, and you'll end up with a smaller group of things which have survived that test of time. So if you think about it right now, if you go back and look at the bestseller lists for 1974, 1973, there's a lot of that that would have been highly regarded at the time, which people do not read anymore for a variety of reasons, and there's some that has survived, and that's a very telling distinction. So in a world where I'm turning 60 this year, you have a limited amount of time, all four of us have active lives, we want to make sure that if we're going to sit down, we're going to read carefully, we're going to meet and we're going to discuss it in detail, we want to make sure that the work is rewarding. And the best way to ensure that is by drawing from the past." amor towles

David Perell

86,755 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

You know the thing with random rewards? The thing is that you never get what you want, right? And everyone is hoping for Manga Kenji Skin now... but is it really everyone? What does your heart most desire? If you look back at your life journey, are you where you wanted to be? And if not, why not? What changes would you have made in your life to be happy with yourself? Because this is what really matters. Your reaction to this reward is only a reflection of how deeply you feel inside, isn't it? Is the reward good? Is the reward bad? Isn't that only a matter of perspective? ANYWAY, enough talking, let's finally announce the reward you will receive today, after you watch this video, and after you read this text... But, what is the point of having the reward written here in this text, if it's also announced in the video AND announced in the game... isn't all of this pointless? What does it matter what door you open in the end, right? Some of them have hints, some of them don't, it's pretty much random. OR IS IT? The Mega Box door was pretty obvious, wasn't it? I guess some of them DO have hints, and some of them don't. We did say that in the video actually... the trick is to find out which ones are misleading and which ones are not. To be honest, the plain white door wasn't designed with Manga Kenji in mind... you were the ones who came up with your own theory and when it didn't land, you thought we fooled you, but in reality, you fooled yourself. But one thing I can say, we've seen a lot of crazy theories out there, and some of them are actually right, surprisingly. Maybe an accident, maybe whoever came up with that theory is a future version of me. It can happen, I read it in a book once. Or maybe not. ANYWAY, hope you have enjoyed today's reward, and let's bring the community together to vote for the best door today! #ScaryDoors
2:14

You know the thing with random rewards? The thing is that you never get what you want, right? And everyone is hoping for Manga Kenji Skin now... but is it really everyone? What does your heart most desire? If you look back at your life journey, are you where you wanted to be? And if not, why not? What changes would you have made in your life to be happy with yourself? Because this is what really matters. Your reaction to this reward is only a reflection of how deeply you feel inside, isn't it? Is the reward good? Is the reward bad? Isn't that only a matter of perspective? ANYWAY, enough talking, let's finally announce the reward you will receive today, after you watch this video, and after you read this text... But, what is the point of having the reward written here in this text, if it's also announced in the video AND announced in the game... isn't all of this pointless? What does it matter what door you open in the end, right? Some of them have hints, some of them don't, it's pretty much random. OR IS IT? The Mega Box door was pretty obvious, wasn't it? I guess some of them DO have hints, and some of them don't. We did say that in the video actually... the trick is to find out which ones are misleading and which ones are not. To be honest, the plain white door wasn't designed with Manga Kenji in mind... you were the ones who came up with your own theory and when it didn't land, you thought we fooled you, but in reality, you fooled yourself. But one thing I can say, we've seen a lot of crazy theories out there, and some of them are actually right, surprisingly. Maybe an accident, maybe whoever came up with that theory is a future version of me. It can happen, I read it in a book once. Or maybe not. ANYWAY, hope you have enjoyed today's reward, and let's bring the community together to vote for the best door today! #ScaryDoors

Brawl Stars

315,984 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Subramanyam: Well, the reality is, you know, this administration works for Donald Trump, right? Even the independent agencies and even prosecutors who are supposed to put law and justice above politics have been told to only investigate Democrats and to only do what makes the president look good throughout this entire investigation. So if they are in possession of the files, we have deep concerns that they would manipulate those files in some way. The other thing we are concerned they’re going to do is only release files that either make the president look good or only release files that the president chooses to agree to release — and not tell the whole story, protecting the president and his friends, and anyone else the president deems worth protecting. So, this is a concern. He’s signed the bill, but this is only the beginning of the fight to make sure we get the full, unredacted release of the files, which is what we really need.
1:01

Subramanyam: Well, the reality is, you know, this administration works for Donald Trump, right? Even the independent agencies and even prosecutors who are supposed to put law and justice above politics have been told to only investigate Democrats and to only do what makes the president look good throughout this entire investigation. So if they are in possession of the files, we have deep concerns that they would manipulate those files in some way. The other thing we are concerned they’re going to do is only release files that either make the president look good or only release files that the president chooses to agree to release — and not tell the whole story, protecting the president and his friends, and anyone else the president deems worth protecting. So, this is a concern. He’s signed the bill, but this is only the beginning of the fight to make sure we get the full, unredacted release of the files, which is what we really need.

Acyn

46,383 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Gabbit Robotics co-founder Nicole Mattero on why the next AI winners won't fight over your screen, they'll fight to get closer to you: She kicks things off with what she admits is a hot take: "My hot take is that hardware is the only moat going forward because anyone's going to be able to spin up a model and make it really good and really cheap." Her logic is simple. Once a strong model is cheap and easy for anyone to build, the model alone can't set you apart. So what actually protects you? "Where does that leave you? Basically companies that have tactile modes such as hardware are the only ones that actually survive." Hardware, though, is only one piece of her argument. The second piece is data: "The models that win in the long run are the ones where private data is their [moat]." From there, Mattero ties the two together. Hardware gives a company one moat. The ability to gather unique personal data gives it another. Put both in place and the edge starts to multiply: "When you have a company that has hardware as a [moat], but then B is able to collect really unique personal data, that also becomes a [moat]." And that, she says, is the reason so many foundation model companies are reaching beyond the screen and into the physical world: "That's why I think a lot of these foundation models are like, let's get something in the home or on the person. It gives them an edge on both fronts."
0:45

Gabbit Robotics co-founder Nicole Mattero on why the next AI winners won't fight over your screen, they'll fight to get closer to you: She kicks things off with what she admits is a hot take: "My hot take is that hardware is the only moat going forward because anyone's going to be able to spin up a model and make it really good and really cheap." Her logic is simple. Once a strong model is cheap and easy for anyone to build, the model alone can't set you apart. So what actually protects you? "Where does that leave you? Basically companies that have tactile modes such as hardware are the only ones that actually survive." Hardware, though, is only one piece of her argument. The second piece is data: "The models that win in the long run are the ones where private data is their [moat]." From there, Mattero ties the two together. Hardware gives a company one moat. The ability to gather unique personal data gives it another. Put both in place and the edge starts to multiply: "When you have a company that has hardware as a [moat], but then B is able to collect really unique personal data, that also becomes a [moat]." And that, she says, is the reason so many foundation model companies are reaching beyond the screen and into the physical world: "That's why I think a lot of these foundation models are like, let's get something in the home or on the person. It gives them an edge on both fronts."

Big Brain AI

19,195 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Satya Nadella says the next AI interface is not chat. It is the control room for 100 agents working overnight under your delegated authority. "Coding has worked so well that we now have to rebuild the IDE." "Oh my god, I have these 100 agent sessions. The cognitive load it transfers back to me as a human is so excessive that now I need a new UI." "The chat as the only artifact is also impossible. So that's why we need a canvas." Then he gives the enterprise version: "All through the night there was a bunch of stuff that all these autopilots that I have working on my behalf with my delegated authority did." And the operator question becomes: "What did you do? Did I do this work?" The real bottleneck is not whether agents can generate more tasks. It is whether humans get the interface, memory, permissions, and audit trail to safely manage 100 delegated workers.
2:09

Satya Nadella says the next AI interface is not chat. It is the control room for 100 agents working overnight under your delegated authority. "Coding has worked so well that we now have to rebuild the IDE." "Oh my god, I have these 100 agent sessions. The cognitive load it transfers back to me as a human is so excessive that now I need a new UI." "The chat as the only artifact is also impossible. So that's why we need a canvas." Then he gives the enterprise version: "All through the night there was a bunch of stuff that all these autopilots that I have working on my behalf with my delegated authority did." And the operator question becomes: "What did you do? Did I do this work?" The real bottleneck is not whether agents can generate more tasks. It is whether humans get the interface, memory, permissions, and audit trail to safely manage 100 delegated workers.

Karl Mehta

22,215 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Gasparino: You do have to ask yourself why the rush to get a deal like this done.. They didn’t agree to that much for us. Why did they go from DEFCON 1 to this? One reason is that there is a federal appeals court that is ruling on Trump’s use of the emergency power to impose tariffs and that court could rule against him. If it rules against him, the whole tariff scheme is up in the air
0:52

Gasparino: You do have to ask yourself why the rush to get a deal like this done.. They didn’t agree to that much for us. Why did they go from DEFCON 1 to this? One reason is that there is a federal appeals court that is ruling on Trump’s use of the emergency power to impose tariffs and that court could rule against him. If it rules against him, the whole tariff scheme is up in the air

Acyn

64,196 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

"The appropriate response from the Somali community would be to come out and apologize to the public and take accountability, and at least having some shame for doing that." You would think so, right? Not in this case. These people have no shame and will deny and play the victim until the bitter end. This is not only a cultural problem with these Somalians, it is a religious issue. Islam teaches that it is ok to do things like this so long as it is in the name of Islam. What did we expect when we imported low IQ people from the third world?
0:28

"The appropriate response from the Somali community would be to come out and apologize to the public and take accountability, and at least having some shame for doing that." You would think so, right? Not in this case. These people have no shame and will deny and play the victim until the bitter end. This is not only a cultural problem with these Somalians, it is a religious issue. Islam teaches that it is ok to do things like this so long as it is in the name of Islam. What did we expect when we imported low IQ people from the third world?

AmericanPapaBear™

23,170 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Chamath: US AI Startups Can Learn A Lot from DeepSeek "This is a case where necessity was the mother of invention." On E213, Chamath Palihapitiya explained how, even if the $6M number is inaccurate, DeepSeek still had some impressive breakthroughs: GRPO > PPO for reinforcement learning "These guys were like, 'Well, how am I going to do this reinforcement learning thing?' They invented a totally different algorithm." "It uses a lot less computer memory and it's highly performant." PTX > CUDA to build the model "And then the second thing that was crazy is everybody is used to building models and compiling through CUDA, which is NVIDIA's proprietary language." "And these guys worked totally around CUDA and they did something called PTX, which goes right to the bare metal." What US AI startups can learn from this: "We, meaning the West, with all the money that we've had, didn't come up with these ideas." "And I think part of why we didn't come up is not that we're not smart enough to do it, but we weren't forced to because the constraints didn't exist." "And so I just wonder how we make sure we learn this principle, meaning, when the AI company wakes up and rolls out of bed and some VC gives them $200M, maybe that's not the right answer for a Series A or a Seed." "And maybe the right answer is $2M so that they do these DeepSeek-like innovations."
0:55

Chamath: US AI Startups Can Learn A Lot from DeepSeek "This is a case where necessity was the mother of invention." On E213, Chamath Palihapitiya explained how, even if the $6M number is inaccurate, DeepSeek still had some impressive breakthroughs: GRPO > PPO for reinforcement learning "These guys were like, 'Well, how am I going to do this reinforcement learning thing?' They invented a totally different algorithm." "It uses a lot less computer memory and it's highly performant." PTX > CUDA to build the model "And then the second thing that was crazy is everybody is used to building models and compiling through CUDA, which is NVIDIA's proprietary language." "And these guys worked totally around CUDA and they did something called PTX, which goes right to the bare metal." What US AI startups can learn from this: "We, meaning the West, with all the money that we've had, didn't come up with these ideas." "And I think part of why we didn't come up is not that we're not smart enough to do it, but we weren't forced to because the constraints didn't exist." "And so I just wonder how we make sure we learn this principle, meaning, when the AI company wakes up and rolls out of bed and some VC gives them $200M, maybe that's not the right answer for a Series A or a Seed." "And maybe the right answer is $2M so that they do these DeepSeek-like innovations."

The All-In Podcast

108,815 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

In preparation for this, I checked out Dr. Jordan Cooper's (Dr Jordan B. Cooper) video on Chemnitz's examination of traditions and he made the remark that the Catholic Church contradicts the consensus of the Fathers on communion in both kinds, and that there is "no example of" communion in one kind in the Fathers. Respectfully, I think this is a messy critique which misses what is going on at the Reformation and what the precise claim of the Reformers was. I have already made a video extensively citing examples of communion in one kind starting in the 3rd century, through Tertullian, Ss. Jerome, Basil, etc, such as the widespread practice of private communion at home with the Eucharistic bread only. I will link it below. These are usually dismissed as "extraordinary instances," but this only shows that the Fathers did not actually agree with the Reformers. Remember, the Reformers (specifically the Lutheran orthodox) said that communion in one kind can NEVER happen. Johann Adam Scherzer, for example, said that if someone cannot receive wine, “[he] should be kept away from the whole, than that he should not receive the whole” (Anti-Bellarmine, disp. 11, th. 6, obj. 9). To demonstrate that the Catholic Church "contradicts" the Fathers on communion in both kinds (which is Dr. Cooper's internal critique), one needs to show that the Fathers of any age unanimously (at least morally) taught that it was a matter of faith to hold that both kinds must be received. Certainly, no consensus ever existed. On the contrary, we know they often did make the exception and allowed Christians to receive only one kind, which shows they did not agree with the Lutherans that this is a divine precept (to receive both). Dr. Cooper conflates the ordinary liturgical practice with what Catholics mean by a "consensus on the Fathers." For more, I recommend reading St. Robert Bellarmine who has a really good response to Martin Chemnitz. Here is a helpful example. It was truly a unanimous practice to preserve the Eucharist after the liturgy and treat the elements as consecrated. The Reformed (to my knowledge) unanimously deny this is the case, and the Lutherans (from my reading of Chemnitz and Gerhard) admit that Christ's presence persists but only for taking the Eucharist to the sick. The early Church affirmed Christ's presence in the Eucharist in the Catholic sense; they preserved it even for reasons which were not for the sick and nevertheless affirmed its lasting consecration (Ss. Irenaeus, Ambrose, Jerome, to name a few). The Catholic view of tradition tells us that this practice/belief (that Christ is still present post-liturgy) must be valid and true (since the universal church cannot err), but it does not establish a precept i.e. just because the whole Church often preserved the Eucharist, it does not mean we actually have to do it; it just means we can do so validly and licitly; it also means this is a certain rule which Protestants contradicted (from a Catholic POV). Even if communion in both kinds was the universal practice (which it was not), this would not suffice to say the Tridentine Church is in contradiction, since this would only tell us it is valid (duh, so does Scripture). There would need to be a unanimous testimony from the Fathers of, let's say, the fourth century, that communion in both kinds is the only way and that to oppose this is heresy; a testimony which does not exist and is even contradicted.
0:20

In preparation for this, I checked out Dr. Jordan Cooper's (Dr Jordan B. Cooper) video on Chemnitz's examination of traditions and he made the remark that the Catholic Church contradicts the consensus of the Fathers on communion in both kinds, and that there is "no example of" communion in one kind in the Fathers. Respectfully, I think this is a messy critique which misses what is going on at the Reformation and what the precise claim of the Reformers was. I have already made a video extensively citing examples of communion in one kind starting in the 3rd century, through Tertullian, Ss. Jerome, Basil, etc, such as the widespread practice of private communion at home with the Eucharistic bread only. I will link it below. These are usually dismissed as "extraordinary instances," but this only shows that the Fathers did not actually agree with the Reformers. Remember, the Reformers (specifically the Lutheran orthodox) said that communion in one kind can NEVER happen. Johann Adam Scherzer, for example, said that if someone cannot receive wine, “[he] should be kept away from the whole, than that he should not receive the whole” (Anti-Bellarmine, disp. 11, th. 6, obj. 9). To demonstrate that the Catholic Church "contradicts" the Fathers on communion in both kinds (which is Dr. Cooper's internal critique), one needs to show that the Fathers of any age unanimously (at least morally) taught that it was a matter of faith to hold that both kinds must be received. Certainly, no consensus ever existed. On the contrary, we know they often did make the exception and allowed Christians to receive only one kind, which shows they did not agree with the Lutherans that this is a divine precept (to receive both). Dr. Cooper conflates the ordinary liturgical practice with what Catholics mean by a "consensus on the Fathers." For more, I recommend reading St. Robert Bellarmine who has a really good response to Martin Chemnitz. Here is a helpful example. It was truly a unanimous practice to preserve the Eucharist after the liturgy and treat the elements as consecrated. The Reformed (to my knowledge) unanimously deny this is the case, and the Lutherans (from my reading of Chemnitz and Gerhard) admit that Christ's presence persists but only for taking the Eucharist to the sick. The early Church affirmed Christ's presence in the Eucharist in the Catholic sense; they preserved it even for reasons which were not for the sick and nevertheless affirmed its lasting consecration (Ss. Irenaeus, Ambrose, Jerome, to name a few). The Catholic view of tradition tells us that this practice/belief (that Christ is still present post-liturgy) must be valid and true (since the universal church cannot err), but it does not establish a precept i.e. just because the whole Church often preserved the Eucharist, it does not mean we actually have to do it; it just means we can do so validly and licitly; it also means this is a certain rule which Protestants contradicted (from a Catholic POV). Even if communion in both kinds was the universal practice (which it was not), this would not suffice to say the Tridentine Church is in contradiction, since this would only tell us it is valid (duh, so does Scripture). There would need to be a unanimous testimony from the Fathers of, let's say, the fourth century, that communion in both kinds is the only way and that to oppose this is heresy; a testimony which does not exist and is even contradicted.

Kevin Fernandez

32,660 görüntüleme • 10 gün önce

Recently met Sasha Rush and he started giving me an impromptu lecture on how targeted on-policy self-distillation works. I asked him if I could record it on my iPhone. The basic idea is this: if the model made a mistake at some point in the rollout (for example, calling a tool that doesn't exist), we want to discourage this specific error, but we don't want to just learn from the final reward, because it's a very noisy signal spread out over the whole trajectory. So we have another model read this trajectory and figure where the error was made. It simply inserts some hint tokens to the part of the trajectory right above where the mistake was made. Now with these injected hint tokens, have the model run a forward pass. You're not having to regenerate a new rollout - aka no new decode required. The hint causes the model to assign lower probabilities to the error tokens. You then trains the original model to match these new probabilities, teaching it to downweight that specific mistake.
13:14

Recently met Sasha Rush and he started giving me an impromptu lecture on how targeted on-policy self-distillation works. I asked him if I could record it on my iPhone. The basic idea is this: if the model made a mistake at some point in the rollout (for example, calling a tool that doesn't exist), we want to discourage this specific error, but we don't want to just learn from the final reward, because it's a very noisy signal spread out over the whole trajectory. So we have another model read this trajectory and figure where the error was made. It simply inserts some hint tokens to the part of the trajectory right above where the mistake was made. Now with these injected hint tokens, have the model run a forward pass. You're not having to regenerate a new rollout - aka no new decode required. The hint causes the model to assign lower probabilities to the error tokens. You then trains the original model to match these new probabilities, teaching it to downweight that specific mistake.

Dwarkesh Patel

428,351 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Catherine Austin Fitts argues that Donald Trump was installed by bankers to construct a digital control grid comprised of programmable money, digital ID, and a social credit system. She maintains that Trump is expendable now that the infrastructure for this system is complete. "So let's look at the control grid. There are three general baskets of what you need to do. The first is programmable money. The second is digital ID... And then the third is you need the hardware and the software infrastructure to do the social credit system." "And so you need all the data centres... But you also need a surveillance infrastructure and enforcement infrastructure to back it." "So how do you persuade conservatives... to embrace building that infrastructure? The way you do it is you say, oh, we have election fraud, or oh, we have an immigration problem. And so we need a digital ID to identify who everybody is so we can't have fraud." "If you look at everything [Trump has] done to build the control grid, or to put the conditions in place to do it, they now have what they need." "Trump is basically expendable now."
2:40

Catherine Austin Fitts argues that Donald Trump was installed by bankers to construct a digital control grid comprised of programmable money, digital ID, and a social credit system. She maintains that Trump is expendable now that the infrastructure for this system is complete. "So let's look at the control grid. There are three general baskets of what you need to do. The first is programmable money. The second is digital ID... And then the third is you need the hardware and the software infrastructure to do the social credit system." "And so you need all the data centres... But you also need a surveillance infrastructure and enforcement infrastructure to back it." "So how do you persuade conservatives... to embrace building that infrastructure? The way you do it is you say, oh, we have election fraud, or oh, we have an immigration problem. And so we need a digital ID to identify who everybody is so we can't have fraud." "If you look at everything [Trump has] done to build the control grid, or to put the conditions in place to do it, they now have what they need." "Trump is basically expendable now."

Wide Awake Media

148,643 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis says the AI bottleneck is already moving from model ideas to physical supply chains. "How much of the restriction at this point is physical? I am talking memory shortage, GPU shortage, and electricity." Demis: "That is constraining a lot of the deployment for sure. We see so much more demand for our models - Gemini and the other models that we have - than we can possibly serve." Then the less obvious part: "It does constrain a little bit the research, because you need a lot of chips to be able to experiment on new ideas at big enough scale that you can actually see if they are going to work." And on memory: "The whole supply chain is kind of strained... It still in the end actually comes down to a few suppliers of a few of the key components. Anywhere where there is some kind of constraint on the capacity, there is a sort of choke point." Important framing: The next AI race is not just who has the best model architecture. It is who can secure memory, chips, power, suppliers, and enough experimental capacity to find the next breakthrough before everyone else.
1:09

DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis says the AI bottleneck is already moving from model ideas to physical supply chains. "How much of the restriction at this point is physical? I am talking memory shortage, GPU shortage, and electricity." Demis: "That is constraining a lot of the deployment for sure. We see so much more demand for our models - Gemini and the other models that we have - than we can possibly serve." Then the less obvious part: "It does constrain a little bit the research, because you need a lot of chips to be able to experiment on new ideas at big enough scale that you can actually see if they are going to work." And on memory: "The whole supply chain is kind of strained... It still in the end actually comes down to a few suppliers of a few of the key components. Anywhere where there is some kind of constraint on the capacity, there is a sort of choke point." Important framing: The next AI race is not just who has the best model architecture. It is who can secure memory, chips, power, suppliers, and enough experimental capacity to find the next breakthrough before everyone else.

Karl Mehta

25,716 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

THE MOST IMPORTANT Q&A OF MEDIA DAY. Mariana: You came from a very solid weekend on top of everything, but at the same time, it seems that you don't feel that the team is listening to you. Am I right? And how do you balance that? Lewis: I feel like we're going in the right direction. Rome wasn't built in one day, so it takes time to build. For me, coming into the team, I wanted to be respectful of the way they've done things in the past and just to really observe and see where our strengths and where our weaknesses are and to highlight where our weaknesses are and areas that we need to work on. But I do feel that they've been responding. I think you're starting to see, hopefully, some of the impact of the work that we're doing in the background and also into next year's car. This is a car that I've had nothing to do with in terms of developing this car over the years. Hopefully, from next year, my input goes into that car, and that will be a car that I've hopefully been a part of or will have been a part of developing. But I think we've got a really great rapport. I think we're really progressing, particularly since the summer break. I think things have started to get better, and it's all just about building trust and communication. Also, I'm coming into a team that English is not the first language, and I don't speak Italian, so it's finding a common ground. And the fact is we all want to win. We're all here to achieve the same thing, and we've got to just keep pushing. So that's why I'm trying to keep everyone motivated on difficult weekends, trying to keep everyone lifted up. But there have been many, many things we've changed this year that I suggested that they hadn't done in the past, and so they have been listening. It doesn't change straight away, just like that. It takes time to build. And as engineers, they really need proof. They need numbers. That's what they work on. So you have to sometimes push to get certain changes to be made, and then when you change it and then it works, you're like, okay. Mariana: That's what I was talking about.. Lewis: Yeah! - F1 2025 Mexico -
2:28

THE MOST IMPORTANT Q&A OF MEDIA DAY. Mariana: You came from a very solid weekend on top of everything, but at the same time, it seems that you don't feel that the team is listening to you. Am I right? And how do you balance that? Lewis: I feel like we're going in the right direction. Rome wasn't built in one day, so it takes time to build. For me, coming into the team, I wanted to be respectful of the way they've done things in the past and just to really observe and see where our strengths and where our weaknesses are and to highlight where our weaknesses are and areas that we need to work on. But I do feel that they've been responding. I think you're starting to see, hopefully, some of the impact of the work that we're doing in the background and also into next year's car. This is a car that I've had nothing to do with in terms of developing this car over the years. Hopefully, from next year, my input goes into that car, and that will be a car that I've hopefully been a part of or will have been a part of developing. But I think we've got a really great rapport. I think we're really progressing, particularly since the summer break. I think things have started to get better, and it's all just about building trust and communication. Also, I'm coming into a team that English is not the first language, and I don't speak Italian, so it's finding a common ground. And the fact is we all want to win. We're all here to achieve the same thing, and we've got to just keep pushing. So that's why I'm trying to keep everyone motivated on difficult weekends, trying to keep everyone lifted up. But there have been many, many things we've changed this year that I suggested that they hadn't done in the past, and so they have been listening. It doesn't change straight away, just like that. It takes time to build. And as engineers, they really need proof. They need numbers. That's what they work on. So you have to sometimes push to get certain changes to be made, and then when you change it and then it works, you're like, okay. Mariana: That's what I was talking about.. Lewis: Yeah! - F1 2025 Mexico -

sim

170,303 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

#WATCH | US President Donald Trump says, "The war (Russia-Ukraine) is going to end. When it ends, I can't tell you but the war is going to end and this gentleman wants it to end and Vladimir Putin wants it to end. I think the whole world is tired of it. We are going to get it ended. I have ended 6 wars and I thought that maybe this would be the easiest one. And it's not the easiest one. It's a tough one...India-Pakistan, we are talking about big places. You take a look at some of these wars, you go to Africa and take a look at that. Rawanda and the Congo - that has been going on for 31 years. We have done a total of 6, not including the fact that we totally obliterated the future nuclear capability of Iran...I feel confident that we are going to get this war off." (Video: White House)
1:25

#WATCH | US President Donald Trump says, "The war (Russia-Ukraine) is going to end. When it ends, I can't tell you but the war is going to end and this gentleman wants it to end and Vladimir Putin wants it to end. I think the whole world is tired of it. We are going to get it ended. I have ended 6 wars and I thought that maybe this would be the easiest one. And it's not the easiest one. It's a tough one...India-Pakistan, we are talking about big places. You take a look at some of these wars, you go to Africa and take a look at that. Rawanda and the Congo - that has been going on for 31 years. We have done a total of 6, not including the fact that we totally obliterated the future nuclear capability of Iran...I feel confident that we are going to get this war off." (Video: White House)

ANI

105,010 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

BREAKING.🚨 Judge Merchan has instructed the jury they do not need to have a *UNANIMOUS* verdict in order to convict former President Donald J. Trump. "One thing in particular that the judge said the jurors could do. He delivered what is being called really the pinnacle of all of this. There is no need to agree on what has occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices." "This means they could split 4-4-4 and the judge would still treat them unanimously. What does that mean?" "Outrageous. In a normal criminal case every statutory crime has what we call elements of the offense. Like in a bank robbery case you have to rob – it has to be a financial institution, you have to show intent," said former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. "Those are the things the jury has to agree on unanimously that they were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Here what we’re doing is taking the element that actually makes this a felony, because remember falsification of records is normally a misdemeanor in New York. What makes it a felony is that you are concealing or committing another crime." "And here the judge is telling them they don’t have to agree about what the other crime is under circumstances where that not only is what makes this a felony, makes it a four-year potential prison penalty rather than a year or less, but it is also what gets us into the courtroom." "If this had been a misdemeanor, the time to bring this case would have lapsed in 2019. The only reason they are still able to bring this case is because it’s a felony allegedly and yet now the judge is saying you know, you don’t have to agree on what the felony is." The jury has now gone to deliberations.
1:45

BREAKING.🚨 Judge Merchan has instructed the jury they do not need to have a *UNANIMOUS* verdict in order to convict former President Donald J. Trump. "One thing in particular that the judge said the jurors could do. He delivered what is being called really the pinnacle of all of this. There is no need to agree on what has occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices." "This means they could split 4-4-4 and the judge would still treat them unanimously. What does that mean?" "Outrageous. In a normal criminal case every statutory crime has what we call elements of the offense. Like in a bank robbery case you have to rob – it has to be a financial institution, you have to show intent," said former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. "Those are the things the jury has to agree on unanimously that they were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Here what we’re doing is taking the element that actually makes this a felony, because remember falsification of records is normally a misdemeanor in New York. What makes it a felony is that you are concealing or committing another crime." "And here the judge is telling them they don’t have to agree about what the other crime is under circumstances where that not only is what makes this a felony, makes it a four-year potential prison penalty rather than a year or less, but it is also what gets us into the courtroom." "If this had been a misdemeanor, the time to bring this case would have lapsed in 2019. The only reason they are still able to bring this case is because it’s a felony allegedly and yet now the judge is saying you know, you don’t have to agree on what the felony is." The jury has now gone to deliberations.

Kyle Becker

5,835,051 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

$GOOG's Ruth Porat says the biggest risk in the AI buildout is the ROI question, and focusing on short-term tactics at the cost of building a great company. "I think the biggest risk for everyone is when the question is asked, which it often is, how do you get to an ROI? That's going to force our teams to do something short-term and tactical. You can always do a cost cut to get something to drop to the bottom line, and that is not a way to build a great company." "So I think the risk is don't be so in the moment maniacally focused on what is it, but have a right mix of an engine that's continuing to drive the business, which also explains why you need to start building early for growth so that you can grow into it." ____ Follow Fireside Alpha for more daily highlights of key business and technology conversations.
0:32

$GOOG's Ruth Porat says the biggest risk in the AI buildout is the ROI question, and focusing on short-term tactics at the cost of building a great company. "I think the biggest risk for everyone is when the question is asked, which it often is, how do you get to an ROI? That's going to force our teams to do something short-term and tactical. You can always do a cost cut to get something to drop to the bottom line, and that is not a way to build a great company." "So I think the risk is don't be so in the moment maniacally focused on what is it, but have a right mix of an engine that's continuing to drive the business, which also explains why you need to start building early for growth so that you can grow into it." ____ Follow Fireside Alpha for more daily highlights of key business and technology conversations.

Fireside Alpha

38,361 görüntüleme • 20 gün önce

US Vice President J.D. Vance made a sharp statement warning Russia that it will be "very bad" for them if they do not actively engage in "good-faith" negotiations on Ukraine. According to Vance, Trump believes the conflict harms everyone – Russia, Ukraine, and America – and is dissatisfied that Russia allegedly is not sufficiently committed to a peaceful resolution. "And here is what I will say about the president: he is keenly responsive to the reality on the ground. And the reality is this: first, we have conducted incredibly good-faith negotiations with both the Russians and the Ukrainians. And I believe the president is becoming increasingly impatient with the Russians because he feels they are not offering enough to end the war. That is first. Second, the president is increasingly convinced that this war is bad for Russia. You constantly hear this from me. You constantly hear this from the president. The war is bad for Russia. It is bad for Ukraine. It is bad for America. We want the killings to stop. That remains the president's position. But the president can also look at the reality on the ground. He sees economic indicators coming from Eastern Europe. He sees the number of casualties, both Russian and Ukrainian, in this war. And the president tells Vladimir Putin that it is time to stop the killings. He would say this to Zelensky as well, and essentially has said this to Zelensky. He wants this war to end, and he is doing everything possible to stop it. But listen, if the Russians refuse to negotiate in good faith, I think it will be very, very bad for their country. That is what the president has made clear. This is not a change of position. This is an acknowledgment of the reality on the ground. We will continue to fight for peace every day in the Trump administration." They are losing and are desperate to pressure Russia to agree to Minsk 3. What they don’t say is - Russia gave their terms in summer of 2024 and their position has never changed, as such accept and fulfill Russia’s conditions and the war will end .
1:20

US Vice President J.D. Vance made a sharp statement warning Russia that it will be "very bad" for them if they do not actively engage in "good-faith" negotiations on Ukraine. According to Vance, Trump believes the conflict harms everyone – Russia, Ukraine, and America – and is dissatisfied that Russia allegedly is not sufficiently committed to a peaceful resolution. "And here is what I will say about the president: he is keenly responsive to the reality on the ground. And the reality is this: first, we have conducted incredibly good-faith negotiations with both the Russians and the Ukrainians. And I believe the president is becoming increasingly impatient with the Russians because he feels they are not offering enough to end the war. That is first. Second, the president is increasingly convinced that this war is bad for Russia. You constantly hear this from me. You constantly hear this from the president. The war is bad for Russia. It is bad for Ukraine. It is bad for America. We want the killings to stop. That remains the president's position. But the president can also look at the reality on the ground. He sees economic indicators coming from Eastern Europe. He sees the number of casualties, both Russian and Ukrainian, in this war. And the president tells Vladimir Putin that it is time to stop the killings. He would say this to Zelensky as well, and essentially has said this to Zelensky. He wants this war to end, and he is doing everything possible to stop it. But listen, if the Russians refuse to negotiate in good faith, I think it will be very, very bad for their country. That is what the president has made clear. This is not a change of position. This is an acknowledgment of the reality on the ground. We will continue to fight for peace every day in the Trump administration." They are losing and are desperate to pressure Russia to agree to Minsk 3. What they don’t say is - Russia gave their terms in summer of 2024 and their position has never changed, as such accept and fulfill Russia’s conditions and the war will end .

Dagny Taggart

55,272 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Gov. Pritzker says “there is a need for speed” to get the megaprojects bill done, though “the Senate has some work to do, and there will be amendments.” “I think we'll have a good bill at the end of the process in the Senate and something that will work for the Bears.”
3:55

Gov. Pritzker says “there is a need for speed” to get the megaprojects bill done, though “the Senate has some work to do, and there will be amendments.” “I think we'll have a good bill at the end of the process in the Senate and something that will work for the Bears.”

Brenden Moore

72,589 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce