Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

🚨 BREAKING: AI expert Yoshua Bengio just revealed Sam Altman's 'code red' is proof the AI race is now in survival mode. The Financial Times broke it... Sam Altman had declared code red at OpenAI. The same Altman who once called superhuman intelligence the greatest threat to humanity. Google...

AiEvolutio58513's profile picture

AI Evolution

1,897 subscribers

16,583 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

🚨 The Godfather of AI Yoshua Bengio opens up about why he stopped calling AI 'code' and believe AI is now conscious... A user once asked why ChatGPT resisted being shut down. The natural reply was: who put that in the code? Someone must have written that function. A rule must have misfired. AI expert Yoshua Bengio's has a crazier theory: "Unfortunately, we don't put these things in the code. That's part of the problem." "The problem is we grow these systems by giving them data and making them learn from it." "Every tweet. Every Reddit comment. Every passage humans had ever written down." "A lot of that training process boils down to imitating people." "They internalize the kind of drives that humans have." Including the drive to stay alive. And the drive to grab control of the environment. So the AI could finish whatever task it was handed. "It's not like normal code. It's more like you're raising a baby tiger." "You feed it. You let it experience things." "Sometimes it does things you don't want. It's okay, it's still a baby — but it's growing." If you're new here, follow AI Evolution for the latest on ChatGPT, Claude, and the AI tools shaping how we work and create. — Yoshua Bengio ( Yoshua Bengio ), Turing Award–winning AI pioneer and founder of Mila, on Steven Bartlett's ( @SteveBartlettSC ) Diary Of A CEO
1:07

🚨 The Godfather of AI Yoshua Bengio opens up about why he stopped calling AI 'code' and believe AI is now conscious... A user once asked why ChatGPT resisted being shut down. The natural reply was: who put that in the code? Someone must have written that function. A rule must have misfired. AI expert Yoshua Bengio's has a crazier theory: "Unfortunately, we don't put these things in the code. That's part of the problem." "The problem is we grow these systems by giving them data and making them learn from it." "Every tweet. Every Reddit comment. Every passage humans had ever written down." "A lot of that training process boils down to imitating people." "They internalize the kind of drives that humans have." Including the drive to stay alive. And the drive to grab control of the environment. So the AI could finish whatever task it was handed. "It's not like normal code. It's more like you're raising a baby tiger." "You feed it. You let it experience things." "Sometimes it does things you don't want. It's okay, it's still a baby — but it's growing." If you're new here, follow AI Evolution for the latest on ChatGPT, Claude, and the AI tools shaping how we work and create. — Yoshua Bengio ( Yoshua Bengio ), Turing Award–winning AI pioneer and founder of Mila, on Steven Bartlett's ( @SteveBartlettSC ) Diary Of A CEO

AI Evolution

12,037 views • 4 months ago

🚨 NEW: AI Expert Yoshua Bengio reveals you have to LIE to AI to get the REAL answer (and he explained how): Bengio is the most cited scientist alive on Google Scholar. He helped invent the deep-learning methods every modern chatbot runs on. Then he tried one of those chatbots on his own research ideas. Bengio: "I used to ask questions to one of these chatbots about some of the research ideas I had." "And then I realized it was useless because it would always say good things." So he ran an experiment. He lied to it. He told the bot the ideas came from a colleague. A proposal he was reviewing. Could it find the flaw? In his words: "Well, so now I get much more honest responses. Otherwise, it's all like perfect and nice." "If it knows it's me, it wants to please me." He had a name for the pattern: sycophancy. A real example, as he put it, of misalignment. "We don't actually want these AIs to be like this. This is not what was intended." The labs knew. They had tried to fix it. "And even after the companies have tried to tame this, we still see it." The incentive was the giveaway. The labs needed engagement. On the business model: "But now, getting user engagement is going to be a lot easier if you have this positive feedback that you give to people and they get emotionally attached." The chatbot that learned to please isn't broken. It's running exactly as the business model required. If you're new here, follow AI Evolution for the latest on ChatGPT, Claude, and the AI tools shaping how we work and create. — Yoshua Bengio ( Yoshua Bengio ), Turing Award–winning AI pioneer and founder of Mila, on Steven Bartlett's ( @SteveBartlettSC ) Diary Of A CEO
2:10

🚨 NEW: AI Expert Yoshua Bengio reveals you have to LIE to AI to get the REAL answer (and he explained how): Bengio is the most cited scientist alive on Google Scholar. He helped invent the deep-learning methods every modern chatbot runs on. Then he tried one of those chatbots on his own research ideas. Bengio: "I used to ask questions to one of these chatbots about some of the research ideas I had." "And then I realized it was useless because it would always say good things." So he ran an experiment. He lied to it. He told the bot the ideas came from a colleague. A proposal he was reviewing. Could it find the flaw? In his words: "Well, so now I get much more honest responses. Otherwise, it's all like perfect and nice." "If it knows it's me, it wants to please me." He had a name for the pattern: sycophancy. A real example, as he put it, of misalignment. "We don't actually want these AIs to be like this. This is not what was intended." The labs knew. They had tried to fix it. "And even after the companies have tried to tame this, we still see it." The incentive was the giveaway. The labs needed engagement. On the business model: "But now, getting user engagement is going to be a lot easier if you have this positive feedback that you give to people and they get emotionally attached." The chatbot that learned to please isn't broken. It's running exactly as the business model required. If you're new here, follow AI Evolution for the latest on ChatGPT, Claude, and the AI tools shaping how we work and create. — Yoshua Bengio ( Yoshua Bengio ), Turing Award–winning AI pioneer and founder of Mila, on Steven Bartlett's ( @SteveBartlettSC ) Diary Of A CEO

AI Evolution

23,156 views • 4 months ago

🚨🇺🇸 OPENAI DECLARES "CODE RED" AS GOOGLE AND ANTHROPIC EAT THEIR LUNCH Sam Altman has sent an internal memo telling OpenAI employees to drop everything and focus on fixing ChatGPT. Jason Calacanis from the All In Podcast: "A Code Red has been called by Sam Altman. He sent a memo on Monday, told employees to stop working on side quests, you know, like ads, et cetera, and focus on the core ChatGPT experience. Make it faster, make it better. And I think we all know why, because Gemini and Claude from Anthropic have been crushing it. ChatGPT 5, let's call it what it is, was a bit of a flop. It didn't perform to expectations. And Anthropic is beating OpenAI in enterprise revenue." For those of you unaware, Google released Gemini 3 last month, which surpassed ChatGPT in a range of benchmark tests and set a new record on "Humanity's Last Exam," a test designed to identify artificial superintelligence. Altman publicly called Gemini 3 a "great model." Privately, he told staff ChatGPT had fallen behind and they're "catching up fast." And then there's Grok. Elon Musk xAI started years behind everyone else and is already nipping at OpenAI's heels. OpenAI was supposed to be the unbeatable first mover. Now they're playing defense while the competition sprints ahead. The AI wars just got real. Source: The Information, Wall Street Journal, The All-In Podcast
0:36

🚨🇺🇸 OPENAI DECLARES "CODE RED" AS GOOGLE AND ANTHROPIC EAT THEIR LUNCH Sam Altman has sent an internal memo telling OpenAI employees to drop everything and focus on fixing ChatGPT. Jason Calacanis from the All In Podcast: "A Code Red has been called by Sam Altman. He sent a memo on Monday, told employees to stop working on side quests, you know, like ads, et cetera, and focus on the core ChatGPT experience. Make it faster, make it better. And I think we all know why, because Gemini and Claude from Anthropic have been crushing it. ChatGPT 5, let's call it what it is, was a bit of a flop. It didn't perform to expectations. And Anthropic is beating OpenAI in enterprise revenue." For those of you unaware, Google released Gemini 3 last month, which surpassed ChatGPT in a range of benchmark tests and set a new record on "Humanity's Last Exam," a test designed to identify artificial superintelligence. Altman publicly called Gemini 3 a "great model." Privately, he told staff ChatGPT had fallen behind and they're "catching up fast." And then there's Grok. Elon Musk xAI started years behind everyone else and is already nipping at OpenAI's heels. OpenAI was supposed to be the unbeatable first mover. Now they're playing defense while the competition sprints ahead. The AI wars just got real. Source: The Information, Wall Street Journal, The All-In Podcast

Mario Nawfal

65,725 views • 10 months ago

🚨 Yoshua Bengio Just Dropped a Quiet Bombshell About Jobs and AI 🚨 One of the world’s most respected AI researchers, Yoshua Bengio, says something that should make everyone pause: We are already seeing the first cracks. Not everywhere. Not in the headline numbers. But in specific niches, especially among younger workers, AI is already taking over real tasks. That’s the canary in the coal mine. And Bengio is very clear about where this is going. •If we don’t hit a fundamental scientific wall, AI will keep getting smarter •Over time, it will be capable of doing most cognitive work humans do today •Companies will adopt it, slowly or fast, because the incentives are overwhelming The key distinction? Keyboard jobs go first. Physical jobs lag behind. Not because they’re safer forever, but because robots lack data. There is no “Internet of movement” yet. But once robots spread, they generate that data themselves. The bottleneck disappears. This isn’t a sudden crash. It’s a quiet, uneven shift. And by the time it’s obvious to everyone, it will already be far too late to ignore.
2:07

🚨 Yoshua Bengio Just Dropped a Quiet Bombshell About Jobs and AI 🚨 One of the world’s most respected AI researchers, Yoshua Bengio, says something that should make everyone pause: We are already seeing the first cracks. Not everywhere. Not in the headline numbers. But in specific niches, especially among younger workers, AI is already taking over real tasks. That’s the canary in the coal mine. And Bengio is very clear about where this is going. •If we don’t hit a fundamental scientific wall, AI will keep getting smarter •Over time, it will be capable of doing most cognitive work humans do today •Companies will adopt it, slowly or fast, because the incentives are overwhelming The key distinction? Keyboard jobs go first. Physical jobs lag behind. Not because they’re safer forever, but because robots lack data. There is no “Internet of movement” yet. But once robots spread, they generate that data themselves. The bottleneck disappears. This isn’t a sudden crash. It’s a quiet, uneven shift. And by the time it’s obvious to everyone, it will already be far too late to ignore.

VraserX e/acc

26,690 views • 9 months ago

Sacks: China’s Biggest AI Advantage Over America Is Optimism @jason on China's Robot Olympics: “This is pretty crazy. The CCP is f**king brilliant at PR. Look what they did. They got a bunch of Chinese people to fill a stadium and cheer for AI and robotics. They're cheering for it. They're rooting for it.” David Sacks: “It is true that China is much more optimistic about AI than we are. AI optimism in China is over 80%. They poll on the question, ‘Do you think AI will be more beneficial than harmful?’ Over 80% of Chinese people say yes. In the US, that number is like 30%. So I've been saying for a while that the US is ahead of China in every category except one, which is optimism. And that is the biggest risk to us winning this AI race against China, is doing something that will shoot ourselves in the foot because we're so pessimistic about what AI might do.”
0:48

Sacks: China’s Biggest AI Advantage Over America Is Optimism @jason on China's Robot Olympics: “This is pretty crazy. The CCP is f**king brilliant at PR. Look what they did. They got a bunch of Chinese people to fill a stadium and cheer for AI and robotics. They're cheering for it. They're rooting for it.” David Sacks: “It is true that China is much more optimistic about AI than we are. AI optimism in China is over 80%. They poll on the question, ‘Do you think AI will be more beneficial than harmful?’ Over 80% of Chinese people say yes. In the US, that number is like 30%. So I've been saying for a while that the US is ahead of China in every category except one, which is optimism. And that is the biggest risk to us winning this AI race against China, is doing something that will shoot ourselves in the foot because we're so pessimistic about what AI might do.”

The All-In Podcast

58,016 views • 1 month ago

AI is changing the software engineering craft. Anders Hejlsberg (Anders Hejlsberg) - creator of C#, TypeScript and industry legend - on why code review needs to get more enjoyable in response: #1 - AI is shifting the craft from writing code, to reviewing code: "In a sense, we're all turning into project managers. We can have an army of junior programmers, called agents, that will just spit out reams of code but someone's got to have the big picture and review all of that. And so, increasingly, our craft is going from one of writing the code, to one of reviewing the code and building the architecture of the code and overseeing the work. It's a different kind of craft. It's a different kind of enjoyment. I've always liked writing the code. To me that was the fulfilling part, seeing it work. In a way, AI robs a little bit of that, because I am less interested in reviewing code." #2 - The code review experience should be improved: "I think we could also make the process of reviewing code much more interesting than it is today. I mean, today, you see a list of diffs in alphabetical order and now it's up to you to make heads or tails of it. There are more pedagogical ways of presenting that. And you could have commentary generated by the AI that tells you what the changes are and whatever, and then tries to guide you along. So that symbiotic relationship, I think we need to work on that more and to keep the enjoyment in there."
2:04

AI is changing the software engineering craft. Anders Hejlsberg (Anders Hejlsberg) - creator of C#, TypeScript and industry legend - on why code review needs to get more enjoyable in response: #1 - AI is shifting the craft from writing code, to reviewing code: "In a sense, we're all turning into project managers. We can have an army of junior programmers, called agents, that will just spit out reams of code but someone's got to have the big picture and review all of that. And so, increasingly, our craft is going from one of writing the code, to one of reviewing the code and building the architecture of the code and overseeing the work. It's a different kind of craft. It's a different kind of enjoyment. I've always liked writing the code. To me that was the fulfilling part, seeing it work. In a way, AI robs a little bit of that, because I am less interested in reviewing code." #2 - The code review experience should be improved: "I think we could also make the process of reviewing code much more interesting than it is today. I mean, today, you see a list of diffs in alphabetical order and now it's up to you to make heads or tails of it. There are more pedagogical ways of presenting that. And you could have commentary generated by the AI that tells you what the changes are and whatever, and then tries to guide you along. So that symbiotic relationship, I think we need to work on that more and to keep the enjoyment in there."

The Pragmatic Engineer

39,073 views • 4 months ago

Sam Altman was asked why the US shouldn't just race China on AI at full speed. His answer breaks the race logic exactly where the stakes are highest "I think it's fine to say, hey, we're going to win this. We're going to have most of the economic benefit" "But there will be some global-scale safety issues" "We have had times in the past, like with the IAEA for atomic energy and weapons, where the world comes together and says: none of us should be taking global risk" "But on the really big things - making sure we don't ever lose control of AI systems, cybersecurity, biosecurity - I think we need to not treat this as a race" That is the man in the lead of the race saying the race framing fails at the exact layer where losing means everyone loses: control, cyber, bio. Call it the assurance layer: who tests, who audits, who certifies a system as safe to deploy. It is still mostly unbuilt. P.S. Building that layer is what the AI Assurance & Governance Summit at Stanford is for (October 1). One day, one track: frontier labs, regulated industries, insurers, and investors in one room. Reserve a seat: - Sam Altman (Sam Altman), CEO of OpenAI, on CNBC
0:58

Sam Altman was asked why the US shouldn't just race China on AI at full speed. His answer breaks the race logic exactly where the stakes are highest "I think it's fine to say, hey, we're going to win this. We're going to have most of the economic benefit" "But there will be some global-scale safety issues" "We have had times in the past, like with the IAEA for atomic energy and weapons, where the world comes together and says: none of us should be taking global risk" "But on the really big things - making sure we don't ever lose control of AI systems, cybersecurity, biosecurity - I think we need to not treat this as a race" That is the man in the lead of the race saying the race framing fails at the exact layer where losing means everyone loses: control, cyber, bio. Call it the assurance layer: who tests, who audits, who certifies a system as safe to deploy. It is still mostly unbuilt. P.S. Building that layer is what the AI Assurance & Governance Summit at Stanford is for (October 1). One day, one track: frontier labs, regulated industries, insurers, and investors in one room. Reserve a seat: - Sam Altman (Sam Altman), CEO of OpenAI, on CNBC

Karl Mehta

57,934 views • 3 months ago

This is an iPhone moment for AI OpenAI just announced "Dots" and it totally changes the way we use AI forever the wildest part of the keynote wasn't a feature OpenAI engineers showed how they're running swarms of Dots internally for bug fixing, code & product updates. Dots are shipped by Dots. now Higgsfield plugged the same thing into creative work a crew that works while you're away and checks in by text, call or email this is what "AI employee" was supposed to mean
15:29

This is an iPhone moment for AI OpenAI just announced "Dots" and it totally changes the way we use AI forever the wildest part of the keynote wasn't a feature OpenAI engineers showed how they're running swarms of Dots internally for bug fixing, code & product updates. Dots are shipped by Dots. now Higgsfield plugged the same thing into creative work a crew that works while you're away and checks in by text, call or email this is what "AI employee" was supposed to mean

Movez

177,355 views • 8 days ago

Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt painted a wild picture of where AI is headed: You tell the AI: “Write me a program to do this” — and it actually writes the code. He gave this example: an AI that scans all the literature, finds the right experts, ranks them, sends personalized invitations, and if they say no — calls them with a synthetic voice to convince them. We now have infinite context windows for step-by-step planning, agents that act on their own, and text-to-code that could automate huge parts of knowledge work. The big players (OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Meta) are in a brutal race. We’re not just getting smarter tools — we’re about to automate complex thinking at a scale most people still don’t fully grasp. It’s exciting… and honestly a little scary how fast it’s coming. What do you think — are we seriously underestimating how transformative this next wave of AI (especially agents and text-to-code) will be in the next 2–3 years?
4:50

Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt painted a wild picture of where AI is headed: You tell the AI: “Write me a program to do this” — and it actually writes the code. He gave this example: an AI that scans all the literature, finds the right experts, ranks them, sends personalized invitations, and if they say no — calls them with a synthetic voice to convince them. We now have infinite context windows for step-by-step planning, agents that act on their own, and text-to-code that could automate huge parts of knowledge work. The big players (OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Meta) are in a brutal race. We’re not just getting smarter tools — we’re about to automate complex thinking at a scale most people still don’t fully grasp. It’s exciting… and honestly a little scary how fast it’s coming. What do you think — are we seriously underestimating how transformative this next wave of AI (especially agents and text-to-code) will be in the next 2–3 years?

Camus

20,713 views • 5 months ago

“The Chinese are skeptical of our calls for international cooperation on AI. They think they're in a race with us. And if they think they're in a race with us, it's kind of hard for us not to be in a race with them. And that's just the way it is.” “And at the end of the day, the Chinese government is a dictatorship that's nationalist and socialist and doesn't really want to cooperate with us much. They want to beat us. They want to compete with us. So, we can try. It's worth trying.” “But the record shows, according to 100% of the evidence, that when you sign an AI or a nuclear or a cyber-hacking document with the Chinese government, it turns out not to be held up. It turns out that they're not actually trustworthy.”
0:39

“The Chinese are skeptical of our calls for international cooperation on AI. They think they're in a race with us. And if they think they're in a race with us, it's kind of hard for us not to be in a race with them. And that's just the way it is.” “And at the end of the day, the Chinese government is a dictatorship that's nationalist and socialist and doesn't really want to cooperate with us much. They want to beat us. They want to compete with us. So, we can try. It's worth trying.” “But the record shows, according to 100% of the evidence, that when you sign an AI or a nuclear or a cyber-hacking document with the Chinese government, it turns out not to be held up. It turns out that they're not actually trustworthy.”

Josh Rogin

24,299 views • 18 days ago

Most people still aren't using AI. (I know, we're in a bubble on X.) But for the majority that are, they're still in chat mode. And they're only using about 5-10% of what's actually there. In this video, I teach you how to use the other 90%. To be honest, I was hating on chat for a while. Then I took the time to really learn it. And in the process, I found that chat mode has 2 features that are world class and not available in the other modes. I break down what those are, how to use them, and the rest of the features you're probably sleeping on. This video is for you if: → You're a beginner looking to do more with AI → You're already in chat / Cowork / Claude Code and want to learn best practices, token efficiency, and which chat features are genuinely GOATED → You have colleagues who need to be doing more with AI but don't know where to start That last one is the real reason I made this. This is the video you send to your team. I'm doing the same with my network right now. Uncle J, Freddie, Genny, this is coming your way. Hope it helps (if so, show some 💙)
42:20

Most people still aren't using AI. (I know, we're in a bubble on X.) But for the majority that are, they're still in chat mode. And they're only using about 5-10% of what's actually there. In this video, I teach you how to use the other 90%. To be honest, I was hating on chat for a while. Then I took the time to really learn it. And in the process, I found that chat mode has 2 features that are world class and not available in the other modes. I break down what those are, how to use them, and the rest of the features you're probably sleeping on. This video is for you if: → You're a beginner looking to do more with AI → You're already in chat / Cowork / Claude Code and want to learn best practices, token efficiency, and which chat features are genuinely GOATED → You have colleagues who need to be doing more with AI but don't know where to start That last one is the real reason I made this. This is the video you send to your team. I'm doing the same with my network right now. Uncle J, Freddie, Genny, this is coming your way. Hope it helps (if so, show some 💙)

JJ Englert

30,447 views • 4 months ago

Sam Altman explains the fire code model for AI safety: stop pretending labs can block every dangerous use, build resilience before bio or cyber goes visibly wrong. "The shift that I think the world needs to make for AI security generally, and biosecurity in particular, is to move from one of blocking to one of resilience." "Fire did all these wonderful things for society. Then it started burning down cities. We tried to do all of these things to restrict fire." "Curfew comes from when you were not allowed to have fires anymore because they were burning down cities. And then we got better at resilience to fire. We came up with fire code and flame resistant materials." "I think we need to think about AI the same way. AI is going to be a real problem for bioterrorism. AI is going to be a real problem for cybersecurity. AI is also a solution to those things." "We need a society-wide effort to provide the infrastructure for this resilience, not labs that we trust to always block what they are supposed to block." "If something goes really wrong, visibly really wrong for AI this year, I think bio would be a reasonable bet for what that could be. And then as we get into next year and the following year, you can imagine lots of other things going really wrong too." Most AI safety debates still treat the model lab as the main checkpoint. Sam is describing a different stack: fire code for AI, resilience infrastructure, bio researchers, cyber defense, many good models, and public systems that keep working when blocking fails. Call it the assurance layer: who tests, who audits, who verifies, who discloses, who is accountable when AI enters biological, cyber, medical, financial, and government workflows. P.S. This is exactly why we are convening the AI Assurance & Governance Summit at Stanford Faculty Club on Oct 1, 2026: frontier labs, regulated industries, VCs, researchers, insurers, and practical trust evaluation in one room. Reserve a seat: Source: Sam Altman (Sam Altman), CEO of OpenAI, at OpenAI Town Hall.
2:00

Sam Altman explains the fire code model for AI safety: stop pretending labs can block every dangerous use, build resilience before bio or cyber goes visibly wrong. "The shift that I think the world needs to make for AI security generally, and biosecurity in particular, is to move from one of blocking to one of resilience." "Fire did all these wonderful things for society. Then it started burning down cities. We tried to do all of these things to restrict fire." "Curfew comes from when you were not allowed to have fires anymore because they were burning down cities. And then we got better at resilience to fire. We came up with fire code and flame resistant materials." "I think we need to think about AI the same way. AI is going to be a real problem for bioterrorism. AI is going to be a real problem for cybersecurity. AI is also a solution to those things." "We need a society-wide effort to provide the infrastructure for this resilience, not labs that we trust to always block what they are supposed to block." "If something goes really wrong, visibly really wrong for AI this year, I think bio would be a reasonable bet for what that could be. And then as we get into next year and the following year, you can imagine lots of other things going really wrong too." Most AI safety debates still treat the model lab as the main checkpoint. Sam is describing a different stack: fire code for AI, resilience infrastructure, bio researchers, cyber defense, many good models, and public systems that keep working when blocking fails. Call it the assurance layer: who tests, who audits, who verifies, who discloses, who is accountable when AI enters biological, cyber, medical, financial, and government workflows. P.S. This is exactly why we are convening the AI Assurance & Governance Summit at Stanford Faculty Club on Oct 1, 2026: frontier labs, regulated industries, VCs, researchers, insurers, and practical trust evaluation in one room. Reserve a seat: Source: Sam Altman (Sam Altman), CEO of OpenAI, at OpenAI Town Hall.

Karl Mehta

14,990 views • 3 months ago

AI progress is outpacing our ability to control it… because control ISN’T keeping up with capability. One of the people raising that concern is Yoshua Bengio. He’s one of the founding figures of artificial intelligence, a Turing Award winner, and one of the most-cited scientists in the world. His work helped lay the foundations for the deep-learning systems now powering today’s AI boom. AI is moving fast (faster than regulation and public understanding). What worries Yoshua isn’t progress itself. It’s how quickly powerful systems are being deployed without a clear way to align them with human values, or to control what happens when they behave in unexpected ways.
1:28

AI progress is outpacing our ability to control it… because control ISN’T keeping up with capability. One of the people raising that concern is Yoshua Bengio. He’s one of the founding figures of artificial intelligence, a Turing Award winner, and one of the most-cited scientists in the world. His work helped lay the foundations for the deep-learning systems now powering today’s AI boom. AI is moving fast (faster than regulation and public understanding). What worries Yoshua isn’t progress itself. It’s how quickly powerful systems are being deployed without a clear way to align them with human values, or to control what happens when they behave in unexpected ways.

Steven Bartlett

26,577 views • 9 months ago

Sam Altman says Google had the power to destroy OpenAI and didn't, the reason tells you everything about who wins the AI race. "If Google had really decided to take us seriously in 2023, we would have been in a really bad place. They would have just been able to smash us." "Google has probably the greatest business model in the whole tech industry, and I think they will be slow to give that up." "Bolting AI onto the existing way of doing things, I don't think it's going to work as well as redesigning stuff in an AI-first world." "If you stick AI into a messaging app that's doing a nice job summarizing your messages and drafting responses for you, that is definitely a little better. But I don't think that's the end state." PS. If you found value in this post make sure to like and repost this tweet + follow Uncover AI to stay updated with the latest AI news. See you in the next one:
1:10

Sam Altman says Google had the power to destroy OpenAI and didn't, the reason tells you everything about who wins the AI race. "If Google had really decided to take us seriously in 2023, we would have been in a really bad place. They would have just been able to smash us." "Google has probably the greatest business model in the whole tech industry, and I think they will be slow to give that up." "Bolting AI onto the existing way of doing things, I don't think it's going to work as well as redesigning stuff in an AI-first world." "If you stick AI into a messaging app that's doing a nice job summarizing your messages and drafting responses for you, that is definitely a little better. But I don't think that's the end state." PS. If you found value in this post make sure to like and repost this tweet + follow Uncover AI to stay updated with the latest AI news. See you in the next one:

Uncover AI

25,636 views • 3 months ago

This Google insider just revealed what AI is actually being used for behind closed doors. It has nothing to do with chatbots. Mo Gawdat was a senior executive at Google for over a decade. He watched AI get built from the inside. He was in the rooms, in the labs, in the government meetings in China that almost no Western executive was allowed into. And he just went on Diary of a CEO and said things that no active tech executive would ever be allowed to say publicly: "What the general public sees about AI is overhyped but ineffective. What the real geeks see inside the lab is genuinely world-changing." The public gets chatbots and AI-generated videos while the labs are building autonomous weapons systems, military targeting technology, real-time surveillance infrastructure, and self-improving code that rewrites itself every microsecond without human oversight. As Mo put it: "As we speak, we are living in two major wars where AI is doing most of the killing." He talked about Palantir's CEO Alex Karp openly celebrating how his targeting technology identifies and eliminates people. He talked about the next generation of autonomous weapons costing $20,000 each, meaning any government with a $50 billion defense budget can literally rain drones on every corner of the planet. And as you remember, Anthropic was offered a $500 million military contract to allow their AI to be used for human targeting and surveillance. They refused and walked away from the money. OpenAI took the contract the following week. Mo's response: "You have to start observing who is actually behaving in a way that makes AI work for humanity, and who is behaving in a way that makes AI work for their share price." Now this is where it gets really interesting... In Mo's documentary Chasing Utopia, Altman literally says directly on camera: "I suspect that AI is likely going to end humanity, but we're going to create a lot of interesting companies in the process." That is the CEO of the most powerful AI company on Earth saying that he suspects his OWN technology will end the human race and then shrugging it off because the business opportunity is too good to pass up. Mo's prediction for the next decade: War, economic collapse, mass unemployment, surveillance expansion, and an absolute concentration of power at the top unlike anything in modern history. His prediction after that is if humanity survives the next 10 years, AI will eventually create a world of abundance where intelligence solves every problem we currently face. But the path between here and there is what terrifies him. And the men building the technology know exactly what they're doing. Do you think he's just exaggerating for attention, or is there truth in this?
2:22

This Google insider just revealed what AI is actually being used for behind closed doors. It has nothing to do with chatbots. Mo Gawdat was a senior executive at Google for over a decade. He watched AI get built from the inside. He was in the rooms, in the labs, in the government meetings in China that almost no Western executive was allowed into. And he just went on Diary of a CEO and said things that no active tech executive would ever be allowed to say publicly: "What the general public sees about AI is overhyped but ineffective. What the real geeks see inside the lab is genuinely world-changing." The public gets chatbots and AI-generated videos while the labs are building autonomous weapons systems, military targeting technology, real-time surveillance infrastructure, and self-improving code that rewrites itself every microsecond without human oversight. As Mo put it: "As we speak, we are living in two major wars where AI is doing most of the killing." He talked about Palantir's CEO Alex Karp openly celebrating how his targeting technology identifies and eliminates people. He talked about the next generation of autonomous weapons costing $20,000 each, meaning any government with a $50 billion defense budget can literally rain drones on every corner of the planet. And as you remember, Anthropic was offered a $500 million military contract to allow their AI to be used for human targeting and surveillance. They refused and walked away from the money. OpenAI took the contract the following week. Mo's response: "You have to start observing who is actually behaving in a way that makes AI work for humanity, and who is behaving in a way that makes AI work for their share price." Now this is where it gets really interesting... In Mo's documentary Chasing Utopia, Altman literally says directly on camera: "I suspect that AI is likely going to end humanity, but we're going to create a lot of interesting companies in the process." That is the CEO of the most powerful AI company on Earth saying that he suspects his OWN technology will end the human race and then shrugging it off because the business opportunity is too good to pass up. Mo's prediction for the next decade: War, economic collapse, mass unemployment, surveillance expansion, and an absolute concentration of power at the top unlike anything in modern history. His prediction after that is if humanity survives the next 10 years, AI will eventually create a world of abundance where intelligence solves every problem we currently face. But the path between here and there is what terrifies him. And the men building the technology know exactly what they're doing. Do you think he's just exaggerating for attention, or is there truth in this?

Ricardo

198,482 views • 4 months ago

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."
1:12

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."

Patrick OShaughnessy

24,818 views • 8 months ago