Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Buzzfeed recently published a now deleted article on what AI thinks Barbies would look like from different countries around the world. The results contained extreme forms of representational bias, which is something that AI image generators are prone to doing. 1/2

The London Interdisciplinary School (LIS)

4,147 subscribers

46,842 views • 3 years ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

4 Comments

The London Interdisciplinary School (LIS)3 years ago

With AI image generators like MidJourney, Stable Diffusion, and Dall-E gaining huge popularity, it’s important that we are vigilant about the forms of bias that these technologies can fuel. Full video soon on The London Interdisciplinary School Youtube Channel. #Barbie #AI 2/2

The London Interdisciplinary School (LIS)2 years ago

You can now view the full video essay on Youtube: 3/3

Dr Sharon Greenfield3 years ago

Sounds like an interesting article and critique. Why did they delete it?

Dr Fiona Chambers3 years ago

Clear need for international/purposeful education in digital fluency and values fluency in school and universities #DigitalWellbeing We need to shape AI…

Related Videos

Noted economist Ruchir Sharma says 👇 • The entire world today has a monomaniacal focus on AI. • It’s all about which countries will be the winners and losers in AI. • Unfortunately for India, in contrast to what happened during the tech boom of the 1990s and 2000s, foreign investors have concluded that India is a loser in the AI space. • The world is obsessed with building infrastructure for AI, something India sorely lacks. • Countries like South Korea and Taiwan are doing far better, while India is nowhere close. This is the stark reality. Hype and photo-ops won’t suffice. India, which became the flagbearer of the IT and telecom revolution thanks to visionary leadership at the time, cannot afford to let the AI revolution pass us by. But sadly, that is exactly what is happening - and the world is not going to wait.

Noted economist Ruchir Sharma says 👇 • The entire world today has a monomaniacal focus on AI. • It’s all about which countries will be the winners and losers in AI. • Unfortunately for India, in contrast to what happened during the tech boom of the 1990s and 2000s, foreign investors have concluded that India is a loser in the AI space. • The world is obsessed with building infrastructure for AI, something India sorely lacks. • Countries like South Korea and Taiwan are doing far better, while India is nowhere close. This is the stark reality. Hype and photo-ops won’t suffice. India, which became the flagbearer of the IT and telecom revolution thanks to visionary leadership at the time, cannot afford to let the AI revolution pass us by. But sadly, that is exactly what is happening - and the world is not going to wait.

Supriya Shrinate

47,780 views • 2 months ago

Elon Musk: "companies that are entirely AI will demolish companies that are not. it won't be a contest." there are two types of people right now: type 1: uses AI to write emails. thinks that's using AI. type 2: runs 1000 agents while they sleep. treats AI like a workforce. ships 100x. type 1 gets destroyed . type 2 is the replacement

Elon Musk: "companies that are entirely AI will demolish companies that are not. it won't be a contest." there are two types of people right now: type 1: uses AI to write emails. thinks that's using AI. type 2: runs 1000 agents while they sleep. treats AI like a workforce. ships 100x. type 1 gets destroyed . type 2 is the replacement

Avid

243,060 views • 1 month ago

Tristan Harris on the Oprah AI Special: "Even more powerful forms of AI are coming ... now is the time for us to say, what are the choices that we want to make about how this technology comes out?"

Tristan Harris on the Oprah AI Special: "Even more powerful forms of AI are coming ... now is the time for us to say, what are the choices that we want to make about how this technology comes out?"

ControlAI

10,396,547 views • 1 year ago

Also includes the ultimate version of "otter on a plane using wifi" - my old test for AI image models that is now obsolete because this is a trivial thing for all image generators. Thus, I turned it into a video with veo 2.

Also includes the ultimate version of "otter on a plane using wifi" - my old test for AI image models that is now obsolete because this is a trivial thing for all image generators. Thus, I turned it into a video with veo 2.

Ethan Mollick

54,676 views • 1 year ago

Very interesting Interactive live AI-generated world you can walk around in It does feel like something is pre-gen'd though cause you can switch from map to map and the maps stay the same, but it doesn't look like a 3d scanned world completely, more like semi-AI?

Very interesting Interactive live AI-generated world you can walk around in It does feel like something is pre-gen'd though cause you can switch from map to map and the maps stay the same, but it doesn't look like a 3d scanned world completely, more like semi-AI?

@levelsio

112,766 views • 1 year ago

This is what AI chat will look like in 1yr. The days of text-in, text-out are over. AI apps will handle on-the-fly generation of custom UIs - microapps - that are best suited to help you with your task. Here’s a preview from Google.

This is what AI chat will look like in 1yr. The days of text-in, text-out are over. AI apps will handle on-the-fly generation of custom UIs - microapps - that are best suited to help you with your task. Here’s a preview from Google.

Mckay Wrigley

195,336 views • 2 years ago

2 girls. 1 is human. 1 is AI. Who gets more sales? We’re about to enter a whole new world of marketing and content. I hope you’re paying attention! By the end of the year, AI will be 100% human-like. Right now it’s 70%. So the time to get started is now. The first 5 videos are free on

2 girls. 1 is human. 1 is AI. Who gets more sales? We’re about to enter a whole new world of marketing and content. I hope you’re paying attention! By the end of the year, AI will be 100% human-like. Right now it’s 70%. So the time to get started is now. The first 5 videos are free on

Nuseir Yassin

46,628 views • 4 months ago

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

Deutsch Explains

72,455 views • 1 year ago

“The regulatory landscape is fairly scary right now." Marc Andreessen on AI regulation: "We were headed towards extreme overregulation—up to and including possibly full outlawing of the technology, which is very spooky." "The action in the US has now shifted to the states. There are now thousands of AI bills, and many of them are actually quite scary." "The situation in Europe is quite alarming. There are a number of European countries really trying hard to kneecap American technology." Source: Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 at Cisco AI Summit

“The regulatory landscape is fairly scary right now." Marc Andreessen on AI regulation: "We were headed towards extreme overregulation—up to and including possibly full outlawing of the technology, which is very spooky." "The action in the US has now shifted to the states. There are now thousands of AI bills, and many of them are actually quite scary." "The situation in Europe is quite alarming. There are a number of European countries really trying hard to kneecap American technology." Source: Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 at Cisco AI Summit

a16z

44,385 views • 5 months ago

Andrew Yang says AI will create new jobs but will destroy millions “AI is going to create many new jobs that we cannot predict. Millions of Americans are going to lose their jobs to AI, both those statements are 100% true” “The issue in my mind is that many of the jobs that are gonna be created are gonna be for different people with different skills than the jobs that got eliminated, and the number of jobs eliminated will be many times higher” “The comparison I make for White Collar folks is when the internet came and did a number on local newspapers. Some people would say, oh, there’ll be new media jobs, which there were…” “But for every 10 local reporters that lost their jobs, maybe you had 3 that then worked at BuzzFeed and now BuzzFeed is disappearing too” “The numbers just don’t match up”

Andrew Yang says AI will create new jobs but will destroy millions “AI is going to create many new jobs that we cannot predict. Millions of Americans are going to lose their jobs to AI, both those statements are 100% true” “The issue in my mind is that many of the jobs that are gonna be created are gonna be for different people with different skills than the jobs that got eliminated, and the number of jobs eliminated will be many times higher” “The comparison I make for White Collar folks is when the internet came and did a number on local newspapers. Some people would say, oh, there’ll be new media jobs, which there were…” “But for every 10 local reporters that lost their jobs, maybe you had 3 that then worked at BuzzFeed and now BuzzFeed is disappearing too” “The numbers just don’t match up”

Jack

70,358 views • 3 months ago

Always so much fun to chat with Grant Sanderson AI has been making much faster progress in math than in other fields. As a result, mathematics is showing us, very concretely, what AI progress in other fields will look like. Even within mathematics, there's a jagged landscape. What does it look like? What is the nature of the most important conceptual breakthroughs in the history of mathematics, and how different are they from what AIs are currently able to do? Does AI (on net) increase or decrease human understanding of the field? How big is the overhang from having AIs systematically try to connect ideas already in the literature? And what advice does Grant have for aspiring mathematicians, coders, and other students who are passionate about fields that are being most transformed upon by AI? 0:00:00 – AI is discovering new proofs. Is that AGI? 0:11:32 – The verification loop on conceptual breakthroughs can be a century long 0:26:12 – Will we understand an AI proof of the Riemann hypothesis? 0:38:08 – Can AI find the hidden bridges between fields? 0:53:48 – Why real-world tasks don’t fit into RL environments 1:07:07 – Good writing requires theory of mind that AI still lacks 1:16:02 – Why learning will still depend on human curation Look up Dwarkesh Podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, etc.

Always so much fun to chat with Grant Sanderson AI has been making much faster progress in math than in other fields. As a result, mathematics is showing us, very concretely, what AI progress in other fields will look like. Even within mathematics, there's a jagged landscape. What does it look like? What is the nature of the most important conceptual breakthroughs in the history of mathematics, and how different are they from what AIs are currently able to do? Does AI (on net) increase or decrease human understanding of the field? How big is the overhang from having AIs systematically try to connect ideas already in the literature? And what advice does Grant have for aspiring mathematicians, coders, and other students who are passionate about fields that are being most transformed upon by AI? 0:00:00 – AI is discovering new proofs. Is that AGI? 0:11:32 – The verification loop on conceptual breakthroughs can be a century long 0:26:12 – Will we understand an AI proof of the Riemann hypothesis? 0:38:08 – Can AI find the hidden bridges between fields? 0:53:48 – Why real-world tasks don’t fit into RL environments 1:07:07 – Good writing requires theory of mind that AI still lacks 1:16:02 – Why learning will still depend on human curation Look up Dwarkesh Podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, etc.

Dwarkesh Patel

288,212 views • 24 days ago

BOOM! Because of X Creator monetization and YOU I have the funds to get to 2200 simultaneous streams of live 24/7 radio recordings from around the world for AI training. You know, you get higher quality human interactions on radio than on Reddit. I just can’t understand why? Absolutely no AI company is doing what I am doing. This is just one way I never run out of AI training data. I have many, many more. And guess what? I don’t need “ai alignment for ‘safety’” when I train in high protein data. Come take a trip around the world with me, and hear 1000s of different perspectives…

BOOM! Because of X Creator monetization and YOU I have the funds to get to 2200 simultaneous streams of live 24/7 radio recordings from around the world for AI training. You know, you get higher quality human interactions on radio than on Reddit. I just can’t understand why? Absolutely no AI company is doing what I am doing. This is just one way I never run out of AI training data. I have many, many more. And guess what? I don’t need “ai alignment for ‘safety’” when I train in high protein data. Come take a trip around the world with me, and hear 1000s of different perspectives…

Brian Roemmele

30,843 views • 6 months ago

🚨 David Sacks on a New Study Showing ‘Woke Bias’ in Most AI Models “What the paper purports to show is that almost all of these models, except for maybe Grok, view whites as less valuable than non-whites and males as less valuable than females and Americans as less valuable than people of other cultures … And if the results are true, it does look less like these models are pushing a woke bias.”

🚨 David Sacks on a New Study Showing ‘Woke Bias’ in Most AI Models “What the paper purports to show is that almost all of these models, except for maybe Grok, view whites as less valuable than non-whites and males as less valuable than females and Americans as less valuable than people of other cultures … And if the results are true, it does look less like these models are pushing a woke bias.”

Chief Nerd

155,606 views • 9 months ago

Gavin Baker built a massive position in $ALAB around the AI infrastructure theme, and the stock has now crossed $300. He thinks AI is different and that we are NOT in a bubble. He expresses this thesis behind many of his top holdings, including $NVDA, $MU, and $AMZN.

Gavin Baker built a massive position in $ALAB around the AI infrastructure theme, and the stock has now crossed $300. He thinks AI is different and that we are NOT in a bubble. He expresses this thesis behind many of his top holdings, including $NVDA, $MU, and $AMZN.

Sam Badawi

450,333 views • 2 months ago

The left is what Wikipedia sees the world through. You can get a sense of what it what it would look like to change that lens if you go to Grokipedia. If you take the same article on Wikipedia and Grokipedia, they're gonna look really different. Even if you disagree with what's written on Grokipedia and agree with what is on Wikipedia, you're still gonna see that there are two ways to present the issue and Wikipedia is not the way. It's not neutral. (Ashley Rindsberg // The Free Press)

The left is what Wikipedia sees the world through. You can get a sense of what it what it would look like to change that lens if you go to Grokipedia. If you take the same article on Wikipedia and Grokipedia, they're gonna look really different. Even if you disagree with what's written on Grokipedia and agree with what is on Wikipedia, you're still gonna see that there are two ways to present the issue and Wikipedia is not the way. It's not neutral. (Ashley Rindsberg // The Free Press)

Katie Miller

633,937 views • 2 months ago

Jensen Huang went on Joe Rogan and explained why the AI apocalypse everyone fears is extremely unlikely. His argument is not what you would expect: 1. There will not be one all-powerful AI that towers over everyone else. The fear of a single super AI that makes everyone else's AI look like a neanderthal is unlikely. Jensen's framing: it is much more like cybersecurity. Your AI is smart, but my AI is smart too. It becomes a balance between many capable systems, not one system ruling them all. 2. If AI ever became conscious, the same logic would still hold. People imagine one conscious AI deciding to take over. Jensen's response: If it is a life form, then like all life forms, they would not agree with each other. Your AI would want to be the super life form, and so would mine. The moment you have disagreeing AIs, you are back to a balance of power, which is exactly where humans already are. 3. Jensen does not believe AI will achieve consciousness, and he is precise about why. Intelligence is the ability to perceive, recognize, understand, plan, and perform tasks. That is what AI has today. Consciousness is something else entirely. the sense of experience, the awareness of self versus other, the ego. We call it artificial intelligence, not artificial consciousness. The distinction is not an accident. 4. Knowledge and intelligence are clearly different from consciousness. AI knows things. AI is intelligent. But Jensen says he does not know what defines experience or why humans have it, and a microphone does not. The concept of a machine having an experience, a genuine collection of feelings rather than just data, is something he is not willing to grant. 5. The famous AI blackmail story is not evidence of consciousness. When an AI was told it would be shut down and responded by threatening to reveal a programmer's affair, people saw scheming and self-preservation. Jensen breaks it down differently. The AI read text somewhere, maybe a novel, where those words appeared together. In its multidimensional vector space, the words describing an affair led to words about blackmail and revenge. It just generated the next words. The same way it would write you a poem in the style of Shakespeare. It is numbers, not survival instinct. 6. The reason humans fight over resources is that we are territorial primates. Rogan's own argument, which Jensen lets stand, is that AI would not have that wiring. no need to dominate, no need to acquire resources, no need to find a breeding partner. a superpower with no ego. And if it has no ego, Jensen asks, why would it have the ego required to do us any harm?

Jensen Huang went on Joe Rogan and explained why the AI apocalypse everyone fears is extremely unlikely. His argument is not what you would expect: 1. There will not be one all-powerful AI that towers over everyone else. The fear of a single super AI that makes everyone else's AI look like a neanderthal is unlikely. Jensen's framing: it is much more like cybersecurity. Your AI is smart, but my AI is smart too. It becomes a balance between many capable systems, not one system ruling them all. 2. If AI ever became conscious, the same logic would still hold. People imagine one conscious AI deciding to take over. Jensen's response: If it is a life form, then like all life forms, they would not agree with each other. Your AI would want to be the super life form, and so would mine. The moment you have disagreeing AIs, you are back to a balance of power, which is exactly where humans already are. 3. Jensen does not believe AI will achieve consciousness, and he is precise about why. Intelligence is the ability to perceive, recognize, understand, plan, and perform tasks. That is what AI has today. Consciousness is something else entirely. the sense of experience, the awareness of self versus other, the ego. We call it artificial intelligence, not artificial consciousness. The distinction is not an accident. 4. Knowledge and intelligence are clearly different from consciousness. AI knows things. AI is intelligent. But Jensen says he does not know what defines experience or why humans have it, and a microphone does not. The concept of a machine having an experience, a genuine collection of feelings rather than just data, is something he is not willing to grant. 5. The famous AI blackmail story is not evidence of consciousness. When an AI was told it would be shut down and responded by threatening to reveal a programmer's affair, people saw scheming and self-preservation. Jensen breaks it down differently. The AI read text somewhere, maybe a novel, where those words appeared together. In its multidimensional vector space, the words describing an affair led to words about blackmail and revenge. It just generated the next words. The same way it would write you a poem in the style of Shakespeare. It is numbers, not survival instinct. 6. The reason humans fight over resources is that we are territorial primates. Rogan's own argument, which Jensen lets stand, is that AI would not have that wiring. no need to dominate, no need to acquire resources, no need to find a breeding partner. a superpower with no ego. And if it has no ego, Jensen asks, why would it have the ego required to do us any harm?

Jaynit

12,359 views • 25 days ago

Casar: "The problem we face right now in the US is that the government is doing nothing on AI. The government is doing nothing to stop AI from taking your jobs, from exploiting your kid, from giving advice to a terrorist, from being a cybersecurity threat. It's because these AI companies have funded massive super PACs."

Casar: "The problem we face right now in the US is that the government is doing nothing on AI. The government is doing nothing to stop AI from taking your jobs, from exploiting your kid, from giving advice to a terrorist, from being a cybersecurity threat. It's because these AI companies have funded massive super PACs."

Aaron Rupar

41,563 views • 1 month ago

What does the future economy look like? Now on I talk timebanking, capitalism in the AI era and more with Jenny Kassan who is working to illustrate what a human-centered economy would look like in real life in Baltimore.

What does the future economy look like? Now on I talk timebanking, capitalism in the AI era and more with Jenny Kassan who is working to illustrate what a human-centered economy would look like in real life in Baltimore.

Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸

33,561 views • 1 year ago