正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Chamath: Frontier AI Leaders “Created a Total Fcking Mess” Short-sighted fearmongering and immaturity from frontier AI leaders has created deep mistrust, threatening AI’s potential as an open engine of economic mobility. That mistrust gives hyperscalers the chance to position themselves as trusted gatekeepers, using KYC, audit trails, and compliance... infrastructure to turn AI into an oligopoly. Chamath Palihapitiya on the All-In Pod: “I think the leaders of the frontier labs leave a lot to be desired. I think what we're seeing is a consistent pattern of evasiveness and immaturity, and I think that does a huge disservice to the entire movement of AI. The key to a vibrant life is rooted in economic mobility, and I think AI is the grand leveler. It is the thing that can enable everyone to have unique amounts of economic mobility because they are unencumbered to figure out what their upper bound is. And against that backdrop, we have to live in this constant doomerism, hype cycle, naivety, and I think it holds us back. How does it hold us back? Tactically, number one, it creates mistrust. I think that Silicon Valley was already decaying in the prestige that it held in American society. We built important things. Then we veered away from that, and we started building less important things. And now we're at a point where we've potentially started to rebuild important things again, but we have this veneer of negativity and mistrust that are created in large part because we just cannot get our sht together. And the leaders of the frontier labs are public enemy number one. Number two, I think what it creates, which I think is bad, but what it creates is an incredible opportunity for the hyperscalers. And the very simple opportunity is to convince governments all around the world, not just America, that they should be the gatekeeper. A: You can't trust these guys. B: These models are all over the place. C: Let us be the ones that provision them to the world. We will wrap it in KYC. I've been now talking about KYC for a while, right? Who are these customers? Do they have identification? Why are they allowed to run these models? What are they prompting? Let's keep them so that there's an audit trail. All of these things are going to become issues. The Frontier Lab folks made it an issue because of how they've handled all of this up until now. And what does that create? Now that creates an oligopoly for AI, the most powerful economically leveling instrument we've ever seen in the hands of maybe a handful of hyperscalers, who by the way, would make an incredibly compelling argument, and they would be right. And the only counterfactual to it would be, ‘Well, trust us, guys, it should actually be much more open and in a far more distributed environment.’ Can you imagine the cost and the complexity if you ask the neoscaler to build the same robust KYC or the same VPC infrastructure that Amazon and Microsoft and Google have spent decades investing trillions of dollars in? It's an impossibility, Jason. So you can take all of those datacenters off the map. You can take all of the neoscaler market off the map. All of this was preventable. So instead of a diverse, robust, open ecosystem giving a tool that is the fundamental unlock for humans, we are now going to debate gatekeeping and duopoly versus oligopoly. They have created a total f*cking mess, and it's a shame.”show more

The All-In Podcast

580,138 subscribers

141,660 次观看 • 19 天前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治科学技术财经

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

David Friedberg on the Nonprofit Scam: 90% Are Bullsh*t “ The definition of exempt activities is charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literacy, public safety, or fostering amateur sports competition, or preventing cruelty to children or animals. You tell me how the f**k 90% of what we call nonprofits today fall under that definition. We have completely f**king closed our eyes to the fact that organizations, regardless of political affiliation or social interest, have fundamental commercial and probably not aligned interests with the definition of a 501(c)(3), and we've allowed them all to get away with it for far too long. I don't think that this is a blue or red thing. I think that this is a thing where we let these organizations make it easy to get money, to hide the money, and to do whatever the hell they want with the money, and we need to stop it. And I think that it's an amazing opportunity right now for everyone to kind of reset the decks by cleaning all the sh*t up, and getting all of these organizations flushed, and make sure that any organization that wants to do whatever bullsh*t, nefarious things they want to do, by all means do it. But it's not a nonprofit and you shouldn't get a charitable donation deduction, and the government should not be putting money into these sorts of things. This is an entirely different sort of activity in the social order. And as a libertarian, I'm all for it, but I don't think that they should be tax exempt, and I don't think they should be getting government money, and I don't think that individuals should be benefiting from giving them money. And if we could fix all that shit up, I think a lot of these problems are going to go away.”

David Friedberg on the Nonprofit Scam: 90% Are Bullsht “ The definition of exempt activities is charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literacy, public safety, or fostering amateur sports competition, or preventing cruelty to children or animals. You tell me how the fk 90% of what we call nonprofits today fall under that definition. We have completely fking closed our eyes to the fact that organizations, regardless of political affiliation or social interest, have fundamental commercial and probably not aligned interests with the definition of a 501(c)(3), and we've allowed them all to get away with it for far too long. I don't think that this is a blue or red thing. I think that this is a thing where we let these organizations make it easy to get money, to hide the money, and to do whatever the hell they want with the money, and we need to stop it. And I think that it's an amazing opportunity right now for everyone to kind of reset the decks by cleaning all the sht up, and getting all of these organizations flushed, and make sure that any organization that wants to do whatever bullsh*t, nefarious things they want to do, by all means do it. But it's not a nonprofit and you shouldn't get a charitable donation deduction, and the government should not be putting money into these sorts of things. This is an entirely different sort of activity in the social order. And as a libertarian, I'm all for it, but I don't think that they should be tax exempt, and I don't think they should be getting government money, and I don't think that individuals should be benefiting from giving them money. And if we could fix all that shit up, I think a lot of these problems are going to go away.”

The All-In Podcast

574,676 次观看 • 2 个月前

Chamath said something that reframes the entire Anthropic-Fable story. The scandal was never about a jailbreak. It was about Anthropic personally handing Amazon, Microsoft, and Google the justification to become the permanent gatekeepers of AI. Think about what that means. AI is the single most economically leveling technology ever built. The thing that could give any person on earth access to the kind of intelligence that used to cost millions to employ. And the frontier labs have managed to bungle it so badly that they handed the three largest corporations in the world a bulletproof argument to sit between you and that technology forever. Chamath laid out the mechanism. Governments around the world now need someone to trust. The frontier labs proved they cannot be trusted. The hyperscalers step in and say let us be the gatekeepers. We will wrap it in KYC. We will verify identities. We will build the audit trails. We have the infrastructure. You cannot ask a neoscaler to build what Amazon and Microsoft have spent decades and trillions constructing. So you hand the keys to the hyperscalers. Chamath called it plainly. They doom trolled their way into it. Every press release about existential risk, every congressional hearing about AI danger, every public hand-wringing about safety created the political environment that made gatekeeping not just possible but inevitable. The most powerful tool for human economic mobility in history. Locked behind a driver's license check on Amazon Web Services. Own goal. WATCH THE FULL PODCAST ON The All-In Podcast

Chamath said something that reframes the entire Anthropic-Fable story. The scandal was never about a jailbreak. It was about Anthropic personally handing Amazon, Microsoft, and Google the justification to become the permanent gatekeepers of AI. Think about what that means. AI is the single most economically leveling technology ever built. The thing that could give any person on earth access to the kind of intelligence that used to cost millions to employ. And the frontier labs have managed to bungle it so badly that they handed the three largest corporations in the world a bulletproof argument to sit between you and that technology forever. Chamath laid out the mechanism. Governments around the world now need someone to trust. The frontier labs proved they cannot be trusted. The hyperscalers step in and say let us be the gatekeepers. We will wrap it in KYC. We will verify identities. We will build the audit trails. We have the infrastructure. You cannot ask a neoscaler to build what Amazon and Microsoft have spent decades and trillions constructing. So you hand the keys to the hyperscalers. Chamath called it plainly. They doom trolled their way into it. Every press release about existential risk, every congressional hearing about AI danger, every public hand-wringing about safety created the political environment that made gatekeeping not just possible but inevitable. The most powerful tool for human economic mobility in history. Locked behind a driver's license check on Amazon Web Services. Own goal. WATCH THE FULL PODCAST ON The All-In Podcast

Ihtesham Ali

47,277 次观看 • 22 天前

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

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

The All-In Podcast

56,915 次观看 • 3 个月前

‼️JUST NOW — powerful brief remarks by the leaders of Ukraine, the UK, France, and Germany in London: IN SHORT: Merz: “The coming days could be decisive for all of us. The destiny of this country is the destiny of Europe. Nobody should doubt our support for Ukraine. And this is what we are firmly standing behind. I'm skeptical about some of the details which we are seeing in the documents coming from the U.S. side.” Macron: "I think we have a lot of cards in our hands." Zelenskyy: "Our team came back, and I think that they will brief us about the last talks with Americans and after talks of Americans with Russians." Starmer: "If there's to be a ceasefire, it needs to be a just and lasting ceasefire. Matters about Ukraine are for Ukraine." FULL STATEMENTS: UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer: "But the principles remain, the principles that we've operated on for a very, very long time, which is that we stand with Ukraine, and if there's to be a ceasefire, it needs to be a just and lasting ceasefire. And that's why it's so important, that we repeatedly set out the principle forward that matters about Ukraine are for Ukraine. And we stand here to support you in the conflict and support you in the negotiations and make sure that this is a just and lasting settlement if we can get that far. You're very welcome for our discussions". President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy: "Thank you very much, Kir. Thank you for organizing this meeting. Thank you, friends, Emmanuel and Friedrich, and thank you for our joint meeting. I think that it is very important now to organize such a meeting and discuss very sensitive issues regarding these talks that we had, in the United States and between us. Our team came back, and I think that they will brief us about the last talks with Americans and after talks of Americans with Russians. I think there are lot of what we have to discuss and speak about. So there are a lot of things which are very important for today. I think, unity between Europe and Ukraine, and also unity between Europe, Ukraine, and the U.S. There are some things which we can't manage without Americans, things which we can't manage without Europe, and that's why we need to make some important decisions". President of France Emmanuel Macron: "And thank you Volodymyr for being with us. You are always welcome. In France, I think we all support Ukraine, and we all support peace. And peace negotiations to have sustainable, robust peace. And I think we have a lot of cards in our hands. The financing and the quality of equipments and training programs to Ukraine, the fact that Ukraine is resisting in this war, and the fact that the Russian economy is starting to suffer, especially after our latest sanctions and the US sanctions. And now I think the main issue is the convergence between our common positions, Europeans and Ukrainians, and the U.S. to finalize these, peace negotiations and re-engage in a new phase in the best possible conditions for Ukraine, for the Europeans, and for our collective security". Chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz: "I highly appreciate that we are having the opportunity to see you, Volodymyr, together with Emmanuel, and talking about the upcoming days, because this could be a decisive time for all of us. We are trying to continue our support for Ukraine, as you know. On the other hand, we are seeing these talks and negotiations in Moscow and in the U.S. I'm looking forward to hear from you what the outcome of these talks might be. And we are still and remain strongly behind Ukraine and giving support to your country, because we all know that the destiny of this country is the destiny of Europe. So that's the reason why we are here, trying to figure out what we can do. And nobody should doubt on our support for Ukraine. And this is what we are firmly standing behind. And the outcome is open. I'm skeptical about some of the details which we are seeing in the documents coming from the U.S. side, but we have to talk about that. That's why we are here".

‼️JUST NOW — powerful brief remarks by the leaders of Ukraine, the UK, France, and Germany in London: IN SHORT: Merz: “The coming days could be decisive for all of us. The destiny of this country is the destiny of Europe. Nobody should doubt our support for Ukraine. And this is what we are firmly standing behind. I'm skeptical about some of the details which we are seeing in the documents coming from the U.S. side.” Macron: "I think we have a lot of cards in our hands." Zelenskyy: "Our team came back, and I think that they will brief us about the last talks with Americans and after talks of Americans with Russians." Starmer: "If there's to be a ceasefire, it needs to be a just and lasting ceasefire. Matters about Ukraine are for Ukraine." FULL STATEMENTS: UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer: "But the principles remain, the principles that we've operated on for a very, very long time, which is that we stand with Ukraine, and if there's to be a ceasefire, it needs to be a just and lasting ceasefire. And that's why it's so important, that we repeatedly set out the principle forward that matters about Ukraine are for Ukraine. And we stand here to support you in the conflict and support you in the negotiations and make sure that this is a just and lasting settlement if we can get that far. You're very welcome for our discussions". President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy: "Thank you very much, Kir. Thank you for organizing this meeting. Thank you, friends, Emmanuel and Friedrich, and thank you for our joint meeting. I think that it is very important now to organize such a meeting and discuss very sensitive issues regarding these talks that we had, in the United States and between us. Our team came back, and I think that they will brief us about the last talks with Americans and after talks of Americans with Russians. I think there are lot of what we have to discuss and speak about. So there are a lot of things which are very important for today. I think, unity between Europe and Ukraine, and also unity between Europe, Ukraine, and the U.S. There are some things which we can't manage without Americans, things which we can't manage without Europe, and that's why we need to make some important decisions". President of France Emmanuel Macron: "And thank you Volodymyr for being with us. You are always welcome. In France, I think we all support Ukraine, and we all support peace. And peace negotiations to have sustainable, robust peace. And I think we have a lot of cards in our hands. The financing and the quality of equipments and training programs to Ukraine, the fact that Ukraine is resisting in this war, and the fact that the Russian economy is starting to suffer, especially after our latest sanctions and the US sanctions. And now I think the main issue is the convergence between our common positions, Europeans and Ukrainians, and the U.S. to finalize these, peace negotiations and re-engage in a new phase in the best possible conditions for Ukraine, for the Europeans, and for our collective security". Chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz: "I highly appreciate that we are having the opportunity to see you, Volodymyr, together with Emmanuel, and talking about the upcoming days, because this could be a decisive time for all of us. We are trying to continue our support for Ukraine, as you know. On the other hand, we are seeing these talks and negotiations in Moscow and in the U.S. I'm looking forward to hear from you what the outcome of these talks might be. And we are still and remain strongly behind Ukraine and giving support to your country, because we all know that the destiny of this country is the destiny of Europe. So that's the reason why we are here, trying to figure out what we can do. And nobody should doubt on our support for Ukraine. And this is what we are firmly standing behind. And the outcome is open. I'm skeptical about some of the details which we are seeing in the documents coming from the U.S. side, but we have to talk about that. That's why we are here".

Kateryna Lisunova

373,089 次观看 • 7 个月前

Chamath: Anthropic's Mythos Warning Is Theater @jason: “Chamath, is it the Boy who Cried Wolf, or is this the real deal now?” Chamath Palihapitiya: “I think it's mostly theater. In February of 2019 when Dario was still at OpenAI, they did the same thing with GPT-2. That was a 1.5 billion parameter model, which sounds like a total fart in the wind in 2026. But at that time, this model was supposed to be the end of days. And at the end of it, it was a huge nothingburger. If you actually think that Mythos is capable of doing what it says it can do, two things are true. One is, a very sophisticated hacker can probably do those things right now with Opus. And two, if these exploits are this easy to find, whether you use Opus or whether you use Mythos, the reality is you'd have to shut down the internet for about five years to patch them all. So when you see a large multi-trillion dollar GSIB bank, it's a bit of theater. Why? What do you think they can actually accomplish in two months? Do you actually think that if there's these vulnerabilities, it's all going to get fixed? Let's give them six months, let's give them nine months. So I do think that Sacks is right, that they have figured out a very clever go-to-market muscle here that activates hyper attention and hyper usage, and so I give them tremendous credit. But we've seen it before, we saw it when these folks were the principal architects at OpenAI, and we're now seeing the same playbook here. The reality is that capitalism moves forward, the funding needs moves forward, and the need for these guys to build adoption moves forward. And that's going to supersede what this is.”

Chamath: Anthropic's Mythos Warning Is Theater @jason: “Chamath, is it the Boy who Cried Wolf, or is this the real deal now?” Chamath Palihapitiya: “I think it's mostly theater. In February of 2019 when Dario was still at OpenAI, they did the same thing with GPT-2. That was a 1.5 billion parameter model, which sounds like a total fart in the wind in 2026. But at that time, this model was supposed to be the end of days. And at the end of it, it was a huge nothingburger. If you actually think that Mythos is capable of doing what it says it can do, two things are true. One is, a very sophisticated hacker can probably do those things right now with Opus. And two, if these exploits are this easy to find, whether you use Opus or whether you use Mythos, the reality is you'd have to shut down the internet for about five years to patch them all. So when you see a large multi-trillion dollar GSIB bank, it's a bit of theater. Why? What do you think they can actually accomplish in two months? Do you actually think that if there's these vulnerabilities, it's all going to get fixed? Let's give them six months, let's give them nine months. So I do think that Sacks is right, that they have figured out a very clever go-to-market muscle here that activates hyper attention and hyper usage, and so I give them tremendous credit. But we've seen it before, we saw it when these folks were the principal architects at OpenAI, and we're now seeing the same playbook here. The reality is that capitalism moves forward, the funding needs moves forward, and the need for these guys to build adoption moves forward. And that's going to supersede what this is.”

The All-In Podcast

220,049 次观看 • 3 个月前

Jason Calacanis: Anthropic, OpenAI and others are trying to kill OpenClaw Why? Because an open source agent platform is an existential threat to frontier model companies. @jason: “ People are going to say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but the number one goal, I believe, in the large language model, frontier model space, is to kill (OpenClaw). This is a giant movement to stop it, because this is the equivalent of having an open source Android-like player in the market, and that could be incredibly disruptive. Because, I believe, open source is going to win the day on the large language models and take 90% of the token usage, and I think the entire frontier model space could be undercut by open source. And I think they realize that SLMs, the smaller language models that are verticalized now, that will run on desktops and laptops and are even starting to run on the top ones, that is their biggest competitive threat, and I hope it happens.”

Jason Calacanis: Anthropic, OpenAI and others are trying to kill OpenClaw Why? Because an open source agent platform is an existential threat to frontier model companies. @jason: “ People are going to say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but the number one goal, I believe, in the large language model, frontier model space, is to kill (OpenClaw). This is a giant movement to stop it, because this is the equivalent of having an open source Android-like player in the market, and that could be incredibly disruptive. Because, I believe, open source is going to win the day on the large language models and take 90% of the token usage, and I think the entire frontier model space could be undercut by open source. And I think they realize that SLMs, the smaller language models that are verticalized now, that will run on desktops and laptops and are even starting to run on the top ones, that is their biggest competitive threat, and I hope it happens.”

The All-In Podcast

64,267 次观看 • 3 个月前

YOKO ONO: ONOCHORD, VENICE, 2004 Yoko: The world is divided in two industries. One is the War Industry and the other is the Peace Industry. The people in the War Industry are totally together. They don't have to talk to each other, even. They know exactly what they want to do. They want to go out there, kill and make money. But the people in the Peace Industry, which are us - we are so idealistic that each one of us criticises the other Peace Person in the Peace Industry. And we are always just arguing and we are wasting our energies doing that. So let's just forgive each other and see that we are in the Peace Industry and that's all that counts. Even if you are not marching for peace, just be yourself, being a florist, being a merchant, being a talior, anything. That way you're contributing to the Peace Industry. People are just concentrating on fear, confusion and anger. And therefore just for a moment, I'd like us to think about Love. In a very magical, straight way, John and I met in London and from then on we stood for Peace and Love. And when I do this kind of event. Well it is... I was inspired to do it, but I still think that I'm still with John in spirit. John and I created the country called Nutopia. Not Utopia, because there was Utopia as a concept already. And we wanted to create a new concept, so we just added N on it - Nutopia - and as a country. Well, that is the concept of a country. And we all are citizens of that country. And in my apartment in the Dakota Building, we put a little plaque on the back door, the kitchen door. It says 'Nutopian Embassy' and even now we have that. (laughs). Nutopia exists in our minds. And because of that, some people want to rebel against it. The reason some want to rebel against it is a good proof that it exists. I think that it was a terrible thing that happened in Chechnya. But we have to still keep our hopes up. And instead of giving up, we have to keep on sending the message of Love to each other. You say that I am the Ambassador of Peace. We are all Ambassadors of Peace. You are too. Everybody in this room are Ambassadors of Peace. Just the fact that we are not participating in War. The fact that we are here, and we are what we are, means that we are in the Peace Industry. All of us. John and I used to say that our apartment in the Dakota is a conceptual monastry, just for the two of us. And when we go out of the Dakota, we get so many people communicating with us, so it's very important that we had silence and quietness. And my apartment is a very small space compared to the world. And I need that for my peace of mind. You should be kind to each other. You should come together, hug each other, love each other, express our love to each other and we should make it work. We should finally create a world that is a totally an Earth for Us. So let's do it. Yoko Ono, OpenAsia Press Conference, whilst exhibiting Onochord, 2004 by Yoko Ono (Nutopia) at the Venice Biennale: OpenAsia 2004, Lido Di Venezia, Venice, Italy, 9 September 2004.

YOKO ONO: ONOCHORD, VENICE, 2004 Yoko: The world is divided in two industries. One is the War Industry and the other is the Peace Industry. The people in the War Industry are totally together. They don't have to talk to each other, even. They know exactly what they want to do. They want to go out there, kill and make money. But the people in the Peace Industry, which are us - we are so idealistic that each one of us criticises the other Peace Person in the Peace Industry. And we are always just arguing and we are wasting our energies doing that. So let's just forgive each other and see that we are in the Peace Industry and that's all that counts. Even if you are not marching for peace, just be yourself, being a florist, being a merchant, being a talior, anything. That way you're contributing to the Peace Industry. People are just concentrating on fear, confusion and anger. And therefore just for a moment, I'd like us to think about Love. In a very magical, straight way, John and I met in London and from then on we stood for Peace and Love. And when I do this kind of event. Well it is... I was inspired to do it, but I still think that I'm still with John in spirit. John and I created the country called Nutopia. Not Utopia, because there was Utopia as a concept already. And we wanted to create a new concept, so we just added N on it - Nutopia - and as a country. Well, that is the concept of a country. And we all are citizens of that country. And in my apartment in the Dakota Building, we put a little plaque on the back door, the kitchen door. It says 'Nutopian Embassy' and even now we have that. (laughs). Nutopia exists in our minds. And because of that, some people want to rebel against it. The reason some want to rebel against it is a good proof that it exists. I think that it was a terrible thing that happened in Chechnya. But we have to still keep our hopes up. And instead of giving up, we have to keep on sending the message of Love to each other. You say that I am the Ambassador of Peace. We are all Ambassadors of Peace. You are too. Everybody in this room are Ambassadors of Peace. Just the fact that we are not participating in War. The fact that we are here, and we are what we are, means that we are in the Peace Industry. All of us. John and I used to say that our apartment in the Dakota is a conceptual monastry, just for the two of us. And when we go out of the Dakota, we get so many people communicating with us, so it's very important that we had silence and quietness. And my apartment is a very small space compared to the world. And I need that for my peace of mind. You should be kind to each other. You should come together, hug each other, love each other, express our love to each other and we should make it work. We should finally create a world that is a totally an Earth for Us. So let's do it. Yoko Ono, OpenAsia Press Conference, whilst exhibiting Onochord, 2004 by Yoko Ono (Nutopia) at the Venice Biennale: OpenAsia 2004, Lido Di Venezia, Venice, Italy, 9 September 2004.

Yoko Ono

35,208 次观看 • 2 年前

🚨Governor DeSantis pitches Federal Balanced Budget Amendment to Kentucky Legislature. Kentucky will be the 29th of 34 States needed to send the Amendment back to the States for ratification. “We're $38+ TRILLION in debt and it is escalating very quickly every day. We now spend more on interest just to service the debt than we do on national defense, and those numbers are going to escalate as some of these bonds have to be refinance in the future. I'm proud to be a Republican. This is not a Democrat problem, or this is a bipartisan debt problem. So Florida has obviously certified this. 28 States in total have. We've got a couple more that we think will happen relatively soon. Kentucky hopefully would be one of those. The reason I'm here is because I don't think Congress is going to fix itself. I think the incentives up there are such that we're likely to continue more of the same. There's a culture that's developed. There's a muscle memory that's developed. And you can't just say elect new people and all of a sudden they're going to fix it because here's the deal. Even if somehow we did elect new people and they did fix it, the next Congress can come in and undo it. And so unless you have changes, permanent constitutional changes to the incentive structure in Congress, you are not going to solve this problem. And the question is, how much more can you go into debt before we have a major debt crisis? I mean, at some point. Reality is going to bite, and I think the U.S. has been able to get away with this longer just because we're the best bet in town. Whatever problems we have, a lot of these other countries have other problems. But so why would you guys want to be involved at the state level? Because that's what our founding fathers envision. This is America's 250th anniversary of independence, and obviously it took them a decade or so to fashion a Constitution. But when they created the Constitution, they believed that the states were the most important units of government. They were creating a federal government, but it was limited and enumerated to certain tasks. There were local governments created by the state governments, but ultimately was the states that created the federal government and that ratified the Constitution. So they saw the states having a very, very important role. What about with constitutional amendments? Well, I think we just think muscle memory is, well, yeah, Congress proposes these amendments. You need two thirds of each house. They can propose it, and then it goes to the states for ratification. That's one way to propose it. The other way to propose it is via the states with Article V, and you have two thirds of the state certified. A proposal can be fashioned, and then it can go to the states for ratification. The founders knew that Congress could be the problem. So they obviously wanted to provide a mechanism for we, the people working through our states to be able to institute the reforms that would be necessary. We have the power to do it in our states. Many states have stepped up, and obviously I think Kentucky would be a great, great candidate to join the movement to prevent Congress from bankrupting this country. And if we can do that, that'll be one of the best things these states have ever done.”

🚨Governor DeSantis pitches Federal Balanced Budget Amendment to Kentucky Legislature. Kentucky will be the 29th of 34 States needed to send the Amendment back to the States for ratification. “We're $38+ TRILLION in debt and it is escalating very quickly every day. We now spend more on interest just to service the debt than we do on national defense, and those numbers are going to escalate as some of these bonds have to be refinance in the future. I'm proud to be a Republican. This is not a Democrat problem, or this is a bipartisan debt problem. So Florida has obviously certified this. 28 States in total have. We've got a couple more that we think will happen relatively soon. Kentucky hopefully would be one of those. The reason I'm here is because I don't think Congress is going to fix itself. I think the incentives up there are such that we're likely to continue more of the same. There's a culture that's developed. There's a muscle memory that's developed. And you can't just say elect new people and all of a sudden they're going to fix it because here's the deal. Even if somehow we did elect new people and they did fix it, the next Congress can come in and undo it. And so unless you have changes, permanent constitutional changes to the incentive structure in Congress, you are not going to solve this problem. And the question is, how much more can you go into debt before we have a major debt crisis? I mean, at some point. Reality is going to bite, and I think the U.S. has been able to get away with this longer just because we're the best bet in town. Whatever problems we have, a lot of these other countries have other problems. But so why would you guys want to be involved at the state level? Because that's what our founding fathers envision. This is America's 250th anniversary of independence, and obviously it took them a decade or so to fashion a Constitution. But when they created the Constitution, they believed that the states were the most important units of government. They were creating a federal government, but it was limited and enumerated to certain tasks. There were local governments created by the state governments, but ultimately was the states that created the federal government and that ratified the Constitution. So they saw the states having a very, very important role. What about with constitutional amendments? Well, I think we just think muscle memory is, well, yeah, Congress proposes these amendments. You need two thirds of each house. They can propose it, and then it goes to the states for ratification. That's one way to propose it. The other way to propose it is via the states with Article V, and you have two thirds of the state certified. A proposal can be fashioned, and then it can go to the states for ratification. The founders knew that Congress could be the problem. So they obviously wanted to provide a mechanism for we, the people working through our states to be able to institute the reforms that would be necessary. We have the power to do it in our states. Many states have stepped up, and obviously I think Kentucky would be a great, great candidate to join the movement to prevent Congress from bankrupting this country. And if we can do that, that'll be one of the best things these states have ever done.”

Chris Nelson 🏝️🇺🇸

366,069 次观看 • 4 个月前

ELON: WE WILL NOT ACCEPT AN ANOINTED CLASS OF JOURNALISTS WHO TELL US WHAT TO THINK “What we're not going to do is say that there's some anointed class of journalists who are the special ones who get to tell everyone what they should think. It should be up to the people what they think. And even if an article is completely accurate, comprehensive, and everything, in writing that article, the media is choosing the narrative. They're deciding what to write an article about. So, I'm hopeful that this can be more a case of the public choosing the narrative as opposed to the media choosing the narrative. At least a combination of the media and the public choosing the narrative, and the public getting to weigh in on stories if they think that they should add something to it, or we've got something wrong. And over time, I think if Twitter is the best source of truth, it will succeed. And if we are not the vessels of truth, we will fail.” Source: Interview with the BBC, April 2023, Elon Musk

ELON: WE WILL NOT ACCEPT AN ANOINTED CLASS OF JOURNALISTS WHO TELL US WHAT TO THINK “What we're not going to do is say that there's some anointed class of journalists who are the special ones who get to tell everyone what they should think. It should be up to the people what they think. And even if an article is completely accurate, comprehensive, and everything, in writing that article, the media is choosing the narrative. They're deciding what to write an article about. So, I'm hopeful that this can be more a case of the public choosing the narrative as opposed to the media choosing the narrative. At least a combination of the media and the public choosing the narrative, and the public getting to weigh in on stories if they think that they should add something to it, or we've got something wrong. And over time, I think if Twitter is the best source of truth, it will succeed. And if we are not the vessels of truth, we will fail.” Source: Interview with the BBC, April 2023, Elon Musk

Mario Nawfal

115,251 次观看 • 1 年前

Elon Musk: We will not accept an anointed class of journalists who tell us what to think. “What we're not going to do is say that there's some anointed class of journalists who are the special ones who get to tell everyone what they should think. It should be up to the people what they think. And even if an article is completely accurate, comprehensive, and everything, in writing that article, the media is choosing the narrative. They're deciding what to write an article about. So, I'm hopeful that this can be more a case of the public choosing the narrative as opposed to the media choosing the narrative. At least a combination of the media and the public choosing the narrative, and the public getting to weigh in on stories if they think that they should add something to it, or we've got something wrong. And over time, I think if Twitter is the best source of truth, it will succeed. And if we are not the vessels of truth, we will fail.” Interview with the BBC, April 12, 2023

Elon Musk: We will not accept an anointed class of journalists who tell us what to think. “What we're not going to do is say that there's some anointed class of journalists who are the special ones who get to tell everyone what they should think. It should be up to the people what they think. And even if an article is completely accurate, comprehensive, and everything, in writing that article, the media is choosing the narrative. They're deciding what to write an article about. So, I'm hopeful that this can be more a case of the public choosing the narrative as opposed to the media choosing the narrative. At least a combination of the media and the public choosing the narrative, and the public getting to weigh in on stories if they think that they should add something to it, or we've got something wrong. And over time, I think if Twitter is the best source of truth, it will succeed. And if we are not the vessels of truth, we will fail.” Interview with the BBC, April 12, 2023

ELON CLIPS

1,266,059 次观看 • 1 年前

Interesting that in three of my recent conversations with Krishna at Anthropic, Dylan Patel, and Gavin Baker, each said that frontier tokens are capturing the majority of the economic value. Gavin: "An overwhelming amount of the economic returns to AI at the model layer have been at the frontier. That's surprising to me, and I think it's been surprising to a lot of people. This is one of the most important questions to be answered, and you need to have a hypothesis on it as an investor." Krishna: "We think the returns to frontier intelligence are extremely high. Customers invest really heavily in more tokens with the newer models. The ones at the frontier clearly are capturing this economic value, driving meaningful ROI for customers. The returns to frontier intelligence are not slowing down." Dylan: "No one gives a crap about GPT-4 class models. They want the frontier because the frontier lets them create the economically valuable things."

Interesting that in three of my recent conversations with Krishna at Anthropic, Dylan Patel, and Gavin Baker, each said that frontier tokens are capturing the majority of the economic value. Gavin: "An overwhelming amount of the economic returns to AI at the model layer have been at the frontier. That's surprising to me, and I think it's been surprising to a lot of people. This is one of the most important questions to be answered, and you need to have a hypothesis on it as an investor." Krishna: "We think the returns to frontier intelligence are extremely high. Customers invest really heavily in more tokens with the newer models. The ones at the frontier clearly are capturing this economic value, driving meaningful ROI for customers. The returns to frontier intelligence are not slowing down." Dylan: "No one gives a crap about GPT-4 class models. They want the frontier because the frontier lets them create the economically valuable things."

Patrick OShaughnessy

121,110 次观看 • 1 个月前

.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 次观看 • 1 年前

Chamath: "Nvidia is not doing what's in the best interest of the United States." 🇺🇸🇨🇳 "I think we can all do the math. About 47% of all of NVIDIA's revenue goes to China and Chinese-related countries." "And I think when you peel back this onion, what you will find is a whole raft of companies that were stood up to buy these Nvidia GPUs to essentially act as a waystation for China." "And I think that is the big problem." "Let's have a thought starter: if 47% of all of the AI capability and horsepower is being shipped to three Asian countries, where do you think the apps that require that amount of horsepower live?" "Is there a Cursor of Bhutan that we did not know? Is there a great shopping app in Cambodia that's come out of nowhere, that's AI powered?" "I think the answer is no." "Every single time we have an advance in the United States, how is it that Alibaba shows up with something incredible? DeepSeek shows up with something better?" "At every turn and at every step of AI, they are at the same rate or one step ahead." "To be honest with you, I think the real problem that we have is that Nvidia is not doing what is in the best interest of the United States." "You have a American company that has been working around the guidelines at every turn to try to land silicon into the hands of China." "Late last year, they introduced this thing called the H20 that was explicitly designed for China and to be compliant with US rules at the time." "Which again, gives these guys substantial performance." "This is a case where (Nvidia) has plausible deniability. I sell something to a Singaporean registered company? Plausible deniability." "What am I supposed to do? You can't expect me to audit it. I think that's what NVIDIA's answer will be to this question." "But what is the real expectation? At a minimum, the United States should have a mechanism to understand it." "It is implausible that if you did one or two layers of work, you would not find that most of this traffic is being used by Chinese organizations."

Chamath: "Nvidia is not doing what's in the best interest of the United States." 🇺🇸🇨🇳 "I think we can all do the math. About 47% of all of NVIDIA's revenue goes to China and Chinese-related countries." "And I think when you peel back this onion, what you will find is a whole raft of companies that were stood up to buy these Nvidia GPUs to essentially act as a waystation for China." "And I think that is the big problem." "Let's have a thought starter: if 47% of all of the AI capability and horsepower is being shipped to three Asian countries, where do you think the apps that require that amount of horsepower live?" "Is there a Cursor of Bhutan that we did not know? Is there a great shopping app in Cambodia that's come out of nowhere, that's AI powered?" "I think the answer is no." "Every single time we have an advance in the United States, how is it that Alibaba shows up with something incredible? DeepSeek shows up with something better?" "At every turn and at every step of AI, they are at the same rate or one step ahead." "To be honest with you, I think the real problem that we have is that Nvidia is not doing what is in the best interest of the United States." "You have a American company that has been working around the guidelines at every turn to try to land silicon into the hands of China." "Late last year, they introduced this thing called the H20 that was explicitly designed for China and to be compliant with US rules at the time." "Which again, gives these guys substantial performance." "This is a case where (Nvidia) has plausible deniability. I sell something to a Singaporean registered company? Plausible deniability." "What am I supposed to do? You can't expect me to audit it. I think that's what NVIDIA's answer will be to this question." "But what is the real expectation? At a minimum, the United States should have a mechanism to understand it." "It is implausible that if you did one or two layers of work, you would not find that most of this traffic is being used by Chinese organizations."

The All-In Podcast

910,352 次观看 • 1 年前

DAVID SACKS ON THE AI RACE: "The US is currently in an AI race, and our chief global competition is China, obviously. They're the only other country that has the talent, the resources, and the technology expertise to basically beat us in AI. And I think whoever wins this AI race, that's going to have tremendous ramifications for both our economy and our national security. Clearly, we want the US to be the winner, just like we were with the internet, and every other technology revolution before that […] We know that to win this AI race, we have to be the most innovative. You can't regulate your way just to beating your competitor. You have to out-innovate them. And we know that in the United States, the innovation comes from the private sector, not the government. So we have to do everything we can to help our companies win, to help them be innovative, and that means getting a lot of red tape out of the way… We have to have the most AI infrastructure in the US. It has to be the easiest place to build it. All of the new data centers that are going in, they require tremendous power, so getting ahead of the curve on energy, making sure we stand up all of this new infrastructure we're going to need to basically produce these AI factories… We want the US technology stack to dominate globally. We want to be the partner of choice for the whole world… I think everyone in Silicon Valley understands that the way that you win a technology race is to have the biggest ecosystem […] You just want everybody to be building on top of your technology stack, and that's what we want for the United States." David Sacks w/Marc Benioff Dreamforce

DAVID SACKS ON THE AI RACE: "The US is currently in an AI race, and our chief global competition is China, obviously. They're the only other country that has the talent, the resources, and the technology expertise to basically beat us in AI. And I think whoever wins this AI race, that's going to have tremendous ramifications for both our economy and our national security. Clearly, we want the US to be the winner, just like we were with the internet, and every other technology revolution before that […] We know that to win this AI race, we have to be the most innovative. You can't regulate your way just to beating your competitor. You have to out-innovate them. And we know that in the United States, the innovation comes from the private sector, not the government. So we have to do everything we can to help our companies win, to help them be innovative, and that means getting a lot of red tape out of the way… We have to have the most AI infrastructure in the US. It has to be the easiest place to build it. All of the new data centers that are going in, they require tremendous power, so getting ahead of the curve on energy, making sure we stand up all of this new infrastructure we're going to need to basically produce these AI factories… We want the US technology stack to dominate globally. We want to be the partner of choice for the whole world… I think everyone in Silicon Valley understands that the way that you win a technology race is to have the biggest ecosystem […] You just want everybody to be building on top of your technology stack, and that's what we want for the United States." David Sacks w/Marc Benioff Dreamforce

Ron Pragides 

231,781 次观看 • 9 个月前

Robert Kennedy Junior says that the powers that be are jangling the keys of division to distract the American people from the fact that they are buying up Ukraine's farmland and that when he gets into office the payday for BlackRock and Vanguard will be over: "When we give the money to Ukraine we call it a loan. Nobody is going to pay that back. What it does it allows us to put the screws on Ukraine. We sign a contract with them that compels Ukraine to do certain things and one of things is to sell most of its assets for cash, including its farmland. Who do you think the biggest buyer is of that land? Why are we in this war? We know who is making the money from this war. They are doing it right in front of us. The strategy that allows them to get away with it is they keep us all at each others throats. Blacks against whites, Republicans against Democrats, Rural people against urban people. When the rulers of the castle, the king and queen look over the castle wall at the top and see all of their subjects fighting they go back to the dining room and they open champagne and they toast to each other. Because as long as we are all fighting each other we can't see what they are doing. It's like someone who is jangling keys. Look at these keys. And over here they are robbing the bank and nobody is watching them. I have my eye on them. When I get into that office the payday is going to be over for Blackrock and Vanguard."

Robert Kennedy Junior says that the powers that be are jangling the keys of division to distract the American people from the fact that they are buying up Ukraine's farmland and that when he gets into office the payday for BlackRock and Vanguard will be over: "When we give the money to Ukraine we call it a loan. Nobody is going to pay that back. What it does it allows us to put the screws on Ukraine. We sign a contract with them that compels Ukraine to do certain things and one of things is to sell most of its assets for cash, including its farmland. Who do you think the biggest buyer is of that land? Why are we in this war? We know who is making the money from this war. They are doing it right in front of us. The strategy that allows them to get away with it is they keep us all at each others throats. Blacks against whites, Republicans against Democrats, Rural people against urban people. When the rulers of the castle, the king and queen look over the castle wall at the top and see all of their subjects fighting they go back to the dining room and they open champagne and they toast to each other. Because as long as we are all fighting each other we can't see what they are doing. It's like someone who is jangling keys. Look at these keys. And over here they are robbing the bank and nobody is watching them. I have my eye on them. When I get into that office the payday is going to be over for Blackrock and Vanguard."

Green Lives Matter

328,347 次观看 • 2 年前

Francis Schaffer in 1982 answering the question of what has gone wrong with evangelicals that allowed the Christian consensus to be lost in our nation: "I think a false view of spirituality, a Platonic view of spirituality which follows Plato, but certainly isn't biblical. And that is that spirituality is shut up to a small area of life...in this view, everything is worldly that isn't in this little box of spirituality. Now, as I look at the Bible, this is exactly 1000% backwards. There are certain sinful things that God tells us are sinful, and we ought to take those and set them aside...and then, everything else is spiritual." Robertson: "Elaborate on that. Everything then in the world, because you're saying that Jesus has a plan and a worldview and a purpose. He's not just God of the church; He's God of everything." Schaeffer: "Absolutely. He made it. And one day, the wonder is, Jesus is coming back and is going to be the redemption of all things...God is interested in the totality of life—art, music, literature, but also the political life. So true spirituality means the Lordship of Christ in the totality of life and not just a small part of it." Robertson: "The liberal press, particularly, would try to keep conservative Christians or evangelicals out of political life, and there's this great pressure to make fun of you when you get in politics, and they don't think it should be. And there are many Christians who say yes to the same thing. Now, what do you say to them?" Schaeffer: "Well, they're wrong." Robertson: "Christians should do what? Run for office, vote, register, get involved? What ought they to do?" Schaeffer: "Well, we ought to realize that in the viewpoint of the Scripture, life is not divided up into watertight compartments, that all of life should be lived for the Lordship of Christ. Now, what exact portion each one of us should have is according to the Lord's leading for us...but the rule to lay down is that Christians have a responsibility for the society in which they live. We're to be the salt. We're to be the light...By our silence, by refusing to be what God tells us to be, the light of this culture, the salt of the culture, we are the ones responsible before God for the mess we're in."

Francis Schaffer in 1982 answering the question of what has gone wrong with evangelicals that allowed the Christian consensus to be lost in our nation: "I think a false view of spirituality, a Platonic view of spirituality which follows Plato, but certainly isn't biblical. And that is that spirituality is shut up to a small area of life...in this view, everything is worldly that isn't in this little box of spirituality. Now, as I look at the Bible, this is exactly 1000% backwards. There are certain sinful things that God tells us are sinful, and we ought to take those and set them aside...and then, everything else is spiritual." Robertson: "Elaborate on that. Everything then in the world, because you're saying that Jesus has a plan and a worldview and a purpose. He's not just God of the church; He's God of everything." Schaeffer: "Absolutely. He made it. And one day, the wonder is, Jesus is coming back and is going to be the redemption of all things...God is interested in the totality of life—art, music, literature, but also the political life. So true spirituality means the Lordship of Christ in the totality of life and not just a small part of it." Robertson: "The liberal press, particularly, would try to keep conservative Christians or evangelicals out of political life, and there's this great pressure to make fun of you when you get in politics, and they don't think it should be. And there are many Christians who say yes to the same thing. Now, what do you say to them?" Schaeffer: "Well, they're wrong." Robertson: "Christians should do what? Run for office, vote, register, get involved? What ought they to do?" Schaeffer: "Well, we ought to realize that in the viewpoint of the Scripture, life is not divided up into watertight compartments, that all of life should be lived for the Lordship of Christ. Now, what exact portion each one of us should have is according to the Lord's leading for us...but the rule to lay down is that Christians have a responsibility for the society in which they live. We're to be the salt. We're to be the light...By our silence, by refusing to be what God tells us to be, the light of this culture, the salt of the culture, we are the ones responsible before God for the mess we're in."

Melissa the Hopeful🏠Homemaker

123,391 次观看 • 3 个月前

.David Sacks: "You're gonna see in the wake of this is that a lot of Jewish people are realizing that they don't have a home on the left anymore. And I expect that many Jews are going to start shifting right into the Republican Party, to a place where I've been for a while.... But I think what's happened over the last few decades is that the civil rights movement, in particular, and the left have moved to this woke ideology where it's no longer about colorblindness. It's more about identity groups. And instead of trying to get past racial differences, it's been about accentuating them. And so we've had this whole equity agenda, which is really defined as redistribution from one racial group to another racial group. I think that, for whatever reason, a lot of Jews just hadn't confronted the reality that the left had really changed in this way. I think it goes back to the fact that they thought if we're going to be defining identity groups in this woke way, Jews obviously should be one of these victim groups, but they're waking up to the fact that Jews are not. Jews are in the minds of this woke ideology, just white people with a Jewish background. As a result, they're part of an oppressor class. And I think that a lot of Jewish people who are waking up to this are realizing this is actually a very destructive ideology, and it makes us the bad guys. So I would expect that, again, a lot of Jewish people are waking up to how the left has changed... and I would expect there to be kind of a pilgrimage now of more Jews in America towards the right, as opposed to remaining on the left where they've always been." Via The All-In Podcast:

.David Sacks: "You're gonna see in the wake of this is that a lot of Jewish people are realizing that they don't have a home on the left anymore. And I expect that many Jews are going to start shifting right into the Republican Party, to a place where I've been for a while.... But I think what's happened over the last few decades is that the civil rights movement, in particular, and the left have moved to this woke ideology where it's no longer about colorblindness. It's more about identity groups. And instead of trying to get past racial differences, it's been about accentuating them. And so we've had this whole equity agenda, which is really defined as redistribution from one racial group to another racial group. I think that, for whatever reason, a lot of Jews just hadn't confronted the reality that the left had really changed in this way. I think it goes back to the fact that they thought if we're going to be defining identity groups in this woke way, Jews obviously should be one of these victim groups, but they're waking up to the fact that Jews are not. Jews are in the minds of this woke ideology, just white people with a Jewish background. As a result, they're part of an oppressor class. And I think that a lot of Jewish people who are waking up to this are realizing this is actually a very destructive ideology, and it makes us the bad guys. So I would expect that, again, a lot of Jewish people are waking up to how the left has changed... and I would expect there to be kind of a pilgrimage now of more Jews in America towards the right, as opposed to remaining on the left where they've always been." Via The All-In Podcast:

KanekoaTheGreat

542,958 次观看 • 2 年前

More from Trump and Qatar gift: "I think this is just a gesture of good-faith." "It'll go to my library... I thought it was a great gesture." He says he would NOT use the plane himself after leaving office. It would basically sit in his library. "I think what happens with the plane is that, you know, we're very disappointed that it's taking Boeing so long to build a new Air Force One. You know, we have an Air Force One that's 40 years old. And if you take a look at that compared to the new plane of the equivalent, you know, stature at the time, it's not even the same ballgame. You look at some of the Arab countries and the planes they have parked alongside of the United States of America plane, it's like from a different planet." "When I came back, I said, by the way, what's going on with the Boeings that are coming in? 'Well, sir, they're way behind.' And they are way behind." "I think Qatar, who has really, we've helped them a lot over the years in terms of security and safety. I think they, and very, very nicely, and I have a lot of respect for the leadership and for the leader, Qatar. And I think they knew about it because they buy Boeings, they buy a lot of Boeings. And they knew about it and they said 'we would like to do something,' and if we can get a 747 as a contribution to our Defense Department to use during a couple of years while they're building the other ones - I think that was a very nice gesture." "Now, I could be a stupid person and say, oh, no, we don't want a free plane. We give free things out. We'll take one, too. And it helps us out because, again, we're talking about we have 40-year-old aircraft. The money we spend, the maintenance we spend on those planes to keep them tippy-top is astronomical."

More from Trump and Qatar gift: "I think this is just a gesture of good-faith." "It'll go to my library... I thought it was a great gesture." He says he would NOT use the plane himself after leaving office. It would basically sit in his library. "I think what happens with the plane is that, you know, we're very disappointed that it's taking Boeing so long to build a new Air Force One. You know, we have an Air Force One that's 40 years old. And if you take a look at that compared to the new plane of the equivalent, you know, stature at the time, it's not even the same ballgame. You look at some of the Arab countries and the planes they have parked alongside of the United States of America plane, it's like from a different planet." "When I came back, I said, by the way, what's going on with the Boeings that are coming in? 'Well, sir, they're way behind.' And they are way behind." "I think Qatar, who has really, we've helped them a lot over the years in terms of security and safety. I think they, and very, very nicely, and I have a lot of respect for the leadership and for the leader, Qatar. And I think they knew about it because they buy Boeings, they buy a lot of Boeings. And they knew about it and they said 'we would like to do something,' and if we can get a 747 as a contribution to our Defense Department to use during a couple of years while they're building the other ones - I think that was a very nice gesture." "Now, I could be a stupid person and say, oh, no, we don't want a free plane. We give free things out. We'll take one, too. And it helps us out because, again, we're talking about we have 40-year-old aircraft. The money we spend, the maintenance we spend on those planes to keep them tippy-top is astronomical."

Open Source Intel

118,783 次观看 • 1 年前