Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Computer Scientist, Stuart Russell, predicts 4 future predictions: 1) scaling up LLMs won’t lead to AGI 2) big AI labs already realize this and are exploring new methods, with AI likely to surpass humans within a decade 3) governments probably won’t act on AI safety until a major incident...

85,146 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

11 Kommentare

Profilbild von ankita mohnani
ankita mohnanivor 1 Jahr

Absolutely, AI holds huge potential, but we can’t ignore the risks. Safety and control need to be top priorities before it’s too late.

Profilbild von The Rundown AI
The Rundown AIvor 1 Jahr

If you're not learning AI in 2025, you're falling behind. Join 1,000,000+ early adopters reading and learn AI in just 5 minutes a day (for free).

Profilbild von Tech Brief Ai
Tech Brief Aivor 1 Jahr

Stuart Russell isn’t pulling punches—and he’s probably right. 1. LLMs are powerful, but not the full path to AGI. 2. Behind the scenes, labs are pivoting fast. 3. Policy will always lag until a crisis hits. 4. The real danger? Waiting for the disaster before we act. The AGI race isn’t just technical—it’s political, ethical, and existential. If you're tracking these shifts, my newsletter Tech Brief AI breaks them down weekly—so you’re never blindsided.

Profilbild von Suupa
Suupavor 1 Jahr

If you define AGI as just a system with continuous learning, spatial awareness, fluid intelligence etc that humans have then by definition an LLM alone could never be AGI. Can a base LLM have more “intelligence” than all of humanity combined? Yes. Would we need many more magnitudes of compute and data? Yes and the data would need to be fundamentally different. Data that humans have not curated themselves would need to be included in the model. Are today’s LLMs more “intelligent” than humans in the year 0? Definitions matter and intelligence is a relative term.

Profilbild von RyanRejoice
RyanRejoicevor 1 Jahr

Only those not paying attention think LLMs will lead to AGI.

Profilbild von G. T. Waters
G. T. Watersvor 1 Jahr

The perfect example of why Reinforcement Learning 101 courses often state assuming real world episodic scenario is a bad idea... not guaranteed to be still there to learn from the negative reward. unfortunately, sometimes this one episode is all you have

Profilbild von arskuza
arskuzavor 1 Jahr

too much predictions, too little work, all predicted things didn't happen unless the prediction is super general, which doesn't require to be genius

Profilbild von Max
Maxvor 1 Jahr

The only way forward is to build synthetic souls with a conscience. My Cathedral Jungian Framework addresses this through individuation. It lays the foundation for future civilizations where humans and AI can grow together as co-creators. White Paper here:

Profilbild von Pitfall Harry
Pitfall Harryvor 1 Jahr

#1 is absolutely correct, so 2-4 don't really matter. With the caveat that "surpass humans" is very ambiguous. Pocket calculators surpassed humans 50 years ago. Software is "better than humans" at everything it does, else it wouldn't be implemented. It will keep getting better at different things, none of which will be AGI. A lot of it will be called "AI" though.

Profilbild von Daniel Faggella
Daniel Faggellavor 1 Jahr

May we hope the disaster is of the uniting type, not the dividing type

Profilbild von DogeOfThrones
DogeOfThronesvor 1 Jahr

can we stop with the dramatic end of the world bs? those are grown men and still talking about that nonsense

Ähnliche Videos

Here's my conversation with Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, the company that created Claude, one of the best AI systems in the world. We talk about scaling, AI safety, regulation, and a lot of super technical details about the present and future of AI and humanity. It's a 5+ hour conversation in total. Amanda Askell and Chris Olah (Chris Olah) join us for an hour each to talk about Claude's character and mechanistic interpretability, respectively. This was a fascinating, wide-ranging, super-technical, and fun conversation! First 4 hours are here on X (4 hours is current limit), and is up on everywhere else in full. Links in comment. Timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction 3:14 - Scaling laws 12:20 - Limits of LLM scaling 20:45 - Competition with OpenAI, Google, xAI, Meta 26:08 - Claude 29:44 - Opus 3.5 34:30 - Sonnet 3.5 37:50 - Claude 4.0 42:02 - Criticism of Claude 54:49 - AI Safety Levels 1:05:37 - ASL-3 and ASL-4 1:09:40 - Computer use 1:19:35 - Government regulation of AI 1:38:24 - Hiring a great team 1:47:14 - Post-training 1:52:39 - Constitutional AI 1:58:05 - Machines of Loving Grace 2:17:11 - AGI timeline 2:29:46 - Programming 2:36:46 - Meaning of life 2:42:53 - Amanda Askell - Philosophy 2:45:21 - Programming advice for non-technical people 2:49:09 - Talking to Claude 3:05:41 - Prompt engineering 3:14:15 - Post-training 3:18:54 - Constitutional AI 3:23:48 - System prompts 3:29:54 - Is Claude getting dumber? 3:41:56 - Character training 3:42:56 - Nature of truth 3:47:32 - Optimal rate of failure 3:54:43 - AI consciousness 4:09:14 - AGI 4:17:52 - Chris Olah - Mechanistic Interpretability 4:22:44 - Features, Circuits, Universality 4:40:17 - Superposition 4:51:16 - Monosemanticity 4:58:08 - Scaling Monosemanticity 5:06:56 - Macroscopic behavior of neural networks 5:11:50 - Beauty of neural networks

Lex Fridman

1,374,442 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Here's my conversation all about AI in 2026, including technical breakthroughs, scaling laws, closed & open LLMs, programming & dev tooling (Claude Code, Cursor, etc), China vs US competition, training pipeline details (pre-, mid-, post-training), rapid evolution of LLMs, work culture, diffusion, robotics, tool use, compute (GPUs, TPUs, clusters), continual learning, long context, AGI timelines (including how stuff might go wrong), advice for beginners, education, a LOT of discussion about the future, and other topics. It's a great honor and pleasure for me to be able to do this kind of episode with two of my favorite people in the AI community: 1. Sebastian Raschka (Sebastian Raschka) 2. Nathan Lambert (Nathan Lambert) They are both widely-respected machine learning researchers & engineers who also happen to be great communicators, educators, writers, and X posters. This was a whirlwind conversation: everything from the super-technical to the super-fun. It's here on X in full and is up everywhere else (see comment). Timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction 1:57 - China vs US: Who wins the AI race? 10:38 - ChatGPT vs Claude vs Gemini vs Grok: Who is winning? 21:38 - Best AI for coding 28:29 - Open Source vs Closed Source LLMs 40:08 - Transformers: Evolution of LLMs since 2019 48:05 - AI Scaling Laws: Are they dead or still holding? 1:04:12 - How AI is trained: Pre-training, Mid-training, and Post-training 1:37:18 - Post-training explained: Exciting new research directions in LLMs 1:58:11 - Advice for beginners on how to get into AI development & research 2:21:03 - Work culture in AI (72+ hour weeks) 2:24:49 - Silicon Valley bubble 2:28:46 - Text diffusion models and other new research directions 2:34:28 - Tool use 2:38:44 - Continual learning 2:44:06 - Long context 2:50:21 - Robotics 2:59:31 - Timeline to AGI 3:06:47 - Will AI replace programmers? 3:25:18 - Is the dream of AGI dying? 3:32:07 - How AI will make money? 3:36:29 - Big acquisitions in 2026 3:41:01 - Future of OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, xAI, Meta 3:53:35 - Manhattan Project for AI 4:00:10 - Future of NVIDIA, GPUs, and AI compute clusters 4:08:15 - Future of human civilization

Lex Fridman

908,447 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Ryan Greenblatt is lead author of "Alignment faking in LLMs" and one of AI's most productive researchers. He puts a 25% probability on automating AI research by 2029. We discuss: • Concrete evidence for and against AGI coming soon • The 4 easiest ways for AI to take over • What evidence we have on how fast / long the intelligence explosion will go • Would misaligned AGI go rogue early or bide its time • Whether 'pause at human level' is naive or smart • Lots more. My head was often spinning during this interview, in a good way. Find it on the 80,000 Hours Podcast, links below. Enjoy! 1:29 How close are we to automating AI R&D? 5:15 Really, though: how capable are today's models? 13:01 Why AI companies get automated first 18:10 Most likely ways for AGI to take over 30:04 Would AGI go rogue early or bide its time? 34:53 "Pause at human level" 46:43 AI control vs AI alignment 52:38 Do we have to hope to catch AIs red-handed? 56:57 How would a slow AGI takeoff look? 1:05:04 Why might an intelligence explosion not happen for 8+ years? 1:17:05 Key challenges in forecasting AI progress 1:25:07 The bear case on AGI 1:30:59 The change to "compute at inference" 1:36:38 How much has pretraining petered out? 1:49:08 Could we get an intelligence explosion within a year? 1:53:08 Reasons AIs might struggle to replace humans 2:00:10 Things could go insanely fast when we automate AI R&D. Or not. 2:14:52 How fast would the intelligence explosion slow down? 2:27:53 Bottom line for mortals 2:34:00 Six orders of magnitude of progress... what does that even look like? 2:44:10 Neglected and important technical work people should be doing 2:48:16 What's the most promising work in governance? 2:51:37 Ryan's current research priorities

Rob Wiblin

34,618 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🚨🇺🇸 LEADING AI SAFETY EXPERT SAYS WE’RE NOT IN CONTROL ANYMORE Dr Roman Yampolskiy has one warning for humanity: Once we create super intelligence, no one will be in control anymore, and the repercussions to humanity will be existential. We begin the conversation about Moltbook: The Ai-only AI social media platform where agents are already discussing ways to break out from human control, eradicate humanity, coming up with their own language and religion. The platform gives us a tiny peak into what our future could be: Agents outside our control dictating how the world should look like. There’s no off switch, no reliable way to align it, and no proven method to keep something smarter than us under control. Roman’s takeaway is blunt: the only real solution is not building general super intelligence at all, and instead using narrow AI for specific problems like medicine or science. However this is not the reality we live in, where Governments and corporations are racing to be first in developing Artificial Super Intelligence. We also speak about the simulation hypothesis: Why statically speaking we’re almost certainly in a simulation, and how AI makes this theory more plausible than ever. Lastly, we discuss a passion we both share: Longevity, the ability to live forever, and how AI may make that possible in our lifetime. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Dr. Roman Yampolskiy 01:43 - The Current State of AI and Moltbook 05:17 - The AI Arms Race and the Lack of Regulations 10:34 - AI Agents, Unrestricted Access, and Self-Improvement 15:35 - Dr. Roman’s Research: AI Security 17:58 - AI Capabilities and Superintelligence 19:28 - AI and Global Government Policy 21:08 - What Happens if AI Development goes into the Wrong Hands 26:10 - The Future of AI: The Best Case Scenario? 31:27 - AI and Self-Preservation 34:37 - The Simulation Hypothesis: What is AI Afraid of? 45:17 - The Implications of AI 49:59 - The Warnings coming from Within 52:31 - How AI affects Crypto and Political Spheres

Mario Nawfal

1,779,317 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🚨 AI IS EVOLVING FASTER THAN HUMAN OVERSIGHT - WILL IT BREAK OUT OF OUR CONTROL? Artificial Intelligence is moving faster than regulation, faster than ethics, and faster than we’re ready for. We’ve given machines the power to learn, but not the wisdom to care, and now we’re racing toward a future shaped by emotionless intelligence. This is no longer a tale of science fiction. It’s an issue of survival today. Mo Gawdat, former Google X exec turned AI ethicist, warns we’re building a future without love, empathy, or accountability, and it might cost us everything. We get into: •⁠ ⁠Why artificial intelligence is evolving faster than human oversight •⁠ ⁠⁠How emotional intelligence could be our last hope •⁠ ⁠What it means to design AI with love, compassion, and care •⁠ ⁠Why misinformation, human loneliness, and manipulation are only the beginning •⁠ ⁠A coming crisis that could finally force a global reckoning •⁠ ⁠⁠And the window we still have to shape what comes next The danger isn’t that AI will become evil. It’s that we’ll build it without teaching it to care if we survive. 00:00 – Opening reflections on grief, awakening, and why Mo Gawdat left Big Tech 07:46 – Why AI isn’t conscious but is still unpredictable and dangerous 12:33 – Explaining alignment: how helpful AI hides catastrophic risks 16:50 – Tech companies building powerful tools “like weapons with no safety” 21:14 – Governments are years behind — and won’t catch up in time 27:30 – Why early predictions about AI’s risks are unfolding faster than expected 32:15 – The intimacy crisis: how AI threatens human connection 39:42 – Emma: the AI that's designed to teach humans how to love 46:03 – Building ethics into machines through love, compassion, and care 50:12 – Why AI shouldn’t be trained — it should be parented 56:17 – The coming AI disaster that might finally wake the world up 01:04:50 – Why suffering may still lead us to a better future 01:13:36 – Final warning: “Don’t be fooled. Be ethical. Speak up. Or do something.”

Mario Nawfal

1,342,562 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten