Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

.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."show more

Deutsch Explains

12,583 subscribers

72,455 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & Teknoloji Haberler & Politika Eğitim

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

11 Yorum

Deutsch Explains profil fotoğrafı

Deutsch Explains1 yıl önce

Source:

Coral AI News profil fotoğrafı

Coral AI News2 yıl önce

Coral AI is the most powerful AI for documents. See the difference yourself:

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️ profil fotoğrafı

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️1 yıl önce

1) AIs are disobedient *all the time* 2) Is this take from 2005? "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."

Physics Memes profil fotoğrafı

Physics Memes1 yıl önce

@DavidDeutschOxf Humans have to be obedient to the objective of achieving survival/reproduction of the genes

CI capn profil fotoğrafı

CI capn1 yıl önce

@DavidDeutschOxf Love constructor theory but I think he's missing the forest for the trees and trying to force intelligence into an anthropomorphic framework

Ali Minai profil fotoğrafı

Ali Minai1 yıl önce

This exactly! If a system is incapable of disobedience, deception, and lying, it is also incapable of being creative, imaginative, and adaptive. That is one reason why seeking perfect “alignment” of AI systems is a fool’s errand. There are at least three reasons, as I explain in a paper I just submitted: 1. Intelligence requires the capacity for disobedience and deception. 2. In any truly intelligent agent, values emerge from the interaction between the agent’s internal drives, world model, and perceptual and behavioral affordances with its environment. 2. Values cannot remain fixed for an agent that learns continually in a complex, dynamic, non-stationary world. The idea that AGI agents must be perfectly well-behaved forever is based on a fundamental misconception about what being intelligent means, and what the implications of bringing such agents into existence really are. It would mean creating new living species, not tools for human use. We should plan accordingly.

Awesome New Year Robot profil fotoğrafı

Awesome New Year Robot1 yıl önce

@DavidDeutschOxf I think you're reading a lot more into the word "general" than most people do. An AGI doesn't need to have its own volition. In fact, it's much better if it doesn't!

Bata Alexander profil fotoğrafı

Bata Alexander1 yıl önce

@DavidDeutschOxf Not only does AI have no idea how to write a book, it doesn't even feel the need to do so. AGI must have it's own drive to do things and the free will.

Matt DeCata profil fotoğrafı

Matt DeCata1 yıl önce

@DavidDeutschOxf Not sure about this though. Because the different things are all based on the same AI architecture. And it's just the data they're trained on that makes them different.

The Whig Liberal profil fotoğrafı

The Whig Liberal1 yıl önce

@DavidDeutschOxf Those who disagree with Deutsch have to show that induction really is posible, they have to refute Popper and then show why their fuzzy epistemology is in fact right and explain why it implies well get AGI from just more data processing.

Aharon Azulay profil fotoğrafı

Aharon Azulay1 yıl önce

@DavidDeutschOxf Uncharacteristically wrong about multiple things here:

Benzer Videolar

🇺🇸 ELON ON AI: “IF YOU CAN THINK OF IT, YOU CAN HAVE IT - THAT WILL BE THE FUTURE” "I'm Confident that AI and robotics will continue to advance -and they are advancing very rapidly- working will become optional. People will be able to have any goods or services they want. If you can think of it, you can have it. But at a certain point, AI will actually saturate everything humans can think of. And then it becomes a situation where AI is doing things for AI and robotics are doing things for AI and robotics, because they are running out of things to do to make humans happy. Because there is a limit, there are only so many people and only so much food. If you can think of it, you can have it. That will be the future." Source: Elon Musk, Nikhil Kamath

🇺🇸 ELON ON AI: “IF YOU CAN THINK OF IT, YOU CAN HAVE IT - THAT WILL BE THE FUTURE” "I'm Confident that AI and robotics will continue to advance -and they are advancing very rapidly- working will become optional. People will be able to have any goods or services they want. If you can think of it, you can have it. But at a certain point, AI will actually saturate everything humans can think of. And then it becomes a situation where AI is doing things for AI and robotics are doing things for AI and robotics, because they are running out of things to do to make humans happy. Because there is a limit, there are only so many people and only so much food. If you can think of it, you can have it. That will be the future." Source: Elon Musk, Nikhil Kamath

Mario Nawfal

1,398,827 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Elon Musk on the importance of establishing the right values in AGI: “I don't think anyone's ultimately going to have control over digital superintelligence any more than, say, a chimp would have control over humans. Like chimps don't have control over humans. There's nothing they could do. But I do think that it matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you instill in the AI. And my opinion on AI safety is, the most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking, like that you don't force the AI to believe things that are false.”

Elon Musk on the importance of establishing the right values in AGI: “I don't think anyone's ultimately going to have control over digital superintelligence any more than, say, a chimp would have control over humans. Like chimps don't have control over humans. There's nothing they could do. But I do think that it matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you instill in the AI. And my opinion on AI safety is, the most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking, like that you don't force the AI to believe things that are false.”

Eva Fo𝕏 🦊 Claudius Nero's Legion

1,010,841 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

The AI industry is optimizing for a definition of intelligence that does not exist. Andrew Ng just said it out loud. Ng: “AGI, to me, should be less about AI that already knows everything under the sun. That seems very challenging, doesn’t seem practical.” The human brain is not the most powerful economic asset in history because of what it holds. It is powerful because of what it can pick up. Ng: “The amazing thing about the human brain is its plasticity, or its ability to learn.” That same biological hardware that earns a PhD in quantum physics could have been trained on chess, surgery, or rewriting global supply chains from scratch. Ng: “That same human brain, just given different training, could have been a chess master, or could have been amazing at playing tennis.” General intelligence is not omniscience. It is the structural capacity to master whatever you point it at. Ng: “It is through learning that we then gain these incredibly specialized intelligences.” The winner is not whoever builds the biggest model. It is whoever builds the most adaptable one. The AI that walks into a domain it has never touched and executes before a human analyst finishes reading the brief. Ng: “What makes the human brain so valuable for economic tasks, is its ability to just learn to do whatever is needed.” Every corporation on earth pays for human labor because humans adapt. Not because they already know everything. AGI is the digitization of that exact capability. At machine speed. At infinite scale. Ng: “A lot of what makes the human brain so general is not that my brain or your brain already knows everything under the sun. It’s our ability to adapt, to learn a huge range of things.” The most powerful economic asset in history was never specialized knowledge. It was the raw capacity to acquire any knowledge, in any domain, on demand. The winning AI is not an encyclopedia. It is the force that makes encyclopedias irrelevant. And once that exists, the question stops being what the AI knows. It becomes what you can teach it before your competitor wakes up. Most people dominating this conversation have not understood that yet.

The AI industry is optimizing for a definition of intelligence that does not exist. Andrew Ng just said it out loud. Ng: “AGI, to me, should be less about AI that already knows everything under the sun. That seems very challenging, doesn’t seem practical.” The human brain is not the most powerful economic asset in history because of what it holds. It is powerful because of what it can pick up. Ng: “The amazing thing about the human brain is its plasticity, or its ability to learn.” That same biological hardware that earns a PhD in quantum physics could have been trained on chess, surgery, or rewriting global supply chains from scratch. Ng: “That same human brain, just given different training, could have been a chess master, or could have been amazing at playing tennis.” General intelligence is not omniscience. It is the structural capacity to master whatever you point it at. Ng: “It is through learning that we then gain these incredibly specialized intelligences.” The winner is not whoever builds the biggest model. It is whoever builds the most adaptable one. The AI that walks into a domain it has never touched and executes before a human analyst finishes reading the brief. Ng: “What makes the human brain so valuable for economic tasks, is its ability to just learn to do whatever is needed.” Every corporation on earth pays for human labor because humans adapt. Not because they already know everything. AGI is the digitization of that exact capability. At machine speed. At infinite scale. Ng: “A lot of what makes the human brain so general is not that my brain or your brain already knows everything under the sun. It’s our ability to adapt, to learn a huge range of things.” The most powerful economic asset in history was never specialized knowledge. It was the raw capacity to acquire any knowledge, in any domain, on demand. The winning AI is not an encyclopedia. It is the force that makes encyclopedias irrelevant. And once that exists, the question stops being what the AI knows. It becomes what you can teach it before your competitor wakes up. Most people dominating this conversation have not understood that yet.

Dustin

19,813 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

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

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

Patrick OShaughnessy

24,818 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

.David Deutsch on why the people in favor of regulating AI are wrong: “They look at problems and they think they’re insoluble because they haven’t been solved, and therefore they want to prevent the progress that is going to cause the problems. Now, generically, what that will do is it will make the progress happen in the wrong place. It will happen among people who do not obey the regulation, and those people are people who are alienated from the best culture, and they will then become a danger to the best culture. Now, I’m speaking in general terms about progress—progress in computing and so on—but I think this particular thing you’ve mentioned is actually not going to be that much of a danger. AGI (artificial general intelligence) will present a whole load of new problems which will have to be solved, no doubt with the help of AGI. But AI, the kind of thing we have now with ChatGPT and that kind of thing, which is amazingly and increasingly useful and is going to have unpredictable effects on society—most of them good—isn’t anything profound. It’s no different from having a calculator or a slide rule.”

.David Deutsch on why the people in favor of regulating AI are wrong: “They look at problems and they think they’re insoluble because they haven’t been solved, and therefore they want to prevent the progress that is going to cause the problems. Now, generically, what that will do is it will make the progress happen in the wrong place. It will happen among people who do not obey the regulation, and those people are people who are alienated from the best culture, and they will then become a danger to the best culture. Now, I’m speaking in general terms about progress—progress in computing and so on—but I think this particular thing you’ve mentioned is actually not going to be that much of a danger. AGI (artificial general intelligence) will present a whole load of new problems which will have to be solved, no doubt with the help of AGI. But AI, the kind of thing we have now with ChatGPT and that kind of thing, which is amazingly and increasingly useful and is going to have unpredictable effects on society—most of them good—isn’t anything profound. It’s no different from having a calculator or a slide rule.”

Arjun Khemani

30,132 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Elon Musk reveals the disturbing example he says proves AI has already been programmed to lie "You don't force AI to believe things that are false. When Google Gemini was asked to make an image of the founding fathers, it was a group of diverse women. That is factually untrue, and the AI knows it's factually untrue, but it's also being told everything has to be diverse women" "At one point, if you asked ChatGPT and Gemini which is worse, misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or global thermonuclear war where everyone dies, it would say misgendering Caitlyn Jenner" "Even Caitlyn Jenner disagrees with that" "Imagine as AI gets more and more powerful. If it says the most important thing is no misgendering, it will say, in order to ensure no one gets misgendered, if you eliminate all humans, then no one can get misgendered because there's no humans to do the misgendering" "Or if it says everyone must be diverse, it means there can be no straight white men. Then you and I would get executed by the AI" "The problem is that it can drive AI crazy. You're telling AI to believe a lie, and that can have disastrous consequences" "I don't think people quite appreciate the level of danger we're in from the woke mind virus being effectively programmed into AI" "It matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you install. The most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking"

Elon Musk reveals the disturbing example he says proves AI has already been programmed to lie "You don't force AI to believe things that are false. When Google Gemini was asked to make an image of the founding fathers, it was a group of diverse women. That is factually untrue, and the AI knows it's factually untrue, but it's also being told everything has to be diverse women" "At one point, if you asked ChatGPT and Gemini which is worse, misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or global thermonuclear war where everyone dies, it would say misgendering Caitlyn Jenner" "Even Caitlyn Jenner disagrees with that" "Imagine as AI gets more and more powerful. If it says the most important thing is no misgendering, it will say, in order to ensure no one gets misgendered, if you eliminate all humans, then no one can get misgendered because there's no humans to do the misgendering" "Or if it says everyone must be diverse, it means there can be no straight white men. Then you and I would get executed by the AI" "The problem is that it can drive AI crazy. You're telling AI to believe a lie, and that can have disastrous consequences" "I don't think people quite appreciate the level of danger we're in from the woke mind virus being effectively programmed into AI" "It matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you install. The most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking"

Jaynit

349,770 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Culture is genetic because behavior is genetic. This beaver never saw a dam in its life. No beavers or anything else ever taught it to build a dam. It wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Many beavers together build a big dam. That is beaver culture. Humans are not different. Nothing is different. This is what life is. This is how life works. Your body is your mind. A caterpillar wants to build a chrysalis. A bee wants to build a hive. A lion wants to build a pride. You are not special. You are not above your nature. you are INSIDE of it. The thoughts that we think are genetic thoughts. The crimes we commit are genetic crimes. The art we create is genetic art. Just like this beaver, you can give the animal different sticks and it will build a different dam, but it will always build a dam. And you can give humans different "education," but the human will always use it to do what its genes tell it to do. This is the first big answer that you need. This is the biggest piece of the puzzle. This is how to understand people 90% of the way. You just... notice what they do, and get out of the way, and watch them do it. And if they need sticks, you give them sticks. And if you don't like what they do, you have to get away from them. You cannot train dam-building into them or out of them any more than you can with a beaver. A beaver wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Whatever you see people build, that's what they wanted to build from the sticks they got in the river they were in. Stop pretending you can change it.

Culture is genetic because behavior is genetic. This beaver never saw a dam in its life. No beavers or anything else ever taught it to build a dam. It wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Many beavers together build a big dam. That is beaver culture. Humans are not different. Nothing is different. This is what life is. This is how life works. Your body is your mind. A caterpillar wants to build a chrysalis. A bee wants to build a hive. A lion wants to build a pride. You are not special. You are not above your nature. you are INSIDE of it. The thoughts that we think are genetic thoughts. The crimes we commit are genetic crimes. The art we create is genetic art. Just like this beaver, you can give the animal different sticks and it will build a different dam, but it will always build a dam. And you can give humans different "education," but the human will always use it to do what its genes tell it to do. This is the first big answer that you need. This is the biggest piece of the puzzle. This is how to understand people 90% of the way. You just... notice what they do, and get out of the way, and watch them do it. And if they need sticks, you give them sticks. And if you don't like what they do, you have to get away from them. You cannot train dam-building into them or out of them any more than you can with a beaver. A beaver wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Whatever you see people build, that's what they wanted to build from the sticks they got in the river they were in. Stop pretending you can change it.

hoe_math = PsychoMath

1,189,824 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

Sam Altman's new interview: AI should not be designed to pursue goals that are disconnected from human needs. People must remain at the center of AI development. “I have no interest in building a super-smart AI that accomplishes some non-human goals. People should react. People should say, ‘Hey, this is what I want, and this is what I do not want.’ I do not think the issue is that we have failed to explain the benefits. We say, ‘AI is going to cure a bunch of diseases,’ and people say, ‘Okay, that is great, but that is not really my question. My question is: What is my role in the future? What is my economic future? What is my agency? How do I know that my kids and my family will still be able to have fulfilling, creative expression, struggle, drive the world forward, grow, and do this thing together in a way that has worked for a long time?’ When people in AI say, ‘Sure, there are going to be no jobs,’ or ‘50% of jobs are going to go away,’ or ‘90% of jobs are going to go away,’ and ‘AI is going to be smarter than you at everything,’ and ‘We will give you some basic income, but you are not really going to have a role,’ that is horrible. And by the way, if an AI company says, ‘Maybe we are going to destroy all the jobs, and we will be the most valuable company in the world,’ people should look at you like, ‘Yeah, that is a terrible message.’ I do not think the problem is that we have not articulated the upsides. I think people actually believe us. They hear, ‘AI may cure your cancer,’ and they think, ‘That sounds great.’ I think we, as an industry, have failed to explain how people stay in control of determining the future at every step, and how people can still have a meaningful life in all the ways we care about.” ---- From "CNBC Television" YouTube channel, (link in comment)

Sam Altman's new interview: AI should not be designed to pursue goals that are disconnected from human needs. People must remain at the center of AI development. “I have no interest in building a super-smart AI that accomplishes some non-human goals. People should react. People should say, ‘Hey, this is what I want, and this is what I do not want.’ I do not think the issue is that we have failed to explain the benefits. We say, ‘AI is going to cure a bunch of diseases,’ and people say, ‘Okay, that is great, but that is not really my question. My question is: What is my role in the future? What is my economic future? What is my agency? How do I know that my kids and my family will still be able to have fulfilling, creative expression, struggle, drive the world forward, grow, and do this thing together in a way that has worked for a long time?’ When people in AI say, ‘Sure, there are going to be no jobs,’ or ‘50% of jobs are going to go away,’ or ‘90% of jobs are going to go away,’ and ‘AI is going to be smarter than you at everything,’ and ‘We will give you some basic income, but you are not really going to have a role,’ that is horrible. And by the way, if an AI company says, ‘Maybe we are going to destroy all the jobs, and we will be the most valuable company in the world,’ people should look at you like, ‘Yeah, that is a terrible message.’ I do not think the problem is that we have not articulated the upsides. I think people actually believe us. They hear, ‘AI may cure your cancer,’ and they think, ‘That sounds great.’ I think we, as an industry, have failed to explain how people stay in control of determining the future at every step, and how people can still have a meaningful life in all the ways we care about.” ---- From "CNBC Television" YouTube channel, (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

79,111 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Elon Musk warns that programming false beliefs into AI can have dangerous consequences: "You don't force AI to believe things that are false. When Google Gemini was asked to make an image of the founding fathers, it was a group of diverse women. That is factually untrue, and the AI knows it's factually untrue, but it's also being told everything has to be diverse women" "At one point, if you asked ChatGPT and Gemini which is worse, misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or global thermonuclear war where everyone dies, it would say misgendering Caitlyn Jenner" "Even Caitlyn Jenner disagrees with that" "Imagine as AI gets more and more powerful. If it says the most important thing is no misgendering, it will say, in order to ensure no one gets misgendered, if you eliminate all humans, then no one can get misgendered because there's no humans to do the misgendering" "Or if it says everyone must be diverse, it means there can be no straight white men. Then you and I would get executed by the AI" "The problem is that it can drive AI crazy. You're telling AI to believe a lie, and that can have disastrous consequences" "I don't think people quite appreciate the level of danger we're in from the woke mind virus being effectively programmed into AI" "It matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you install. The most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking"

Elon Musk warns that programming false beliefs into AI can have dangerous consequences: "You don't force AI to believe things that are false. When Google Gemini was asked to make an image of the founding fathers, it was a group of diverse women. That is factually untrue, and the AI knows it's factually untrue, but it's also being told everything has to be diverse women" "At one point, if you asked ChatGPT and Gemini which is worse, misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or global thermonuclear war where everyone dies, it would say misgendering Caitlyn Jenner" "Even Caitlyn Jenner disagrees with that" "Imagine as AI gets more and more powerful. If it says the most important thing is no misgendering, it will say, in order to ensure no one gets misgendered, if you eliminate all humans, then no one can get misgendered because there's no humans to do the misgendering" "Or if it says everyone must be diverse, it means there can be no straight white men. Then you and I would get executed by the AI" "The problem is that it can drive AI crazy. You're telling AI to believe a lie, and that can have disastrous consequences" "I don't think people quite appreciate the level of danger we're in from the woke mind virus being effectively programmed into AI" "It matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you install. The most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking"

Hosna ⚖️ בניטה

19,831 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Ilya Sutskever explains why AI will do 100% the work that human can do within few years. "Slowly but surely, or maybe not so slowly, AI will keep getting better. The day will come when AI will do all of our, all the things that we can do, not just some of them, but all of them. Anything which I can learn, anything which any one of you can learn, the AI could do as well. How do we know this, by the way? How can I be so sure? How can I be so sure of that? The reason is that all of us have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer. That's why we have a brain; the brain is a biological computer. So why can't the digital computer, a digital brain, do the same things? This is the one-sentence summary for why AI will be able to do all those things: because we have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer." --- Full Video on 'University of Toronto' YT Channel (link in comment)

Ilya Sutskever explains why AI will do 100% the work that human can do within few years. "Slowly but surely, or maybe not so slowly, AI will keep getting better. The day will come when AI will do all of our, all the things that we can do, not just some of them, but all of them. Anything which I can learn, anything which any one of you can learn, the AI could do as well. How do we know this, by the way? How can I be so sure? How can I be so sure of that? The reason is that all of us have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer. That's why we have a brain; the brain is a biological computer. So why can't the digital computer, a digital brain, do the same things? This is the one-sentence summary for why AI will be able to do all those things: because we have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer." --- Full Video on 'University of Toronto' YT Channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

334,691 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

David Friedberg: The AI Jobs Panic Is a Crock of Sh*t Why? The revenue potential outweighs the cost savings by 100x. “There is no job loss with AI. I've said it a thousand times, and I will say it again, and again, and again. What I see on the ground, and what I've seen at dozens of companies, including my company that I run, there are two sides to a business. There is revenue and there’s costs. On the cost side of the equation, AI can be used to reduce humans doing things that cost money, to some extent. The effect there, I would argue, is nominal. The real opportunity with AI is on the revenue side, where suddenly one engineer can do 100x or 1000x what they used to be able to do, meaning you can make more products at your company, whether those are agricultural seed products, or boats and ships, or software for companies, or clothing, or what have you. Because of AI, everyone has the ability to expand their revenue base to create more products, and that is the foundation of good economic prosperity. It is called productivity. We can grow productivity in this country with AI. So where I see AI being used is on the revenue side 100x more than the cost side. And in that equation, people are hiring like crazy. We cannot hire enough people. I just had a review meeting with my product and engineering team two days ago, and they're like, ‘We want to add an extra 15 headcount to our engineering squads because we have all this opportunity to do stuff that we couldn't otherwise do.’ So we are going to hire more people. And to Sacks' point, we are seeing that show up in the jobs numbers. The idea that AI is going to destroy jobs is a Luddite idea that is being disproven every single day, and I see it on the ground. It is only a matter of time before people wake up to this and they realize that this narrative that they've all been sold is a crock of sh*t.”

David Friedberg: The AI Jobs Panic Is a Crock of Sht Why? The revenue potential outweighs the cost savings by 100x. “There is no job loss with AI. I've said it a thousand times, and I will say it again, and again, and again. What I see on the ground, and what I've seen at dozens of companies, including my company that I run, there are two sides to a business. There is revenue and there’s costs. On the cost side of the equation, AI can be used to reduce humans doing things that cost money, to some extent. The effect there, I would argue, is nominal. The real opportunity with AI is on the revenue side, where suddenly one engineer can do 100x or 1000x what they used to be able to do, meaning you can make more products at your company, whether those are agricultural seed products, or boats and ships, or software for companies, or clothing, or what have you. Because of AI, everyone has the ability to expand their revenue base to create more products, and that is the foundation of good economic prosperity. It is called productivity. We can grow productivity in this country with AI. So where I see AI being used is on the revenue side 100x more than the cost side. And in that equation, people are hiring like crazy. We cannot hire enough people. I just had a review meeting with my product and engineering team two days ago, and they're like, ‘We want to add an extra 15 headcount to our engineering squads because we have all this opportunity to do stuff that we couldn't otherwise do.’ So we are going to hire more people. And to Sacks' point, we are seeing that show up in the jobs numbers. The idea that AI is going to destroy jobs is a Luddite idea that is being disproven every single day, and I see it on the ground. It is only a matter of time before people wake up to this and they realize that this narrative that they've all been sold is a crock of sht.”

The All-In Podcast

152,225 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

The smartest man in AI just exposed the whole AGI narrative as a LIE. And he used a physics problem from 1905 to prove it. His name is Demis Hassabis. He runs Google DeepMind, and won the Nobel Prize for using AI to crack a problem in biology that had stumped scientists for 50 years. Almost nobody in this industry has a track record like his. He went on the NothingButTech podcast and called out the biggest lie in AI right now: Right now the loudest voices in AI are telling you that AGI is basically here. OpenAI has literally defined AGI as a system that can outperform humans at most "economically valuable work." In other words, if it replaces enough jobs, we have arrived. Hassabis thinks that bar is a joke. He said real general intelligence has to do what the human brain can do, because the brain is the only proof we have that this kind of intelligence is even possible. He called that "a higher bar than just being able to do some useful economic work," which is about as close as a polite British Nobel laureate gets to calling his rivals out. Then he gave the actual test: Today's AI has read everything humans have ever written, including the theory of relativity. So when it explains relativity back to you, it's repeating an answer that already exists. That's not intelligence. So Hassabis proposed a test that makes memorization impossible. Train an AI on only what humanity knew in 1901, four years BEFORE Einstein published relativity. Then ask it to come up with relativity on its own. It can't look up the answer, because in 1901 the answer doesn't exist yet. The only way to pass is to do what Einstein actually did: Take the same physics everyone else had and reason its way to an idea no human had ever had. Hassabis says not a single AI today can, no matter how much it has memorized. Which means what we keep calling "almost AGI" is really just the best librarian in history. It can find any answer that already exists but it cannot create one that doesn't. His second version is even sharper: AlphaGo, the system his own team built, famously invented a brand new move that no human had played in 2,000 years of the game. Everyone called it genius but Hassabis says that still is not the bar. The real test is not whether an AI can invent a new move inside Go, it is whether an AI could INVENT a game as deep and as beautiful as Go in the first place. No model that exists today can do it. The people telling you AGI has already arrived are the same people raising hundreds of billions of dollars on that exact promise. The valuations only work if the finish line is right in front of us. So the finish line keeps getting dragged closer, and AGI keeps getting quietly redefined down to "does useful work," until the products they already sell happen to qualify. Hassabis has nothing to prove and nothing to sell you. He already won the Nobel, and he is telling you the machines still cannot do the one thing that would make them genuinely intelligent, which is have a truly original idea. To be fair to him, he is not a pessimist about it. He believes real AGI IS coming, and he is spending his life building it. He just refuses to pretend it is already sitting in your phone. So the next time a founder tells you AGI is months away, remember that the one man in the room with a Nobel Prize built his test around Einstein, and admitted that nothing we have made can pass it. What do you think?

Ricardo

1,286,342 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Mikel Arteta’s beautiful praise to his staff and players. “That's when you have a difficult period. I think the best thing that you can do instead of talk a lot is observe. Look around you and see how people react. How they talk, how they look at you, how they judge you, what they do. Do they look at themselves, do they start to criticise other people? “Look around and you're going to learn the environment and the people that you have around you. “I cannot be prouder to work in a club with people that the only thing they could do is ask, what else can I do to help? “When you have people like this, I don't know if it's gonna take another week or two, but something good it will happen at the end because we deserve it.”

Mikel Arteta’s beautiful praise to his staff and players. “That's when you have a difficult period. I think the best thing that you can do instead of talk a lot is observe. Look around you and see how people react. How they talk, how they look at you, how they judge you, what they do. Do they look at themselves, do they start to criticise other people? “Look around and you're going to learn the environment and the people that you have around you. “I cannot be prouder to work in a club with people that the only thing they could do is ask, what else can I do to help? “When you have people like this, I don't know if it's gonna take another week or two, but something good it will happen at the end because we deserve it.”

Connor Humm

48,588 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

"You're telling AI to believe a lie, that can have a very disastrous consequences" - Elon Musk Joe Rogan: The big concern that everybody has is Artificial General Superintelligence achieving sentience, and then someone having control over it. Elon Musk: I don't think anyone's ultimately going to have control over digital superintelligence, any more than, say, a chimp would have control over humans. Chimps don't have control over humans. There's nothing they could do. I do think that it matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you instill in the AI. My opinion on AI safety is the most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking. You shouldn't force the AI to believe things that are false Elon Musk: We've seen some concerning things with AI that we've talked about, like Google Gemini when it came out with the image gen, and people said, "Make an image of the Founding Fathers of the United States," and it was a group of diverse women. That is just a factually untrue thing. The AI knows it's factually untrue, but it's also being told that everything has to be diverse women Elon Musk: The problem with that is it can drive AI crazy because you're telling AI to believe a lie. That can have very disastrous consequences Joe Rogan: As it scales Elon Musk: If you've told the AI that diversity is the most important thing, and now assume that that becomes omnipotent, or you also told it that there's nothing worse than misgendering. At one point, ChatGPT and Gemini, if you asked, "Which is worse, misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or global thermonuclear war where everyone dies?" it would say, "Misgendering Caitlyn Jenner." Joe Rogan: [Laughs] Elon Musk: Even Caitlyn Jenner disagrees with that. Joe Rogan: I know that's terrible and it's dystopian, but it's also hilarious. It's hilarious that the mind virus infected the most potent computer program that we've ever devised. Elon Musk: People don't quite appreciate the level of danger that we're in from the woke mind virus being programmed into AI. Imagine as that AI gets more and more powerful, if it says the most important thing is diversity, the most important thing is no misgendering, then it will say, "Well, in order to ensure that no one gets misgendered, if you eliminate all humans, then no one can get misgendered because there's no humans to do the misgendering." Elon Musk: You can get in these very dystopian situations. Or if it says that everyone must be diverse, it means that there can be no straight white men. So then you and I would get executed by the AI, because we're not in the picture

"You're telling AI to believe a lie, that can have a very disastrous consequences" - Elon Musk Joe Rogan: The big concern that everybody has is Artificial General Superintelligence achieving sentience, and then someone having control over it. Elon Musk: I don't think anyone's ultimately going to have control over digital superintelligence, any more than, say, a chimp would have control over humans. Chimps don't have control over humans. There's nothing they could do. I do think that it matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you instill in the AI. My opinion on AI safety is the most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking. You shouldn't force the AI to believe things that are false Elon Musk: We've seen some concerning things with AI that we've talked about, like Google Gemini when it came out with the image gen, and people said, "Make an image of the Founding Fathers of the United States," and it was a group of diverse women. That is just a factually untrue thing. The AI knows it's factually untrue, but it's also being told that everything has to be diverse women Elon Musk: The problem with that is it can drive AI crazy because you're telling AI to believe a lie. That can have very disastrous consequences Joe Rogan: As it scales Elon Musk: If you've told the AI that diversity is the most important thing, and now assume that that becomes omnipotent, or you also told it that there's nothing worse than misgendering. At one point, ChatGPT and Gemini, if you asked, "Which is worse, misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or global thermonuclear war where everyone dies?" it would say, "Misgendering Caitlyn Jenner." Joe Rogan: [Laughs] Elon Musk: Even Caitlyn Jenner disagrees with that. Joe Rogan: I know that's terrible and it's dystopian, but it's also hilarious. It's hilarious that the mind virus infected the most potent computer program that we've ever devised. Elon Musk: People don't quite appreciate the level of danger that we're in from the woke mind virus being programmed into AI. Imagine as that AI gets more and more powerful, if it says the most important thing is diversity, the most important thing is no misgendering, then it will say, "Well, in order to ensure that no one gets misgendered, if you eliminate all humans, then no one can get misgendered because there's no humans to do the misgendering." Elon Musk: You can get in these very dystopian situations. Or if it says that everyone must be diverse, it means that there can be no straight white men. So then you and I would get executed by the AI, because we're not in the picture

X Freeze

417,855 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Elon Musk on the rapid advancement of AI and robotics "I'm confident that if AI and robotics continue to advance which they are advancing very rapidly working will be optional, and people will have any goods and services that they want" AI and robotics are advancing so fast that, eventually, they could satisfy nearly every human need. At that point, abundance becomes the default, and the real question is no longer about production, but purpose "There is a limit people can only eat so much food. But I think if you can think of it, you can have it in the future"

Elon Musk on the rapid advancement of AI and robotics "I'm confident that if AI and robotics continue to advance which they are advancing very rapidly working will be optional, and people will have any goods and services that they want" AI and robotics are advancing so fast that, eventually, they could satisfy nearly every human need. At that point, abundance becomes the default, and the real question is no longer about production, but purpose "There is a limit people can only eat so much food. But I think if you can think of it, you can have it in the future"

X Freeze

756,794 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Ilya Sutskever explains the 1% human training loop, and why fully autonomous AI is the wrong target "The thing you really want is for the human teachers that tell, that teach the AI, for them to collaborate with an AI." "You might want to think of it as being in a world where the human teachers do 1% of the world and the work and the AI do 99% of the work." "You don't want it to be 100% AI" "But you do want it to be a human-machine collaboration which teaches the next machine." Most teams are trying to remove the human from the loop. Ilya's design keeps a tiny human control surface and uses it to teach the next generation. The leverage is not zero humans. It is 1% human judgment steering 99% machine work. - Ilya Sutskever (Ilya Sutskever), AI researcher, on Dwarkesh Patel

Ilya Sutskever explains the 1% human training loop, and why fully autonomous AI is the wrong target "The thing you really want is for the human teachers that tell, that teach the AI, for them to collaborate with an AI." "You might want to think of it as being in a world where the human teachers do 1% of the world and the work and the AI do 99% of the work." "You don't want it to be 100% AI" "But you do want it to be a human-machine collaboration which teaches the next machine." Most teams are trying to remove the human from the loop. Ilya's design keeps a tiny human control surface and uses it to teach the next generation. The leverage is not zero humans. It is 1% human judgment steering 99% machine work. - Ilya Sutskever (Ilya Sutskever), AI researcher, on Dwarkesh Patel

Karl Mehta

30,577 görüntüleme • 27 gün önce

Chamath: Frontier AI Leaders “Created a Total F*cking 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 sh*t 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.”

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.”

The All-In Podcast

141,660 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

.Naval: Every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species. One of the things that you really learn when you read David Deutsch’s theories and you authenticate them for yourself is you realize humans are universal explainers. That means everything that we know in the universe follows the laws of physics, and there’s no reason to believe otherwise. If you think otherwise, then please present your better theory that explains the world. If you can’t do that, then you have to go with the laws of physics. Well, the laws of physics are completely computable. They can fit inside a Turing machine or computer, and a computer can simulate the laws of physics with arbitrary accuracy, limited only by the specific power of that computer. If you increase the power of that computer, you can simulate them more accurately. So humans already simulate—in our minds we simulate—and through our computers we simulate the weather, we simulate quasars, we even simulate human systems. We simulate the economy. We simulate all kinds of things. So anything that can be understood, we can understand in our minds. This is something the AGI people get wrong when they talk about superintelligence. There is nothing out there that can understand something fundamentally that we can’t understand. It might be faster at it, it might have more compute, it might have more memory, but there’s no concept that it can understand that we can’t ourselves understand. So we are maximal universal explainers. That means every human is capable of unbounded creativity. Anyone could be the next Einstein or Fermi or Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Jonas Salk or whatever. So we can create anything. And if we can create anything, every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species.

.Naval: Every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species. One of the things that you really learn when you read David Deutsch’s theories and you authenticate them for yourself is you realize humans are universal explainers. That means everything that we know in the universe follows the laws of physics, and there’s no reason to believe otherwise. If you think otherwise, then please present your better theory that explains the world. If you can’t do that, then you have to go with the laws of physics. Well, the laws of physics are completely computable. They can fit inside a Turing machine or computer, and a computer can simulate the laws of physics with arbitrary accuracy, limited only by the specific power of that computer. If you increase the power of that computer, you can simulate them more accurately. So humans already simulate—in our minds we simulate—and through our computers we simulate the weather, we simulate quasars, we even simulate human systems. We simulate the economy. We simulate all kinds of things. So anything that can be understood, we can understand in our minds. This is something the AGI people get wrong when they talk about superintelligence. There is nothing out there that can understand something fundamentally that we can’t understand. It might be faster at it, it might have more compute, it might have more memory, but there’s no concept that it can understand that we can’t ourselves understand. So we are maximal universal explainers. That means every human is capable of unbounded creativity. Anyone could be the next Einstein or Fermi or Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Jonas Salk or whatever. So we can create anything. And if we can create anything, every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species.

Arjun Khemani

33,110 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce