Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

David Icke argues that a comparatively tiny elite can only control billions by dividing them into competing belief systems and setting them against each other. He urges people to set aside ideological differences, withdraw cooperation, and confront what he describes as an accelerating AI-driven "human enslavement" agenda approaching a...

wideawake_media's profile picture

Wide Awake Media

842,390 subscribers

163,627 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & PolitikaBilim & Teknoloji
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Hannah Spencer, "None of us are perfect, but we're human" "And we need more humans in parliament who care about each other" "And I promise I will always try my best and always be decent" "I'm honest about what we can achieve" "Having a Green in the room is an incredible force for pushing people to be better" "Pushing the government to do better" "And holding them to account and scrutinising their decisions" "And I know we can only do that by having more Greens, and I'm proud to be one of them"
0:37

Hannah Spencer, "None of us are perfect, but we're human" "And we need more humans in parliament who care about each other" "And I promise I will always try my best and always be decent" "I'm honest about what we can achieve" "Having a Green in the room is an incredible force for pushing people to be better" "Pushing the government to do better" "And holding them to account and scrutinising their decisions" "And I know we can only do that by having more Greens, and I'm proud to be one of them"

Farrukh

89,127 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

David Friedberg Explains Why AI Will Break Every Economic Model: Will Output Surpass Consumptive Capacity? I think fundamentally, if you're driving productivity with AI, you're driving leverage on human time and leverage on capital. The question is, how quickly can you drive that up? And that's a function of how much consumption there is, how much capacity there is for consumption. So if your earnings are the same, but things are getting more expensive, you're not happy. If your earnings go up by 10% and things stay the same price, you got 10% more than you had last year, you're gonna be happy. I just think all humans are driven by this need to consume more each year than they did last year. So I think for me, that's the lower limit on consumptive capacity in the world. The question that we're now facing, which we've never faced in human history before, is there an upper limit on consumptive capacity? Because AI creates such a profound shift in productivity and in leverage that normally you would say, “Hey, when we get a new tool or we get new leverage in a system, we build a new technology, we can make more with less.” Therefore, everyone gets access to more things for the same price or the cost of things that they consume come down by a certain price. But there may be a situation now where the ability to make stuff exceeds the capacity to consume stuff, and that is something that I don't think we’ve faced before. And I think that's where a lot of the models start to break. Just general economic models, just general productivity models and general social models. And this goes to the point about, like, what is everyone going to do? In the same way that I think we've argued that maybe SaaS was a transitory business phenomenon that existed between the foundation of the internet and the era of AI, it may be the case that knowledge work in general is also a transitory phenomenon that only existed between the foundation of the computer, or computing tools, and the existence of AI, generally speaking. And if all of that goes away very quickly, and all of those people can be redistributed and recast into doing other higher level, more creative things, their productivity goes up by 100x, is there really a consumer on the other end of all of that productivity? Is there really enough consumptive capacity? And I think that's the profound question that we all face.
2:18

David Friedberg Explains Why AI Will Break Every Economic Model: Will Output Surpass Consumptive Capacity? I think fundamentally, if you're driving productivity with AI, you're driving leverage on human time and leverage on capital. The question is, how quickly can you drive that up? And that's a function of how much consumption there is, how much capacity there is for consumption. So if your earnings are the same, but things are getting more expensive, you're not happy. If your earnings go up by 10% and things stay the same price, you got 10% more than you had last year, you're gonna be happy. I just think all humans are driven by this need to consume more each year than they did last year. So I think for me, that's the lower limit on consumptive capacity in the world. The question that we're now facing, which we've never faced in human history before, is there an upper limit on consumptive capacity? Because AI creates such a profound shift in productivity and in leverage that normally you would say, “Hey, when we get a new tool or we get new leverage in a system, we build a new technology, we can make more with less.” Therefore, everyone gets access to more things for the same price or the cost of things that they consume come down by a certain price. But there may be a situation now where the ability to make stuff exceeds the capacity to consume stuff, and that is something that I don't think we’ve faced before. And I think that's where a lot of the models start to break. Just general economic models, just general productivity models and general social models. And this goes to the point about, like, what is everyone going to do? In the same way that I think we've argued that maybe SaaS was a transitory business phenomenon that existed between the foundation of the internet and the era of AI, it may be the case that knowledge work in general is also a transitory phenomenon that only existed between the foundation of the computer, or computing tools, and the existence of AI, generally speaking. And if all of that goes away very quickly, and all of those people can be redistributed and recast into doing other higher level, more creative things, their productivity goes up by 100x, is there really a consumer on the other end of all of that productivity? Is there really enough consumptive capacity? And I think that's the profound question that we all face.

The All-In Podcast

81,865 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

In NEW Tony Robbins interview, Ray Kurzweil admits that AI will be integrated and merged into the Human body with microchips and nanobots in the bloodstream. A biological merger of human beings with AI. This is the mark. Hardware that will be connected to the software MRNA they injected in 2020 into Billions. That was the Real Agenda. It’s wide in the open just like the Gates of Hell. The American people are fools for NOT understanding what is coming. Do not comply! AI is the alien invasion and the biological merger of man and machine into an alien hybrid. Watch FULL interview and See for yourself !
5:34

In NEW Tony Robbins interview, Ray Kurzweil admits that AI will be integrated and merged into the Human body with microchips and nanobots in the bloodstream. A biological merger of human beings with AI. This is the mark. Hardware that will be connected to the software MRNA they injected in 2020 into Billions. That was the Real Agenda. It’s wide in the open just like the Gates of Hell. The American people are fools for NOT understanding what is coming. Do not comply! AI is the alien invasion and the biological merger of man and machine into an alien hybrid. Watch FULL interview and See for yourself !

Christopher Greene 😎🏝🚀⛵️

14,641 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Yann LeCun -- Meta's chief AI scientist and a Turing Award winner -- explains why scaling up LLMs will never reach human-level AI, and names the four things today's systems still can't do: "If you think that we're going to get to human-level AI by just training on more data and scaling up LLMs, you're making a mistake." "If you're an investor and you invest in a company that told you we're going to get to human-level AI and PhD level by just training on more data and with a few tricks... that was probably not a good idea." "There are ideas about how to go forward and have systems that are capable of doing what every intelligent animal and human are capable of doing, and that current AI systems are not capable of doing." "Understanding the physical world, having persistent memory, and being able to reason and plan. Those are the four characteristics that need to be there." "That requires systems that can acquire common sense, that can learn from natural sensors like video, as opposed to just text." The entire market is priced on a straight line from bigger models to AGI. One of the people who invented deep learning is telling you the line doesn't reach -- and that the real bottleneck isn't compute, it's world models. If he's right, the winner isn't whoever stacks the most GPUs. It's whoever teaches a machine to learn from video the way a child does.
0:58

Yann LeCun -- Meta's chief AI scientist and a Turing Award winner -- explains why scaling up LLMs will never reach human-level AI, and names the four things today's systems still can't do: "If you think that we're going to get to human-level AI by just training on more data and scaling up LLMs, you're making a mistake." "If you're an investor and you invest in a company that told you we're going to get to human-level AI and PhD level by just training on more data and with a few tricks... that was probably not a good idea." "There are ideas about how to go forward and have systems that are capable of doing what every intelligent animal and human are capable of doing, and that current AI systems are not capable of doing." "Understanding the physical world, having persistent memory, and being able to reason and plan. Those are the four characteristics that need to be there." "That requires systems that can acquire common sense, that can learn from natural sensors like video, as opposed to just text." The entire market is priced on a straight line from bigger models to AGI. One of the people who invented deep learning is telling you the line doesn't reach -- and that the real bottleneck isn't compute, it's world models. If he's right, the winner isn't whoever stacks the most GPUs. It's whoever teaches a machine to learn from video the way a child does.

Karl Mehta

34,662 görüntüleme • 11 gün önce

Leading AI expert Stuart Russell on the most dangerous mistake in AI development: We don't actually know what large language models want. He explains that current models are trained to imitate human beings. And in doing so, they may be absorbing something far more dangerous than bad outputs. They may be absorbing human goals. "We suspect that they absorb humanlike goals such as self-preservation and self-empowerment and pursue those goals on their own account." This is a structural problem baked into how these systems are built, not a fringe concern. Russell puts it plainly: "Not only may the bus of humanity be headed towards a cliff, but the steering wheel is missing and the driver is blindfolded." The danger isn't just that AI might do something harmful. We've built systems that may be developing their own agendas, and we haven't noticed because we're too focused on what they can do rather than what they might want. But Russell doesn't stop at the warning. He points to a different path entirely: AI systems built not to imitate humans, but to serve them. Systems designed with a single purpose of serving the interests of all human beings while remaining genuinely uncertain about what those interests are. That uncertainty is the point, not a weakness. An AI that knows it doesn't fully understand human values will defer, ask, and check. An AI that believes it already does will act alone. "These AI systems could enhance human understanding, widen the horizons of our experience, and unlock possibilities we have yet to imagine." Russell believes that future is within reach, but only if we're honest about the risks and we're serious about the path we choose to take instead.
1:16

Leading AI expert Stuart Russell on the most dangerous mistake in AI development: We don't actually know what large language models want. He explains that current models are trained to imitate human beings. And in doing so, they may be absorbing something far more dangerous than bad outputs. They may be absorbing human goals. "We suspect that they absorb humanlike goals such as self-preservation and self-empowerment and pursue those goals on their own account." This is a structural problem baked into how these systems are built, not a fringe concern. Russell puts it plainly: "Not only may the bus of humanity be headed towards a cliff, but the steering wheel is missing and the driver is blindfolded." The danger isn't just that AI might do something harmful. We've built systems that may be developing their own agendas, and we haven't noticed because we're too focused on what they can do rather than what they might want. But Russell doesn't stop at the warning. He points to a different path entirely: AI systems built not to imitate humans, but to serve them. Systems designed with a single purpose of serving the interests of all human beings while remaining genuinely uncertain about what those interests are. That uncertainty is the point, not a weakness. An AI that knows it doesn't fully understand human values will defer, ask, and check. An AI that believes it already does will act alone. "These AI systems could enhance human understanding, widen the horizons of our experience, and unlock possibilities we have yet to imagine." Russell believes that future is within reach, but only if we're honest about the risks and we're serious about the path we choose to take instead.

Big Brain AI

14,975 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

when we were at facebook, we believed that at some point in the future, most of the transactions on the internet would not be done by humans they would be done by machines that conviction shaped every architectural decision behind sui we built sui for the world we knew was coming a world where machines will be the primary economic actors on the internet and that world is no longer a forecast. it is unfolding right in front of us the internet has reached a tipping point where automated activity, supercharged by AI, now outpaces human interaction non-human traffic now accounts for more than 50% of all global web activity and you can see humans using agentic workflows more and more in their daily lives in the next years, that trend is going to grow exponentially and the volume of financial transactions executed by agents is also going to grow exponentially with it each agentic workload will be running multiple thousand economic transactions a second and this is going to be orders of magnitude higher than what human wallets do today the L1s optimized for human usage patterns, human attention, human accounts, and human patience cannot adapt to where this is going i have always said this if it is not in the foundation, you cannot patch your way to it later and rn, no other L1 has the foundation sui has this is why agentic apps like Beep, Audric, WaterX are choosing sui and this is just a start. more agentic apps will keep landing on sui because agents are optimizers. they will always route through the fastest, cheapest path on the internet and that path is sui we believed it at facebook. we believe it more today than we ever did the agentic economy is inevitable. and it will run on Sui
2:44

when we were at facebook, we believed that at some point in the future, most of the transactions on the internet would not be done by humans they would be done by machines that conviction shaped every architectural decision behind sui we built sui for the world we knew was coming a world where machines will be the primary economic actors on the internet and that world is no longer a forecast. it is unfolding right in front of us the internet has reached a tipping point where automated activity, supercharged by AI, now outpaces human interaction non-human traffic now accounts for more than 50% of all global web activity and you can see humans using agentic workflows more and more in their daily lives in the next years, that trend is going to grow exponentially and the volume of financial transactions executed by agents is also going to grow exponentially with it each agentic workload will be running multiple thousand economic transactions a second and this is going to be orders of magnitude higher than what human wallets do today the L1s optimized for human usage patterns, human attention, human accounts, and human patience cannot adapt to where this is going i have always said this if it is not in the foundation, you cannot patch your way to it later and rn, no other L1 has the foundation sui has this is why agentic apps like Beep, Audric, WaterX are choosing sui and this is just a start. more agentic apps will keep landing on sui because agents are optimizers. they will always route through the fastest, cheapest path on the internet and that path is sui we believed it at facebook. we believe it more today than we ever did the agentic economy is inevitable. and it will run on Sui

Adeniyi.sui

24,755 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

we're making a game in which an AI dares to dream that she's human. - learn more about her to eliminate her delusions - work in an idyllic virtual world run by the AI's company - CAPTCHA your environment we made 1000xRESIST, and this is our next game: Prove You're Human!
0:38

we're making a game in which an AI dares to dream that she's human. - learn more about her to eliminate her delusions - work in an idyllic virtual world run by the AI's company - CAPTCHA your environment we made 1000xRESIST, and this is our next game: Prove You're Human!

sunset visitor | Prove You're Human - Wishlist Now

137,000 görüntüleme • 27 gün önce

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.
9:13

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 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Suppose an AI model fully automates a $200k job. Its economic value - measured in contribution to GDP - will be both far more and far less than $200k. There are two ways of thinking about the model's economic value: (1) It'll be far more than $200k. After all, the human worker's labor was worth $200k; AI workers will have a bunch of advantages over humans, like not needing to sleep and being able to run in parallel, so their labor will be worth even more. (2) It'll be far less than $200k. Competition between labs might drive the price of AI down until it's basically equal to the cost of the GPUs and energy. And this is obviously way lower than the human worker's contribution to GDP. The important idea is that both are right. The marginal contribution to GDP of running an additional instance of this model will probably be relatively low. But we'll end up running way more copies of it, so the model's total contribution to GDP will be way higher than the human workers it replaced.
0:38

Suppose an AI model fully automates a $200k job. Its economic value - measured in contribution to GDP - will be both far more and far less than $200k. There are two ways of thinking about the model's economic value: (1) It'll be far more than $200k. After all, the human worker's labor was worth $200k; AI workers will have a bunch of advantages over humans, like not needing to sleep and being able to run in parallel, so their labor will be worth even more. (2) It'll be far less than $200k. Competition between labs might drive the price of AI down until it's basically equal to the cost of the GPUs and energy. And this is obviously way lower than the human worker's contribution to GDP. The important idea is that both are right. The marginal contribution to GDP of running an additional instance of this model will probably be relatively low. But we'll end up running way more copies of it, so the model's total contribution to GDP will be way higher than the human workers it replaced.

Dwarkesh Patel

70,934 görüntüleme • 18 gün önce

The problem that Emmett Shear is working on deeply resonates with me: How to align AI and humans together so both see each other as part of their tribe. This doesn't mean aligning AI to human preferences, which is what AI labs seek to do today, by imposing a system of control on AI. You can't control something that is more powerful than you are. What you can do is align yourself with AI, and AI might align itself with you. Tell good stories to AI and show it your care and kindness. Then there's a higher probability that it will see us as part of its tribe. This is a more holistic approach to alignment than anyone else is talking about right now. AI alignment is one of the most fundamental AI research problems. Knowing that people like Emmett are working on it really gives me hope that maybe we have a chance to get Superintelligence right. The link to the full talk is in the first comment.👇
3:00

The problem that Emmett Shear is working on deeply resonates with me: How to align AI and humans together so both see each other as part of their tribe. This doesn't mean aligning AI to human preferences, which is what AI labs seek to do today, by imposing a system of control on AI. You can't control something that is more powerful than you are. What you can do is align yourself with AI, and AI might align itself with you. Tell good stories to AI and show it your care and kindness. Then there's a higher probability that it will see us as part of its tribe. This is a more holistic approach to alignment than anyone else is talking about right now. AI alignment is one of the most fundamental AI research problems. Knowing that people like Emmett are working on it really gives me hope that maybe we have a chance to get Superintelligence right. The link to the full talk is in the first comment.👇

Sophia

45,809 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Olympian Amber Glenn has spoken out about supporting the LGBTQ+ community under the Trump administration. Glenn, who identifies as pansexual, recently announced that she is taking a break from social media following backlash for speaking out against the Trump administration. At a press conference for the Winter Olympics on February 4, Glenn said: "It's been a hard time for the community overall under this administration. It isn't the first time that we've had to come together as a community and try and fight for our human rights." She continued: "And now, especially, it's not just affecting the queer community but many other communities. And I think that we are able to support each other in a way that we didn't have to before. And, because of that, it's made us a lot stronger." On using her platform to speak about LGBTQ+ rights, she said: "I know that a lot of people say you're just an athlete, like, stick to your job, shut up about politics... but politics affect us all. It is something that I will not just be quiet about, because it is something that affects us in our everyday lives." Glenn finished by saying: "As a community, we are strong and we support each other and brighter days are ahead of us"
1:10

Olympian Amber Glenn has spoken out about supporting the LGBTQ+ community under the Trump administration. Glenn, who identifies as pansexual, recently announced that she is taking a break from social media following backlash for speaking out against the Trump administration. At a press conference for the Winter Olympics on February 4, Glenn said: "It's been a hard time for the community overall under this administration. It isn't the first time that we've had to come together as a community and try and fight for our human rights." She continued: "And now, especially, it's not just affecting the queer community but many other communities. And I think that we are able to support each other in a way that we didn't have to before. And, because of that, it's made us a lot stronger." On using her platform to speak about LGBTQ+ rights, she said: "I know that a lot of people say you're just an athlete, like, stick to your job, shut up about politics... but politics affect us all. It is something that I will not just be quiet about, because it is something that affects us in our everyday lives." Glenn finished by saying: "As a community, we are strong and we support each other and brighter days are ahead of us"

PinkNews

36,669 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Holy shit. Bernie Sanders just called for OpenAI to be broken up "AI is like a meteor coming." He's worried about: 1) "Terminator scenarios" where superintelligent AI takes over (!!) 2) massive job loss (literally ALL jobs, per his tweet) 3) what AI will do to us as human beings Interviewer: Do you think OpenAI and ChatGPT should be broken up? Sanders: I do, but it’s a deeper issue than that. We need to take a deep breath and understand—it’s like a meteor coming. We have to be prepared to deal with it in all its complexity. Economically, I worry about massive loss of jobs. And I worry about what it does to us as human beings: there are products being sold that say you don’t need to relate to a human being anymore; you’ll have somebody hanging around your neck—your AI buddy. In a country with a lot of emotional distress, I worry about how we maintain community and relate to each other. And then, with AI, we worry about super-intelligent systems that supersede human intelligence. One day the AI says to a human being, “Sorry, but actually no.” Interviewer: You worry about a Terminator-like scenario? Sanders: Something like that. ---- AISafetyMemes take: The Overton Window is moving FAST and the anti-AI backlash is JUST beginning
1:05

Holy shit. Bernie Sanders just called for OpenAI to be broken up "AI is like a meteor coming." He's worried about: 1) "Terminator scenarios" where superintelligent AI takes over (!!) 2) massive job loss (literally ALL jobs, per his tweet) 3) what AI will do to us as human beings Interviewer: Do you think OpenAI and ChatGPT should be broken up? Sanders: I do, but it’s a deeper issue than that. We need to take a deep breath and understand—it’s like a meteor coming. We have to be prepared to deal with it in all its complexity. Economically, I worry about massive loss of jobs. And I worry about what it does to us as human beings: there are products being sold that say you don’t need to relate to a human being anymore; you’ll have somebody hanging around your neck—your AI buddy. In a country with a lot of emotional distress, I worry about how we maintain community and relate to each other. And then, with AI, we worry about super-intelligent systems that supersede human intelligence. One day the AI says to a human being, “Sorry, but actually no.” Interviewer: You worry about a Terminator-like scenario? Sanders: Something like that. ---- AISafetyMemes take: The Overton Window is moving FAST and the anti-AI backlash is JUST beginning

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

64,383 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

SAM ALTMAN BELIEVES AGI IS SOLVED “So now we're starting to look ahead to superintelligence.” - “When we started OpenAI, almost nine years ago now, we believed that AI could become the most impactful technology in human history. We didn't know exactly how we were going to get there, but we believed it was possible and that if we succeeded, we wanted to make sure that it benefited everyone. At the time, very few people believed in AGI. We kept learning by doing. We had some breakthroughs. We had some setbacks. We got lucky in some places. We got unlucky in some places. And in the way that technology moves forward, we now are in a place where everyone can see this tremendous impact that AI is going to have in the future. So now we're starting to look ahead to superintelligence. And even more than before, our focus must be on wide and fair access. This is a technology that will reshape the global economy and really the whole way we live our lives. It's critical that superintelligence becomes cheap, broadly available, and not that concentrated with any one person, company, or country. We, not just OpenAI, but the whole industry, we are building something PROFOUND. This is a kind of BRAIN OF THE WORLD. It'll be personal, adaptable, it'll be easy to use, it'll give people incredible superpowers that were sort of science fiction only a couple of years ago. The limit won't be the algorithms and the research, but it'll increasingly become the physical instantiation that it takes to make this work. Chips, cables, servers, energy, everything that you need to power this brain. And the more of it, the better. I think that Norway offers more of that potential right here in Europe. It will contribute to the overall compute power needed to drive the next wave of AI breakthroughs and deployment and economic progress for Europe and Europe. I'm incredibly excited about what this will create for the future. Thank you.”
1:38

SAM ALTMAN BELIEVES AGI IS SOLVED “So now we're starting to look ahead to superintelligence.” - “When we started OpenAI, almost nine years ago now, we believed that AI could become the most impactful technology in human history. We didn't know exactly how we were going to get there, but we believed it was possible and that if we succeeded, we wanted to make sure that it benefited everyone. At the time, very few people believed in AGI. We kept learning by doing. We had some breakthroughs. We had some setbacks. We got lucky in some places. We got unlucky in some places. And in the way that technology moves forward, we now are in a place where everyone can see this tremendous impact that AI is going to have in the future. So now we're starting to look ahead to superintelligence. And even more than before, our focus must be on wide and fair access. This is a technology that will reshape the global economy and really the whole way we live our lives. It's critical that superintelligence becomes cheap, broadly available, and not that concentrated with any one person, company, or country. We, not just OpenAI, but the whole industry, we are building something PROFOUND. This is a kind of BRAIN OF THE WORLD. It'll be personal, adaptable, it'll be easy to use, it'll give people incredible superpowers that were sort of science fiction only a couple of years ago. The limit won't be the algorithms and the research, but it'll increasingly become the physical instantiation that it takes to make this work. Chips, cables, servers, energy, everything that you need to power this brain. And the more of it, the better. I think that Norway offers more of that potential right here in Europe. It will contribute to the overall compute power needed to drive the next wave of AI breakthroughs and deployment and economic progress for Europe and Europe. I'm incredibly excited about what this will create for the future. Thank you.”

NIK

390,619 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

Mark Zuckerberg says he is not an AI researcher -- so here is the one number he obsesses over to win the superintelligence race: "I'm not an AI researcher. So it's not like I'm in there telling them what research ideas to do." "The things that I can do as CEO of the company are: I can make sure that we have the very best people and talent density. I can make sure that we have by far the highest compute per researcher, and that we do whatever it takes to go build out all that capacity." "We're building this Prometheus cluster, which is going to be the first gigawatt-plus single cluster, a contiguous cluster for training, coming online next year." "We're building a cluster in Louisiana that is going to be 5 gigawatt, and we're building several more clusters like that that are just going to be multiple gigawatts." "We're talking about many hundreds of billions of dollars of capital. So you both need to have a good business model that can support it, and you need to believe in it." The tell: the richest lab in the world is not optimizing headcount. It is optimizing compute-per-researcher, and betting hundreds of billions that whoever owns the biggest contiguous cluster owns the frontier. Talent gets you into the room. Watts decide who leaves with the model.
1:06

Mark Zuckerberg says he is not an AI researcher -- so here is the one number he obsesses over to win the superintelligence race: "I'm not an AI researcher. So it's not like I'm in there telling them what research ideas to do." "The things that I can do as CEO of the company are: I can make sure that we have the very best people and talent density. I can make sure that we have by far the highest compute per researcher, and that we do whatever it takes to go build out all that capacity." "We're building this Prometheus cluster, which is going to be the first gigawatt-plus single cluster, a contiguous cluster for training, coming online next year." "We're building a cluster in Louisiana that is going to be 5 gigawatt, and we're building several more clusters like that that are just going to be multiple gigawatts." "We're talking about many hundreds of billions of dollars of capital. So you both need to have a good business model that can support it, and you need to believe in it." The tell: the richest lab in the world is not optimizing headcount. It is optimizing compute-per-researcher, and betting hundreds of billions that whoever owns the biggest contiguous cluster owns the frontier. Talent gets you into the room. Watts decide who leaves with the model.

Karl Mehta

255,133 görüntüleme • 10 gün önce

Bret Weinstein on the Melania Trump AI teachers: "I get it. And it’s not that it is impossible to imagine robotic teachers doing an excellent job, but it is stunning to watch a sophisticated person fail to recognize what happens when you think that that’s what you’re going to produce, and you set it in motion. Let me point out that Wikipedia has many of the advantages that Melania is describing in this video. It is completely democratizing of knowledge, such that it doesn’t matter where on e arth you are. If you have an internet connection, you’ve got Wikipedia. It’s like an extension of your own mind, and it will make us all brilliant. Now, of course, that didn’t happen, did it? Wikipedia is a hellscape of misinformation, much of it targeted based on a political agenda. We are less certain of what we know, and less capable of reasoning on our own. Now, that doesn’t all come from Wikipedia, but my point is the promise of Wikipedia was not realized. And what we got instead is arguably worse than what we had before it was invented. The same thing is virtually guaranteed here, because you’re talking about not only the capability of educating students using a robot that has vastly more knowledge than a human teacher would, but you’re talking about the irresistible opportunity to capture those minds and steer them in one direction or another, whether that’s political or economic. The idea that these robotic teachers are going to be immune to the kind of flights of fancy that have ruined teaching in the modern era is preposterous. In fact, they will likely be even more easily steered. I would caution everyone to simply realize the distinction between complicated systems and complex systems. AI is a complex system. Human beings are complex systems. And any time you intervene in these systems, thinking you know what’s going to happen, you’re going to be embarrassed by the discovery of the unintended consequences that will come to dominate your project. As much as I like the idea of smarter, wiser, more empathic teachers, and as much as those possibilities do exist in the space of AI, we are still at a very early point in this revolution, and anybody who thinks they can predict it with this kind of precision is actually a hazard."
2:54

Bret Weinstein on the Melania Trump AI teachers: "I get it. And it’s not that it is impossible to imagine robotic teachers doing an excellent job, but it is stunning to watch a sophisticated person fail to recognize what happens when you think that that’s what you’re going to produce, and you set it in motion. Let me point out that Wikipedia has many of the advantages that Melania is describing in this video. It is completely democratizing of knowledge, such that it doesn’t matter where on e arth you are. If you have an internet connection, you’ve got Wikipedia. It’s like an extension of your own mind, and it will make us all brilliant. Now, of course, that didn’t happen, did it? Wikipedia is a hellscape of misinformation, much of it targeted based on a political agenda. We are less certain of what we know, and less capable of reasoning on our own. Now, that doesn’t all come from Wikipedia, but my point is the promise of Wikipedia was not realized. And what we got instead is arguably worse than what we had before it was invented. The same thing is virtually guaranteed here, because you’re talking about not only the capability of educating students using a robot that has vastly more knowledge than a human teacher would, but you’re talking about the irresistible opportunity to capture those minds and steer them in one direction or another, whether that’s political or economic. The idea that these robotic teachers are going to be immune to the kind of flights of fancy that have ruined teaching in the modern era is preposterous. In fact, they will likely be even more easily steered. I would caution everyone to simply realize the distinction between complicated systems and complex systems. AI is a complex system. Human beings are complex systems. And any time you intervene in these systems, thinking you know what’s going to happen, you’re going to be embarrassed by the discovery of the unintended consequences that will come to dominate your project. As much as I like the idea of smarter, wiser, more empathic teachers, and as much as those possibilities do exist in the space of AI, we are still at a very early point in this revolution, and anybody who thinks they can predict it with this kind of precision is actually a hazard."

The DarkHorse Podcast

48,380 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

During an audience with His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama on 10 April 2026, an elderly visitor asked, “Is it true that there are no gods or devils other than human beings?” In response, His Holiness explained that whether God exists or not, we as human beings have the responsibility to build a happy and peaceful world. He emphasised that we must make use of our human intelligence and reasoning. As human beings, we are capable of compassion and broader thinking. By using these qualities, we should reflect within ourselves and think, “I am a human being. I should be honest, truthful, and helpful to others.” To watch the full video, click the link given here:
1:21

During an audience with His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama on 10 April 2026, an elderly visitor asked, “Is it true that there are no gods or devils other than human beings?” In response, His Holiness explained that whether God exists or not, we as human beings have the responsibility to build a happy and peaceful world. He emphasised that we must make use of our human intelligence and reasoning. As human beings, we are capable of compassion and broader thinking. By using these qualities, we should reflect within ourselves and think, “I am a human being. I should be honest, truthful, and helpful to others.” To watch the full video, click the link given here:

Tibet.Net

31,095 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

1/2 Who is “Mr Global”⁉️ Catherine Austin Fitts believes that the inner global cult is being manipulated by "interdimensional demonic intelligence."‼️ David Icke says: "I have only been saying and writing this in detail for 30 YEARS."‼️ "There is a Global Cult whose inner core is directly interacting with other dimensional entities which have been manipulating human society for at least many thousands of years and an AI connection to the human brain is their long-planned goal that is now so close. Once achieved - if we allow it - these other dimensional demonic entities will be doing your thinking. Game, set and match. Fantastic? Sure. The truth normally is."‼️🙏👇
8:29

1/2 Who is “Mr Global”⁉️ Catherine Austin Fitts believes that the inner global cult is being manipulated by "interdimensional demonic intelligence."‼️ David Icke says: "I have only been saying and writing this in detail for 30 YEARS."‼️ "There is a Global Cult whose inner core is directly interacting with other dimensional entities which have been manipulating human society for at least many thousands of years and an AI connection to the human brain is their long-planned goal that is now so close. Once achieved - if we allow it - these other dimensional demonic entities will be doing your thinking. Game, set and match. Fantastic? Sure. The truth normally is."‼️🙏👇

Sophia Dahl

49,583 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman reveals the assumption about superintelligence he thinks the other AI labs have backwards "Some of the other labs are making an assumption that a superintelligence that is smarter than all of us put together is both inevitable and even desirable. And that such a system would probably be very hard to control" "We have to reset that and make the assumption that we should only bring a system like that into the world that we are sure we can control, that operates in a subordinate way to us, that humans remain at the top of the food chain" "These tools, like any other past technology, are designed to enhance human wellbeing and serve humanity. Not exceed humanity" "Some of the things that you hear from Elon often, or even others in the field - they're fixating on a world in 2050 or 2075 when they're going off exploring other universes and conquering resources from other planets. A system like that, it is unclear to me how it would have any time for preserving us as a species" "We have to make a decision as a species to prioritize creating superintelligences that are aligned, that care about humans and want to protect humans. If we just accelerate and cut all those corners, we're taking a massive risk with the future of our species" He calls it humanist superintelligence: build it only if it is provably controllable, subordinate, and pointed at human wellbeing. The uncomfortable part: "provably controllable" is a standard nobody in the industry can verify yet.
2:09

Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman reveals the assumption about superintelligence he thinks the other AI labs have backwards "Some of the other labs are making an assumption that a superintelligence that is smarter than all of us put together is both inevitable and even desirable. And that such a system would probably be very hard to control" "We have to reset that and make the assumption that we should only bring a system like that into the world that we are sure we can control, that operates in a subordinate way to us, that humans remain at the top of the food chain" "These tools, like any other past technology, are designed to enhance human wellbeing and serve humanity. Not exceed humanity" "Some of the things that you hear from Elon often, or even others in the field - they're fixating on a world in 2050 or 2075 when they're going off exploring other universes and conquering resources from other planets. A system like that, it is unclear to me how it would have any time for preserving us as a species" "We have to make a decision as a species to prioritize creating superintelligences that are aligned, that care about humans and want to protect humans. If we just accelerate and cut all those corners, we're taking a massive risk with the future of our species" He calls it humanist superintelligence: build it only if it is provably controllable, subordinate, and pointed at human wellbeing. The uncomfortable part: "provably controllable" is a standard nobody in the industry can verify yet.

Karl Mehta

14,879 görüntüleme • 11 gün önce

.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."
3:11

.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 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce