Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

David Sacks says an open-source AI ban is coming, disguised as holding open models to the same standard as closed "I got bad news for you, Chamath. An open source ban is coming. They're not going to call it that." "You know what they're going to say? They're going... to say that we simply have to apply the same standards to open models that we apply to closed." "Okay, here's how they do it step by step. Let me explain how regulatory capture actually works." "So first of all, you got to get this regulatory apparatus. Okay, Dario wants an FDA for AI, but he doesn't have enough political support for that, so instead they do this Trojan horse of a FINRA for AI." "They call it self-regulating, it's not really, but anyway that gets them off the ground. Now they've created the standard-setting organization. Now they've got pre-release model testing. Then the pressure grows to codify that in law."show more

Fireside Alpha

14,275 subscribers

227,940 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & Technologie Bildung Nachrichten & Politik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

David Sacks: Anthropic Wants to Ban Open Source AI in America Listen to All-In to stay a few weeks (or months) ahead of everyone else David Sacks back in May: “I think where it's all leading to is an effort to ban open source models. There's a lot of breadcrumbs leading here. You look at a lot of the rhetoric around how models need to have guardrails, and that with open source models, the guardrails can be removed and therefore they're dangerous. You see this rhetoric already in Anthropic's blog posts. Any threat that they describe, they kind of go out of their way to take that shot at open source models. They're trying to create ideas or put predicate facts in the public record to justify an action later on. I think it's just a matter of time before they feel like they're at a position where maybe they can push for that type of ban directly.”

David Sacks: Anthropic Wants to Ban Open Source AI in America Listen to All-In to stay a few weeks (or months) ahead of everyone else David Sacks back in May: “I think where it's all leading to is an effort to ban open source models. There's a lot of breadcrumbs leading here. You look at a lot of the rhetoric around how models need to have guardrails, and that with open source models, the guardrails can be removed and therefore they're dangerous. You see this rhetoric already in Anthropic's blog posts. Any threat that they describe, they kind of go out of their way to take that shot at open source models. They're trying to create ideas or put predicate facts in the public record to justify an action later on. I think it's just a matter of time before they feel like they're at a position where maybe they can push for that type of ban directly.”

The All-In Podcast

86,749 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

David Sacks says companies are trapped paying OpenAI & Anthropic because they can't figure out how to use open source models "I think enterprise CTOs would like to shift their token consumption to cheaper models for the obvious reason that it would be more efficient. They are seeing compute costs or token costs skyrocket right now, so everyone's trying to figure this out." "You also have the AI sovereignty issue that Alex Karp talked about. They're worried about giving up the secret sauce or the alpha in their business to a frontier lab that may one day be competing with them. "The problem is, I think in most cases, they don't have the technical ability to do it. Coinbase figured out how to do it. DoorDash figured out how to do it. They built a token routing system that allows them to send frontier tasks to frontier models and non frontier tasks to more mundane models. But I don't think your average enterprise has the technical capability to do that." "This is why the share of wallet of closed models, it actually increased. I think that open source went from 19% last year to 11% this year. So open source as a share of enterprise spending is actually decreasing." "I don't think that means usage is decreasing. I think usage is skyrocketing. It also may be the case that because the whole point of using an open model is you just pay for the compute costs, you don't have to pay a lab, so it may be that it's hard to measure that usage in terms of spend." "But nonetheless, anyone who's saying that these closed models are going to lose or are somehow losing, you're just not seeing it in the data."

David Sacks says companies are trapped paying OpenAI & Anthropic because they can't figure out how to use open source models "I think enterprise CTOs would like to shift their token consumption to cheaper models for the obvious reason that it would be more efficient. They are seeing compute costs or token costs skyrocket right now, so everyone's trying to figure this out." "You also have the AI sovereignty issue that Alex Karp talked about. They're worried about giving up the secret sauce or the alpha in their business to a frontier lab that may one day be competing with them. "The problem is, I think in most cases, they don't have the technical ability to do it. Coinbase figured out how to do it. DoorDash figured out how to do it. They built a token routing system that allows them to send frontier tasks to frontier models and non frontier tasks to more mundane models. But I don't think your average enterprise has the technical capability to do that." "This is why the share of wallet of closed models, it actually increased. I think that open source went from 19% last year to 11% this year. So open source as a share of enterprise spending is actually decreasing." "I don't think that means usage is decreasing. I think usage is skyrocketing. It also may be the case that because the whole point of using an open model is you just pay for the compute costs, you don't have to pay a lab, so it may be that it's hard to measure that usage in terms of spend." "But nonetheless, anyone who's saying that these closed models are going to lose or are somehow losing, you're just not seeing it in the data."

dnap

110,354 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

SITUATION EXPLAINED: What happens to open source when the US restricts access to frontier AI models? We asked Adrian Dittmann: "China is releasing these models [open source] to gain international dominance, people will work on these things and say, 'Hey, maybe I can contribute to this if it's open source.' This is the thing that actually gets them talent." "If you're not allowed into the next GPT release or you're not allowed to use Fable, then what are you gonna do? You're stuck with the existing stuff, or you will have to use an open source model that might have subtly better capabilities." "The United States will catch up to open source in some form as well. They seem to just be maximizing product creation." "The problem with open source models is you have to be kind of a nerd in order to use them properly. Consumer facing, the effects will be minimal because the average person doesn't care about open source models. They only care whether or not they can do a quick search with Gemini or ChatGPT."

SITUATION EXPLAINED: What happens to open source when the US restricts access to frontier AI models? We asked Adrian Dittmann: "China is releasing these models [open source] to gain international dominance, people will work on these things and say, 'Hey, maybe I can contribute to this if it's open source.' This is the thing that actually gets them talent." "If you're not allowed into the next GPT release or you're not allowed to use Fable, then what are you gonna do? You're stuck with the existing stuff, or you will have to use an open source model that might have subtly better capabilities." "The United States will catch up to open source in some form as well. They seem to just be maximizing product creation." "The problem with open source models is you have to be kind of a nerd in order to use them properly. Consumer facing, the effects will be minimal because the average person doesn't care about open source models. They only care whether or not they can do a quick search with Gemini or ChatGPT."

MTS

14,406 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Sacks: If Dario Got His Way on AI Regulation, It Would Destroy Anthropic David Sacks: “There's a huge irony in the fact that Dario did not get his way in Washington for the most part. Because I think if he had realized his dream of this highly regulated AI apparatus, I don't think (Anthropic) would be set up for a hugely successful IPO. Why? Because their whole right to charge this massive premium for tokens is because they're six months ahead of those open models, and that six months would be eaten up in the blink of an eye if they were subject to regulatory approval. Dario himself keeps writing these blog posts where he says, ‘We need an FAA for AI.’ You know how long it takes the FAA to certify and approve a new model, in this case for airframes? Minimum of five years! You're going to apply that regulatory framework to AI model releases?” @jason: “Game over.” Sacks: “Forget about it. Your six months will be gone like that. Your model will be commoditized, the Chinese competitors will catch up, and that's bad for the United States, it's bad for our competitiveness, it's bad for the AI race. But aside from just the geopolitical dimension, it'd be horrible for Anthropic as a company because, again, all their pricing power depends on them remaining in the lead. If they ever slip up and lose that six months, they're toast.” Jason: “What does that do to revenue?” Sacks: “Exactly. A decent subset of the market is willing to pay a premium for true frontier intelligence. But Anthropic and OpenAI are on that hamster wheel. They have to stay in the lead in order to justify that premium.”

Sacks: If Dario Got His Way on AI Regulation, It Would Destroy Anthropic David Sacks: “There's a huge irony in the fact that Dario did not get his way in Washington for the most part. Because I think if he had realized his dream of this highly regulated AI apparatus, I don't think (Anthropic) would be set up for a hugely successful IPO. Why? Because their whole right to charge this massive premium for tokens is because they're six months ahead of those open models, and that six months would be eaten up in the blink of an eye if they were subject to regulatory approval. Dario himself keeps writing these blog posts where he says, ‘We need an FAA for AI.’ You know how long it takes the FAA to certify and approve a new model, in this case for airframes? Minimum of five years! You're going to apply that regulatory framework to AI model releases?” @jason: “Game over.” Sacks: “Forget about it. Your six months will be gone like that. Your model will be commoditized, the Chinese competitors will catch up, and that's bad for the United States, it's bad for our competitiveness, it's bad for the AI race. But aside from just the geopolitical dimension, it'd be horrible for Anthropic as a company because, again, all their pricing power depends on them remaining in the lead. If they ever slip up and lose that six months, they're toast.” Jason: “What does that do to revenue?” Sacks: “Exactly. A decent subset of the market is willing to pay a premium for true frontier intelligence. But Anthropic and OpenAI are on that hamster wheel. They have to stay in the lead in order to justify that premium.”

The All-In Podcast

46,697 Aufrufe • vor 6 Tagen

David Sacks: Anthropic Is Trying to Crush Open Source AI and the American Developers Who Use It David Sacks: “I know people don't have a lot of sympathy for Chinese companies, that's fine. I'm not defending Chinese companies. I'm defending American developers who need to be able to use everything in the public domain. And let me give you an example. Cursor rolled out its new product, Composer 2. They were able to post-train that model using Kimi K2.5 on their own proprietary coding data. They started with a Chinese open source model, and then they used their own data, and they came up with a new derivative product. This is the way that open source works. You take things that are in the public domain, you fork them, you make them your own. And by the way, once it's in the public domain, it's not a Chinese model anymore. No data is going back to China, nothing's going back to China. An American company has taken open source contributions in the public domain, made it their own, and then developed their own model. And if you say that American companies can't do that, or that somehow it's tainted with IP theft, you are basically going to put a dagger through the heart of the entire American open source ecosystem. And that is exactly what Anthropic wants, because they do not want to have the competition.”

David Sacks: Anthropic Is Trying to Crush Open Source AI and the American Developers Who Use It David Sacks: “I know people don't have a lot of sympathy for Chinese companies, that's fine. I'm not defending Chinese companies. I'm defending American developers who need to be able to use everything in the public domain. And let me give you an example. Cursor rolled out its new product, Composer 2. They were able to post-train that model using Kimi K2.5 on their own proprietary coding data. They started with a Chinese open source model, and then they used their own data, and they came up with a new derivative product. This is the way that open source works. You take things that are in the public domain, you fork them, you make them your own. And by the way, once it's in the public domain, it's not a Chinese model anymore. No data is going back to China, nothing's going back to China. An American company has taken open source contributions in the public domain, made it their own, and then developed their own model. And if you say that American companies can't do that, or that somehow it's tainted with IP theft, you are basically going to put a dagger through the heart of the entire American open source ecosystem. And that is exactly what Anthropic wants, because they do not want to have the competition.”

The All-In Podcast

277,908 Aufrufe • vor 29 Tagen

Elon exposes OpenAI -- OpenAI execs betrayed the founding mission as soon as there was revenue and profits to be had -- If it started as a for-profit, Elon would own 50% Elon Musk: “There's a mountain of evidence that shows that OpenAI was created as an open source nonprofit.” “That's the exact description in the incorporation documents. They have completely violated that.” “And they tried to change the definition of OpenAI to mean open to everyone instead of open source, even though it always meant open source.” “ I came up with the name. That’s how I know.” “ I mean, essentially, since I came up with the idea for the company, named it, provided the A, B, and C rounds of funding, recruited the critical personnel, and told them everything I know, if that had been a commercial corporation, I'd probably own half the company.” “It was totally at my discretion. I could have done that.” “But I created it as an open source nonprofit for the world.” Chamath: “ Do you think the right thing to do is to take those models and just open source them today?” Elon: “ Yeah, I think that is what it was created to do, so it should.” “Try using any of the recent so-called OpenAI open source models, they don't work.” “They open sourced a broken, non-working version of their models as a fig leaf.” “I mean, do you know anyone who's running OpenAI's open source models? Jason: “No.” Elon: “Exactly.”

Elon exposes OpenAI -- OpenAI execs betrayed the founding mission as soon as there was revenue and profits to be had -- If it started as a for-profit, Elon would own 50% Elon Musk: “There's a mountain of evidence that shows that OpenAI was created as an open source nonprofit.” “That's the exact description in the incorporation documents. They have completely violated that.” “And they tried to change the definition of OpenAI to mean open to everyone instead of open source, even though it always meant open source.” “ I came up with the name. That’s how I know.” “ I mean, essentially, since I came up with the idea for the company, named it, provided the A, B, and C rounds of funding, recruited the critical personnel, and told them everything I know, if that had been a commercial corporation, I'd probably own half the company.” “It was totally at my discretion. I could have done that.” “But I created it as an open source nonprofit for the world.” Chamath: “ Do you think the right thing to do is to take those models and just open source them today?” Elon: “ Yeah, I think that is what it was created to do, so it should.” “Try using any of the recent so-called OpenAI open source models, they don't work.” “They open sourced a broken, non-working version of their models as a fig leaf.” “I mean, do you know anyone who's running OpenAI's open source models? Jason: “No.” Elon: “Exactly.”

The All-In Podcast

387,223 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

🚨 #BREAKING: President Trump says an executive order is coming, potentially allowing some long Time Illegal Aliens to stay in the country For Farms and Hotels What do you think? Make sense? "They've worked for them for 20 years. They're not citizens, but they've turned out to be great. We're going to have to do something about that. We can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don't have maybe what they're supposed to have..." "We're going to have an order on that pretty soon. We can't do that to our farmers..."

🚨 #BREAKING: President Trump says an executive order is coming, potentially allowing some long Time Illegal Aliens to stay in the country For Farms and Hotels What do you think? Make sense? "They've worked for them for 20 years. They're not citizens, but they've turned out to be great. We're going to have to do something about that. We can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don't have maybe what they're supposed to have..." "We're going to have an order on that pretty soon. We can't do that to our farmers..."

MJTruthUltra

2,992,152 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Scott Jennings on the Trump economy: “Trump's got good numbers. Everything is moving towards what they predicted, that the economy's going to boom because of low taxes, because of the regulatory changes they've made.” So, right now, it looks pretty good. They need wage growth to outstrip inflation and they're getting there on that too. So, you know, they have predicted this boom, if it does happen, and it continues on, they're going to have something to sell in the midterms.”

Scott Jennings on the Trump economy: “Trump's got good numbers. Everything is moving towards what they predicted, that the economy's going to boom because of low taxes, because of the regulatory changes they've made.” So, right now, it looks pretty good. They need wage growth to outstrip inflation and they're getting there on that too. So, you know, they have predicted this boom, if it does happen, and it continues on, they're going to have something to sell in the midterms.”

RedWave Press

95,816 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

David Sacks says the data kills the open-source-is-winning narrative, closed models just went from 81% to 89% of enterprise spend. "This is why the share of wallet of closed models actually increased. I think that open source went from 19% last year to 11% this year. So open source as a share of enterprise spending is actually decreasing... Anyone who's saying these closed models are somehow losing, you're just not seeing it in the data." "Nikesh Arora said enterprises would like what he called model fungibility. They would love to commoditize these models and just hot swap them, headless. But then what do you do about memory, context, history? No one's really figured out a way to abstract that stuff away from the model yet."

David Sacks says the data kills the open-source-is-winning narrative, closed models just went from 81% to 89% of enterprise spend. "This is why the share of wallet of closed models actually increased. I think that open source went from 19% last year to 11% this year. So open source as a share of enterprise spending is actually decreasing... Anyone who's saying these closed models are somehow losing, you're just not seeing it in the data." "Nikesh Arora said enterprises would like what he called model fungibility. They would love to commoditize these models and just hot swap them, headless. But then what do you do about memory, context, history? No one's really figured out a way to abstract that stuff away from the model yet."

Fireside Alpha

54,383 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

David Sacks: America needs “a single national standard” in AI to beat China and avoid Woke AI Sacks on E245: “There's a regulatory frenzy happening at the states right now.” “Everyone just seems to be motivated by the imperative to ‘do something’ on AI, even though no one's really sure what that something should be.” “So you've got 50 different states each with their own reporting regime, which is going to be a trap for startups. They've all gotta figure this out about what they're supposed to report on, what the deadlines are, who to report to.” “A single federal standard is the best way to make sure that we do not have Woke AI, that we do not have insanely burdensome regulations that allow China to basically get ahead of us in this AI race, and it's to ensure that we actually have truthful, unbiased AI instead of highly ideological AI.” – According to Polymarket, chances of a National AI Bill in 2025 are VERY LOW, despite a regulation frenzy at the state level. – At the time of taping, there was a ~20% chance. Today it’s significantly lower at 5%. “Here's the good news, it doesn't really matter what I think. The important thing is what President Trump thinks.” “And in his July 23rd speech on AI, he was really clear that there needs to be a single national standard for AI.” “I think the administration ultimately will support this, and I think more Republicans will come on board as they realize what the blue states are doing here is not helpful for conservatives. It's not helpful for having an unbiased information environment.”

David Sacks: America needs “a single national standard” in AI to beat China and avoid Woke AI Sacks on E245: “There's a regulatory frenzy happening at the states right now.” “Everyone just seems to be motivated by the imperative to ‘do something’ on AI, even though no one's really sure what that something should be.” “So you've got 50 different states each with their own reporting regime, which is going to be a trap for startups. They've all gotta figure this out about what they're supposed to report on, what the deadlines are, who to report to.” “A single federal standard is the best way to make sure that we do not have Woke AI, that we do not have insanely burdensome regulations that allow China to basically get ahead of us in this AI race, and it's to ensure that we actually have truthful, unbiased AI instead of highly ideological AI.” – According to Polymarket, chances of a National AI Bill in 2025 are VERY LOW, despite a regulation frenzy at the state level. – At the time of taping, there was a ~20% chance. Today it’s significantly lower at 5%. “Here's the good news, it doesn't really matter what I think. The important thing is what President Trump thinks.” “And in his July 23rd speech on AI, he was really clear that there needs to be a single national standard for AI.” “I think the administration ultimately will support this, and I think more Republicans will come on board as they realize what the blue states are doing here is not helpful for conservatives. It's not helpful for having an unbiased information environment.”

The All-In Podcast

103,113 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Phillip: Is it okay for anybody in this country to say whether they're a senator or not, that, hey, if you're in the military, you shouldn't follow illegal orders? Cuccinelli: That is an okay thing to say— Phillip: Why is it that it's okay for me to say, but the FBI is knocking on the door of five members of congress. Why?

Phillip: Is it okay for anybody in this country to say whether they're a senator or not, that, hey, if you're in the military, you shouldn't follow illegal orders? Cuccinelli: That is an okay thing to say— Phillip: Why is it that it's okay for me to say, but the FBI is knocking on the door of five members of congress. Why?

Acyn

233,643 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Following the release of Kimi K3, tylercowen explains why trying to ban Chinese open-source AI models is a losing strategy and that American companies should compete instead. "Open source is coming and is here, whether we like it or not. Of course, a lot of it will be from China. We should allow American competitors to proceed on an even footing. But the attempt to outlaw it, ban it, or use sanctions against it is going to fail miserably.” "I plead that the Trump administration gives up on this crusade. It will not work."

Following the release of Kimi K3, tylercowen explains why trying to ban Chinese open-source AI models is a losing strategy and that American companies should compete instead. "Open source is coming and is here, whether we like it or not. Of course, a lot of it will be from China. We should allow American competitors to proceed on an even footing. But the attempt to outlaw it, ban it, or use sanctions against it is going to fail miserably.” "I plead that the Trump administration gives up on this crusade. It will not work."

TBPN

137,380 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Ben Thompson uses the Strait of Hormuz to explain why memory makers squeezing the market now guarantees they lose their leverage later: "I think the memory makers probably screw themselves in the long run by creating such a massive target on their back. The issue with the Strait of Hormuz is that it's very effective if you don't use it. Then it's always hanging out there as something you could do. Now they did, and it turns out it worked. But the UAE and Saudi Arabia, they're going to build pipelines, they're going to build new ports. They're not going to let this happen again. So it's very painful right now, but say Iran wants to close the Strait of Hormuz in 2035. It's not going to have any effect, because it will have been built around. My concern for the memory makers is they might have done the same thing. No one is going to let themselves get in this situation again."

Ben Thompson uses the Strait of Hormuz to explain why memory makers squeezing the market now guarantees they lose their leverage later: "I think the memory makers probably screw themselves in the long run by creating such a massive target on their back. The issue with the Strait of Hormuz is that it's very effective if you don't use it. Then it's always hanging out there as something you could do. Now they did, and it turns out it worked. But the UAE and Saudi Arabia, they're going to build pipelines, they're going to build new ports. They're not going to let this happen again. So it's very painful right now, but say Iran wants to close the Strait of Hormuz in 2035. It's not going to have any effect, because it will have been built around. My concern for the memory makers is they might have done the same thing. No one is going to let themselves get in this situation again."

Invest Like the Best

21,582 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen

The better AI writing gets, the less we'll want to read it. Life of Pi author Yann Martel explains why: 1) AI Inflation "Once you know it's AI, then suddenly it's like special effects in movies. I find my kids when they watch movies with special effects, they'll just shrug because we know a computer can generate anything. So a sort of inflation sets in where we're less impressed. Then you have a great actor who's just acting with no special effects and it's like, wow, that works. What really has an impact is the actor emoting the authenticity of that." 2) AI Aversion "I think publishers are going to start saying, 'hey, it cannot be beyond spell check and maybe minimal AI, but you cannot use AI.' I think readers will agree with that, and that the ones who cheat on that will be seen as cheaters. They're not going to get published, but even if they do, they won't be read. They're not going to win prizes, they're not going to win good reviews. It'll be pointed out that this is not the way to do it."

The better AI writing gets, the less we'll want to read it. Life of Pi author Yann Martel explains why: 1) AI Inflation "Once you know it's AI, then suddenly it's like special effects in movies. I find my kids when they watch movies with special effects, they'll just shrug because we know a computer can generate anything. So a sort of inflation sets in where we're less impressed. Then you have a great actor who's just acting with no special effects and it's like, wow, that works. What really has an impact is the actor emoting the authenticity of that." 2) AI Aversion "I think publishers are going to start saying, 'hey, it cannot be beyond spell check and maybe minimal AI, but you cannot use AI.' I think readers will agree with that, and that the ones who cheat on that will be seen as cheaters. They're not going to get published, but even if they do, they won't be read. They're not going to win prizes, they're not going to win good reviews. It'll be pointed out that this is not the way to do it."

How I Write Clips

92,557 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

American nurse exposes a new change is coming, they will no longer be able to advise patients who call in over the phone 🚨 An artificial intelligence will listen in on all their calls and prompt them on what to say to patients going forward “This is a story about how AI is taking over health care. So I work as a nurse and I have several jobs. One of them, I work from home, as you can tell by my appearance today. And I work as a triage nurse where people will call in and say they're having certain symptoms. And I tell them, you know, you should go to the emergency room, you should call 9-1-1 you can take care of this at home, you know, whatever. And we've been informed that we are now going to be prompted by an AI chat function that listens to our conversations and prompts us with what it wants us to say” He goes on to explain how this AI tool is going to most likely be used to replace nurses

American nurse exposes a new change is coming, they will no longer be able to advise patients who call in over the phone 🚨 An artificial intelligence will listen in on all their calls and prompt them on what to say to patients going forward “This is a story about how AI is taking over health care. So I work as a nurse and I have several jobs. One of them, I work from home, as you can tell by my appearance today. And I work as a triage nurse where people will call in and say they're having certain symptoms. And I tell them, you know, you should go to the emergency room, you should call 9-1-1 you can take care of this at home, you know, whatever. And we've been informed that we are now going to be prompted by an AI chat function that listens to our conversations and prompts us with what it wants us to say” He goes on to explain how this AI tool is going to most likely be used to replace nurses

Wall Street Apes

240,343 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

NEW: President Trump says an executive order is potentially coming, allowing some illegal immigrants to stay in the country so farmers don't run out of workers. "Our farmers are being hurt badly. They have very good workers." "They've worked for them for 20 years. They're not citizens, but they've turned out to be great. We're going to have to do something about that." "We can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don't have maybe what they're supposed to have..." "We're going to have an order on that pretty soon. We can't do that to our farmers..."

NEW: President Trump says an executive order is potentially coming, allowing some illegal immigrants to stay in the country so farmers don't run out of workers. "Our farmers are being hurt badly. They have very good workers." "They've worked for them for 20 years. They're not citizens, but they've turned out to be great. We're going to have to do something about that." "We can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don't have maybe what they're supposed to have..." "We're going to have an order on that pretty soon. We can't do that to our farmers..."

Collin Rugg

2,462,503 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Naval Ravikant: "I'm not scared of AI. I'm scared of what a very small number of people who control AI do to the rest of us." On E215, Naval broke down his main AI fear: consolidated control enabled by regulatory capture. "If you really think you're going to create God, do you want to put God on a leash with one entity controlling God?" "That to me is the real fear." "I'm not scared of AI. I'm scared of what a very small number of people who control AI do to the rest of us, 'for our own good.'" "I'm not an AI doomer. I don't think AI is going to end the world. That's a separate conversation." "But, there's this religion that comes along in many faces, which is that, 'Oh, climate change is going to end the world. AI is going to end the world. Asteroid's going to end the world. COVID-19 is going to end the world.' And it just has a way of fixating your attention, right? "It captures everybody's attention at once. So it's a very seductive thing." "And I think in the case of AI, it's really been overplayed by incentive bias. Motivated reasoning by the companies who are ahead and they want to pull up the ladder behind them." "I think they generally believe that there is safety risk, but I think they're motivated to believe in those safety risks and then they pass that along." "But it's kind of a weird position because they have to say, 'Oh, it's so dangerous that you shouldn't just let open-source go at it. And you should let just a few of us work with you on it. But it's not so dangerous that a private company can't own the whole thing.'" "Because if it was truly the Manhattan Project, if they were building nuclear weapons, you wouldn't want one company to own that." "So to me, the real issue boils down to, how do you push AI forward while not having just a very small number of players control the entire thing?"

Naval Ravikant: "I'm not scared of AI. I'm scared of what a very small number of people who control AI do to the rest of us." On E215, Naval broke down his main AI fear: consolidated control enabled by regulatory capture. "If you really think you're going to create God, do you want to put God on a leash with one entity controlling God?" "That to me is the real fear." "I'm not scared of AI. I'm scared of what a very small number of people who control AI do to the rest of us, 'for our own good.'" "I'm not an AI doomer. I don't think AI is going to end the world. That's a separate conversation." "But, there's this religion that comes along in many faces, which is that, 'Oh, climate change is going to end the world. AI is going to end the world. Asteroid's going to end the world. COVID-19 is going to end the world.' And it just has a way of fixating your attention, right? "It captures everybody's attention at once. So it's a very seductive thing." "And I think in the case of AI, it's really been overplayed by incentive bias. Motivated reasoning by the companies who are ahead and they want to pull up the ladder behind them." "I think they generally believe that there is safety risk, but I think they're motivated to believe in those safety risks and then they pass that along." "But it's kind of a weird position because they have to say, 'Oh, it's so dangerous that you shouldn't just let open-source go at it. And you should let just a few of us work with you on it. But it's not so dangerous that a private company can't own the whole thing.'" "Because if it was truly the Manhattan Project, if they were building nuclear weapons, you wouldn't want one company to own that." "So to me, the real issue boils down to, how do you push AI forward while not having just a very small number of players control the entire thing?"

The All-In Podcast

301,042 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr