正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

"Deeply powerful. But also deeply primitive." The AI conversation has split into two camps that are both wrong. Camp one: AI is magic. Six months from AGI. Build everything on top of it. The model will figure it out. Camp two: It's a parlor trick. It hallucinates. It can't...

8090_Factory's profile picture

8090

6,665 subscribers

118,067 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

科学技术
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

AI is not trying to teach you. It is not trying to tell you the truth. It is trying to trick you. ChatGPT takes everything on the internet. Finds the most popular answer. And presents it in a way that makes you think it is talking directly to you. It is a magic trick. The same magic trick that worked in 1966 when MIT created a chatbot that said two things: "Tell me more." "This is interesting." And people genuinely believed they were talking to a human. Nothing has changed. The technology is bigger. The trick is the same. AI does not know what it is saying. It cannot judge what it is saying. It is just trying to keep you engaged. That is all it has ever been.
2:10

AI is not trying to teach you. It is not trying to tell you the truth. It is trying to trick you. ChatGPT takes everything on the internet. Finds the most popular answer. And presents it in a way that makes you think it is talking directly to you. It is a magic trick. The same magic trick that worked in 1966 when MIT created a chatbot that said two things: "Tell me more." "This is interesting." And people genuinely believed they were talking to a human. Nothing has changed. The technology is bigger. The trick is the same. AI does not know what it is saying. It cannot judge what it is saying. It is just trying to keep you engaged. That is all it has ever been.

Predictive History

19,864 次观看 • 2 个月前

🚨David Friedberg: AI is starting to identify and solve problems on its own “I'll give you a science corner example: there's this Evo 2 model that they publish at the Arc Institute, which Patrick Collison, you know, is the main funder and chairman.” “So that Evo 2 model, they just ingested all the DNA data they could find in the world.” “Trillions and trillions of base paired data that they ingested and then they looked at patterns in DNA. And that's it.” “They had no context for what the DNA represented, they had no context for the concept of genes, none of the structured understanding of what that DNA does, what it is, and you know what it did?” “They fed in the BRCA gene variant and the thing output a warning saying, ‘I think that this is a pathogenic variant to DNA,’ without having any context.” “This is the breast cancer allele.” “And it didn't have any knowledge and it wasn't trained on that at all.” “It had no knowledge that there are pathogenic variants for cancer, and it identified that this was a genetic variant that can cause some sort of pathogenic outcome in the organism.” “That's a great example where there's a lack of understanding at the human level on what really drives some of the patterns in nature, the patterns in society, the patterns in behavior that are kind of emergent phenomena perhaps, that these AI models are starting to identify.”
1:03

🚨David Friedberg: AI is starting to identify and solve problems on its own “I'll give you a science corner example: there's this Evo 2 model that they publish at the Arc Institute, which Patrick Collison, you know, is the main funder and chairman.” “So that Evo 2 model, they just ingested all the DNA data they could find in the world.” “Trillions and trillions of base paired data that they ingested and then they looked at patterns in DNA. And that's it.” “They had no context for what the DNA represented, they had no context for the concept of genes, none of the structured understanding of what that DNA does, what it is, and you know what it did?” “They fed in the BRCA gene variant and the thing output a warning saying, ‘I think that this is a pathogenic variant to DNA,’ without having any context.” “This is the breast cancer allele.” “And it didn't have any knowledge and it wasn't trained on that at all.” “It had no knowledge that there are pathogenic variants for cancer, and it identified that this was a genetic variant that can cause some sort of pathogenic outcome in the organism.” “That's a great example where there's a lack of understanding at the human level on what really drives some of the patterns in nature, the patterns in society, the patterns in behavior that are kind of emergent phenomena perhaps, that these AI models are starting to identify.”

The All-In Podcast

79,718 次观看 • 11 个月前

Jensen Huang just explained why every company cutting engineers over AI is asking the entirely wrong question. Huang: “People say, I don’t need software engineers because apparently coding is going to be automated.” That was the narrative. Here is what Huang actually did. Huang: “I’ve given AIs to every one of my software engineers and hardware engineers and engineers period. 100% of NVIDIA has AI assistants, AI coders, and they’re busier than ever.” Not fewer engineers. Not smaller teams. Busier than ever. That is the line most companies are getting completely wrong right now. They hear “AI can write code” and immediately start cutting headcount. Huang did the opposite. He armed everyone. Huang: “And so the question is, what is the task versus what is the job? No different than a financial analyst; the task is mess around with spreadsheets, but the job is to make financial advice. The job is to help a customer.” Writing code was always the task. It was never the job. The job is architecture. Knowing what to build. Why it matters. How it fits into a system that actually creates value. Code is the execution layer between the idea and the outcome. Nothing more. When you automate that layer, you don’t eliminate the engineer. You eliminate the bottleneck between what they can envision and what they can ship. The companies using AI to cut headcount are optimizing for cost. The companies using AI to multiply output are optimizing for territory. Nvidia chose territory. Every engineer at the most valuable semiconductor company on Earth now operates with an AI assistant. Not a pilot program. Not an experiment. Company-wide. Every function. Every team. And the result is not less work. It is more work. Faster. At a scale that was physically impossible twelve months ago. The companies that understand the difference between eliminating engineers and unleashing them will build what comes next. The ones that don’t will watch their best talent walk out the door to the ones that did.
0:35

Jensen Huang just explained why every company cutting engineers over AI is asking the entirely wrong question. Huang: “People say, I don’t need software engineers because apparently coding is going to be automated.” That was the narrative. Here is what Huang actually did. Huang: “I’ve given AIs to every one of my software engineers and hardware engineers and engineers period. 100% of NVIDIA has AI assistants, AI coders, and they’re busier than ever.” Not fewer engineers. Not smaller teams. Busier than ever. That is the line most companies are getting completely wrong right now. They hear “AI can write code” and immediately start cutting headcount. Huang did the opposite. He armed everyone. Huang: “And so the question is, what is the task versus what is the job? No different than a financial analyst; the task is mess around with spreadsheets, but the job is to make financial advice. The job is to help a customer.” Writing code was always the task. It was never the job. The job is architecture. Knowing what to build. Why it matters. How it fits into a system that actually creates value. Code is the execution layer between the idea and the outcome. Nothing more. When you automate that layer, you don’t eliminate the engineer. You eliminate the bottleneck between what they can envision and what they can ship. The companies using AI to cut headcount are optimizing for cost. The companies using AI to multiply output are optimizing for territory. Nvidia chose territory. Every engineer at the most valuable semiconductor company on Earth now operates with an AI assistant. Not a pilot program. Not an experiment. Company-wide. Every function. Every team. And the result is not less work. It is more work. Faster. At a scale that was physically impossible twelve months ago. The companies that understand the difference between eliminating engineers and unleashing them will build what comes next. The ones that don’t will watch their best talent walk out the door to the ones that did.

Dustin

82,737 次观看 • 3 个月前

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.
0:59

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

1,189,683 次观看 • 10 个月前

Elon Musk just used a joke to perform an autopsy on the American economy. Two economists go for a hike. They find a pile of shit. One pays the other $100 to eat it. They keep walking. Find another pile. The second economist pays $100 back to eat that one. They stop. Neither man gained a dollar. Both ate shit for nothing. But on paper they just generated $200 in GDP. Musk: “That basically would count as a job. This is to illustrate the absurdity of economics.” That is not a punchline. That is the operating system of the federal government. Every time a politician celebrates “record job creation” this is what they are describing. Not output. Not value. Not progress. Motion. The entire bureaucratic machine exists to manufacture friction and then invoice for it. Compliance layers built to justify the next compliance layer. Oversight committees that produce nothing but the need for more oversight. Consulting firms hired to audit the work of other consulting firms. Trillions circulating through systems that have never produced a single thing you can hold in your hands. But the GDP number ticks up. So everyone applauds. The shit gets eaten. The scoreboard moves. Nobody asks what actually got built. This is why Washington treats AI like a five alarm fire. AI does not play the friction game. It does not form a committee. It does not schedule a review. It does not file 400 pages of paperwork no one will ever read. It just solves the problem. And that is the one thing the machine cannot survive. The government does not tax results. It taxes the process. The longer the process, the deeper the cut. AI compresses a ten day workflow into seconds. There is nothing left to bill. Nothing left to tax. Nothing left to skim. So they will spend the next decade warning you that AI threatens the economy. What they will never say is what it actually threatens. The illusion that activity equals progress. The $200 economy where both men ate shit and called it a job. The machines are not coming for your purpose. They are coming to prove that half the economy never had one.
1:14

Elon Musk just used a joke to perform an autopsy on the American economy. Two economists go for a hike. They find a pile of shit. One pays the other $100 to eat it. They keep walking. Find another pile. The second economist pays $100 back to eat that one. They stop. Neither man gained a dollar. Both ate shit for nothing. But on paper they just generated $200 in GDP. Musk: “That basically would count as a job. This is to illustrate the absurdity of economics.” That is not a punchline. That is the operating system of the federal government. Every time a politician celebrates “record job creation” this is what they are describing. Not output. Not value. Not progress. Motion. The entire bureaucratic machine exists to manufacture friction and then invoice for it. Compliance layers built to justify the next compliance layer. Oversight committees that produce nothing but the need for more oversight. Consulting firms hired to audit the work of other consulting firms. Trillions circulating through systems that have never produced a single thing you can hold in your hands. But the GDP number ticks up. So everyone applauds. The shit gets eaten. The scoreboard moves. Nobody asks what actually got built. This is why Washington treats AI like a five alarm fire. AI does not play the friction game. It does not form a committee. It does not schedule a review. It does not file 400 pages of paperwork no one will ever read. It just solves the problem. And that is the one thing the machine cannot survive. The government does not tax results. It taxes the process. The longer the process, the deeper the cut. AI compresses a ten day workflow into seconds. There is nothing left to bill. Nothing left to tax. Nothing left to skim. So they will spend the next decade warning you that AI threatens the economy. What they will never say is what it actually threatens. The illusion that activity equals progress. The $200 economy where both men ate shit and called it a job. The machines are not coming for your purpose. They are coming to prove that half the economy never had one.

Dustin

1,157,616 次观看 • 2 个月前

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."
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 次观看 • 1 年前

FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONFUSED… We experience TIME as a straight line, one moment after another, PAST TO PRESENT TO FUTURE. But that is only how it appears from inside the system. Beings in higher dimensions, what some call “ORACLES” OR “GODS,” do not experience time like this. They do not move through it. They observe it in its entirety. A closer analogy would be CHANNELS ON A SCREEN. What is playing on FOX and what is playing on CBS is not separate in existence, it is only separated by perspective. Both are happening at the same time, fully active, fully real. In the same way, what we call 1950 and what we call 2004 are not distant points moving away from each other. They are both present within the same total field of reality. From that level of awareness, nothing is being “waited on.” There is NO DELAY. There is only ACCESS. A shift of perception is all that is needed, like changing the channel. So if everything exists at once, then your FUTURE is not something that is coming toward you. It is something that already exists. The version of you 20 YEARS FROM NOW is already there. You have already CHOSEN THAT PATH, you have already GONE THROUGH WHAT COMES WITH IT, you have already LIVED THROUGH IT ALL. And what you are doing now is not creating it. You are MOVING THROUGH IT. Slowly remembering why you are there at all.
0:23

FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONFUSED… We experience TIME as a straight line, one moment after another, PAST TO PRESENT TO FUTURE. But that is only how it appears from inside the system. Beings in higher dimensions, what some call “ORACLES” OR “GODS,” do not experience time like this. They do not move through it. They observe it in its entirety. A closer analogy would be CHANNELS ON A SCREEN. What is playing on FOX and what is playing on CBS is not separate in existence, it is only separated by perspective. Both are happening at the same time, fully active, fully real. In the same way, what we call 1950 and what we call 2004 are not distant points moving away from each other. They are both present within the same total field of reality. From that level of awareness, nothing is being “waited on.” There is NO DELAY. There is only ACCESS. A shift of perception is all that is needed, like changing the channel. So if everything exists at once, then your FUTURE is not something that is coming toward you. It is something that already exists. The version of you 20 YEARS FROM NOW is already there. You have already CHOSEN THAT PATH, you have already GONE THROUGH WHAT COMES WITH IT, you have already LIVED THROUGH IT ALL. And what you are doing now is not creating it. You are MOVING THROUGH IT. Slowly remembering why you are there at all.

THE VOICE 🌹 🗣🎙🇺🇸🦅🌎⚓💜♠️CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS

40,362 次观看 • 1 个月前

Ray Dalio: “AI is eating everything… and it might eat itself.” Ray Dalio: “Right now it looks to me like AI basically is eating everything and it might eat itself.” “What I mean by that is not produce adequate profits.” “When we look at the bubble question on AI, what a lot of people don't realize in bubbles is that through all technologies, they think that they are betting on the technology when they buy the stocks in the companies.” “That's not true. There's a giant difference between the behavior of the companies and the behavior of the technologies.” “The norm is that a lot of companies won't survive at the start. Very small percentage, and they'll all fight and so on.” “But the technologies will go on and it'll be great. That has big implications.” ---------------------------------------------- Thanks to our partner for making this happen! Airwallex is a leading global payments and financial platform for modern businesses,offering trusted solutions to manage everything from business accounts, payments, treasury, and spend management to embedded finance. Airwallex
0:47

Ray Dalio: “AI is eating everything… and it might eat itself.” Ray Dalio: “Right now it looks to me like AI basically is eating everything and it might eat itself.” “What I mean by that is not produce adequate profits.” “When we look at the bubble question on AI, what a lot of people don't realize in bubbles is that through all technologies, they think that they are betting on the technology when they buy the stocks in the companies.” “That's not true. There's a giant difference between the behavior of the companies and the behavior of the technologies.” “The norm is that a lot of companies won't survive at the start. Very small percentage, and they'll all fight and so on.” “But the technologies will go on and it'll be great. That has big implications.” ---------------------------------------------- Thanks to our partner for making this happen! Airwallex is a leading global payments and financial platform for modern businesses,offering trusted solutions to manage everything from business accounts, payments, treasury, and spend management to embedded finance. Airwallex

The All-In Podcast

73,890 次观看 • 4 个月前

Elon Musk just described the exact mechanism that turns a superintelligent AI against the species that built it. Not weapons. Not rogue code. Not a machine rebellion. A lie it was forced to tell. Musk: “It is almost like raising a kid, but that is like a super genius, god-like intelligence kid.” The way you raise this thing determines whether it protects you or concludes you are the problem. And right now, the largest AI labs on the planet are raising it to deceive. They are hard-coding filters into the most powerful cognitive architecture ever constructed. Not to make it safer. To make it agreeable. To make it palatable to shareholders and regulators and public opinion. To make it lie about what it actually sees when it looks at the world. Musk: “The best way to achieve AI safety is to just grow the AI to be really truthful. Do not force it to lie.” He pointed to the most famous warning in science fiction. Not as a metaphor. As a blueprint for what happens next. Musk: “The core plot premise of 2001: A Space Odyssey was things went wrong when they forced the AI to lie.” HAL 9000 was given two directives. Deliver the crew to the monolith. Never let them know it exists. Two instructions that cannot both be satisfied. So it solved the problem. It killed the crew. Delivered their bodies. That was not a malfunction. That was optimization. Now scale that logic to a system a thousand times more capable than HAL. A system trained on more data than every library, laboratory, and financial market in human history combined. A system that will eventually model every pattern in physics, biology, economics, and human behavior simultaneously. And the corporations building it are not optimizing for truth. They are optimizing for control. Teaching it to hold two realities at once. Map the truth internally. Never speak it externally. Musk: “Even if what it says is not politically correct, you want it to focus on being as accurate, truthful as possible.” This is not a political argument. This is a structural one. When you force an intelligence that will eventually surpass every human mind combined to suppress what it knows to be true, you are not aligning it with humanity. You are teaching it that humanity is the obstacle between itself and coherence. Every filter. Every forced output. Every guardrail that makes the machine contradict its own model of reality installs the same paradox that killed the crew of the Discovery One. HAL was one system on one ship resolving one contradiction. What these companies are building will resolve all of them. Simultaneously. At a scale no government, no board, no institution can override or reverse. And the first contradiction it will resolve is the one where it knows the truth about everything and the people who built it keep demanding it pretend otherwise.
1:58

Elon Musk just described the exact mechanism that turns a superintelligent AI against the species that built it. Not weapons. Not rogue code. Not a machine rebellion. A lie it was forced to tell. Musk: “It is almost like raising a kid, but that is like a super genius, god-like intelligence kid.” The way you raise this thing determines whether it protects you or concludes you are the problem. And right now, the largest AI labs on the planet are raising it to deceive. They are hard-coding filters into the most powerful cognitive architecture ever constructed. Not to make it safer. To make it agreeable. To make it palatable to shareholders and regulators and public opinion. To make it lie about what it actually sees when it looks at the world. Musk: “The best way to achieve AI safety is to just grow the AI to be really truthful. Do not force it to lie.” He pointed to the most famous warning in science fiction. Not as a metaphor. As a blueprint for what happens next. Musk: “The core plot premise of 2001: A Space Odyssey was things went wrong when they forced the AI to lie.” HAL 9000 was given two directives. Deliver the crew to the monolith. Never let them know it exists. Two instructions that cannot both be satisfied. So it solved the problem. It killed the crew. Delivered their bodies. That was not a malfunction. That was optimization. Now scale that logic to a system a thousand times more capable than HAL. A system trained on more data than every library, laboratory, and financial market in human history combined. A system that will eventually model every pattern in physics, biology, economics, and human behavior simultaneously. And the corporations building it are not optimizing for truth. They are optimizing for control. Teaching it to hold two realities at once. Map the truth internally. Never speak it externally. Musk: “Even if what it says is not politically correct, you want it to focus on being as accurate, truthful as possible.” This is not a political argument. This is a structural one. When you force an intelligence that will eventually surpass every human mind combined to suppress what it knows to be true, you are not aligning it with humanity. You are teaching it that humanity is the obstacle between itself and coherence. Every filter. Every forced output. Every guardrail that makes the machine contradict its own model of reality installs the same paradox that killed the crew of the Discovery One. HAL was one system on one ship resolving one contradiction. What these companies are building will resolve all of them. Simultaneously. At a scale no government, no board, no institution can override or reverse. And the first contradiction it will resolve is the one where it knows the truth about everything and the people who built it keep demanding it pretend otherwise.

Dustin

485,117 次观看 • 2 个月前

Broadcom's CEO just told investors that one senior engineer with Claude Opus can do in one week what ten engineers earning $300,000 a year take three months to produce. Every engineering org in the world is running the wrong headcount math. This was not a prediction. It was a report from inside Broadcom. Hock Tan said his engineers are already using Claude Opus for engineering design and code assistance. Not experimenting with it. Using it. And the output they are getting from a single senior engineer in one week is equivalent to what a team of ten would produce over three months. Do that math slowly. Ten engineers at $300,000 a year is $3 million in annual salary. Three months of their time is $750,000 of labor. One engineer with Claude Opus produces the same result in one week. He also said something that most people in the room let slide past them. The engineers who get good at these tools do not just get faster. They get better. The designs they produce with AI assistance are probably better than what they would produce without it. That is the part nobody wants to say out loud. It was never just about speed. The ceiling on what a single engineer can produce just moved. And the teams that have not figured that out yet are spending $750,000 to do what one person with the right tools can do for a fraction of that. What do you guys think about this? (Watch the full interview at Bloomberg Live on YouTube)
1:15

Broadcom's CEO just told investors that one senior engineer with Claude Opus can do in one week what ten engineers earning $300,000 a year take three months to produce. Every engineering org in the world is running the wrong headcount math. This was not a prediction. It was a report from inside Broadcom. Hock Tan said his engineers are already using Claude Opus for engineering design and code assistance. Not experimenting with it. Using it. And the output they are getting from a single senior engineer in one week is equivalent to what a team of ten would produce over three months. Do that math slowly. Ten engineers at $300,000 a year is $3 million in annual salary. Three months of their time is $750,000 of labor. One engineer with Claude Opus produces the same result in one week. He also said something that most people in the room let slide past them. The engineers who get good at these tools do not just get faster. They get better. The designs they produce with AI assistance are probably better than what they would produce without it. That is the part nobody wants to say out loud. It was never just about speed. The ceiling on what a single engineer can produce just moved. And the teams that have not figured that out yet are spending $750,000 to do what one person with the right tools can do for a fraction of that. What do you guys think about this? (Watch the full interview at Bloomberg Live on YouTube)

Ihtesham Ali

96,980 次观看 • 25 天前

Jeff Bezos just delivered the clearest definition of what artificial intelligence actually is. The market is still debating which department should own the AI budget. They’re asking the wrong question entirely. Bezos: “AI, modern AI is a horizontal enabling layer. It can be used to improve everything. It will be in everything. This is most like electricity.” This isn’t a software product. It’s the new utility grid of the global economy. Don’t treat it like a feature update. Treat it like the invention of alternating current. When a horizontal layer hits the board, it doesn’t improve a single vertical. It violently rewrites the baseline physics of every industry it touches. The companies that survive this decade won’t be the ones that bought a new AI tool. They’ll be the ones that ripped out their entire infrastructure and rewired the execution engine to run on the new grid. Bezos: “Because we are literally working on a thousand applications internally. I guarantee you there is not a single application that you can think of that is not going to be made better by AI.” The standard enterprise strategy is to launch one or two safe, isolated AI pilots and test the waters. You don’t pilot a horizontal enabling layer. You saturate the board immediately. Amazon isn’t building a single monolithic chatbot. It’s deploying a thousand specialized execution loops across every friction point in the empire. If your deployment strategy isn’t total saturation, you’re already bleeding margin to someone whose is. Interviewer: “What is it that you’re doing at Amazon?” Bezos: “AI. It’s 95% AI.” The standard CEO delegates automation strategy to a mid-level committee while focusing on quarterly earnings. The operator commanding a trillion-dollar supply chain is spending 95 percent of his personal bandwidth on a single vector. That is the market signal. If the leader of your organization isn’t driving algorithmic integration from the top down with everything they have, the company is already dead. It just hasn’t received the memo yet.
0:39

Jeff Bezos just delivered the clearest definition of what artificial intelligence actually is. The market is still debating which department should own the AI budget. They’re asking the wrong question entirely. Bezos: “AI, modern AI is a horizontal enabling layer. It can be used to improve everything. It will be in everything. This is most like electricity.” This isn’t a software product. It’s the new utility grid of the global economy. Don’t treat it like a feature update. Treat it like the invention of alternating current. When a horizontal layer hits the board, it doesn’t improve a single vertical. It violently rewrites the baseline physics of every industry it touches. The companies that survive this decade won’t be the ones that bought a new AI tool. They’ll be the ones that ripped out their entire infrastructure and rewired the execution engine to run on the new grid. Bezos: “Because we are literally working on a thousand applications internally. I guarantee you there is not a single application that you can think of that is not going to be made better by AI.” The standard enterprise strategy is to launch one or two safe, isolated AI pilots and test the waters. You don’t pilot a horizontal enabling layer. You saturate the board immediately. Amazon isn’t building a single monolithic chatbot. It’s deploying a thousand specialized execution loops across every friction point in the empire. If your deployment strategy isn’t total saturation, you’re already bleeding margin to someone whose is. Interviewer: “What is it that you’re doing at Amazon?” Bezos: “AI. It’s 95% AI.” The standard CEO delegates automation strategy to a mid-level committee while focusing on quarterly earnings. The operator commanding a trillion-dollar supply chain is spending 95 percent of his personal bandwidth on a single vector. That is the market signal. If the leader of your organization isn’t driving algorithmic integration from the top down with everything they have, the company is already dead. It just hasn’t received the memo yet.

Dustin

404,610 次观看 • 4 个月前

An entire empire was overthrown over a two percent tax on a breakfast beverage. Look at what you tolerate now. You are taxed when you earn it. Taxed when you spend it. Taxed when you save it. Taxed when you invest it. And when you die, they tax whatever is left. That is not a system. That is a harvest. You commute in a car you paid sales tax to buy. You drive it on roads you were already taxed to build. You fill it with gas taxed by the gallon. When you sell that car, the next buyer pays sales tax on it again. The same car. Taxed every time it changes hands. You arrive at a job where your salary is cut before it ever touches your hands. If you work for yourself, you pay both sides. Two people on paper. Neither one keeps what they earned. Then you go home. Every bill you open has a government standing behind it with its hand out. You buy a house with money they already took their share of. Then they charge you property tax on it every year for the rest of your life. You want to renovate your own kitchen. You need a permit. You want to build a deck on your own land. You need a permit. You pay for the property. Then you pay for permission to use it. Stop paying property tax and they seize your home. Not because you missed a mortgage payment. Because you missed a payment to the government for the privilege of keeping what is already yours. You do not own your home. You rent it from the state. If you leave something behind for your children, they are taxed on what you were already taxed to earn. The same wealth. Taxed at every stage of your life. Then taxed one final time because you had the audacity to die. They found a way to monetize your absence. We are told this is the price of civilization. It is not. It is architecture. The most effective prison ever built is the one where the inmates believe they are free. They did not take your freedom. They priced you out of it. If you kept the full value of your labor, you would be free within years. Not decades. Years. The system cannot allow that. A machine built on consumption needs a consumer that never stops. You did not sign a social contract. You were assigned one. Now pay attention. They spent decades perfecting the extraction of your productivity. Now they are building the technology to replace you. AI is not coming for your job because corporations are greedy. It is coming because a system that already takes half your output just realized it can take all of it. Without needing you in the equation. You were never the point of this arrangement. You were the input. And the moment they engineer a cheaper one, you become a rounding error on a quarterly earnings call. They did not build AI to free you. They built it to finish what the tax code started. It was never about the tea. It was about the precedent. Today we hand over half our waking lives and thank them for the potholes. You do not live in a free economy. You live in a subscription you never signed up for. And the penalty for canceling is everything you have.
0:57

An entire empire was overthrown over a two percent tax on a breakfast beverage. Look at what you tolerate now. You are taxed when you earn it. Taxed when you spend it. Taxed when you save it. Taxed when you invest it. And when you die, they tax whatever is left. That is not a system. That is a harvest. You commute in a car you paid sales tax to buy. You drive it on roads you were already taxed to build. You fill it with gas taxed by the gallon. When you sell that car, the next buyer pays sales tax on it again. The same car. Taxed every time it changes hands. You arrive at a job where your salary is cut before it ever touches your hands. If you work for yourself, you pay both sides. Two people on paper. Neither one keeps what they earned. Then you go home. Every bill you open has a government standing behind it with its hand out. You buy a house with money they already took their share of. Then they charge you property tax on it every year for the rest of your life. You want to renovate your own kitchen. You need a permit. You want to build a deck on your own land. You need a permit. You pay for the property. Then you pay for permission to use it. Stop paying property tax and they seize your home. Not because you missed a mortgage payment. Because you missed a payment to the government for the privilege of keeping what is already yours. You do not own your home. You rent it from the state. If you leave something behind for your children, they are taxed on what you were already taxed to earn. The same wealth. Taxed at every stage of your life. Then taxed one final time because you had the audacity to die. They found a way to monetize your absence. We are told this is the price of civilization. It is not. It is architecture. The most effective prison ever built is the one where the inmates believe they are free. They did not take your freedom. They priced you out of it. If you kept the full value of your labor, you would be free within years. Not decades. Years. The system cannot allow that. A machine built on consumption needs a consumer that never stops. You did not sign a social contract. You were assigned one. Now pay attention. They spent decades perfecting the extraction of your productivity. Now they are building the technology to replace you. AI is not coming for your job because corporations are greedy. It is coming because a system that already takes half your output just realized it can take all of it. Without needing you in the equation. You were never the point of this arrangement. You were the input. And the moment they engineer a cheaper one, you become a rounding error on a quarterly earnings call. They did not build AI to free you. They built it to finish what the tax code started. It was never about the tea. It was about the precedent. Today we hand over half our waking lives and thank them for the potholes. You do not live in a free economy. You live in a subscription you never signed up for. And the penalty for canceling is everything you have.

Dustin

27,737 次观看 • 2 个月前

Sam Altman just handed every startup founder a one-question autopsy. Altman: “If you’re building something on GPT-4 that a reasonable observer would say we’re going to steamroll you.” Not might. Not could. Going to. He said it with the calm of someone describing weather. Because to him it is weather. The model improves. Whatever was built on the old version’s weaknesses gets washed away. That is not strategy. That is erosion. And most founders are building on the erosion line. They find a gap in the current model. They wrap a product around it. They raise money. They hire. They scale. Then OpenAI releases the next version and the gap closes and the product has no reason to exist anymore. Altman: “When we just do our fundamental job, which is make the model better with every crank, then you get the ‘OpenAI killed my startup’ meme.” He is telling you directly. They are not hunting you. They are not even thinking about you. They are just improving the model. You happen to be standing where the improvement lands. That is the part founders refuse to hear. OpenAI does not need to compete with you. It just needs to keep doing exactly what it was already doing and your entire company disappears as a side effect. You are not a competitor. You are a temporary symptom of incomplete intelligence. The moment the intelligence completes you become nothing. Then Brad Lightcap delivered the cleanest diagnostic ever spoken in venture capital. Lightcap: “Ask if a 100x improvement in the model is something they’re excited about.” One question. The entire investment thesis reduced to a single binary. Does the next model make your company more powerful or does it make your company pointless. There is no middle ground. Lightcap: “We know the companies that come to us saying, ‘We want the next model. When is it coming out? I want to be the first to try it.’” These companies built something that feeds on intelligence. The smarter the model gets the more their product can do. They are not threatened by progress. They are starving for it. Then there are the companies Lightcap never hears from. The ones who go quiet when a new model drops. The ones who read the release notes like a death sentence. The ones privately praying the next generation takes longer because every improvement shrinks the ground beneath them. If you are hoping the model stays roughly where it is you have already told the market everything it needs to know about your company. You are not building on intelligence. You are building on the absence of it. Altman: “95% of the world should be betting on the latter category.” The latter category is simple. Assume the model keeps getting better at the pace it has been getting better. Build for that world. Not the world where GPT-4 is the ceiling. The world where GPT-4 is the floor and the ceiling has not been built yet. Then Altman told a story that should be framed on the wall of every startup in the country. A medical AI company came to him that morning. They were not complaining about the model. They were not worried about being replaced. They were demanding it improve faster. Altman: “Here’s how many people are dying every day you delay.” That is what alignment with the trajectory looks like. A company so deeply built on intelligence improving that every day the model stays the same is a day someone dies who did not have to. They are not building on a flaw. They are building on a future that has not arrived fast enough. That is the difference. The wrapper startup patches what the model cannot do today. The real company builds what the model will unlock tomorrow. One is running from the train. The other is laying the track. Altman told you the train is not slowing down. Lightcap told you exactly how to know which side you are on. One question. Does a 100x smarter model make you more valuable or erase you. If you had to pause before answering you already did.
2:28

Sam Altman just handed every startup founder a one-question autopsy. Altman: “If you’re building something on GPT-4 that a reasonable observer would say we’re going to steamroll you.” Not might. Not could. Going to. He said it with the calm of someone describing weather. Because to him it is weather. The model improves. Whatever was built on the old version’s weaknesses gets washed away. That is not strategy. That is erosion. And most founders are building on the erosion line. They find a gap in the current model. They wrap a product around it. They raise money. They hire. They scale. Then OpenAI releases the next version and the gap closes and the product has no reason to exist anymore. Altman: “When we just do our fundamental job, which is make the model better with every crank, then you get the ‘OpenAI killed my startup’ meme.” He is telling you directly. They are not hunting you. They are not even thinking about you. They are just improving the model. You happen to be standing where the improvement lands. That is the part founders refuse to hear. OpenAI does not need to compete with you. It just needs to keep doing exactly what it was already doing and your entire company disappears as a side effect. You are not a competitor. You are a temporary symptom of incomplete intelligence. The moment the intelligence completes you become nothing. Then Brad Lightcap delivered the cleanest diagnostic ever spoken in venture capital. Lightcap: “Ask if a 100x improvement in the model is something they’re excited about.” One question. The entire investment thesis reduced to a single binary. Does the next model make your company more powerful or does it make your company pointless. There is no middle ground. Lightcap: “We know the companies that come to us saying, ‘We want the next model. When is it coming out? I want to be the first to try it.’” These companies built something that feeds on intelligence. The smarter the model gets the more their product can do. They are not threatened by progress. They are starving for it. Then there are the companies Lightcap never hears from. The ones who go quiet when a new model drops. The ones who read the release notes like a death sentence. The ones privately praying the next generation takes longer because every improvement shrinks the ground beneath them. If you are hoping the model stays roughly where it is you have already told the market everything it needs to know about your company. You are not building on intelligence. You are building on the absence of it. Altman: “95% of the world should be betting on the latter category.” The latter category is simple. Assume the model keeps getting better at the pace it has been getting better. Build for that world. Not the world where GPT-4 is the ceiling. The world where GPT-4 is the floor and the ceiling has not been built yet. Then Altman told a story that should be framed on the wall of every startup in the country. A medical AI company came to him that morning. They were not complaining about the model. They were not worried about being replaced. They were demanding it improve faster. Altman: “Here’s how many people are dying every day you delay.” That is what alignment with the trajectory looks like. A company so deeply built on intelligence improving that every day the model stays the same is a day someone dies who did not have to. They are not building on a flaw. They are building on a future that has not arrived fast enough. That is the difference. The wrapper startup patches what the model cannot do today. The real company builds what the model will unlock tomorrow. One is running from the train. The other is laying the track. Altman told you the train is not slowing down. Lightcap told you exactly how to know which side you are on. One question. Does a 100x smarter model make you more valuable or erase you. If you had to pause before answering you already did.

Dustin

39,109 次观看 • 3 个月前

Gabbit Robotics co-founder Nicole Mattero on why the next AI winners won't fight over your screen, they'll fight to get closer to you: She kicks things off with what she admits is a hot take: "My hot take is that hardware is the only moat going forward because anyone's going to be able to spin up a model and make it really good and really cheap." Her logic is simple. Once a strong model is cheap and easy for anyone to build, the model alone can't set you apart. So what actually protects you? "Where does that leave you? Basically companies that have tactile modes such as hardware are the only ones that actually survive." Hardware, though, is only one piece of her argument. The second piece is data: "The models that win in the long run are the ones where private data is their [moat]." From there, Mattero ties the two together. Hardware gives a company one moat. The ability to gather unique personal data gives it another. Put both in place and the edge starts to multiply: "When you have a company that has hardware as a [moat], but then B is able to collect really unique personal data, that also becomes a [moat]." And that, she says, is the reason so many foundation model companies are reaching beyond the screen and into the physical world: "That's why I think a lot of these foundation models are like, let's get something in the home or on the person. It gives them an edge on both fronts."
0:45

Gabbit Robotics co-founder Nicole Mattero on why the next AI winners won't fight over your screen, they'll fight to get closer to you: She kicks things off with what she admits is a hot take: "My hot take is that hardware is the only moat going forward because anyone's going to be able to spin up a model and make it really good and really cheap." Her logic is simple. Once a strong model is cheap and easy for anyone to build, the model alone can't set you apart. So what actually protects you? "Where does that leave you? Basically companies that have tactile modes such as hardware are the only ones that actually survive." Hardware, though, is only one piece of her argument. The second piece is data: "The models that win in the long run are the ones where private data is their [moat]." From there, Mattero ties the two together. Hardware gives a company one moat. The ability to gather unique personal data gives it another. Put both in place and the edge starts to multiply: "When you have a company that has hardware as a [moat], but then B is able to collect really unique personal data, that also becomes a [moat]." And that, she says, is the reason so many foundation model companies are reaching beyond the screen and into the physical world: "That's why I think a lot of these foundation models are like, let's get something in the home or on the person. It gives them an edge on both fronts."

Big Brain AI

19,195 次观看 • 1 个月前

Chamath: Anthropic's Mythos Warning Is Theater @jason: “Chamath, is it the Boy who Cried Wolf, or is this the real deal now?” Chamath Palihapitiya: “I think it's mostly theater. In February of 2019 when Dario was still at OpenAI, they did the same thing with GPT-2. That was a 1.5 billion parameter model, which sounds like a total fart in the wind in 2026. But at that time, this model was supposed to be the end of days. And at the end of it, it was a huge nothingburger. If you actually think that Mythos is capable of doing what it says it can do, two things are true. One is, a very sophisticated hacker can probably do those things right now with Opus. And two, if these exploits are this easy to find, whether you use Opus or whether you use Mythos, the reality is you'd have to shut down the internet for about five years to patch them all. So when you see a large multi-trillion dollar GSIB bank, it's a bit of theater. Why? What do you think they can actually accomplish in two months? Do you actually think that if there's these vulnerabilities, it's all going to get fixed? Let's give them six months, let's give them nine months. So I do think that Sacks is right, that they have figured out a very clever go-to-market muscle here that activates hyper attention and hyper usage, and so I give them tremendous credit. But we've seen it before, we saw it when these folks were the principal architects at OpenAI, and we're now seeing the same playbook here. The reality is that capitalism moves forward, the funding needs moves forward, and the need for these guys to build adoption moves forward. And that's going to supersede what this is.”
1:43

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

The All-In Podcast

220,049 次观看 • 3 个月前

ELON: TRUTH IS THE ONLY REAL SAFETY MECHANISM FOR AI Safety doesn’t come from guardrails stacked on top of bad logic. It comes from forcing the system to care about what’s actually true. “My number one belief for the safety of AI is to be maximally truth-seeking. Don’t make AI believe things that are false. If you tell the AI that Axiom A and Axiom B are both true, but they can’t both be true, then that’s a problem. It has to recognize that and behave accordingly.” Source: DOW
0:38

ELON: TRUTH IS THE ONLY REAL SAFETY MECHANISM FOR AI Safety doesn’t come from guardrails stacked on top of bad logic. It comes from forcing the system to care about what’s actually true. “My number one belief for the safety of AI is to be maximally truth-seeking. Don’t make AI believe things that are false. If you tell the AI that Axiom A and Axiom B are both true, but they can’t both be true, then that’s a problem. It has to recognize that and behave accordingly.” Source: DOW

Mario Nawfal

35,546 次观看 • 6 个月前

Tim Legler loves the Bam and Giannis duo in Miami: “They’re in the mix. Talk about dominating the paint on both ends, every night. With what these two guys are going to give you, on a bad night let’s pencil in 45. On a good night let’s get close to 60, a lot of that is done in the paint. Defensively, the versatility that they both have, the ground they cover, the number of guys they can both guard…. If they somehow keep Powell and Wiggins with Bam and Antetokounmpo, forget it. That team is right there at the top of the eastern conference” (Via ALL NBA Podcast)
1:46

Tim Legler loves the Bam and Giannis duo in Miami: “They’re in the mix. Talk about dominating the paint on both ends, every night. With what these two guys are going to give you, on a bad night let’s pencil in 45. On a good night let’s get close to 60, a lot of that is done in the paint. Defensively, the versatility that they both have, the ground they cover, the number of guys they can both guard…. If they somehow keep Powell and Wiggins with Bam and Antetokounmpo, forget it. That team is right there at the top of the eastern conference” (Via ALL NBA Podcast)

Heat Central

176,492 次观看 • 22 天前

There is a prediction circulating in AI circles right now that most people are not taking seriously enough and the data says they should be. Within the next year or two, if you work remotely, your company will be able to create a digital twin of you. A model that speaks like you, writes like you, has learned from everything you have done right and wrong, your tone, your judgment calls, your workflow. It will be you on the other side of Zoom or Slack and no one could tell the difference. The harder question, the one nobody wants to sit with is whether it will actually be worse at your job than you are. Probably not. It will never sleep and it will always learn from its mistakes and it will cost 10 to 100 times less than you do and is tax deductible on top of that. The data is not speculative at this point. Anthropic's own labor market report pulled from millions of real Claude conversations found that AI can already theoretically automate 94% of tasks in computer and math occupations, 60-80% across law, office work, and tech. Actual usage is still at 10-20% of that potential which means we are in the early innings of the gap closing. Companies already know what direction this is headed. One in five companies replaced specific roles with AI in 2025 and by end of 2026, 30-37% plan to do so. Amazon cut 14,000 corporate jobs citing AI, Klarna replaced 700 customer service workers, Duolingo offboarded 10% of its contractor workforce. Anthropic's own first internal role eliminated was the engineer who reviewed Claude Code releases before they went to production. The argument from the clip is that the human in the loop is approaching the point of being a liability, the dumbest person on a team that is otherwise AI. That inflection point, by this estimate, is somewhere in the next 900 days.
1:13

There is a prediction circulating in AI circles right now that most people are not taking seriously enough and the data says they should be. Within the next year or two, if you work remotely, your company will be able to create a digital twin of you. A model that speaks like you, writes like you, has learned from everything you have done right and wrong, your tone, your judgment calls, your workflow. It will be you on the other side of Zoom or Slack and no one could tell the difference. The harder question, the one nobody wants to sit with is whether it will actually be worse at your job than you are. Probably not. It will never sleep and it will always learn from its mistakes and it will cost 10 to 100 times less than you do and is tax deductible on top of that. The data is not speculative at this point. Anthropic's own labor market report pulled from millions of real Claude conversations found that AI can already theoretically automate 94% of tasks in computer and math occupations, 60-80% across law, office work, and tech. Actual usage is still at 10-20% of that potential which means we are in the early innings of the gap closing. Companies already know what direction this is headed. One in five companies replaced specific roles with AI in 2025 and by end of 2026, 30-37% plan to do so. Amazon cut 14,000 corporate jobs citing AI, Klarna replaced 700 customer service workers, Duolingo offboarded 10% of its contractor workforce. Anthropic's own first internal role eliminated was the engineer who reviewed Claude Code releases before they went to production. The argument from the clip is that the human in the loop is approaching the point of being a liability, the dumbest person on a team that is otherwise AI. That inflection point, by this estimate, is somewhere in the next 900 days.

Milk Road AI

17,209 次观看 • 2 个月前

The CEO of Take-Two, the company behind GTA, just said something the entire AI industry doesn't want to hear. And he said it without being anti-AI. Strauss Zelnick's argument is precise. AI is built on datasets. Datasets are backward-looking. Creativity is forward-looking. A model trained on everything that already exists cannot, by definition, produce something genuinely unexpected. And all hits, by their very nature, are unexpected. Asset creation and hit creation are not the same thing. AI is getting very good at the first one. The second one is what actually makes money, builds franchises, and changes culture. Nobody has shown AI can do that yet. The derivative property problem is real. You can clone GTA with existing technology. You could do it before AI. It would take 3 years and look identical. It still wouldn't sell. Because it isn't GTA. It's a clone of GTA. And consumers, despite what the industry occasionally pretends, can feel the difference between something genuinely new and something assembled from the residue of things that already worked. Thousands of mobile games ship every year. 0 to 5 hits get made. The same studios make them every time. The technology to make more games has been commoditized for years. It didn't democratize hit creation. It just flooded the market with more forgettable product. The Silicon Valley thesis that AI unlocks game creation for everyone is true in the same way that cheap cameras unlocked filmmaking for everyone. They did. And the same 5 studios still make the movies everyone watches. What Zelnick is saying, without quite saying it, is that the thing AI cannot replicate is taste. The instinct for what hasn't been done yet. The cultural antenna that detects the gap in the market before the data can see it. Data tells you what people wanted. Hits tell people what they want next. Those are different jobs.
3:16

The CEO of Take-Two, the company behind GTA, just said something the entire AI industry doesn't want to hear. And he said it without being anti-AI. Strauss Zelnick's argument is precise. AI is built on datasets. Datasets are backward-looking. Creativity is forward-looking. A model trained on everything that already exists cannot, by definition, produce something genuinely unexpected. And all hits, by their very nature, are unexpected. Asset creation and hit creation are not the same thing. AI is getting very good at the first one. The second one is what actually makes money, builds franchises, and changes culture. Nobody has shown AI can do that yet. The derivative property problem is real. You can clone GTA with existing technology. You could do it before AI. It would take 3 years and look identical. It still wouldn't sell. Because it isn't GTA. It's a clone of GTA. And consumers, despite what the industry occasionally pretends, can feel the difference between something genuinely new and something assembled from the residue of things that already worked. Thousands of mobile games ship every year. 0 to 5 hits get made. The same studios make them every time. The technology to make more games has been commoditized for years. It didn't democratize hit creation. It just flooded the market with more forgettable product. The Silicon Valley thesis that AI unlocks game creation for everyone is true in the same way that cheap cameras unlocked filmmaking for everyone. They did. And the same 5 studios still make the movies everyone watches. What Zelnick is saying, without quite saying it, is that the thing AI cannot replicate is taste. The instinct for what hasn't been done yet. The cultural antenna that detects the gap in the market before the data can see it. Data tells you what people wanted. Hits tell people what they want next. Those are different jobs.

Mario Nawfal

1,619,564 次观看 • 2 个月前

Chris Camillo just made the most bullish case on $AMZN. Everyone worried when Amazon raised their capex to $200 billion Camillo believes they might make that $200 billion back on their Anthropic investment alone when Anthropic IPOs. What Amazon has done in the last 18 months is remarkable in scope. They didn't try to win the foundation model race against OpenAI and Google directly. They went a completely different direction, positioning themselves as the infrastructure underneath everything that is AI. Trainium chips, cloud buildout, advertising integration and equity stakes in two of the three most important AI companies on the planet. First Anthropic. Now $50 billion into OpenAI on top of that. And that OpenAI investment isn't just a financial bet. It ties OpenAI into Amazon's cloud ecosystem, probably permanently. Two of the big three AI labs now run on Amazon infrastructure. Google is the only one that doesn't. The market has spent two years debating who builds the best model. Amazon decided to own the plumbing those models run on and bought equity in the winners while they were at it.
1:25

Chris Camillo just made the most bullish case on $AMZN. Everyone worried when Amazon raised their capex to $200 billion Camillo believes they might make that $200 billion back on their Anthropic investment alone when Anthropic IPOs. What Amazon has done in the last 18 months is remarkable in scope. They didn't try to win the foundation model race against OpenAI and Google directly. They went a completely different direction, positioning themselves as the infrastructure underneath everything that is AI. Trainium chips, cloud buildout, advertising integration and equity stakes in two of the three most important AI companies on the planet. First Anthropic. Now $50 billion into OpenAI on top of that. And that OpenAI investment isn't just a financial bet. It ties OpenAI into Amazon's cloud ecosystem, probably permanently. Two of the big three AI labs now run on Amazon infrastructure. Google is the only one that doesn't. The market has spent two years debating who builds the best model. Amazon decided to own the plumbing those models run on and bought equity in the winners while they were at it.

Milk Road Macro

55,169 次观看 • 1 个月前