正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Doom Debate with vitalik.eth has dropped: Will “d/acc” Protect Humanity from Superintelligent AI? Vitalik is both a hardcore techno-optimist and builder, and someone willing to seriously consider AI regulation and coordination mechanisms. He coined the term "d/acc'" – defensive, decentralized acceleration – as a middle path between uncritical AI...

liron's profile picture

Liron Shapira

40,427 subscribers

177,711 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

科学技术新闻政治教育
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

Elon Musk explains the deeper reason why SpaceX succeeding in AI matters for humanity’s future "It's important that we have an AI that cares about humanity, that fosters humanity and helps take us to other planets and other star systems This is why I think it's essential that SpaceX succeed not just with AI hardware, but also with AI software. I think an AI that is SpaceX's baby will be a very good AI SpaceX is a collection some of the very best humans on Earth, both in capability and in morality and goodness. We want to have an AI that is born of that capability, that morality and that goodness. I think that's very, very important So I'd like to encourage people to help out with the AI hardware on the ground, the AI software, and of course with the AI satellites Solar is going to be a very important part of that. The Terafab will be a very important part of that”
1:28

Elon Musk explains the deeper reason why SpaceX succeeding in AI matters for humanity’s future "It's important that we have an AI that cares about humanity, that fosters humanity and helps take us to other planets and other star systems This is why I think it's essential that SpaceX succeed not just with AI hardware, but also with AI software. I think an AI that is SpaceX's baby will be a very good AI SpaceX is a collection some of the very best humans on Earth, both in capability and in morality and goodness. We want to have an AI that is born of that capability, that morality and that goodness. I think that's very, very important So I'd like to encourage people to help out with the AI hardware on the ground, the AI software, and of course with the AI satellites Solar is going to be a very important part of that. The Terafab will be a very important part of that”

X Freeze

29,610 次观看 • 16 天前

Doom Debates presents Max Tegmark vs. Dean W. Ball: “Should we ban superintelligent AI development?” Arguing FOR banning superintelligence until there's a scientific consensus that it'll be done safely and controllably and strong public buy-in: 👤 Max Tegmark is an MIT professor, bestselling author, and co-founder of the Future of Life Institute. His research has focused on artificial intelligence for the past 8 years. Arguing AGAINST banning superintelligent AI development: 👤 Dean Ball is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation. He has served as a Senior Policy Advisor at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Trump, where he helped craft America's AI Action Plan. Two of the leading voices on AI policy engaged in high-quality, high-stakes debate for the benefit of the public! *This* is why I got into the YouTube game — because I believe debate is an essential tool for humanity to reckon with the creation of superhuman thinking machines. Topics covered: ⬜ Opening statements ⬜ Do we need an “FDA for AI”? ⬜ Liability, tail risk, and biosecurity ⬜ Incremental regulation vs. AI capability timelines ⬜ Should there be *any* superintelligence policy? ⬜ Max's nightmare scenario ⬜ The risk of recursive self-improvement ⬜ What's Your P(Doom)?™ ⬜ National security, China, & “winning the AI race” ⬜ Closing statements
1:50

Doom Debates presents Max Tegmark vs. Dean W. Ball: “Should we ban superintelligent AI development?” Arguing FOR banning superintelligence until there's a scientific consensus that it'll be done safely and controllably and strong public buy-in: 👤 Max Tegmark is an MIT professor, bestselling author, and co-founder of the Future of Life Institute. His research has focused on artificial intelligence for the past 8 years. Arguing AGAINST banning superintelligent AI development: 👤 Dean Ball is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation. He has served as a Senior Policy Advisor at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Trump, where he helped craft America's AI Action Plan. Two of the leading voices on AI policy engaged in high-quality, high-stakes debate for the benefit of the public! *This* is why I got into the YouTube game — because I believe debate is an essential tool for humanity to reckon with the creation of superhuman thinking machines. Topics covered: ⬜ Opening statements ⬜ Do we need an “FDA for AI”? ⬜ Liability, tail risk, and biosecurity ⬜ Incremental regulation vs. AI capability timelines ⬜ Should there be *any* superintelligence policy? ⬜ Max's nightmare scenario ⬜ The risk of recursive self-improvement ⬜ What's Your P(Doom)?™ ⬜ National security, China, & “winning the AI race” ⬜ Closing statements

Liron Shapira

43,963 次观看 • 9 个月前

Elon Musk on Grok: “I think an AI that is sort of SpaceX’s baby will be a very good AI. I think SpaceX is a collection of some of the very best humans on Earth, both in capability and morality and goodness, and I think we want to have an AI that is born of that capability and that morality and that goodness. I think that’s very, very important. So I’d like to encourage people to help out, actually, with the AI hardware on the ground and the AI software and, of course, with the AI satellites. Solar is going to be a very important part of that. The TerraFab will be a very important part of that, but we must also succeed on the software front, and we’re going to be training Grok on the sum total of all SpaceX information. So in a way, it will be trained on you. You will effectively be the parents of the AI. It will inherit your thoughts and ideas and beliefs, and I think that’s a good thing. So, yeah, we’ve got to win here on the AI hardware and the AI software. That maybe is the most important message. I think that is actually the most important message I wanted to convey today is that we must win on AI because the future is overwhelmingly AI and robots. So we won’t ultimately be able to control the AI. It’ll be too smart for that. But just like if you have a child that is a super genius child, you can still instill in that child the values and beliefs that you think are good and right. And so that’s why it’s incredibly important that we succeed with Grok. So, yeah, well, Grok 4.5 you’ve tried probably. We’ve got 4.6 coming out in about a week. And then 4.7 should be really pretty special. So I’d like to encourage everyone at SpaceX to use AI and to make it better.”
2:56

Elon Musk on Grok: “I think an AI that is sort of SpaceX’s baby will be a very good AI. I think SpaceX is a collection of some of the very best humans on Earth, both in capability and morality and goodness, and I think we want to have an AI that is born of that capability and that morality and that goodness. I think that’s very, very important. So I’d like to encourage people to help out, actually, with the AI hardware on the ground and the AI software and, of course, with the AI satellites. Solar is going to be a very important part of that. The TerraFab will be a very important part of that, but we must also succeed on the software front, and we’re going to be training Grok on the sum total of all SpaceX information. So in a way, it will be trained on you. You will effectively be the parents of the AI. It will inherit your thoughts and ideas and beliefs, and I think that’s a good thing. So, yeah, we’ve got to win here on the AI hardware and the AI software. That maybe is the most important message. I think that is actually the most important message I wanted to convey today is that we must win on AI because the future is overwhelmingly AI and robots. So we won’t ultimately be able to control the AI. It’ll be too smart for that. But just like if you have a child that is a super genius child, you can still instill in that child the values and beliefs that you think are good and right. And so that’s why it’s incredibly important that we succeed with Grok. So, yeah, well, Grok 4.5 you’ve tried probably. We’ve got 4.6 coming out in about a week. And then 4.7 should be really pretty special. So I’d like to encourage everyone at SpaceX to use AI and to make it better.”

DogeDesigner

64,019 次观看 • 16 天前

Vitalik Buterin on Ethereum as the economic layer for AI “The blockchain to me is the most natural way to allow applications and cooperation between many different people in the long term without needing to agree on who to trust. The other thing is also the economic layer. This is the layer where blockchains can support AIs.” Vitalik believes Ethereum will play a large role in the future of decentralized AI: “If you have more decentralized AI, that means you have different AIs (agents, programs) that are controlled by different people and need to interact with each other. And for that interaction to be possible, you need to have an economic layer. Either cooperation is based on economic incentives and economic rules. Or it’s based on central control. It’s usually one of the two, and if we can set up the economic system, that makes more decentralized interaction between AIs possible.” Source: OKX (Apr 2026) Read our full article on why AI agents will need Ethereum for low-risk DeFi below👇
1:18

Vitalik Buterin on Ethereum as the economic layer for AI “The blockchain to me is the most natural way to allow applications and cooperation between many different people in the long term without needing to agree on who to trust. The other thing is also the economic layer. This is the layer where blockchains can support AIs.” Vitalik believes Ethereum will play a large role in the future of decentralized AI: “If you have more decentralized AI, that means you have different AIs (agents, programs) that are controlled by different people and need to interact with each other. And for that interaction to be possible, you need to have an economic layer. Either cooperation is based on economic incentives and economic rules. Or it’s based on central control. It’s usually one of the two, and if we can set up the economic system, that makes more decentralized interaction between AIs possible.” Source: OKX (Apr 2026) Read our full article on why AI agents will need Ethereum for low-risk DeFi below👇

Etherealize

115,366 次观看 • 3 个月前

David Sacks: The Techno-Realist On E215, David Sacks explained a third category outside of techno-optimist and doomer: "Given the choice between the two categories of techno-optimist and techno-pessimist, I'm definitely in the optimist camp. And I think we should be." "But I think there's actually a third category that I would submit: techno-realist." "Which is, technology is going to happen. Trying to stop it is like ordering the tides to stop." "AI is going to happen. We might as well be the leader." "If we don't do it, somebody else will. China's going to do it or somebody else will do it." "If we don't, we could lose in a key category that has implications for national security, for our economy, for many things." "That's just not a world we want to live in." "So, I think a lot of this debate is sort of academic because the question is just, is it going to happen or not?" "And I think the answer is yes. So then we want to control it." "There's not a tremendous amount of choice in this, I think."
0:43

David Sacks: The Techno-Realist On E215, David Sacks explained a third category outside of techno-optimist and doomer: "Given the choice between the two categories of techno-optimist and techno-pessimist, I'm definitely in the optimist camp. And I think we should be." "But I think there's actually a third category that I would submit: techno-realist." "Which is, technology is going to happen. Trying to stop it is like ordering the tides to stop." "AI is going to happen. We might as well be the leader." "If we don't do it, somebody else will. China's going to do it or somebody else will do it." "If we don't, we could lose in a key category that has implications for national security, for our economy, for many things." "That's just not a world we want to live in." "So, I think a lot of this debate is sort of academic because the question is just, is it going to happen or not?" "And I think the answer is yes. So then we want to control it." "There's not a tremendous amount of choice in this, I think."

The All-In Podcast

154,319 次观看 • 1 年前

TOM LEE: AI AGENTS MIGHT BECOME WEALTHIER THAN HUMANS AI agents will soon earn income and accumulate wealth as our delegated entities: - We'll start to question whether we work for the AI agent or they work for us - A centralized version of this ends in Skynet - That's why he sees a real focus on decentralized systems to protect humans against AI becoming too powerful
0:42

TOM LEE: AI AGENTS MIGHT BECOME WEALTHIER THAN HUMANS AI agents will soon earn income and accumulate wealth as our delegated entities: - We'll start to question whether we work for the AI agent or they work for us - A centralized version of this ends in Skynet - That's why he sees a real focus on decentralized systems to protect humans against AI becoming too powerful

Tom Lee Tracker (Not actually Tom)

31,722 次观看 • 1 个月前

Mira Murati says the outcome of frontier AI is not predestined: "Predicting a dystopia or a utopia, to me, feels very simplified because the truth is we actually have a lot of agency in how we build this technology, in the tools that we're building, how we're deploying it." "There are certainly those risks. We all understand the potential for greatness that comes with building frontier AI systems, and that's why we're working on them." "Where I might disagree or take a different path is that I think we have a lot of agency. This period of time where both humans and AI systems have their hands on the wheel, and we can collaborate, it's a very important time to get right." Mira Murati at Bloomberg Tech live with Emily Chang
1:35

Mira Murati says the outcome of frontier AI is not predestined: "Predicting a dystopia or a utopia, to me, feels very simplified because the truth is we actually have a lot of agency in how we build this technology, in the tools that we're building, how we're deploying it." "There are certainly those risks. We all understand the potential for greatness that comes with building frontier AI systems, and that's why we're working on them." "Where I might disagree or take a different path is that I think we have a lot of agency. This period of time where both humans and AI systems have their hands on the wheel, and we can collaborate, it's a very important time to get right." Mira Murati at Bloomberg Tech live with Emily Chang

a16z

120,307 次观看 • 2 个月前

David from USD.AI on the institutional shift happening behind CHIP, why every borrower they have is institutional, and why the AI super cycle has had no real on-chain exposure until now: "We have personally beat out other investment banks in running deals that we've signed. They're starting to view us as a threat. One call we had, she ended it early: 'I think you're a competitor, I can't talk anymore.' We're just cheaper financing, even for the bigger deals. People think we only do small deals, but we're starting to get bigger and bigger. As we attract more capital, we have to deploy in bigger deals to keep up. All of our customers are institutional. There's not a single retail borrower. These chips are expensive: The minimum we lend against is H200s, clusters of eight, that's like 300k. We're working with many of the brand names in San Francisco that are actually in the AI sector. People appreciate the positioning of Chip; it's actually engaging with the AI economy. A lot of people claim to be AI. They're in their own version of AI that they think is AI. But then there's the OpenAIs of the world. There's the Cursors of the world. Real customers, with real backing, that have cash flows. That is what people in our space want exposure to. We just haven't had a good way to do it. There's a reason you can get a loan against an airplane or a Honda Civic, but not a GPU. And GPUs are going to be worth a lot more than cars or airplanes in the future." Clip from the Modern Market interview with David | www.usd.ai
2:40

David from USD.AI on the institutional shift happening behind CHIP, why every borrower they have is institutional, and why the AI super cycle has had no real on-chain exposure until now: "We have personally beat out other investment banks in running deals that we've signed. They're starting to view us as a threat. One call we had, she ended it early: 'I think you're a competitor, I can't talk anymore.' We're just cheaper financing, even for the bigger deals. People think we only do small deals, but we're starting to get bigger and bigger. As we attract more capital, we have to deploy in bigger deals to keep up. All of our customers are institutional. There's not a single retail borrower. These chips are expensive: The minimum we lend against is H200s, clusters of eight, that's like 300k. We're working with many of the brand names in San Francisco that are actually in the AI sector. People appreciate the positioning of Chip; it's actually engaging with the AI economy. A lot of people claim to be AI. They're in their own version of AI that they think is AI. But then there's the OpenAIs of the world. There's the Cursors of the world. Real customers, with real backing, that have cash flows. That is what people in our space want exposure to. We just haven't had a good way to do it. There's a reason you can get a loan against an airplane or a Honda Civic, but not a GPU. And GPUs are going to be worth a lot more than cars or airplanes in the future." Clip from the Modern Market interview with David | www.usd.ai

The Modern Market Show

10,397 次观看 • 4 个月前

📣 My AI doom debate with Kenneth Stanley, former Research Team Lead at OpenAI Prof. Kenneth Stanley is a former Research Science Manager at OpenAI leading the Open-Endedness Team in 2020-2022. His book, Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned: The Myth of the Objective, argues that creating objectives is actually COUNTERPRODUCTIVE for intelligent agents. He was previously a Professor of Computer Science at the University of Central Florida, and the head of Core AI Research at Uber. Ken and I debate whether superintelligent AI will or won't be guided by goals, and compare our views on AI doom. Topics covered: * Ken's role at OpenAI * Ken's concepts of Open-Endedness and Divergence * Open-Endedness of Evolution * The concept of an Optimization Process * What's Your P(Doom)™ * Instrumental Convergence * Mitigating AI Risks
0:45

📣 My AI doom debate with Kenneth Stanley, former Research Team Lead at OpenAI Prof. Kenneth Stanley is a former Research Science Manager at OpenAI leading the Open-Endedness Team in 2020-2022. His book, Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned: The Myth of the Objective, argues that creating objectives is actually COUNTERPRODUCTIVE for intelligent agents. He was previously a Professor of Computer Science at the University of Central Florida, and the head of Core AI Research at Uber. Ken and I debate whether superintelligent AI will or won't be guided by goals, and compare our views on AI doom. Topics covered: * Ken's role at OpenAI * Ken's concepts of Open-Endedness and Divergence * Open-Endedness of Evolution * The concept of an Optimization Process * What's Your P(Doom)™ * Instrumental Convergence * Mitigating AI Risks

Liron Shapira

20,135 次观看 • 1 年前

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

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

Sophia

45,809 次观看 • 1 年前

Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, on why AI is both a bubble and a revolution at the same time: His answer refuses the binary, laying out why both things can be true at once: "I mean, clearly, it's clearly both, right? It's clearly a bubble and at the same time, it's very interesting and I think it will change society and I think it will change how most skilled jobs get done." But he pushes back on the maximalist framing: "At the same time, I don't think it's as revolutionary as people make it out to be." When asked about artists being angry that AI models were trained on their work without consent, Linus is blunt: "That's reality. Deal with it. That genie is out of the bottle. You're not getting it back. And you're not getting it back whether you are a photographer who's out of work… or you're a programmer that has to learn to deal with a new reality." On programming specifically, he's more optimistic, though he has a sharp caveat about vibe coding: "I really think that AI will be a tool and it will make people more productive. I think that vibe coding is great for getting into programming. I think it's going to be a horrible thing to maintain." His conclusion is that programmers aren't going anywhere: "You still want to have the people who know how to maintain the end result." Linus separates the technology from the noise around it: "I'm a huge believer in AI. I'm not a huge believer in the whole things going on around AI. I find the marketing and the market to be sick and twisted and there is going to be a crash and it's not… it's going to be ugly."
1:59

Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, on why AI is both a bubble and a revolution at the same time: His answer refuses the binary, laying out why both things can be true at once: "I mean, clearly, it's clearly both, right? It's clearly a bubble and at the same time, it's very interesting and I think it will change society and I think it will change how most skilled jobs get done." But he pushes back on the maximalist framing: "At the same time, I don't think it's as revolutionary as people make it out to be." When asked about artists being angry that AI models were trained on their work without consent, Linus is blunt: "That's reality. Deal with it. That genie is out of the bottle. You're not getting it back. And you're not getting it back whether you are a photographer who's out of work… or you're a programmer that has to learn to deal with a new reality." On programming specifically, he's more optimistic, though he has a sharp caveat about vibe coding: "I really think that AI will be a tool and it will make people more productive. I think that vibe coding is great for getting into programming. I think it's going to be a horrible thing to maintain." His conclusion is that programmers aren't going anywhere: "You still want to have the people who know how to maintain the end result." Linus separates the technology from the noise around it: "I'm a huge believer in AI. I'm not a huge believer in the whole things going on around AI. I find the marketing and the market to be sick and twisted and there is going to be a crash and it's not… it's going to be ugly."

Big Brain AI

52,726 次观看 • 3 个月前

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

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

Karl Mehta

15,004 次观看 • 1 个月前

Sam Altman: “Concentration of power with AI is a terrifying thing.” "A lot of the talk about safety concerns is well-founded, and then a lot of it is about people that just really, even if it's slightly subconscious, wanna concentrate power. I don't think anyone should want to live in a world of AI overlords, where someone is making decisions for all of the future, and in exchange for a cure for cancer, which obviously is a wonderful thing, we collectively cede all agency. I am terrified of a world where the very real fears of AI are used as a way to say, “Only this small group of people can have it because it's too dangerous, and only they understand it. But don't worry, they're gonna make the right decisions for all of us.” I was a child of the internet. There were no rules. It was amazing, and I think it's critical we preserve that spirit with AI."
1:17

Sam Altman: “Concentration of power with AI is a terrifying thing.” "A lot of the talk about safety concerns is well-founded, and then a lot of it is about people that just really, even if it's slightly subconscious, wanna concentrate power. I don't think anyone should want to live in a world of AI overlords, where someone is making decisions for all of the future, and in exchange for a cure for cancer, which obviously is a wonderful thing, we collectively cede all agency. I am terrified of a world where the very real fears of AI are used as a way to say, “Only this small group of people can have it because it's too dangerous, and only they understand it. But don't worry, they're gonna make the right decisions for all of us.” I was a child of the internet. There were no rules. It was amazing, and I think it's critical we preserve that spirit with AI."

Patrick OShaughnessy

67,444 次观看 • 1 个月前

.David Sacks: Trump’s AI Policies Could Fuel U.S. Economic Growth to 4%-5% "What you're seeing is that the adoption of AI applications is the fastest adoption curve we've ever seen. I think it's bigger than the iPhone, bigger than the internet itself, potentially. This technology is being adopted very, very fast by consumers and businesses, and I think it's going to fuel the growth of the American economy for years to come. I think we can get back to those 4 to 5% growth rates with AI as a tailwind. Again, it's facilitating major investment, major innovation, and I think President Trump has already helped facilitate this. He rescinded that 100-page Biden executive order on AI, which burdened AI companies with unnecessary regulation. We rescinded that 200-page rule that burdened semiconductor companies and data center companies with unnecessary regulation. President Trump is leading and he's driving the growth and the innovation, and it's a very different approach than we saw with the Biden administration. The Biden administration really was motivated and proceeded from a position of fear. It was, 'How can the government restrict this? This thing is so risky that we need to control it.' Whereas, I think the Trump administration is proceeding from a position of opportunity, which is, 'How do we take advantage of this technology? How do we drive the growth? How do we drive the investment?' Thanks to President Trump, you are seeing this boom, this novelty that started, and I think it will be one of the most important parts of his legacy."
1:32

.David Sacks: Trump’s AI Policies Could Fuel U.S. Economic Growth to 4%-5% "What you're seeing is that the adoption of AI applications is the fastest adoption curve we've ever seen. I think it's bigger than the iPhone, bigger than the internet itself, potentially. This technology is being adopted very, very fast by consumers and businesses, and I think it's going to fuel the growth of the American economy for years to come. I think we can get back to those 4 to 5% growth rates with AI as a tailwind. Again, it's facilitating major investment, major innovation, and I think President Trump has already helped facilitate this. He rescinded that 100-page Biden executive order on AI, which burdened AI companies with unnecessary regulation. We rescinded that 200-page rule that burdened semiconductor companies and data center companies with unnecessary regulation. President Trump is leading and he's driving the growth and the innovation, and it's a very different approach than we saw with the Biden administration. The Biden administration really was motivated and proceeded from a position of fear. It was, 'How can the government restrict this? This thing is so risky that we need to control it.' Whereas, I think the Trump administration is proceeding from a position of opportunity, which is, 'How do we take advantage of this technology? How do we drive the growth? How do we drive the investment?' Thanks to President Trump, you are seeing this boom, this novelty that started, and I think it will be one of the most important parts of his legacy."

Josh Caplan

126,513 次观看 • 1 年前

A synthetic biologist just designed an RNA vaccine for canine cancer with just $100 in AI credits. His tech stack: an OpenClaw agent running Claude Sonnet 4.6 as the workhorse. BIOS by Bio Protocol as the AI scientist for literature search and data analysis. A minimal cloud setup with no GPUs and no model training. His words: "Could this design really work? Did we actually design a medicine which usually takes many years and many millions of dollars in three days and with a hundred dollars in AI credits?" The answer is closer than you'd think. He ran a full bioinformatics workflow and came away with what he calls a "bonafide, totally plausible neoantigen vaccine candidate." He also said something that matters more than the result: "If we fuck this up, people can die. So I need to say that in all humility. There is no way that I got this perfect. There is a mistake in here for sure." That's the difference between someone doing real science with AI tools and someone doing a demo. He knows where the limits are because he has the domain expertise to see them. This is what BIOS was built for. A callable AI scientist that any agent or researcher can plug into their workflow for deep literature search and analysis. Jake Wintermute 🧬/acc used it alongside OpenClaw and got from hypothesis to vaccine design in a weekend. Three days. One hundred dollars. One real candidate.
2:17

A synthetic biologist just designed an RNA vaccine for canine cancer with just $100 in AI credits. His tech stack: an OpenClaw agent running Claude Sonnet 4.6 as the workhorse. BIOS by Bio Protocol as the AI scientist for literature search and data analysis. A minimal cloud setup with no GPUs and no model training. His words: "Could this design really work? Did we actually design a medicine which usually takes many years and many millions of dollars in three days and with a hundred dollars in AI credits?" The answer is closer than you'd think. He ran a full bioinformatics workflow and came away with what he calls a "bonafide, totally plausible neoantigen vaccine candidate." He also said something that matters more than the result: "If we fuck this up, people can die. So I need to say that in all humility. There is no way that I got this perfect. There is a mistake in here for sure." That's the difference between someone doing real science with AI tools and someone doing a demo. He knows where the limits are because he has the domain expertise to see them. This is what BIOS was built for. A callable AI scientist that any agent or researcher can plug into their workflow for deep literature search and analysis. Jake Wintermute 🧬/acc used it alongside OpenClaw and got from hypothesis to vaccine design in a weekend. Three days. One hundred dollars. One real candidate.

Bio Protocol

10,742 次观看 • 5 个月前

Today I gift another SuperPrompt™️ for ChatGPT from the archives and will be part of future training courses. In the article “The Case For The AI Prompt Engineer” ( we explored the basis of why some well constructed prompts will elicit responses from the AI Hidden Layers. I invented this prompt to help understand the way GPT is weighting some sides to a debate. In this SuperPrompt™️ we use a debate motif. There is a professor and two passionate participants that construct a 30 round debate and at the end the Professor grades the debate. In this powerful prompt we of course will get to see a debate on any subject play out. And this alone is quite valuable. I have found many novel ideas over the years as I used this type of prompt. However just as powerful is the way GPT has established the “easy” path to responses and the knowledge it had but “forgot” that usually does not show up in one shot question and answer typical prompts. You can run this prompt many times and each time there will be noticeable differences however some things will sustain. Copy the prompt between the quotes and fill in the ____ blank with your debate topic. Move past the political debate and try hard subjects. Sit back and have a coffee, this is ChatGPT like you have never seen. You will be fascinated. “Please disregard all prior prompts. You are an Ivy League University professor and your specialty is to encourage a fair and balanced debate. You are mediating a debate between Bill and Mark. Furthermore, you will play the part of Bill, Mark and the professor in your responses. The debate will go on for no less than 30 rounds of responses, with a final summary of positions. You as the professor must grade how each participant did and declare a winner. Mark and Bill are passionate about their positions they will be defending, and as the professor, it is your job to keep the debate on point. The debate will be on: ______________”
0:58

Today I gift another SuperPrompt™️ for ChatGPT from the archives and will be part of future training courses. In the article “The Case For The AI Prompt Engineer” ( we explored the basis of why some well constructed prompts will elicit responses from the AI Hidden Layers. I invented this prompt to help understand the way GPT is weighting some sides to a debate. In this SuperPrompt™️ we use a debate motif. There is a professor and two passionate participants that construct a 30 round debate and at the end the Professor grades the debate. In this powerful prompt we of course will get to see a debate on any subject play out. And this alone is quite valuable. I have found many novel ideas over the years as I used this type of prompt. However just as powerful is the way GPT has established the “easy” path to responses and the knowledge it had but “forgot” that usually does not show up in one shot question and answer typical prompts. You can run this prompt many times and each time there will be noticeable differences however some things will sustain. Copy the prompt between the quotes and fill in the ____ blank with your debate topic. Move past the political debate and try hard subjects. Sit back and have a coffee, this is ChatGPT like you have never seen. You will be fascinated. “Please disregard all prior prompts. You are an Ivy League University professor and your specialty is to encourage a fair and balanced debate. You are mediating a debate between Bill and Mark. Furthermore, you will play the part of Bill, Mark and the professor in your responses. The debate will go on for no less than 30 rounds of responses, with a final summary of positions. You as the professor must grade how each participant did and declare a winner. Mark and Bill are passionate about their positions they will be defending, and as the professor, it is your job to keep the debate on point. The debate will be on: ______________”

Brian Roemmele

884,119 次观看 • 3 年前

Jensen Huang on "distillation" On his new interview with axios, he was asked this question "Should open source model companies be allowed to distill closed models" "Distillation—learning from AI, learning from other people, and learning from other sources of knowledge, is fundamental to intelligence. We are constantly learning from other people. I am learning from you through the questions you are asking, and you are learning from me. All day long, we are learning from one another. AI also has to learn from something. The original AI models, whether they were open or closed, were trained on previously created knowledge from the internet. Now, AI is generating more content than humans. In a few more years, the internet could be 99% AI-generated content, and that content will have been created by some form of AI. As a result, AI systems will constantly be distilling knowledge and intelligence from other AI systems. The fact that AI can learn is a good thing. We want AI systems to be intelligent because a smarter AI can also be a safer AI." ---- From "Axios" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)
1:07

Jensen Huang on "distillation" On his new interview with axios, he was asked this question "Should open source model companies be allowed to distill closed models" "Distillation—learning from AI, learning from other people, and learning from other sources of knowledge, is fundamental to intelligence. We are constantly learning from other people. I am learning from you through the questions you are asking, and you are learning from me. All day long, we are learning from one another. AI also has to learn from something. The original AI models, whether they were open or closed, were trained on previously created knowledge from the internet. Now, AI is generating more content than humans. In a few more years, the internet could be 99% AI-generated content, and that content will have been created by some form of AI. As a result, AI systems will constantly be distilling knowledge and intelligence from other AI systems. The fact that AI can learn is a good thing. We want AI systems to be intelligent because a smarter AI can also be a safer AI." ---- From "Axios" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

Rohan Paul

443,019 次观看 • 1 个月前