Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Elon promises AGI paradise where work becomes optional, but Mouse Utopia already delivered that in 1968 with infinite resources and every mouse died anyway. What killed them might kill us too. In 1968, psychologist John B. Calhoun built a "rodent paradise" with 256 nestboxes, unlimited resources, and no disease....

rubenhassid's profile picture

Ruben Hassid

94,826 subscribers

56,743 views • 9 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

They built a literal mouse utopia — unlimited food, perfect shelter, no predators. What happened next should scare the hell out of us. At first, paradise. Mice bred rapidly, mothers cared for their young, males protected the group. Then, even with endless resources, everything collapsed. Aggression exploded in crowded zones. Mothers abandoned their pups. Cannibalism appeared. Birth rates plummeted. Some mice completely checked out — the “beautiful ones” — obsessively grooming themselves in isolation while society fell apart around them. The entire colony died off in what researcher John Calhoun called the “behavioral sink.” The Flagrant guys draw a chilling parallel to modern dense cities: abundant resources, yet rising tribalism, collapsing birth rates, social withdrawal, and people who have “everything” but feel profoundly disconnected. Even when they moved surviving mice to normal environments, the damage carried over generations. This isn’t just about mice. We’re watching the same patterns play out in real time — and we’re running out of time to course-correct. How close do you think we are to our own behavioral sink?
5:06

They built a literal mouse utopia — unlimited food, perfect shelter, no predators. What happened next should scare the hell out of us. At first, paradise. Mice bred rapidly, mothers cared for their young, males protected the group. Then, even with endless resources, everything collapsed. Aggression exploded in crowded zones. Mothers abandoned their pups. Cannibalism appeared. Birth rates plummeted. Some mice completely checked out — the “beautiful ones” — obsessively grooming themselves in isolation while society fell apart around them. The entire colony died off in what researcher John Calhoun called the “behavioral sink.” The Flagrant guys draw a chilling parallel to modern dense cities: abundant resources, yet rising tribalism, collapsing birth rates, social withdrawal, and people who have “everything” but feel profoundly disconnected. Even when they moved surviving mice to normal environments, the damage carried over generations. This isn’t just about mice. We’re watching the same patterns play out in real time — and we’re running out of time to course-correct. How close do you think we are to our own behavioral sink?

Camus

51,813 views • 5 months ago

I was honored to share the TED AI stage with Ilya on Oct. 17. His speech video is out today (mine's still being edited). I think it provides relevant context tokens to the ongoing events. Transcript starting at ~10'20": As AI continues to progress, as technology advances, [...] What I claim will happen is that people will start to act in unprecedentedly collaborative ways out of their own self-interest. It's already happening right now. You see the leading AGI companies starting to collaborate, such as the Frontiers model forum. And we will expect that companies, even competitors, will share technical information to make their AI safe. We may even see governments do this. As another example, at OpenAI, we really believed in how dramatic AGI is going to be. So, one of the ideas that we were operating by, and it's been written on our website for 5 years now, is that when technology gets such that we are very close to AGI, to computers smarter than humans, if some other company is far ahead of us, then rather than compete with them, we will help them out, join them, in a sense. And why do that? Because we appreciate how incredibly dramatic AGI is going to be. And my claim is that with each generation of capability advancements, as AI gets better and as all of you experience what AI can do, as people who run AI efforts and AGI efforts, and people who work on them will experience it as well, this will change the way we see AI and AGI. And that will change collective behavior. And this is an important reason why I'm hopeful that, despite the great challenges posed by this technology, we will overcome them. @TEDAI2023
12:24

I was honored to share the TED AI stage with Ilya on Oct. 17. His speech video is out today (mine's still being edited). I think it provides relevant context tokens to the ongoing events. Transcript starting at ~10'20": As AI continues to progress, as technology advances, [...] What I claim will happen is that people will start to act in unprecedentedly collaborative ways out of their own self-interest. It's already happening right now. You see the leading AGI companies starting to collaborate, such as the Frontiers model forum. And we will expect that companies, even competitors, will share technical information to make their AI safe. We may even see governments do this. As another example, at OpenAI, we really believed in how dramatic AGI is going to be. So, one of the ideas that we were operating by, and it's been written on our website for 5 years now, is that when technology gets such that we are very close to AGI, to computers smarter than humans, if some other company is far ahead of us, then rather than compete with them, we will help them out, join them, in a sense. And why do that? Because we appreciate how incredibly dramatic AGI is going to be. And my claim is that with each generation of capability advancements, as AI gets better and as all of you experience what AI can do, as people who run AI efforts and AGI efforts, and people who work on them will experience it as well, this will change the way we see AI and AGI. And that will change collective behavior. And this is an important reason why I'm hopeful that, despite the great challenges posed by this technology, we will overcome them. @TEDAI2023

Jim Fan

846,609 views • 2 years ago

David Friedberg: “Gaming is the future of entertainment, and the future of gaming is AI.” @jason: “Friedberg, what are your thoughts on the gaming industry versus social media versus traditional media?” david friedberg: “One way to answer that question is to think about how people spend their time.” “Do you spend more minutes on social media, or on traditional media, or playing games? And how is that trending?” “But importantly, which of those will accrue more benefit, and as a result, drive more hours spent from AI?” “One way to think about this thesis is that AI is going to ultimately accrue to video game entertainment far more than social media entertainment or traditional content.” “If you believe in AI, and you believe in the improvements in productivity, generally speaking, people in the industrialized world will generally have more free time on their hands and be able to support themselves with the deflationary effects of AI over time.” “So if there's more time on people's hands, the general market for entertainment is growing, and if the general market for entertainment is growing, gaming is the future of entertainment, and the future of gaming is AI.” “Because I think you can create dynamic, more engaging experiences that will benefit from a back and forth sort of relationship than you can with traditional content or with social media.” “If you're a noob in Fortnite, like you're an early player in Fortnite, you're mostly playing against AI, because what they do is they tune the AI to be easier to beat so that you can slowly develop your skills.” “What was happening early was they were seeing a high degree of churn in Fortnite because kids would go on and play for the first time and they'd get paired up with kids that were better than them, and so they would never win, and they would get frustrated and they would quit the game and stop.” “So the churn rate was high. So AI unlocked higher engagement and higher retention, and I think we're seeing that in a lot of different gaming platforms now.” “So AI can be used, for example, to maximally increase time, engagement, satisfaction, happiness.”
1:43

David Friedberg: “Gaming is the future of entertainment, and the future of gaming is AI.” @jason: “Friedberg, what are your thoughts on the gaming industry versus social media versus traditional media?” david friedberg: “One way to answer that question is to think about how people spend their time.” “Do you spend more minutes on social media, or on traditional media, or playing games? And how is that trending?” “But importantly, which of those will accrue more benefit, and as a result, drive more hours spent from AI?” “One way to think about this thesis is that AI is going to ultimately accrue to video game entertainment far more than social media entertainment or traditional content.” “If you believe in AI, and you believe in the improvements in productivity, generally speaking, people in the industrialized world will generally have more free time on their hands and be able to support themselves with the deflationary effects of AI over time.” “So if there's more time on people's hands, the general market for entertainment is growing, and if the general market for entertainment is growing, gaming is the future of entertainment, and the future of gaming is AI.” “Because I think you can create dynamic, more engaging experiences that will benefit from a back and forth sort of relationship than you can with traditional content or with social media.” “If you're a noob in Fortnite, like you're an early player in Fortnite, you're mostly playing against AI, because what they do is they tune the AI to be easier to beat so that you can slowly develop your skills.” “What was happening early was they were seeing a high degree of churn in Fortnite because kids would go on and play for the first time and they'd get paired up with kids that were better than them, and so they would never win, and they would get frustrated and they would quit the game and stop.” “So the churn rate was high. So AI unlocked higher engagement and higher retention, and I think we're seeing that in a lot of different gaming platforms now.” “So AI can be used, for example, to maximally increase time, engagement, satisfaction, happiness.”

The All-In Podcast

70,390 views • 11 months ago

Elon Musk just said something that should terrify people more than any doomsday prediction. Not that AI will make humanity poor. That it will make us endlessly rich. Musk: “It wouldn’t be Universal Basic Income, it would be Universal High Income.” The entire AI debate has been about whether people can survive automation. Musk is the only one asking what happens after survival is solved. Infinite goods. Infinite services. No shortage of anything for anyone on Earth. Work doesn’t become scarce. It becomes optional. People hear this and picture paradise. He’s pointing at something deeper. Musk: “If the AI can do everything that you can do, but better, then what is the point of doing things?” That question will define the next century more than any technical breakthrough. For ten thousand years, human sanity was anchored to one thing. Necessity. You built because you’d freeze. You hunted because you’d starve. You provided because the people around you would die if you didn’t. The struggle was never a flaw in the system. It was the scaffolding of meaning itself. Every religion. Every philosophy. Every civilization that ever lasted more than a century built its framework for purpose on the same foundation. That life is hard. And your job is to push through it. When the machines produce everything, they don’t just take the labor. They take the scaffolding. The interviewer compared this future to the peak of Rome. Musk agreed. The same arc, powered entirely by silicon. Rome at its height didn’t collapse from invasion. It collapsed from comfort. Citizens outsourced war to mercenaries. Labor to slaves. Governance to bureaucrats. When nothing was left to struggle for, they filled the void with spectacle and consumption. The empire didn’t run out of resources. It ran out of reasons. Most people in the AI debate are still worried about extinction. Musk is already thinking one layer past everyone else. Not how to keep people alive. How to keep them whole. The machines are not going to starve us. They are going to overfeed us until we forget why we were ever here.
1:05

Elon Musk just said something that should terrify people more than any doomsday prediction. Not that AI will make humanity poor. That it will make us endlessly rich. Musk: “It wouldn’t be Universal Basic Income, it would be Universal High Income.” The entire AI debate has been about whether people can survive automation. Musk is the only one asking what happens after survival is solved. Infinite goods. Infinite services. No shortage of anything for anyone on Earth. Work doesn’t become scarce. It becomes optional. People hear this and picture paradise. He’s pointing at something deeper. Musk: “If the AI can do everything that you can do, but better, then what is the point of doing things?” That question will define the next century more than any technical breakthrough. For ten thousand years, human sanity was anchored to one thing. Necessity. You built because you’d freeze. You hunted because you’d starve. You provided because the people around you would die if you didn’t. The struggle was never a flaw in the system. It was the scaffolding of meaning itself. Every religion. Every philosophy. Every civilization that ever lasted more than a century built its framework for purpose on the same foundation. That life is hard. And your job is to push through it. When the machines produce everything, they don’t just take the labor. They take the scaffolding. The interviewer compared this future to the peak of Rome. Musk agreed. The same arc, powered entirely by silicon. Rome at its height didn’t collapse from invasion. It collapsed from comfort. Citizens outsourced war to mercenaries. Labor to slaves. Governance to bureaucrats. When nothing was left to struggle for, they filled the void with spectacle and consumption. The empire didn’t run out of resources. It ran out of reasons. Most people in the AI debate are still worried about extinction. Musk is already thinking one layer past everyone else. Not how to keep people alive. How to keep them whole. The machines are not going to starve us. They are going to overfeed us until we forget why we were ever here.

Dustin

31,365 views • 4 months ago

🛑 Burkina Faso 🇧🇫 - Captain with school boys and girls! The young Captain was having a conversation with the pupils, and here is what he saying, “I was telling you a while ago, in school they were telling us that we couldn’t do it here. They lied to us. We grow wheat here, and it works well, and we will develop it. Some people have started, this year, I was able to see people who did it, as part of the presidential initiative, and I was told that in the past, some were able to do it and they produced it well. Currently, we are sowing wheat in some farmlands as part do the presidential initiative. What you eat must be produced here. So, this is why I say that we will teach you many things, and we will review the curricula they teach you. For those who drink coffee, they told us that your coffee, chocolate, it is only in the countries with abundant rainfalls, that here is only savanna, desert, it does not rain, we cannot farm. Again, they lied to us. It’s not true! Coffee grows well here, cocoa grows well too. There are people here who have the farms here, even in Ouagadougou here, there are people who have cocoa trees in their yards. This means that, chocolate that children envy those from well to do familes can be manufactured here in Burkina and all the children can eat chocolate in Burkina. We found out it is possible. As for milk, why do we have to import it? We can do it. I just want to tell you that there are many things that they never told us the truth about. You guys are lucky, we are now teaching you, and we promise you that we will do all we can so that you can eat your fill. As we say, you will eat well in the morning before you go to school, you will go to school for free, you will eat lunch, you will have fun, and in the afternoon, when you return home, you will have fun in the neighborhood, then in the evening, you will learn and review your homework and sleep. This is the dream we have. As long as the children in Burkina are not in these conditions, our fight will not stop. Ok? (Claps). So, we know these are your aspirations and it is right and legal. Any parent is fighting for this. Even those who do not have children fight in the hope of having children and to take care of them, so that they can live in better conditions, and be better than them. This is the fight of everyone, this is the fight of every generation. We are lucky God gave us everything. Do you know that everywhere in Burkina we can farm? Everywhere! In the Sahel where they tell you it is the desert, it is only sand, we can farm. As for us, we have been lied to so much, it is the brainwashing of the colonizer. He did that so that we may not think 💭. But we finally found out that everything was a lie ( damn lie, emphasis is mine). If God left many lakes in that desert, He knows why. We can farm everything in Burkina, we can do everything, the land is fertile. And there are so many natural things in Burkina that we never planted but they were here, isn’t it ? Have you ever learned how to plant a shea tree in Burkina? You were born and found them already here right? It is there in the wild in nature. You know it is a gift from God. There are many things in the shea fruit. You have the shea butter, that is oil; do you know that there is chocolate in it? There are seven derivatives in the shea fruit. You also have the Parkia biglobosa (also known as the African locust bean) which is a natural fruit. We have many things, it is not only the minerals in the soil. Even with the soil, we were told that it’s ferralitic soil, that it is not fertile, everything is a lie. You see that today there is so much gold in Burkina. But it is just poorly managed. Our mission is to well manage these resources, and to take good care of you, so that you can be in your basic rights, to lead a good life, to go to school, and that we may protect you. And also that you may fulfill your duties, because your duties are very important, aren’t they?…
5:01

🛑 Burkina Faso 🇧🇫 - Captain with school boys and girls! The young Captain was having a conversation with the pupils, and here is what he saying, “I was telling you a while ago, in school they were telling us that we couldn’t do it here. They lied to us. We grow wheat here, and it works well, and we will develop it. Some people have started, this year, I was able to see people who did it, as part of the presidential initiative, and I was told that in the past, some were able to do it and they produced it well. Currently, we are sowing wheat in some farmlands as part do the presidential initiative. What you eat must be produced here. So, this is why I say that we will teach you many things, and we will review the curricula they teach you. For those who drink coffee, they told us that your coffee, chocolate, it is only in the countries with abundant rainfalls, that here is only savanna, desert, it does not rain, we cannot farm. Again, they lied to us. It’s not true! Coffee grows well here, cocoa grows well too. There are people here who have the farms here, even in Ouagadougou here, there are people who have cocoa trees in their yards. This means that, chocolate that children envy those from well to do familes can be manufactured here in Burkina and all the children can eat chocolate in Burkina. We found out it is possible. As for milk, why do we have to import it? We can do it. I just want to tell you that there are many things that they never told us the truth about. You guys are lucky, we are now teaching you, and we promise you that we will do all we can so that you can eat your fill. As we say, you will eat well in the morning before you go to school, you will go to school for free, you will eat lunch, you will have fun, and in the afternoon, when you return home, you will have fun in the neighborhood, then in the evening, you will learn and review your homework and sleep. This is the dream we have. As long as the children in Burkina are not in these conditions, our fight will not stop. Ok? (Claps). So, we know these are your aspirations and it is right and legal. Any parent is fighting for this. Even those who do not have children fight in the hope of having children and to take care of them, so that they can live in better conditions, and be better than them. This is the fight of everyone, this is the fight of every generation. We are lucky God gave us everything. Do you know that everywhere in Burkina we can farm? Everywhere! In the Sahel where they tell you it is the desert, it is only sand, we can farm. As for us, we have been lied to so much, it is the brainwashing of the colonizer. He did that so that we may not think 💭. But we finally found out that everything was a lie ( damn lie, emphasis is mine). If God left many lakes in that desert, He knows why. We can farm everything in Burkina, we can do everything, the land is fertile. And there are so many natural things in Burkina that we never planted but they were here, isn’t it ? Have you ever learned how to plant a shea tree in Burkina? You were born and found them already here right? It is there in the wild in nature. You know it is a gift from God. There are many things in the shea fruit. You have the shea butter, that is oil; do you know that there is chocolate in it? There are seven derivatives in the shea fruit. You also have the Parkia biglobosa (also known as the African locust bean) which is a natural fruit. We have many things, it is not only the minerals in the soil. Even with the soil, we were told that it’s ferralitic soil, that it is not fertile, everything is a lie. You see that today there is so much gold in Burkina. But it is just poorly managed. Our mission is to well manage these resources, and to take good care of you, so that you can be in your basic rights, to lead a good life, to go to school, and that we may protect you. And also that you may fulfill your duties, because your duties are very important, aren’t they?…

Sy Marcus Herve Traore

95,027 views • 2 years ago

🚨HARSH TRUTH: AI WILL TAKE YOUR JOB!!! And Elon Musk thinks that might actually be a good thing. Sounds crazy at first. But his logic is simple. Most people don’t work because they love their job. They work because they have to. Rent. Food. Bills. That’s the deal. Your job was never really your dream. It was the price of survival. Elon believes AI and robots could eventually break that deal. And he’s not just talking about it. He’s actively building the technology that could make it happen. Tesla is building Optimus, a humanoid robot designed to do physical labor. Tesla’s AI is being trained to automate more and more real world tasks. Starlink is bringing internet to places that never had access before. And SpaceX is pushing the cost of launching things into space lower than ever. All of this points to one direction. A world where machines produce far more than humans ever could. If machines produce almost everything, the cost of producing things collapses. And when production becomes incredibly cheap, the cost of living drops with it. Elon compares the future of money to air. Nobody checks their bank account to see if they still have air. It’s just there. One day, he believes money could feel the same way. He calls it Universal High Income. Not just survival payments. A world where the basics of life become abundant. Food. Housing. Healthcare. But Elon isn’t celebrating this future. He’s worried about something else. Because once machines can do everything better than humans, money stops being the biggest problem. The real problem becomes meaning. For most people, work is where their sense of value comes from. Their role. Their identity. Their reason to feel useful. Take that away and a lot of people won’t know who they are. As Elon once said: “If the computer can do everything better than you, does your life have meaning?” AI might solve the money problem. But it could create the biggest meaning crisis in human history.
2:03

🚨HARSH TRUTH: AI WILL TAKE YOUR JOB!!! And Elon Musk thinks that might actually be a good thing. Sounds crazy at first. But his logic is simple. Most people don’t work because they love their job. They work because they have to. Rent. Food. Bills. That’s the deal. Your job was never really your dream. It was the price of survival. Elon believes AI and robots could eventually break that deal. And he’s not just talking about it. He’s actively building the technology that could make it happen. Tesla is building Optimus, a humanoid robot designed to do physical labor. Tesla’s AI is being trained to automate more and more real world tasks. Starlink is bringing internet to places that never had access before. And SpaceX is pushing the cost of launching things into space lower than ever. All of this points to one direction. A world where machines produce far more than humans ever could. If machines produce almost everything, the cost of producing things collapses. And when production becomes incredibly cheap, the cost of living drops with it. Elon compares the future of money to air. Nobody checks their bank account to see if they still have air. It’s just there. One day, he believes money could feel the same way. He calls it Universal High Income. Not just survival payments. A world where the basics of life become abundant. Food. Housing. Healthcare. But Elon isn’t celebrating this future. He’s worried about something else. Because once machines can do everything better than humans, money stops being the biggest problem. The real problem becomes meaning. For most people, work is where their sense of value comes from. Their role. Their identity. Their reason to feel useful. Take that away and a lot of people won’t know who they are. As Elon once said: “If the computer can do everything better than you, does your life have meaning?” AI might solve the money problem. But it could create the biggest meaning crisis in human history.

Evan Luthra

23,003 views • 5 months ago

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

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

NIK

390,619 views • 1 year ago

Elon just told Zerodha founder Nikhil Kamath something insane about the future of work. And if he's right, everything we think about careers is about to collapse. In less than 20 years, Elon predicts working will be completely optional. Not shorter workweeks. Not four-day weeks... ZERO work required to survive. "My prediction is working will be optional, working at all will be optional. Like a hobby pretty much." He's saying AI and robotics will hit productivity levels so high that humans won't need jobs. Universal High Income replaces Universal Basic Income. Everyone gets what they need without working. And Elon says it could happen in as little as 10-15 years. Not some distant sci-fi future. Your kids graduating college right now might enter a world where their degree is instantly obsolete. Not because they chose the wrong major. Because the CONCEPT of work-for-survival disappears. "If you can think of it, you can have it." AI produces everything. Robots manufacture everything. Humans? Optional in the production chain. When Nikhil asked about shorter workweeks, Elon shut it down: That's not the future. The future is NO workweeks. The Indian context makes this wild: India just hit below replacement fertility rate (under 2.1). Population declining for the first time. Everyone's panicking about "demographic dividend" disappearing. But Elon's saying: WHO CARES? One AI + robot can do the work of 1,000 humans. You don't need population growth when you have exponential productivity growth. The problem isn't "not enough workers." The problem is we're still thinking about economics like it's 1950. Here's what Elon told Indian entrepreneurs specifically: "Make more than you take. Be a net contributor to society." But if AI makes more than anyone can take... What does "contributor" even mean? The framework collapses. Elon also warned: when AI saturates all human needs, it starts doing things for ITSELF. Not for humans. AI and robotics producing for AI and robotics. We become the side quest. And nobody knows what happens in that world. Elon calls it the "singularity" - the point where you can't predict what's next. Like a black hole. You don't know what's past the event horizon. He's confident it's coming. Just not confident about what it looks like. And the crazy thing is, Elon's the only person with the track record to actually KNOW. He's building: - Tesla (real-world AI, FSD, Optimus robots) - SpaceX (the physical infrastructure) - xAI (the intelligence layer) He's not speculating from the sidelines. He's literally BUILDING the world he's describing. When someone like that says "work becomes optional in 15 years"... You don't laugh it off. You prepare for it. What does that preparation look like? Elon says: pursue truth, beauty, curiosity. Not money. Not status. Not promotions. Because those currencies lose meaning when goods and services are infinite. Your competitive advantage becomes: what can you think that AI can't? Not what you can DO. What you can THINK. And even that... might have a shelf life. This is either the biggest opportunity or the biggest threat humanity has ever faced. Elon's betting opportunity. But he admits that there's a chance this goes wrong. Very wrong. He references Star Trek vs. James Cameron movies. One's utopia. One's apocalypse. "Let's try for the Star Trek outcome." If Elon's right, we have 10-20 years before everything changes. That's one generation. Your kids won't work. Your grandkids won't even understand what "a job" meant. And the transition will be brutal. Elon admits: "severe social pain and structural chaos." Because we're not just changing jobs... We're changing what it MEANS to be human.
1:15

Elon just told Zerodha founder Nikhil Kamath something insane about the future of work. And if he's right, everything we think about careers is about to collapse. In less than 20 years, Elon predicts working will be completely optional. Not shorter workweeks. Not four-day weeks... ZERO work required to survive. "My prediction is working will be optional, working at all will be optional. Like a hobby pretty much." He's saying AI and robotics will hit productivity levels so high that humans won't need jobs. Universal High Income replaces Universal Basic Income. Everyone gets what they need without working. And Elon says it could happen in as little as 10-15 years. Not some distant sci-fi future. Your kids graduating college right now might enter a world where their degree is instantly obsolete. Not because they chose the wrong major. Because the CONCEPT of work-for-survival disappears. "If you can think of it, you can have it." AI produces everything. Robots manufacture everything. Humans? Optional in the production chain. When Nikhil asked about shorter workweeks, Elon shut it down: That's not the future. The future is NO workweeks. The Indian context makes this wild: India just hit below replacement fertility rate (under 2.1). Population declining for the first time. Everyone's panicking about "demographic dividend" disappearing. But Elon's saying: WHO CARES? One AI + robot can do the work of 1,000 humans. You don't need population growth when you have exponential productivity growth. The problem isn't "not enough workers." The problem is we're still thinking about economics like it's 1950. Here's what Elon told Indian entrepreneurs specifically: "Make more than you take. Be a net contributor to society." But if AI makes more than anyone can take... What does "contributor" even mean? The framework collapses. Elon also warned: when AI saturates all human needs, it starts doing things for ITSELF. Not for humans. AI and robotics producing for AI and robotics. We become the side quest. And nobody knows what happens in that world. Elon calls it the "singularity" - the point where you can't predict what's next. Like a black hole. You don't know what's past the event horizon. He's confident it's coming. Just not confident about what it looks like. And the crazy thing is, Elon's the only person with the track record to actually KNOW. He's building: - Tesla (real-world AI, FSD, Optimus robots) - SpaceX (the physical infrastructure) - xAI (the intelligence layer) He's not speculating from the sidelines. He's literally BUILDING the world he's describing. When someone like that says "work becomes optional in 15 years"... You don't laugh it off. You prepare for it. What does that preparation look like? Elon says: pursue truth, beauty, curiosity. Not money. Not status. Not promotions. Because those currencies lose meaning when goods and services are infinite. Your competitive advantage becomes: what can you think that AI can't? Not what you can DO. What you can THINK. And even that... might have a shelf life. This is either the biggest opportunity or the biggest threat humanity has ever faced. Elon's betting opportunity. But he admits that there's a chance this goes wrong. Very wrong. He references Star Trek vs. James Cameron movies. One's utopia. One's apocalypse. "Let's try for the Star Trek outcome." If Elon's right, we have 10-20 years before everything changes. That's one generation. Your kids won't work. Your grandkids won't even understand what "a job" meant. And the transition will be brutal. Elon admits: "severe social pain and structural chaos." Because we're not just changing jobs... We're changing what it MEANS to be human.

Ricardo

44,140 views • 9 months ago

YOKO ONO: ONOCHORD, VENICE, 2004 Yoko: The world is divided in two industries. One is the War Industry and the other is the Peace Industry. The people in the War Industry are totally together. They don't have to talk to each other, even. They know exactly what they want to do. They want to go out there, kill and make money. But the people in the Peace Industry, which are us - we are so idealistic that each one of us criticises the other Peace Person in the Peace Industry. And we are always just arguing and we are wasting our energies doing that. So let's just forgive each other and see that we are in the Peace Industry and that's all that counts. Even if you are not marching for peace, just be yourself, being a florist, being a merchant, being a talior, anything. That way you're contributing to the Peace Industry. People are just concentrating on fear, confusion and anger. And therefore just for a moment, I'd like us to think about Love. In a very magical, straight way, John and I met in London and from then on we stood for Peace and Love. And when I do this kind of event. Well it is... I was inspired to do it, but I still think that I'm still with John in spirit. John and I created the country called Nutopia. Not Utopia, because there was Utopia as a concept already. And we wanted to create a new concept, so we just added N on it - Nutopia - and as a country. Well, that is the concept of a country. And we all are citizens of that country. And in my apartment in the Dakota Building, we put a little plaque on the back door, the kitchen door. It says 'Nutopian Embassy' and even now we have that. (laughs). Nutopia exists in our minds. And because of that, some people want to rebel against it. The reason some want to rebel against it is a good proof that it exists. I think that it was a terrible thing that happened in Chechnya. But we have to still keep our hopes up. And instead of giving up, we have to keep on sending the message of Love to each other. You say that I am the Ambassador of Peace. We are all Ambassadors of Peace. You are too. Everybody in this room are Ambassadors of Peace. Just the fact that we are not participating in War. The fact that we are here, and we are what we are, means that we are in the Peace Industry. All of us. John and I used to say that our apartment in the Dakota is a conceptual monastry, just for the two of us. And when we go out of the Dakota, we get so many people communicating with us, so it's very important that we had silence and quietness. And my apartment is a very small space compared to the world. And I need that for my peace of mind. You should be kind to each other. You should come together, hug each other, love each other, express our love to each other and we should make it work. We should finally create a world that is a totally an Earth for Us. So let's do it. Yoko Ono, OpenAsia Press Conference, whilst exhibiting Onochord, 2004 by Yoko Ono (Nutopia) at the Venice Biennale: OpenAsia 2004, Lido Di Venezia, Venice, Italy, 9 September 2004.
9:13

YOKO ONO: ONOCHORD, VENICE, 2004 Yoko: The world is divided in two industries. One is the War Industry and the other is the Peace Industry. The people in the War Industry are totally together. They don't have to talk to each other, even. They know exactly what they want to do. They want to go out there, kill and make money. But the people in the Peace Industry, which are us - we are so idealistic that each one of us criticises the other Peace Person in the Peace Industry. And we are always just arguing and we are wasting our energies doing that. So let's just forgive each other and see that we are in the Peace Industry and that's all that counts. Even if you are not marching for peace, just be yourself, being a florist, being a merchant, being a talior, anything. That way you're contributing to the Peace Industry. People are just concentrating on fear, confusion and anger. And therefore just for a moment, I'd like us to think about Love. In a very magical, straight way, John and I met in London and from then on we stood for Peace and Love. And when I do this kind of event. Well it is... I was inspired to do it, but I still think that I'm still with John in spirit. John and I created the country called Nutopia. Not Utopia, because there was Utopia as a concept already. And we wanted to create a new concept, so we just added N on it - Nutopia - and as a country. Well, that is the concept of a country. And we all are citizens of that country. And in my apartment in the Dakota Building, we put a little plaque on the back door, the kitchen door. It says 'Nutopian Embassy' and even now we have that. (laughs). Nutopia exists in our minds. And because of that, some people want to rebel against it. The reason some want to rebel against it is a good proof that it exists. I think that it was a terrible thing that happened in Chechnya. But we have to still keep our hopes up. And instead of giving up, we have to keep on sending the message of Love to each other. You say that I am the Ambassador of Peace. We are all Ambassadors of Peace. You are too. Everybody in this room are Ambassadors of Peace. Just the fact that we are not participating in War. The fact that we are here, and we are what we are, means that we are in the Peace Industry. All of us. John and I used to say that our apartment in the Dakota is a conceptual monastry, just for the two of us. And when we go out of the Dakota, we get so many people communicating with us, so it's very important that we had silence and quietness. And my apartment is a very small space compared to the world. And I need that for my peace of mind. You should be kind to each other. You should come together, hug each other, love each other, express our love to each other and we should make it work. We should finally create a world that is a totally an Earth for Us. So let's do it. Yoko Ono, OpenAsia Press Conference, whilst exhibiting Onochord, 2004 by Yoko Ono (Nutopia) at the Venice Biennale: OpenAsia 2004, Lido Di Venezia, Venice, Italy, 9 September 2004.

Yoko Ono

35,208 views • 2 years ago

You know, the only reason they created that IG account was… For us. It was never about fame or money. It was their way of reaching out when everything around them was falling apart. A place where they tried to share small moments of happiness, excitement, love, and peace with us, even when they barely had any left for themselves. They made it because they were worried. Because they knew we were worried. Because they didn’t want the people who cared about them to sit there wondering if they were okay. And honestly, it was during that time that we saw them in a way we never had before. Real, unfiltered, not dressed up by a company, not edited, not scripted. Just them. That little page carried so much, didn’t it? They taught us so many things without ever needing to put on a show. Through every live and every small update, they showed us what real courage looks like, what honesty feels like, and how powerful someone can be even when everything around them is pushing back. But it was also a place that held their fear, their stress, their sleepless nights, and the weight of knowing the whole world was watching and anything they said could be twisted in an instant. It was a happy place. But never an easy one. We went through so much during that period. From the excitement of seeing them as NJZ to the shock of their injunction being enforced. So many times we thought we saw the light at the end of the tunnel, only for it to turn out to be a fire blocking the path. From excitement to anger, hope to hopelessness, joy to despair, ADHD to depression… everything, all at once. Calling it a roller coaster is an understatement. A lot changed after that. Too much, maybe. But some things never do. And after everything, it doesn’t really matter what comes next anymore. As long as they get to be truly happy, truly safe, and truly loved as human beings who deserved that from the very beginning, that’s enough for us. As long as it’s still Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin, Hyein. That’s all that matters in the end. 🍀 #NewJeans #Jeanzforfree #NJZ #MhDHH_Friends
0:45

You know, the only reason they created that IG account was… For us. It was never about fame or money. It was their way of reaching out when everything around them was falling apart. A place where they tried to share small moments of happiness, excitement, love, and peace with us, even when they barely had any left for themselves. They made it because they were worried. Because they knew we were worried. Because they didn’t want the people who cared about them to sit there wondering if they were okay. And honestly, it was during that time that we saw them in a way we never had before. Real, unfiltered, not dressed up by a company, not edited, not scripted. Just them. That little page carried so much, didn’t it? They taught us so many things without ever needing to put on a show. Through every live and every small update, they showed us what real courage looks like, what honesty feels like, and how powerful someone can be even when everything around them is pushing back. But it was also a place that held their fear, their stress, their sleepless nights, and the weight of knowing the whole world was watching and anything they said could be twisted in an instant. It was a happy place. But never an easy one. We went through so much during that period. From the excitement of seeing them as NJZ to the shock of their injunction being enforced. So many times we thought we saw the light at the end of the tunnel, only for it to turn out to be a fire blocking the path. From excitement to anger, hope to hopelessness, joy to despair, ADHD to depression… everything, all at once. Calling it a roller coaster is an understatement. A lot changed after that. Too much, maybe. But some things never do. And after everything, it doesn’t really matter what comes next anymore. As long as they get to be truly happy, truly safe, and truly loved as human beings who deserved that from the very beginning, that’s enough for us. As long as it’s still Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin, Hyein. That’s all that matters in the end. 🍀 #NewJeans #Jeanzforfree #NJZ #MhDHH_Friends

𝙡𝙤𝙗𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧🦞

70,876 views • 9 months ago

Elon Musk just compared artificial intelligence to a magic genie. The audience heard a fairy tale. He was describing a psychological collapse. Rishi Sunak asked him what happens to the labor market. Musk bypassed the economy entirely. Elon Musk: “There will come a point where no job is needed. You can have a job if you want to have a job for sort of personal satisfaction.” Everyone assumes losing your labor is the worst case. Musk just told you it is the best case. Lose your labor and you lose a paycheck. Lose your usefulness and you lose the reason you get out of bed. Musk: “One of the challenges in the future will be: how do we find meaning in life?” Look at the genie myth. Every version gives you exactly three wishes. The limit is the entire point. Scarcity forces you to choose. Choice is where meaning comes from. Musk: “You just have as many wishes as you want.” The limit is gone. Unlimited wishes means unlimited abundance. Unlimited abundance means zero friction. Human meaning has always been built entirely out of friction. We spent all of civilization building something that could grant our every request. We never stopped to ask what happens to the mind the morning after it gets exactly what it wanted. We thought the worst fate was a world that demanded everything from us. Maybe it is. But the generation that figures out how to build meaning without scarcity will be the first in history that chose purpose instead of having it forced on them. That is not a crisis. That is the hardest graduation ceremony the species has ever faced.
1:09

Elon Musk just compared artificial intelligence to a magic genie. The audience heard a fairy tale. He was describing a psychological collapse. Rishi Sunak asked him what happens to the labor market. Musk bypassed the economy entirely. Elon Musk: “There will come a point where no job is needed. You can have a job if you want to have a job for sort of personal satisfaction.” Everyone assumes losing your labor is the worst case. Musk just told you it is the best case. Lose your labor and you lose a paycheck. Lose your usefulness and you lose the reason you get out of bed. Musk: “One of the challenges in the future will be: how do we find meaning in life?” Look at the genie myth. Every version gives you exactly three wishes. The limit is the entire point. Scarcity forces you to choose. Choice is where meaning comes from. Musk: “You just have as many wishes as you want.” The limit is gone. Unlimited wishes means unlimited abundance. Unlimited abundance means zero friction. Human meaning has always been built entirely out of friction. We spent all of civilization building something that could grant our every request. We never stopped to ask what happens to the mind the morning after it gets exactly what it wanted. We thought the worst fate was a world that demanded everything from us. Maybe it is. But the generation that figures out how to build meaning without scarcity will be the first in history that chose purpose instead of having it forced on them. That is not a crisis. That is the hardest graduation ceremony the species has ever faced.

Dustin

32,227 views • 4 months ago

.Naval: Marxism, besides denying human incentives, also has a problem where it just assumes that everything is finite and we're all just dividing up the same small set of things. Well, the cavemen didn't have color TVs, computers, cars, antibiotics, or medicine. They were not sitting around dividing up the same few things. The knowledge grows, and we create more. It also tends to assume that we can freeze frame at some point in society and say, 'Well, we have enough different kinds of sneakers, enough different kinds of housing, we just need to allocate it better.' And that is not how anything works. David Deutsch has a great definition of wealth, which he says is the set of physical transformations that we can affect. So, when you think about it that way, you realize that knowledge is not just stored capital in the classic Marxist sense (capital vs. labor), but it's also knowledge on what to do with that capital. The cavemen or Palaeolithic ancestors had access to all the same resources we did. They were living on the same Earth, and by the modern environmentalist arguments, they had a better Earth—they had more to do things with. But yet, they couldn't do anything. They were not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Why? Because of knowledge. Life is not a zero-sum game, it's a positive-sum game. But we are hardwired to think it's a zero-sum game because, for millions or billions of years, there was no such thing as wealth. There was no such thing as persistent knowledge creation in the environment. What you had was a small amount of resources being divided up, and most of the games were status games—'Which monkey outranks which other monkey?' And that decides which monkey gets to eat first. We played that game for a billion years. Now, we come onto a recent game where, actually, we can all eat, and the big problem is obesity. It's no longer starvation. The big problem is boredom. It's not actually work. There's enough work. So, in this environment, switching your evolved mindset from a zero-sum game to a positive-sum game where we can all win, if we create knowledge together and use the resources that we have to create more resources and more wealth, that's the game we all need to be playing now.
2:11

.Naval: Marxism, besides denying human incentives, also has a problem where it just assumes that everything is finite and we're all just dividing up the same small set of things. Well, the cavemen didn't have color TVs, computers, cars, antibiotics, or medicine. They were not sitting around dividing up the same few things. The knowledge grows, and we create more. It also tends to assume that we can freeze frame at some point in society and say, 'Well, we have enough different kinds of sneakers, enough different kinds of housing, we just need to allocate it better.' And that is not how anything works. David Deutsch has a great definition of wealth, which he says is the set of physical transformations that we can affect. So, when you think about it that way, you realize that knowledge is not just stored capital in the classic Marxist sense (capital vs. labor), but it's also knowledge on what to do with that capital. The cavemen or Palaeolithic ancestors had access to all the same resources we did. They were living on the same Earth, and by the modern environmentalist arguments, they had a better Earth—they had more to do things with. But yet, they couldn't do anything. They were not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Why? Because of knowledge. Life is not a zero-sum game, it's a positive-sum game. But we are hardwired to think it's a zero-sum game because, for millions or billions of years, there was no such thing as wealth. There was no such thing as persistent knowledge creation in the environment. What you had was a small amount of resources being divided up, and most of the games were status games—'Which monkey outranks which other monkey?' And that decides which monkey gets to eat first. We played that game for a billion years. Now, we come onto a recent game where, actually, we can all eat, and the big problem is obesity. It's no longer starvation. The big problem is boredom. It's not actually work. There's enough work. So, in this environment, switching your evolved mindset from a zero-sum game to a positive-sum game where we can all win, if we create knowledge together and use the resources that we have to create more resources and more wealth, that's the game we all need to be playing now.

Arjun Khemani

163,525 views • 1 year ago

.David Deutsch: The equivalent of consilience, that is, the unified meta-theory, as you put it, for all sciences, and I think actually more than a meta-theory, because I think more links them than just the structure and methodology and so on, was discovered by Popper. Again, I don't know whether this is historically the order in which things happen, but he is famous for his political philosophy and for his philosophy of science, and he found at one point that they are the same, that they both are about problems and about the fact that there is no such instruction from without, there is only conjecture from within. So that's why Lamarckism is false and Darwinism is true, and that's why group selection is false and individual selection is true, and so on. So I think it's already there in Popper. I think there's a lot more to it, and I tried to add another couple of things to it, so quantum theory and computation, but there's a lot that isn't in it, like consciousness and creativity and so on, that we have no idea of how those work and how they fit in with those other things. Gad Saad: Forgive me for interrupting you, David, I'm sorry. There is a book by Dean Simington, who's a psychologist out of, I think, UC Davis, that actually offers a Darwinian account for creativity. It's actually quite mind-blowing. So keep that in mind. I can give you the reference later, but go ahead. David Deutsch: I don't read such things unless they've already made an AGI. Gad Saad: I see. Okay, fair enough. David Deutsch: If they can't make an AGI, then they haven't got the full theory. They might have an idea for a theory, but then Popper has an idea for a theory, but he couldn't make one either. And Turing thought that there'd be an AGI by the year 2000, and that it would require two megabytes of memory. Now, he's obviously wrong about the year 2000, but two megabytes of memory, I reckon that's what it'll be. In other words, these large language models and all this massive computer power is going in entirely the wrong direction. The answer will be a philosophical breakthrough, which will allow, once we understand what we're trying to make, it will be relatively easy to make it with relatively few computational resources.
2:58

.David Deutsch: The equivalent of consilience, that is, the unified meta-theory, as you put it, for all sciences, and I think actually more than a meta-theory, because I think more links them than just the structure and methodology and so on, was discovered by Popper. Again, I don't know whether this is historically the order in which things happen, but he is famous for his political philosophy and for his philosophy of science, and he found at one point that they are the same, that they both are about problems and about the fact that there is no such instruction from without, there is only conjecture from within. So that's why Lamarckism is false and Darwinism is true, and that's why group selection is false and individual selection is true, and so on. So I think it's already there in Popper. I think there's a lot more to it, and I tried to add another couple of things to it, so quantum theory and computation, but there's a lot that isn't in it, like consciousness and creativity and so on, that we have no idea of how those work and how they fit in with those other things. Gad Saad: Forgive me for interrupting you, David, I'm sorry. There is a book by Dean Simington, who's a psychologist out of, I think, UC Davis, that actually offers a Darwinian account for creativity. It's actually quite mind-blowing. So keep that in mind. I can give you the reference later, but go ahead. David Deutsch: I don't read such things unless they've already made an AGI. Gad Saad: I see. Okay, fair enough. David Deutsch: If they can't make an AGI, then they haven't got the full theory. They might have an idea for a theory, but then Popper has an idea for a theory, but he couldn't make one either. And Turing thought that there'd be an AGI by the year 2000, and that it would require two megabytes of memory. Now, he's obviously wrong about the year 2000, but two megabytes of memory, I reckon that's what it'll be. In other words, these large language models and all this massive computer power is going in entirely the wrong direction. The answer will be a philosophical breakthrough, which will allow, once we understand what we're trying to make, it will be relatively easy to make it with relatively few computational resources.

Deutsch Explains

33,398 views • 1 year ago

'To them, we could be like a fungus. Some might say, 'Look, if they were going to do harm to us, wouldn't they have done it by now?' I don't know. We think we're at the top of the food chain. What if, we're not?" (This is SO GOOD and worth your time. Kudos to Dr. Phil because this is one of the best I've seen from a mainstream voice in discussing the, potential, issues with Disclosure that something more advanced is on this planet with us. It was uploaded to his YT on May 8th of this year.) ~ Dr. Phil: "I mean, think about it. Doesn't it cause us to question the meaning of humanity and the cosmos? Wouldn't it change that? Wouldn't it cause us to have to reexamine philosophy, religion, personal worldviews? "Potential reframing of human exceptionalism that we base our value systems on, is that we're at the top of the food chain. That there is human exceptionalism. That we, as humans, are the be-all and end-all of this world. And then, all of a sudden, we find out, not true. To them, we could be like a fungus. "People have posed questions like, 'Well, if they're here, why haven't they talked to us? Why haven't they identified themselves to us?' It may be that we're so minuscule and irrelevant, why would they bother. "And so, the psychological impact on individuals, the individual effects, could result in acute stress, just being awestruck, unbelievable curiosity, and existential anxiety. Like, who are we? If we're not at the top of the food chain, if we're not the be-all and end-all of the Universe, then what are we? Are we like gum on the shoe of the superior beings? How would we explain all of that? "And so people would begin to look for coping strategies, immediately seeking information, spiritual exploration, figuring out how do I fit in? And then, in terms of community dynamics, the world, it could be very divisive. It could increase everything that we do, culturally, religiously, political identities. Rumors, and misinformation could flourish, especially on the web. Oh my God, can you imagine what would start flying around then? Making trusted communicators really crucial. And if there's a crisis of confidence with the government because they've lied to you for so long, where do you go to get real information? "And the long-term mental health aspects when you don't know the motives or the intent of these entities could create chronic worry, conspiracy thinking, paranoia, feelings of unbelievable inadequacy. Some may celebrate with renewed optimism, like 'Wow, look what we found! These people, if they can do all this, maybe they can cure all the diseases. They can come up with solutions to problems. This is great!' "How would governments react (laughs)? Russia, China, United States would all be scrambling to establish some kind of process for monitoring potential collaboration. Our intelligence communities would go crazy. Our Department of Defense, our science agencies would have to start redoing everything, revisiting risk assessment. "Of course, we would be trying to establish exchange programs. Maybe they're not even interested? Like I say, we could be like gum on their shoe. Who knows? How do you feel about that? "If they were to reveal themselves, what is their agenda? Some might say, 'Look, if they were going to do harm to us, wouldn't they have done it by now?' I don't know. If we're so insignificant, it doesn't matter, it could be irrelevant. But then, why are they here? Now you may think, 'Okay, Doctor Phil's finally gone over the high side. He's gone down nutball highway.' That's not what I'm telling you. "I'm saying the government knows more than they're telling us. My question is: Is it unsafe for the general population to know all of this? Would it create such anxiety and panic that it's more than people can handle? Because it would rewrite almost every value, every paradigm that we know. Because we think we're at the top of the food chain. What if, we're not? What does that mean? And how would you feel about that? "You really need to ask yourself those questions because I think we're getting ready, maybe not to meet someone from another galaxy, but I think we're getting ready to find out there are things that we can't explain, but do have in our possession. Evidence that we can explain with concepts we understand. The question is: How do you feel about it? Because that's the real story." (He briefly mentions Grusch in the full, video.)
5:26

'To them, we could be like a fungus. Some might say, 'Look, if they were going to do harm to us, wouldn't they have done it by now?' I don't know. We think we're at the top of the food chain. What if, we're not?" (This is SO GOOD and worth your time. Kudos to Dr. Phil because this is one of the best I've seen from a mainstream voice in discussing the, potential, issues with Disclosure that something more advanced is on this planet with us. It was uploaded to his YT on May 8th of this year.) ~ Dr. Phil: "I mean, think about it. Doesn't it cause us to question the meaning of humanity and the cosmos? Wouldn't it change that? Wouldn't it cause us to have to reexamine philosophy, religion, personal worldviews? "Potential reframing of human exceptionalism that we base our value systems on, is that we're at the top of the food chain. That there is human exceptionalism. That we, as humans, are the be-all and end-all of this world. And then, all of a sudden, we find out, not true. To them, we could be like a fungus. "People have posed questions like, 'Well, if they're here, why haven't they talked to us? Why haven't they identified themselves to us?' It may be that we're so minuscule and irrelevant, why would they bother. "And so, the psychological impact on individuals, the individual effects, could result in acute stress, just being awestruck, unbelievable curiosity, and existential anxiety. Like, who are we? If we're not at the top of the food chain, if we're not the be-all and end-all of the Universe, then what are we? Are we like gum on the shoe of the superior beings? How would we explain all of that? "And so people would begin to look for coping strategies, immediately seeking information, spiritual exploration, figuring out how do I fit in? And then, in terms of community dynamics, the world, it could be very divisive. It could increase everything that we do, culturally, religiously, political identities. Rumors, and misinformation could flourish, especially on the web. Oh my God, can you imagine what would start flying around then? Making trusted communicators really crucial. And if there's a crisis of confidence with the government because they've lied to you for so long, where do you go to get real information? "And the long-term mental health aspects when you don't know the motives or the intent of these entities could create chronic worry, conspiracy thinking, paranoia, feelings of unbelievable inadequacy. Some may celebrate with renewed optimism, like 'Wow, look what we found! These people, if they can do all this, maybe they can cure all the diseases. They can come up with solutions to problems. This is great!' "How would governments react (laughs)? Russia, China, United States would all be scrambling to establish some kind of process for monitoring potential collaboration. Our intelligence communities would go crazy. Our Department of Defense, our science agencies would have to start redoing everything, revisiting risk assessment. "Of course, we would be trying to establish exchange programs. Maybe they're not even interested? Like I say, we could be like gum on their shoe. Who knows? How do you feel about that? "If they were to reveal themselves, what is their agenda? Some might say, 'Look, if they were going to do harm to us, wouldn't they have done it by now?' I don't know. If we're so insignificant, it doesn't matter, it could be irrelevant. But then, why are they here? Now you may think, 'Okay, Doctor Phil's finally gone over the high side. He's gone down nutball highway.' That's not what I'm telling you. "I'm saying the government knows more than they're telling us. My question is: Is it unsafe for the general population to know all of this? Would it create such anxiety and panic that it's more than people can handle? Because it would rewrite almost every value, every paradigm that we know. Because we think we're at the top of the food chain. What if, we're not? What does that mean? And how would you feel about that? "You really need to ask yourself those questions because I think we're getting ready, maybe not to meet someone from another galaxy, but I think we're getting ready to find out there are things that we can't explain, but do have in our possession. Evidence that we can explain with concepts we understand. The question is: How do you feel about it? Because that's the real story." (He briefly mentions Grusch in the full, video.)

Joe Murgia

16,822 views • 1 month ago

*** An Open Letter To The World *** Dear World, I understand that you are upset with us here in Israel. Indeed, it appears that you are quite upset, even angry. Indeed, every few years, you seem to become upset by us. Today it’s Lebanon, yesterday it was the brutal repression of the Palestinians, before that it was the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Baghdad, the Yom Kippur War, and the Sinai Campaign. It appears that Jews who triumph — and who therefore live — upset you most extraordinarily. Of course, dear world, long before there was an Israel, we, the Jewish people, upset you. We upset the German people who elected Hitler and upset the Austrian people who cheered his entry into Vienna. We upset a whole slew of Slavic nations: Poles, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Hungarians, and Romanians. And we go back a long way in the history of world upset. We upset the Cossacks who massacred tens of thousands of us in 1648–1649. We upset the Crusaders who, on their way to liberate the Holy Land, were so upset at Jews that they slaughtered untold numbers of us for centuries. We have upset the Roman Catholic Church that did its best to define our relationship through inquisitions. And we have upset the arch-enemy of the Church, Martin Luther, who in his call to burn the synagogues and the Jews within them showed an admirable Christian ecumenical spirit. And it is because we became so upset over upsetting you, dear world, that we decided to leave you — in a manner of speaking — and establish a Jewish state. The reasoning was that living in close contact with you as resident strangers in the various countries that comprise you, we upset you, irritate you, and disturb you. What better notion than to leave you and thus to love you and have you love us? And so we decided to come home — home to the same land we were driven out of 1,900 years earlier by a Roman world that apparently we also upset. Alas, dear world, it appears that you are hard to please. Having left you in your pilgrimages and inquisitions and crusades and Holocaust — having taken our leave of the general world to live alone in our own little state — we continue to upset you. You are upset that we repress the poor Palestinians. You are deeply angered over the fact that we do not give up the lands of 1967, which are clearly the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Moscow is upset and Washington is upset. The radical Muslims are upset and the gentle Egyptian moderates are upset. Well, dear world, consider the reaction of a normal Jew from Israel: In 1920, in 1921, and 1929 there were no territories of 1967 to impede peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, there was no Jewish state to upset anybody. Nevertheless, the same oppressed and repressed Palestinians slaughtered tens of Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Safed, and Hebron. Indeed, 67 Jews were slaughtered in one day in Hebron in 1929. Dear world — why did the Arabs, the Palestinians, massacre 67 Jews in one day in 1929? Could it have been their anger over Israeli “aggression” in 1967? And why were 510 Jewish men, women, and children slaughtered in Arab riots between 1936 and 1939? Was it because Arabs were upset over 1967? And when you, dear world, proposed a UN partition plan in 1947 that would have created a “Palestinian” state alongside a tiny Israel, and the Arabs cried “No!” and went to war and killed 6,000 Jews — was that upset caused by the “aggression” of 1967? And by the way, dear world, why did we not hear your cry of upset then? The poor Palestinians who today kill Jews with explosives and firebombs and stones are part of the same people who, when they had all the territories they now demand be given to them for their state, attempted to drive the Jewish state into the sea. The same twisted faces, the same hate, the same cry of “Itbah al-Yahud!” — “Slaughter the Jew!” — that we hear and see today were seen and heard then by the same people. The same dream: destroy Israel. What they failed to do yesterday, they dream of today, but we should not repress them. Dear world — you stood by during the Holocaust, and you stood by in 1948 as seven states launched a war that the Arab League proudly compared to the Mongol massacres. You stood by in 1967 as Nasser, wildly cheered by wild mobs in every Arab capital in the world, vowed to drive the Jews into the sea — and you would stand by tomorrow if Israel were facing extinction. And since we know that the Arabs dream daily of that extinction, we will do everything possible to remain alive in our own land. If that bothers you, dear world — well, think of how many times in the past you bothered us. In any event, dear world — If you are bothered by us, here is one Jew in Israel who could not care less.
5:42

*** An Open Letter To The World *** Dear World, I understand that you are upset with us here in Israel. Indeed, it appears that you are quite upset, even angry. Indeed, every few years, you seem to become upset by us. Today it’s Lebanon, yesterday it was the brutal repression of the Palestinians, before that it was the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Baghdad, the Yom Kippur War, and the Sinai Campaign. It appears that Jews who triumph — and who therefore live — upset you most extraordinarily. Of course, dear world, long before there was an Israel, we, the Jewish people, upset you. We upset the German people who elected Hitler and upset the Austrian people who cheered his entry into Vienna. We upset a whole slew of Slavic nations: Poles, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Hungarians, and Romanians. And we go back a long way in the history of world upset. We upset the Cossacks who massacred tens of thousands of us in 1648–1649. We upset the Crusaders who, on their way to liberate the Holy Land, were so upset at Jews that they slaughtered untold numbers of us for centuries. We have upset the Roman Catholic Church that did its best to define our relationship through inquisitions. And we have upset the arch-enemy of the Church, Martin Luther, who in his call to burn the synagogues and the Jews within them showed an admirable Christian ecumenical spirit. And it is because we became so upset over upsetting you, dear world, that we decided to leave you — in a manner of speaking — and establish a Jewish state. The reasoning was that living in close contact with you as resident strangers in the various countries that comprise you, we upset you, irritate you, and disturb you. What better notion than to leave you and thus to love you and have you love us? And so we decided to come home — home to the same land we were driven out of 1,900 years earlier by a Roman world that apparently we also upset. Alas, dear world, it appears that you are hard to please. Having left you in your pilgrimages and inquisitions and crusades and Holocaust — having taken our leave of the general world to live alone in our own little state — we continue to upset you. You are upset that we repress the poor Palestinians. You are deeply angered over the fact that we do not give up the lands of 1967, which are clearly the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Moscow is upset and Washington is upset. The radical Muslims are upset and the gentle Egyptian moderates are upset. Well, dear world, consider the reaction of a normal Jew from Israel: In 1920, in 1921, and 1929 there were no territories of 1967 to impede peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, there was no Jewish state to upset anybody. Nevertheless, the same oppressed and repressed Palestinians slaughtered tens of Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Safed, and Hebron. Indeed, 67 Jews were slaughtered in one day in Hebron in 1929. Dear world — why did the Arabs, the Palestinians, massacre 67 Jews in one day in 1929? Could it have been their anger over Israeli “aggression” in 1967? And why were 510 Jewish men, women, and children slaughtered in Arab riots between 1936 and 1939? Was it because Arabs were upset over 1967? And when you, dear world, proposed a UN partition plan in 1947 that would have created a “Palestinian” state alongside a tiny Israel, and the Arabs cried “No!” and went to war and killed 6,000 Jews — was that upset caused by the “aggression” of 1967? And by the way, dear world, why did we not hear your cry of upset then? The poor Palestinians who today kill Jews with explosives and firebombs and stones are part of the same people who, when they had all the territories they now demand be given to them for their state, attempted to drive the Jewish state into the sea. The same twisted faces, the same hate, the same cry of “Itbah al-Yahud!” — “Slaughter the Jew!” — that we hear and see today were seen and heard then by the same people. The same dream: destroy Israel. What they failed to do yesterday, they dream of today, but we should not repress them. Dear world — you stood by during the Holocaust, and you stood by in 1948 as seven states launched a war that the Arab League proudly compared to the Mongol massacres. You stood by in 1967 as Nasser, wildly cheered by wild mobs in every Arab capital in the world, vowed to drive the Jews into the sea — and you would stand by tomorrow if Israel were facing extinction. And since we know that the Arabs dream daily of that extinction, we will do everything possible to remain alive in our own land. If that bothers you, dear world — well, think of how many times in the past you bothered us. In any event, dear world — If you are bothered by us, here is one Jew in Israel who could not care less.

George Orwell

20,827 views • 5 months ago

*** An Open Letter To The World *** Dear World, I understand that you are upset with us here in Israel. Indeed, it appears that you are quite upset, even angry. Indeed, every few years, you seem to become upset by us. Today it’s Lebanon, yesterday it was the brutal repression of the Palestinians, before that it was the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Baghdad, the Yom Kippur War, and the Sinai Campaign. It appears that Jews who triumph — and who therefore live — upset you most extraordinarily. Of course, dear world, long before there was an Israel, we, the Jewish people, upset you. We upset the German people who elected Hitler and upset the Austrian people who cheered his entry into Vienna. We upset a whole slew of Slavic nations: Poles, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Hungarians, and Romanians. And we go back a long way in the history of world upset. We upset the Cossacks who massacred tens of thousands of us in 1648–1649. We upset the Crusaders who, on their way to liberate the Holy Land, were so upset at Jews that they slaughtered untold numbers of us for centuries. We have upset the Roman Catholic Church that did its best to define our relationship through inquisitions. And we have upset the arch-enemy of the Church, Martin Luther, who in his call to burn the synagogues and the Jews within them showed an admirable Christian ecumenical spirit. And it is because we became so upset over upsetting you, dear world, that we decided to leave you — in a manner of speaking — and establish a Jewish state. The reasoning was that living in close contact with you as resident strangers in the various countries that comprise you, we upset you, irritate you, and disturb you. What better notion than to leave you and thus to love you and have you love us? And so we decided to come home — home to the same land we were driven out of 1,900 years earlier by a Roman world that apparently we also upset. Alas, dear world, it appears that you are hard to please. Having left you in your pilgrimages and inquisitions and crusades and Holocaust — having taken our leave of the general world to live alone in our own little state — we continue to upset you. You are upset that we repress the poor Palestinians. You are deeply angered over the fact that we do not give up the lands of 1967, which are clearly the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Moscow is upset and Washington is upset. The radical Muslims are upset and the gentle Egyptian moderates are upset. Well, dear world, consider the reaction of a normal Jew from Israel: In 1920, in 1921, and 1929 there were no territories of 1967 to impede peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, there was no Jewish state to upset anybody. Nevertheless, the same oppressed and repressed Palestinians slaughtered tens of Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Safed, and Hebron. Indeed, 67 Jews were slaughtered in one day in Hebron in 1929. Dear world — why did the Arabs, the Palestinians, massacre 67 Jews in one day in 1929? Could it have been their anger over Israeli “aggression” in 1967? And why were 510 Jewish men, women, and children slaughtered in Arab riots between 1936 and 1939? Was it because Arabs were upset over 1967? And when you, dear world, proposed a UN partition plan in 1947 that would have created a “Palestinian” state alongside a tiny Israel, and the Arabs cried “No!” and went to war and killed 6,000 Jews — was that upset caused by the “aggression” of 1967? And by the way, dear world, why did we not hear your cry of upset then? The poor Palestinians who today kill Jews with explosives and firebombs and stones are part of the same people who, when they had all the territories they now demand be given to them for their state, attempted to drive the Jewish state into the sea. The same twisted faces, the same hate, the same cry of “Itbah al-Yahud!” — “Slaughter the Jew!” — that we hear and see today were seen and heard then by the same people. The same dream: destroy Israel. What they failed to do yesterday, they dream of today, but we should not repress them. Dear world — you stood by during the Holocaust, and you stood by in 1948 as seven states launched a war that the Arab League proudly compared to the Mongol massacres. You stood by in 1967 as Nasser, wildly cheered by wild mobs in every Arab capital in the world, vowed to drive the Jews into the sea — and you would stand by tomorrow if Israel were facing extinction. And since we know that the Arabs dream daily of that extinction, we will do everything possible to remain alive in our own land. If that bothers you, dear world — well, think of how many times in the past you bothered us. In any event, dear world — If you are bothered by us, here is one Jew in Israel who could not care less.
5:42

*** An Open Letter To The World *** Dear World, I understand that you are upset with us here in Israel. Indeed, it appears that you are quite upset, even angry. Indeed, every few years, you seem to become upset by us. Today it’s Lebanon, yesterday it was the brutal repression of the Palestinians, before that it was the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Baghdad, the Yom Kippur War, and the Sinai Campaign. It appears that Jews who triumph — and who therefore live — upset you most extraordinarily. Of course, dear world, long before there was an Israel, we, the Jewish people, upset you. We upset the German people who elected Hitler and upset the Austrian people who cheered his entry into Vienna. We upset a whole slew of Slavic nations: Poles, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Hungarians, and Romanians. And we go back a long way in the history of world upset. We upset the Cossacks who massacred tens of thousands of us in 1648–1649. We upset the Crusaders who, on their way to liberate the Holy Land, were so upset at Jews that they slaughtered untold numbers of us for centuries. We have upset the Roman Catholic Church that did its best to define our relationship through inquisitions. And we have upset the arch-enemy of the Church, Martin Luther, who in his call to burn the synagogues and the Jews within them showed an admirable Christian ecumenical spirit. And it is because we became so upset over upsetting you, dear world, that we decided to leave you — in a manner of speaking — and establish a Jewish state. The reasoning was that living in close contact with you as resident strangers in the various countries that comprise you, we upset you, irritate you, and disturb you. What better notion than to leave you and thus to love you and have you love us? And so we decided to come home — home to the same land we were driven out of 1,900 years earlier by a Roman world that apparently we also upset. Alas, dear world, it appears that you are hard to please. Having left you in your pilgrimages and inquisitions and crusades and Holocaust — having taken our leave of the general world to live alone in our own little state — we continue to upset you. You are upset that we repress the poor Palestinians. You are deeply angered over the fact that we do not give up the lands of 1967, which are clearly the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Moscow is upset and Washington is upset. The radical Muslims are upset and the gentle Egyptian moderates are upset. Well, dear world, consider the reaction of a normal Jew from Israel: In 1920, in 1921, and 1929 there were no territories of 1967 to impede peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, there was no Jewish state to upset anybody. Nevertheless, the same oppressed and repressed Palestinians slaughtered tens of Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Safed, and Hebron. Indeed, 67 Jews were slaughtered in one day in Hebron in 1929. Dear world — why did the Arabs, the Palestinians, massacre 67 Jews in one day in 1929? Could it have been their anger over Israeli “aggression” in 1967? And why were 510 Jewish men, women, and children slaughtered in Arab riots between 1936 and 1939? Was it because Arabs were upset over 1967? And when you, dear world, proposed a UN partition plan in 1947 that would have created a “Palestinian” state alongside a tiny Israel, and the Arabs cried “No!” and went to war and killed 6,000 Jews — was that upset caused by the “aggression” of 1967? And by the way, dear world, why did we not hear your cry of upset then? The poor Palestinians who today kill Jews with explosives and firebombs and stones are part of the same people who, when they had all the territories they now demand be given to them for their state, attempted to drive the Jewish state into the sea. The same twisted faces, the same hate, the same cry of “Itbah al-Yahud!” — “Slaughter the Jew!” — that we hear and see today were seen and heard then by the same people. The same dream: destroy Israel. What they failed to do yesterday, they dream of today, but we should not repress them. Dear world — you stood by during the Holocaust, and you stood by in 1948 as seven states launched a war that the Arab League proudly compared to the Mongol massacres. You stood by in 1967 as Nasser, wildly cheered by wild mobs in every Arab capital in the world, vowed to drive the Jews into the sea — and you would stand by tomorrow if Israel were facing extinction. And since we know that the Arabs dream daily of that extinction, we will do everything possible to remain alive in our own land. If that bothers you, dear world — well, think of how many times in the past you bothered us. In any event, dear world — If you are bothered by us, here is one Jew in Israel who could not care less.

George Orwell

14,249 views • 2 months ago

‼️ In February 2024, the Russian-installed governor of Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Yevgeny Balitsky, claimed that pro-Ukrainian residents of the region had been deported to Ukraine-controlled territories (see video below). But as we now know, that wasn’t the case. The people Balitsky said were released were, in fact, turned into slaves. This is an excerpt from an interview with Olena Yagupova, a resident of the city of Kamianka-Dniprovska in the Zaporizhzhia region, published by The Insider: “I was sent from the pre-trial detention center to a labor camp on January 18, 2023. Before that, they filmed videos showing that a person is supposedly being released — so that relatives won’t look for them and so they can absolve themselves of responsibility. There are many such videos online. After I was freed, I collected them — about myself and about everyone who had been in the camp with us. In the video, at a checkpoint in Vasylivka, they read out a “sentence” saying that by decision of the head of Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Yevgeny Balytskyi, you are being expelled beyond the borders of Zaporizhzhia Oblast and will never return to Russia. They supposedly hand over your documents, and the person walks away. A RIA Novosti journalist, Rostislav Zhuravlyov, who was there on January 18, comments in the video: “You see, we’re letting them go to Ukrainian territory, and how they’re received there — we don’t know.” So they show that people were released — but the people never arrived. And relatives think: so they must have been killed somewhere along the way. But us — they put us in the trunk of a car and took us to labor camps. Two other men and I were handed over to the commander of a Russian military unit in Krasnodar Krai. He gave us shovels and said that it was time to work for the benefit of the Russian Federation — he said it outright, that we were slaves. We all slept on the floor in an abandoned shed, packed together — men and women. The guards were military, armed with rifles. Wake-up was at five. At 5:30 the guards arrived. They took us to the site and told us what to do — for example, to dig a certain number of meters of trench in an hour. If you did less, they would shoot you. And so it went on all day — sometimes until eight or nine in the evening; once I remember it went on until two in the morning, and once even until six in the morning. It depended on how much work they needed done. We dug new trenches, repaired old ones, and built dugouts. Their dugouts there are multi-room — entire underground cities built by our hands. We cleared fields of mines. They give you a metal detector, and you have to walk and probe the ground and pull them out. They didn’t give us any clothing, even though it was winter. They had nothing to give us anyway, except maybe their old military coats. They fed us pasta made by pouring boiling water over it. The work was brutal. Healthy men tore their backs because the ground was frozen. They could barely breathe let alone dig. Some had already been there for half a year. They said: One more week of this work, and I’ll ask them to shoot me.” Continued below 🔽
2:57

‼️ In February 2024, the Russian-installed governor of Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Yevgeny Balitsky, claimed that pro-Ukrainian residents of the region had been deported to Ukraine-controlled territories (see video below). But as we now know, that wasn’t the case. The people Balitsky said were released were, in fact, turned into slaves. This is an excerpt from an interview with Olena Yagupova, a resident of the city of Kamianka-Dniprovska in the Zaporizhzhia region, published by The Insider: “I was sent from the pre-trial detention center to a labor camp on January 18, 2023. Before that, they filmed videos showing that a person is supposedly being released — so that relatives won’t look for them and so they can absolve themselves of responsibility. There are many such videos online. After I was freed, I collected them — about myself and about everyone who had been in the camp with us. In the video, at a checkpoint in Vasylivka, they read out a “sentence” saying that by decision of the head of Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Yevgeny Balytskyi, you are being expelled beyond the borders of Zaporizhzhia Oblast and will never return to Russia. They supposedly hand over your documents, and the person walks away. A RIA Novosti journalist, Rostislav Zhuravlyov, who was there on January 18, comments in the video: “You see, we’re letting them go to Ukrainian territory, and how they’re received there — we don’t know.” So they show that people were released — but the people never arrived. And relatives think: so they must have been killed somewhere along the way. But us — they put us in the trunk of a car and took us to labor camps. Two other men and I were handed over to the commander of a Russian military unit in Krasnodar Krai. He gave us shovels and said that it was time to work for the benefit of the Russian Federation — he said it outright, that we were slaves. We all slept on the floor in an abandoned shed, packed together — men and women. The guards were military, armed with rifles. Wake-up was at five. At 5:30 the guards arrived. They took us to the site and told us what to do — for example, to dig a certain number of meters of trench in an hour. If you did less, they would shoot you. And so it went on all day — sometimes until eight or nine in the evening; once I remember it went on until two in the morning, and once even until six in the morning. It depended on how much work they needed done. We dug new trenches, repaired old ones, and built dugouts. Their dugouts there are multi-room — entire underground cities built by our hands. We cleared fields of mines. They give you a metal detector, and you have to walk and probe the ground and pull them out. They didn’t give us any clothing, even though it was winter. They had nothing to give us anyway, except maybe their old military coats. They fed us pasta made by pouring boiling water over it. The work was brutal. Healthy men tore their backs because the ground was frozen. They could barely breathe let alone dig. Some had already been there for half a year. They said: One more week of this work, and I’ll ask them to shoot me.” Continued below 🔽

Natalka

46,707 views • 8 months ago

OpenAI CEO: “Goalposts keep getting moved” - if we were still using AGI definitions from 10 years ago, many would say GPT-4 is AGI. “In one year, AI will be dramatically more impressive.” He also said (surprisingly confidently - he did not hedge like usual) AGI is less than 10 years away. In the long term he’s not concerned about AI taking jobs, but he is concerned about the speed that AI will disrupt the job market. --- INTERVIEWER: What is AGI? When will it be here? And how will we know it's here? Predict how long - we'll call you in ten years? SAM ALTMAN: Less than that. We kind of define AGI as like the thing we don't have quite yet. there were a lot of people who would have ten years ago said, alright, if you could make something like GPT-4, GPT-5, maybe, that would have been an AGI. And now people are like, well, it's like a nice little chatbot or whatever. And I think that's wonderful. I think it's great that the goalposts keep getting moved, it makes us work harder. But I think we're getting close enough to whatever that AGI threshold is going to be, that we no longer get to handwave at it and the definition is going to matter. INTERVIEWER: What is the inflection point for AGI? SAM ALTMAN: I think it's going to be much more continuous than that. We're just on this beautiful exponential curve. Whenever you're on a curve like that, you look forward, it looks vertical. You look back, it looks horizontal. That's true at any point on there. So a year from now, we'll be in a dramatically more impressive place than a year ago. We were in a dramatically less impressive place. But it'll be hard to point. People will try and say, oh, it was AlphaGo that did it. It was GPT-3 that did it. It was GPT-4 that did it. But it's just brick by brick. 1 foot in front of the other, up, climbing this exponential curve. WILL AIs TAKE ALL OUR JOBS? SAM ALTMAN: Every technological revolution affects the job market. And over human history, every maybe 100 years, 150 years, half the jobs go away, totally change, whatever. I'm not afraid of that at all. In fact, I think that's good. I think that's the way of progress and we'll find new and better jobs. The thing that I think we do need to confront as a society is the speed at which this is going to happen. It seems like over two, maximum three, probably two generations, we can adapt. Society can adapt to almost any amount of job market change. But a lot of people like their jobs or they dislike change. And going to someone and saying, hey, the future will be better, I promise you, and society is going to win, but you're going to lose here. That doesn't work. That's not cool. That's not an easy message to get across. We are going to have to really do something about this transition. It is not enough to just give people a universal basic income. People need to have agency, the ability to influence this
4:02

OpenAI CEO: “Goalposts keep getting moved” - if we were still using AGI definitions from 10 years ago, many would say GPT-4 is AGI. “In one year, AI will be dramatically more impressive.” He also said (surprisingly confidently - he did not hedge like usual) AGI is less than 10 years away. In the long term he’s not concerned about AI taking jobs, but he is concerned about the speed that AI will disrupt the job market. --- INTERVIEWER: What is AGI? When will it be here? And how will we know it's here? Predict how long - we'll call you in ten years? SAM ALTMAN: Less than that. We kind of define AGI as like the thing we don't have quite yet. there were a lot of people who would have ten years ago said, alright, if you could make something like GPT-4, GPT-5, maybe, that would have been an AGI. And now people are like, well, it's like a nice little chatbot or whatever. And I think that's wonderful. I think it's great that the goalposts keep getting moved, it makes us work harder. But I think we're getting close enough to whatever that AGI threshold is going to be, that we no longer get to handwave at it and the definition is going to matter. INTERVIEWER: What is the inflection point for AGI? SAM ALTMAN: I think it's going to be much more continuous than that. We're just on this beautiful exponential curve. Whenever you're on a curve like that, you look forward, it looks vertical. You look back, it looks horizontal. That's true at any point on there. So a year from now, we'll be in a dramatically more impressive place than a year ago. We were in a dramatically less impressive place. But it'll be hard to point. People will try and say, oh, it was AlphaGo that did it. It was GPT-3 that did it. It was GPT-4 that did it. But it's just brick by brick. 1 foot in front of the other, up, climbing this exponential curve. WILL AIs TAKE ALL OUR JOBS? SAM ALTMAN: Every technological revolution affects the job market. And over human history, every maybe 100 years, 150 years, half the jobs go away, totally change, whatever. I'm not afraid of that at all. In fact, I think that's good. I think that's the way of progress and we'll find new and better jobs. The thing that I think we do need to confront as a society is the speed at which this is going to happen. It seems like over two, maximum three, probably two generations, we can adapt. Society can adapt to almost any amount of job market change. But a lot of people like their jobs or they dislike change. And going to someone and saying, hey, the future will be better, I promise you, and society is going to win, but you're going to lose here. That doesn't work. That's not cool. That's not an easy message to get across. We are going to have to really do something about this transition. It is not enough to just give people a universal basic income. People need to have agency, the ability to influence this

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

27,551 views • 2 years ago

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis on "leaving AI in the lab for longer” (full question + answer in the video as I've seen him misquoted). Here's what he said: "For me, the best use case of AI was to improve human health and accelerate scientific discovery..." "Given how important AGI is and how transformative a technology is, maybe the most transformative one in human history, I thought it would be best to approach the sort of latter stages of building it, which we're in now, using the scientific method, very carefully, very precisely, very thoughtfully, and rigorously with all the best scientists, in my ideal world, collaborating on in CERN-like effort, on making sure each step we understood each step each as we got to the final goal of, of building AGI.... "While we're building AGI in this careful scientific way, humanity could benefit from the proceeds of that, like cures for cancer, or maybe new energy sources or new materials… “Looking at this from 20, 30 years ago when I started out on all of this, that would have been the ideal way for it to play out, in my opinion. “Now, it didn't happen like that because technology's unpredictable and in fact, it turns out that things like language were a lot easier than we were all expecting… “We were sort of playing around with that, so were the other leading labs, but of course with ChatGPT and fair play to OpenAI, they scaled it and then they put it out there. “And I think even they say it was kind of a research experiment. They didn't realize it would go so viral. And I think none of us did and we had sort of fairly equivalent systems at the time… “Now, the downside of it is, we're in this sort of ferocious commercial pressure race that everyone's sort of locked into currently. “And then on top of that, there's geopolitical issues like the US-China race and so on. So there's sort of multiple levels of pressure to sort of move fast. So the benefit of that, of course, you get faster progress, obviously. The progress is just at lightning speed these days. So that's good for all the good use cases. The second benefit is that everybody, all of the viewers out there, everyone, you're all getting to use the most cutting edge AI technology, perhaps only three to six months behind what is actually in the labs. So that's kind of mind blowing. “It's also great because I think it gives everyone a feeling for, it's democratizing AI. It's giving everyone a feeling for what it's like to interact with cutting edge AI and what it can do and what it can't do… “So I think there's positives and negatives about the way it's gone. It's not the way I dreamed about years ago where we would be sort of contemplating this philosophically and carefully considering each next step. We're not in that world. And I'm, although I'm a scientist first and foremost, I'm also a pragmatic engineer. So, we have to deal with the world as we find it and make the best of that. And we try to do that by advancing the frontier, but also trying to be as responsible as we can with doing that as we deploy these, you know, very powerful technologies, like Gemini and Alphafold.”
7:32

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis on "leaving AI in the lab for longer” (full question + answer in the video as I've seen him misquoted). Here's what he said: "For me, the best use case of AI was to improve human health and accelerate scientific discovery..." "Given how important AGI is and how transformative a technology is, maybe the most transformative one in human history, I thought it would be best to approach the sort of latter stages of building it, which we're in now, using the scientific method, very carefully, very precisely, very thoughtfully, and rigorously with all the best scientists, in my ideal world, collaborating on in CERN-like effort, on making sure each step we understood each step each as we got to the final goal of, of building AGI.... "While we're building AGI in this careful scientific way, humanity could benefit from the proceeds of that, like cures for cancer, or maybe new energy sources or new materials… “Looking at this from 20, 30 years ago when I started out on all of this, that would have been the ideal way for it to play out, in my opinion. “Now, it didn't happen like that because technology's unpredictable and in fact, it turns out that things like language were a lot easier than we were all expecting… “We were sort of playing around with that, so were the other leading labs, but of course with ChatGPT and fair play to OpenAI, they scaled it and then they put it out there. “And I think even they say it was kind of a research experiment. They didn't realize it would go so viral. And I think none of us did and we had sort of fairly equivalent systems at the time… “Now, the downside of it is, we're in this sort of ferocious commercial pressure race that everyone's sort of locked into currently. “And then on top of that, there's geopolitical issues like the US-China race and so on. So there's sort of multiple levels of pressure to sort of move fast. So the benefit of that, of course, you get faster progress, obviously. The progress is just at lightning speed these days. So that's good for all the good use cases. The second benefit is that everybody, all of the viewers out there, everyone, you're all getting to use the most cutting edge AI technology, perhaps only three to six months behind what is actually in the labs. So that's kind of mind blowing. “It's also great because I think it gives everyone a feeling for, it's democratizing AI. It's giving everyone a feeling for what it's like to interact with cutting edge AI and what it can do and what it can't do… “So I think there's positives and negatives about the way it's gone. It's not the way I dreamed about years ago where we would be sort of contemplating this philosophically and carefully considering each next step. We're not in that world. And I'm, although I'm a scientist first and foremost, I'm also a pragmatic engineer. So, we have to deal with the world as we find it and make the best of that. And we try to do that by advancing the frontier, but also trying to be as responsible as we can with doing that as we deploy these, you know, very powerful technologies, like Gemini and Alphafold.”

Cleo Abram

64,840 views • 5 months ago