正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Ex Google CEO, Dr. Eric Schmidt: AI may hit a money wall before it hits a power wall. "The real limit to AI is not energy; it is actually cash. When you add up the cost of these things, if you take round numbers, say $50 billion per gigawatt,...

rohanpaul_ai's profile picture

Rohan Paul

152,405 subscribers

434,829 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治教育科学技术
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

🇺🇸 ELON ON AI: “IF YOU CAN THINK OF IT, YOU CAN HAVE IT - THAT WILL BE THE FUTURE” "I'm Confident that AI and robotics will continue to advance -and they are advancing very rapidly- working will become optional. People will be able to have any goods or services they want. If you can think of it, you can have it. But at a certain point, AI will actually saturate everything humans can think of. And then it becomes a situation where AI is doing things for AI and robotics are doing things for AI and robotics, because they are running out of things to do to make humans happy. Because there is a limit, there are only so many people and only so much food. If you can think of it, you can have it. That will be the future." Source: Elon Musk, Nikhil Kamath
0:56

🇺🇸 ELON ON AI: “IF YOU CAN THINK OF IT, YOU CAN HAVE IT - THAT WILL BE THE FUTURE” "I'm Confident that AI and robotics will continue to advance -and they are advancing very rapidly- working will become optional. People will be able to have any goods or services they want. If you can think of it, you can have it. But at a certain point, AI will actually saturate everything humans can think of. And then it becomes a situation where AI is doing things for AI and robotics are doing things for AI and robotics, because they are running out of things to do to make humans happy. Because there is a limit, there are only so many people and only so much food. If you can think of it, you can have it. That will be the future." Source: Elon Musk, Nikhil Kamath

Mario Nawfal

1,398,827 次观看 • 8 个月前

The $10-$15 trillion total addressable market for AI, if it is successful, is actually "terrifying". - The famous "Dean of Valuation", Professor Aswath Damodaran, of NYU Stern School of Business. The reason: AI as a tool is a much smaller market; AI as a replacement for human-jobs is where the giant market story comes from. "The best-case scenario for AI, that $10 to $15 trillion market, will happen if ONLY it replaces people. If AI is a tool, it’s going to be a much smaller market than if AI replaces people. So, the stories we’re telling about $10, $20 or $25 trillion markets are actually terrifying stories for the rest of the world. Why? Because if that story comes true, half of all white-collar people are going to lose their jobs. And what are they going to do instead? Who’s going to come up with the income to buy the products and services? If AI works as well as it’s supposed to and replaces people, how do we deal with that as a society? Because people lose their jobs. Not only do you lose your income, you lose your life’s meaning.." ---- Video from "Excess Returns" podcast (full video in quoted tweet, also link to their YT in comment)
0:46

The $10-$15 trillion total addressable market for AI, if it is successful, is actually "terrifying". - The famous "Dean of Valuation", Professor Aswath Damodaran, of NYU Stern School of Business. The reason: AI as a tool is a much smaller market; AI as a replacement for human-jobs is where the giant market story comes from. "The best-case scenario for AI, that $10 to $15 trillion market, will happen if ONLY it replaces people. If AI is a tool, it’s going to be a much smaller market than if AI replaces people. So, the stories we’re telling about $10, $20 or $25 trillion markets are actually terrifying stories for the rest of the world. Why? Because if that story comes true, half of all white-collar people are going to lose their jobs. And what are they going to do instead? Who’s going to come up with the income to buy the products and services? If AI works as well as it’s supposed to and replaces people, how do we deal with that as a society? Because people lose their jobs. Not only do you lose your income, you lose your life’s meaning.." ---- Video from "Excess Returns" podcast (full video in quoted tweet, also link to their YT in comment)

Rohan Paul

120,723 次观看 • 1 个月前

Reporter: Were you worried about the 145% tariffs were doing to small businesses in the U.S.? Trump: No.. I said it is a high tariff, but I have not brought it down. It means China is not doing any business with us because it is a very high number. China is not doing any business. They were doing $1.1 trillion. Think of that. 1.1 trillion dollars. Do you know what that is? It was very unfair to us
1:02

Reporter: Were you worried about the 145% tariffs were doing to small businesses in the U.S.? Trump: No.. I said it is a high tariff, but I have not brought it down. It means China is not doing any business with us because it is a very high number. China is not doing any business. They were doing $1.1 trillion. Think of that. 1.1 trillion dollars. Do you know what that is? It was very unfair to us

Acyn

1,181,843 次观看 • 1 年前

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

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

Karl Mehta

255,587 次观看 • 1 个月前

"The world was built by people that are not much smarter than you." Replit CEO Amjad Masad on why old career advice no longer maps to reality: "There are a lot of rules that are accidental, that are there for historical reasons." "Your job is to find the path to the future. Find the way of doing things that's most aligned with where the world is headed." "It's not about cheating, it's about figuring out how the system is rigged against you. How do you actually hack it? How do you get past it?" "AI is a great tool for that." "If you're someone who just understands how these tools work, and understand how you have an amazing time advantage. You can do things a lot faster." "There are a lot of programmers that are still doing programming the old way, and they're going very, very slow... until they get obsoleted." Amjad Masad with jack neel
2:00

"The world was built by people that are not much smarter than you." Replit CEO Amjad Masad on why old career advice no longer maps to reality: "There are a lot of rules that are accidental, that are there for historical reasons." "Your job is to find the path to the future. Find the way of doing things that's most aligned with where the world is headed." "It's not about cheating, it's about figuring out how the system is rigged against you. How do you actually hack it? How do you get past it?" "AI is a great tool for that." "If you're someone who just understands how these tools work, and understand how you have an amazing time advantage. You can do things a lot faster." "There are a lot of programmers that are still doing programming the old way, and they're going very, very slow... until they get obsoleted." Amjad Masad with jack neel

a16z

42,172 次观看 • 4 个月前

"You can either produce excellence or you can avoid criticism. But you cannot do both of those. The reason that you don't have certain excellence that you want is because you are afraid of getting criticized. You are afraid of the judgment that comes with it. You are afraid of standing out. You are afraid of being alone. You are afraid of people looking at you. You are worried about what people think of you. There are 2 categories of things in this world: 1) Things that are up to you 2) Things that are not up to you Which category does your reputation sit in? Your reputation is not up to you. I'm the one who associates your reputation with something, not you. You just do things. What's up to you? How you act. Your decisions. Your actions. That is up to you. Your reputation is not up to you. Here's how I know that: You all have a reputation about me and it's not in my control. I get to say and do whatever I say and do up here. I am in control of saying it. I am in control of doing it. The moment words leave my lips, who has control over what is done with those words? You! You are in control of what you think of me. And there's no way everybody in this room is going to think the exact same thing about me. No way. When it comes to exceptional, what we've got to understand is you can spend your whole life trying to avoid criticism and earn reputation, and it still won't be in your control. We can waste a lot of time missing out on excellence we could have been producing if we were just simply LESS trying to engineer what we wanted other people to think about us."
1:32

"You can either produce excellence or you can avoid criticism. But you cannot do both of those. The reason that you don't have certain excellence that you want is because you are afraid of getting criticized. You are afraid of the judgment that comes with it. You are afraid of standing out. You are afraid of being alone. You are afraid of people looking at you. You are worried about what people think of you. There are 2 categories of things in this world: 1) Things that are up to you 2) Things that are not up to you Which category does your reputation sit in? Your reputation is not up to you. I'm the one who associates your reputation with something, not you. You just do things. What's up to you? How you act. Your decisions. Your actions. That is up to you. Your reputation is not up to you. Here's how I know that: You all have a reputation about me and it's not in my control. I get to say and do whatever I say and do up here. I am in control of saying it. I am in control of doing it. The moment words leave my lips, who has control over what is done with those words? You! You are in control of what you think of me. And there's no way everybody in this room is going to think the exact same thing about me. No way. When it comes to exceptional, what we've got to understand is you can spend your whole life trying to avoid criticism and earn reputation, and it still won't be in your control. We can waste a lot of time missing out on excellence we could have been producing if we were just simply LESS trying to engineer what we wanted other people to think about us."

Brian Kight

308,812 次观看 • 1 年前

LAWRENCE LEPARD: "This is one of the best investment opportunities out there. It actually is the best in my opinion, if you can handle the volatility... having a zero allocation to it is just absolutely nuts." "When you buy into a network that's going to get adopted by everybody, the returns are just insane. My opinion is that Bitcoin is the monetary network of the future." "...And when it is... guess what, these are 5 million a coin or more." "The people that run the government, their major goal is to keep themselves in power and to keep the system running. They don't care about inflation. They say they do, but they don't. And they lie to us about that. And we know that if and when the sharp end of the stick comes for them, they're going to print the money to keep things going."
7:04

LAWRENCE LEPARD: "This is one of the best investment opportunities out there. It actually is the best in my opinion, if you can handle the volatility... having a zero allocation to it is just absolutely nuts." "When you buy into a network that's going to get adopted by everybody, the returns are just insane. My opinion is that Bitcoin is the monetary network of the future." "...And when it is... guess what, these are 5 million a coin or more." "The people that run the government, their major goal is to keep themselves in power and to keep the system running. They don't care about inflation. They say they do, but they don't. And they lie to us about that. And we know that if and when the sharp end of the stick comes for them, they're going to print the money to keep things going."

Simply Bitcoin

31,954 次观看 • 1 个月前

Peter Thiel on $NVDA (about a year ago): It is probably quite tricky. If you had to concretize it, one thing that is very strange is if you just follow the money, at this point 80 to 85% of the money in AI is being made by one company, it is NVIDIA. It is all on this very weird hardware layer, which Silicon Valley does not even know very much about anymore. We do not really do hardware, we do not do silicon chips in Silicon Valley anymore. I get pitched on these companies once every three or four years, and it is always, I have no clue how to do this, it sounds like a pretty good idea, but man, I have no clue, and we never invest. There is this theory that the hardware piece makes the money initially, then gets more commodified over time, and it will shift to software. And the, I do not know, multi trillion dollar question is whether that is going to be true again this time, or whether NVIDIA will have this incredible monopoly. I suspect NVIDIA will. I think it will maintain its position for a while. I think the game theory on it is something like this. All the big tech companies are going to start trying to design their own AI chips so they do not have to pay the 10x markup to NVIDIA. How hard is it for them to do it? How long will it take? If they all do it, then the chips become a commodity and nobody makes money in chips. So do you go into hardware? You should do it if nobody else is doing it. If everybody does it, you should not do it. I am not sure how that nets out, but probably people stay stuck for a while and NVIDIA goes from strength to strength for a while.
1:55

Peter Thiel on $NVDA (about a year ago): It is probably quite tricky. If you had to concretize it, one thing that is very strange is if you just follow the money, at this point 80 to 85% of the money in AI is being made by one company, it is NVIDIA. It is all on this very weird hardware layer, which Silicon Valley does not even know very much about anymore. We do not really do hardware, we do not do silicon chips in Silicon Valley anymore. I get pitched on these companies once every three or four years, and it is always, I have no clue how to do this, it sounds like a pretty good idea, but man, I have no clue, and we never invest. There is this theory that the hardware piece makes the money initially, then gets more commodified over time, and it will shift to software. And the, I do not know, multi trillion dollar question is whether that is going to be true again this time, or whether NVIDIA will have this incredible monopoly. I suspect NVIDIA will. I think it will maintain its position for a while. I think the game theory on it is something like this. All the big tech companies are going to start trying to design their own AI chips so they do not have to pay the 10x markup to NVIDIA. How hard is it for them to do it? How long will it take? If they all do it, then the chips become a commodity and nobody makes money in chips. So do you go into hardware? You should do it if nobody else is doing it. If everybody does it, you should not do it. I am not sure how that nets out, but probably people stay stuck for a while and NVIDIA goes from strength to strength for a while.

Wall St Engine

824,907 次观看 • 8 个月前

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."
3:11

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

Deutsch Explains

72,455 次观看 • 1 年前

💥💥💥 “If we look at #Bitcoin and model it as digital gold, you know the market cap goes to between $10 and $20 trillion, but remember gold is defective property. Gold is dead money. You have a billion dollars of gold that sits in a vault for a decade. It's very hard to mortgage the gold. It's also very hard to rent the gold. You can't loan the gold. No one's going to create a business with your gold, so gold it doesn't generate much of a yield, so for that reason most people wouldn't store a billion dollars for a decade in Gold. They would buy a billion dollars of commercial real estate property and the reason why is because I can rent it and generate a yield on it that's in excess of the maintenance cost. So if you consider digital property, that's a $100 to $200 trillion addressable market, so I would think it goes from $10 trillion to $100 trillion as people start to think of it as is digital property. What does that mean in terms of price per coin? At $500,000 that's a $10 trillion asset, at $5 million that's a $100 trillion dollar asset. So you think it crosses a million, it can go even higher? Yeah. I think it keeps going up forever. I mean there's no reason we couldn't go to $10 million a coin because digital property isn't the highest form right. Gold was that low frequency money. Property is a mid frequency money but when I start to program it faster it starts to look like digital energy and then it doesn't just replace property, then you're starting to replace bonds. It's $100 trillion in bonds, there's $50 to $100 trillion in other currency derivatives and these are all conventional use cases right. I think that there's $350 trillion to $500 trillion worth of currency derivatives in the world and when I say that I mean things that are valued based upon Fiat cash flows. Any commercial real estate, any bond, any sovereign debt, any currency itself, any derivatives to those things, they're all derivatives and they're all defective and they're all defective because of this persistent 7% to 14% lapse in which we call inflation.”- Michael Saylor
2:32

💥💥💥 “If we look at #Bitcoin and model it as digital gold, you know the market cap goes to between $10 and $20 trillion, but remember gold is defective property. Gold is dead money. You have a billion dollars of gold that sits in a vault for a decade. It's very hard to mortgage the gold. It's also very hard to rent the gold. You can't loan the gold. No one's going to create a business with your gold, so gold it doesn't generate much of a yield, so for that reason most people wouldn't store a billion dollars for a decade in Gold. They would buy a billion dollars of commercial real estate property and the reason why is because I can rent it and generate a yield on it that's in excess of the maintenance cost. So if you consider digital property, that's a $100 to $200 trillion addressable market, so I would think it goes from $10 trillion to $100 trillion as people start to think of it as is digital property. What does that mean in terms of price per coin? At $500,000 that's a $10 trillion asset, at $5 million that's a $100 trillion dollar asset. So you think it crosses a million, it can go even higher? Yeah. I think it keeps going up forever. I mean there's no reason we couldn't go to $10 million a coin because digital property isn't the highest form right. Gold was that low frequency money. Property is a mid frequency money but when I start to program it faster it starts to look like digital energy and then it doesn't just replace property, then you're starting to replace bonds. It's $100 trillion in bonds, there's $50 to $100 trillion in other currency derivatives and these are all conventional use cases right. I think that there's $350 trillion to $500 trillion worth of currency derivatives in the world and when I say that I mean things that are valued based upon Fiat cash flows. Any commercial real estate, any bond, any sovereign debt, any currency itself, any derivatives to those things, they're all derivatives and they're all defective and they're all defective because of this persistent 7% to 14% lapse in which we call inflation.”- Michael Saylor

Bitcoin News Alerts OG 📢🔥

177,365 次观看 • 2 年前

Obama in 2009: “What's going to happen is you are going to pay a significant fine. You are going to learn English. You are going to -- you are going to go to the back of the line so that you don't get ahead of somebody who was in Mexico City applying legally. But after you've done these things over a certain period of time you can earn your citizenship, so that it's not -- it's not something that is guaranteed or automatic. You've got to earn it. But over time you give people an opportunity. Now, it only works though if you do all the pieces. I think the American people, they appreciate and believe in immigration. But they can't have a situation where you just have half a million people pouring over the border without any kind of mechanism to control it!” Got it… Illegal immigration is wrong.. It must be merit based. And allowing, not just a million, but upwards of 15 million, unvetted 😳illegal immigrants into the Country is disastrous and unfair to everyone including Legal immigrants.
1:11

Obama in 2009: “What's going to happen is you are going to pay a significant fine. You are going to learn English. You are going to -- you are going to go to the back of the line so that you don't get ahead of somebody who was in Mexico City applying legally. But after you've done these things over a certain period of time you can earn your citizenship, so that it's not -- it's not something that is guaranteed or automatic. You've got to earn it. But over time you give people an opportunity. Now, it only works though if you do all the pieces. I think the American people, they appreciate and believe in immigration. But they can't have a situation where you just have half a million people pouring over the border without any kind of mechanism to control it!” Got it… Illegal immigration is wrong.. It must be merit based. And allowing, not just a million, but upwards of 15 million, unvetted 😳illegal immigrants into the Country is disastrous and unfair to everyone including Legal immigrants.

Suzanne 🇺🇸♥️

111,705 次观看 • 1 年前

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

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

The All-In Podcast

220,049 次观看 • 3 个月前

Naval Ravikant: “Try to be one of the people who creates things” “You should actually go out and build the thing you want to see exist—not just say ‘oh, that’s gonna happen. I’m just going to sit back and wait for somebody else to do it’… Things don’t just automatically show up. There are great men and women who go out there and create these things. So try to be one of those people who creates these things.” If you’re going to be an investor, Naval urges you to “at least bet on things that you think may not exist without you betting on them.” He continues: “The other mindset — which is I’m just going to hustle ahead of other investors and slip some money in before they get there and mark it up — maybe you’ll make money, sure, but it’s a very unfulfilling life. And I would argue long term you will not make the most money because the greatest winners of the last few decades have been unexpected winners.” He gives SpaceX, Tesla, OpenAI, and Apple Computer as examples. “These are companies that were written off because it was believed that their dream was impossible and too expensive…. When you see these impossible dreams come true, not only is it the most fulfilling thing, it’s also where you make the most money.” Video source: AngelList (2023)
1:43

Naval Ravikant: “Try to be one of the people who creates things” “You should actually go out and build the thing you want to see exist—not just say ‘oh, that’s gonna happen. I’m just going to sit back and wait for somebody else to do it’… Things don’t just automatically show up. There are great men and women who go out there and create these things. So try to be one of those people who creates these things.” If you’re going to be an investor, Naval urges you to “at least bet on things that you think may not exist without you betting on them.” He continues: “The other mindset — which is I’m just going to hustle ahead of other investors and slip some money in before they get there and mark it up — maybe you’ll make money, sure, but it’s a very unfulfilling life. And I would argue long term you will not make the most money because the greatest winners of the last few decades have been unexpected winners.” He gives SpaceX, Tesla, OpenAI, and Apple Computer as examples. “These are companies that were written off because it was believed that their dream was impossible and too expensive…. When you see these impossible dreams come true, not only is it the most fulfilling thing, it’s also where you make the most money.” Video source: AngelList (2023)

Startup Archive

30,481 次观看 • 1 年前

RFK JR: “If you get poisoned by Coca-Cola, you can stop drinking Coca-Cola. But if you get poisoned by a vaccine, your kids still have to take that vaccine to get to school.” “If you have reservations about it … you’ve got to take it anyway.” “And then, of course, the mainstream media is bought and brain dead when it comes to these issues.” “They will not criticize, they will not report vaccine injury.” “You have none of the market forces that apply that make other products safe.” “There is zero incentive for these companies to make them safe.” “They don’t get punished for it in the market, they don’t get punished for it in the court.” “What we’re going to try to do is to make sure that the parents who do get injured get compensation, that they get it very quickly and they get it without the kind of adversarial impediments that have now been erected over the past 40 years.”
2:20

RFK JR: “If you get poisoned by Coca-Cola, you can stop drinking Coca-Cola. But if you get poisoned by a vaccine, your kids still have to take that vaccine to get to school.” “If you have reservations about it … you’ve got to take it anyway.” “And then, of course, the mainstream media is bought and brain dead when it comes to these issues.” “They will not criticize, they will not report vaccine injury.” “You have none of the market forces that apply that make other products safe.” “There is zero incentive for these companies to make them safe.” “They don’t get punished for it in the market, they don’t get punished for it in the court.” “What we’re going to try to do is to make sure that the parents who do get injured get compensation, that they get it very quickly and they get it without the kind of adversarial impediments that have now been erected over the past 40 years.”

Children’s Health Defense

1,128,148 次观看 • 11 个月前

The Trump admin is GASLIGHTING us re: no CBDCs They know they can't do CBDCs because of the Constitution, so they're backdooring them with stablecoins Iain Davis explains— "the idea of a [CBDC] is that it will give these private institutions total control of a new digital international monetary and financial system" "CBDC is programmable money that slots into that system. That's why they want it" "That's not going to work in the US because... it's a constitutional right in the United States that the people, and only the people, oversee what they call the power, quote–unquote... to coin money" "So what are you going to do about it? You need some sort of work-round" "So stablecoins and things like deposit tokens or tokenized deposits are variations of programmable digital currency. But rather than being issued by a central bank, they're issued by a commercial bank" "stablecoins... slot into the system of programmability just as easily, if not more so than a central bank digital currency. So you can attach smart contracts to any kind of digital transaction using digital currency" "Programmable digital currency and stablecoins do exactly the same thing, serve the same purpose, as central bank digital currency" This clip of Iain Davis (InThisTogether), author of The Technocratic Dark State, is taken from a Flashlights podcast (Flashlights Podcast) episode posted to Rumble on May 17, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "It's a constitutional right in the United States that the people, and only the people, oversee what they call the power, quote–unquote, it says this in the Constitution, to coin money. So the power to coin money is overseen by the people. "Now the idea of a central bank digital currency is that it will give these private institutions total control of a new digital international monetary and financial system. That's CBDC is programmable money that slots into that system. That's why they want it. "That's not going to work in the US because even though Congress, you know, Congress is the, is the dog which is wagged by the tail in this of the Fed, the Fed, you know, the Fed tells Congress what to do, not the other way round. But theoretically it could be the other way round. And theoretically the people could assert their control over the Fed if they only knew about it, which, not many people do, but they could do it, right? It's in the US Constitution. "Now that's a problem if you're going to embark on a global transformation of the entire international monetary and financial system when your leading reserve currency is the US dollar. So that's, you know, that could all go wrong very badly. "So what are you going to do about it? You need some sort of work round. How are you, how are you going to do which for the, you know, I, for many years, well, since central bank digital currency has been something that I've been looking at, I couldn't figure out why the US wasn't more enthusiastic about central bank digital currency. "Because it's the type of thing that the US administrations are usually right up— You know, they're really gung ho about that kind of centralized control of everything. That's right up their alley. So why, why don't they like it? And then it was the work of John Titus who pointed out this problem that they've got in the US with the Constitution that made me look at that and think, right. And then I started investigating that further. And he's right about that. That is a problem. "But then they obviously need some sort of workaround. How are they going to have. Because the main point of central bank digital currency from the surveillance and control aspect is that we will all need digital identity in order to access our digital wallets, which will contain the currency and the currency and the wallets and our, digital identities will all be programmable so conditions can be set on everything that we do. "Every transaction we make will be subject to condition through some sort of smart contract probably, which will control it. Right. So you know, if you say the wrong thing or you know, you, you just write the wrong thing online, you could be punished by algorithm by controlling your access to money... "And so the key to that is central bank— the programmability of central bank digital currency. But obviously that's not going to, may not work. There's a good chance that won't work in the United States which has got the US dollar reserve is an important currency. "So what are you going to do? So stablecoins and things like deposit tokens or tokenized deposits are variations of programmable digital currency. But rather than being issued by a central bank, they're issued by a commercial bank. So or in the case of stablecoins, a non-bank, a non-bank institution like Tether. So it's not a bank. "But you can use stablecoins for exactly the same. They slot into the system of programmability just as easily, if not more so than a central bank digital currency. So you can attach smart contracts to any kind of digital transaction using digital currency. Programmable digital currency and stablecoins do exactly the same thing, serve the same purpose as central bank digital currency or the other version, the commercial bank version is deposit tokens. Any of those will do. "Now in the US they've gone down the stablecoin route so they can issue the stablecoins which will be backed by US Treasuries, just like the dollar or just like any kind of dollar instrument will be one to one convertible for the US dollar. So the stablecoins are effectively the US dollar in, in digital form. "But instead of calling it a central bank digital currency, they call it issued by, it wouldn't have to be issued by the Fed. They call it a stablecoin, which is issued by a company like Tether or you know, someone like that. So it's the same system but using a workaround. And that workaround came with the Genius Act which, which came from an executive order that Trump made when he first came to office. "Because the Americans, quite rightly when they were electing their president, were concerned about central bank digital currency. I mean anyone that understands what it is should be terrified of it. So they didn't want it, and Trump promised that they wouldn't have it. Probably. I don't know whether he knew, but certainly the gaggle of technocrats that were around him knew that they weren't going down that path. Anyway, no chance of the US introducing it because of these problems we've just outlined."
6:11

The Trump admin is GASLIGHTING us re: no CBDCs They know they can't do CBDCs because of the Constitution, so they're backdooring them with stablecoins Iain Davis explains— "the idea of a [CBDC] is that it will give these private institutions total control of a new digital international monetary and financial system" "CBDC is programmable money that slots into that system. That's why they want it" "That's not going to work in the US because... it's a constitutional right in the United States that the people, and only the people, oversee what they call the power, quote–unquote... to coin money" "So what are you going to do about it? You need some sort of work-round" "So stablecoins and things like deposit tokens or tokenized deposits are variations of programmable digital currency. But rather than being issued by a central bank, they're issued by a commercial bank" "stablecoins... slot into the system of programmability just as easily, if not more so than a central bank digital currency. So you can attach smart contracts to any kind of digital transaction using digital currency" "Programmable digital currency and stablecoins do exactly the same thing, serve the same purpose, as central bank digital currency" This clip of Iain Davis (InThisTogether), author of The Technocratic Dark State, is taken from a Flashlights podcast (Flashlights Podcast) episode posted to Rumble on May 17, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "It's a constitutional right in the United States that the people, and only the people, oversee what they call the power, quote–unquote, it says this in the Constitution, to coin money. So the power to coin money is overseen by the people. "Now the idea of a central bank digital currency is that it will give these private institutions total control of a new digital international monetary and financial system. That's CBDC is programmable money that slots into that system. That's why they want it. "That's not going to work in the US because even though Congress, you know, Congress is the, is the dog which is wagged by the tail in this of the Fed, the Fed, you know, the Fed tells Congress what to do, not the other way round. But theoretically it could be the other way round. And theoretically the people could assert their control over the Fed if they only knew about it, which, not many people do, but they could do it, right? It's in the US Constitution. "Now that's a problem if you're going to embark on a global transformation of the entire international monetary and financial system when your leading reserve currency is the US dollar. So that's, you know, that could all go wrong very badly. "So what are you going to do about it? You need some sort of work round. How are you, how are you going to do which for the, you know, I, for many years, well, since central bank digital currency has been something that I've been looking at, I couldn't figure out why the US wasn't more enthusiastic about central bank digital currency. "Because it's the type of thing that the US administrations are usually right up— You know, they're really gung ho about that kind of centralized control of everything. That's right up their alley. So why, why don't they like it? And then it was the work of John Titus who pointed out this problem that they've got in the US with the Constitution that made me look at that and think, right. And then I started investigating that further. And he's right about that. That is a problem. "But then they obviously need some sort of workaround. How are they going to have. Because the main point of central bank digital currency from the surveillance and control aspect is that we will all need digital identity in order to access our digital wallets, which will contain the currency and the currency and the wallets and our, digital identities will all be programmable so conditions can be set on everything that we do. "Every transaction we make will be subject to condition through some sort of smart contract probably, which will control it. Right. So you know, if you say the wrong thing or you know, you, you just write the wrong thing online, you could be punished by algorithm by controlling your access to money... "And so the key to that is central bank— the programmability of central bank digital currency. But obviously that's not going to, may not work. There's a good chance that won't work in the United States which has got the US dollar reserve is an important currency. "So what are you going to do? So stablecoins and things like deposit tokens or tokenized deposits are variations of programmable digital currency. But rather than being issued by a central bank, they're issued by a commercial bank. So or in the case of stablecoins, a non-bank, a non-bank institution like Tether. So it's not a bank. "But you can use stablecoins for exactly the same. They slot into the system of programmability just as easily, if not more so than a central bank digital currency. So you can attach smart contracts to any kind of digital transaction using digital currency. Programmable digital currency and stablecoins do exactly the same thing, serve the same purpose as central bank digital currency or the other version, the commercial bank version is deposit tokens. Any of those will do. "Now in the US they've gone down the stablecoin route so they can issue the stablecoins which will be backed by US Treasuries, just like the dollar or just like any kind of dollar instrument will be one to one convertible for the US dollar. So the stablecoins are effectively the US dollar in, in digital form. "But instead of calling it a central bank digital currency, they call it issued by, it wouldn't have to be issued by the Fed. They call it a stablecoin, which is issued by a company like Tether or you know, someone like that. So it's the same system but using a workaround. And that workaround came with the Genius Act which, which came from an executive order that Trump made when he first came to office. "Because the Americans, quite rightly when they were electing their president, were concerned about central bank digital currency. I mean anyone that understands what it is should be terrified of it. So they didn't want it, and Trump promised that they wouldn't have it. Probably. I don't know whether he knew, but certainly the gaggle of technocrats that were around him knew that they weren't going down that path. Anyway, no chance of the US introducing it because of these problems we've just outlined."

Sense Receptor

13,996 次观看 • 2 个月前

$ABCL CEO Carl Hansen explains the net negative overall value creation in biotech and how AbCellera plans to beat it: “I really think it can be beat because there’s a lot of mistakes that get made in where you allocate capital.” “If you’re a biotech and you start a company on a drug, and you go public and have a drug, and now the data is looking not that great, you just keep running that drug. … Because if you quit that drug, the company is done.” “So, because you’re so concentrated on one thing, you end up having blinders. It’s like a cult of a molecule. And even a real, practical, capital access problem that makes you continue to move things forward” ______________________________________ “Another problem is that many of the drugs that get started, get started by people who don’t understand the competitive or commercial landscape and have no intent of ever actually manufacturing it. … Because they know someone else is going to buy it. So then their framework is not ‘Am I making a drug that’s going to make a difference for people?’ The framework is ‘Can I make something that I think someone will take off my hands?’ And that happens a lot.” “There are many acquisitions where a big pharma company spends $10B, $20B, and it’s a complete bust. So really no value is generated for patients but someone was able to get a good exit on that because they anticipated what someone would want. And a lot of decision making gets done like that”. _______________________________________ “I’m not saying that we have this all solved. But what we’re trying to do is create a framework where we are able to take many bets so that we don’t fall in love with anything, or we don’t have to fall in love with anything. … And then always hold up very explicitly what we know and what we don’t know along the dimensions that matter. The dimensions that matter are - Will it work? That’s a science. - When it gets where will people care? - Is it differentiated? - Does it solve a big problem? In order to get it there, is there a path with our resources and expertise that would allow us to see it through?” “When you start to hold things up like that, you start to see where the mistakes are, where the uncertainties are, and you can be more rational in deciding ‘We’re going to run it to here because we get to flip the card and if the card goes the wrong way we’re going to kill it because we’ve got something else behind it.’” “I do think that if done right, and if you can pick the right opportunities, the success rate can be well higher than an order of magnitude better. … And there are examples of this… companies I’ve mentioned, you know, Regeneron, their success rate is at least 10x the industry in bringing programs forward and getting them approved. … So it’s… you can do it better that way”
3:50

$ABCL CEO Carl Hansen explains the net negative overall value creation in biotech and how AbCellera plans to beat it: “I really think it can be beat because there’s a lot of mistakes that get made in where you allocate capital.” “If you’re a biotech and you start a company on a drug, and you go public and have a drug, and now the data is looking not that great, you just keep running that drug. … Because if you quit that drug, the company is done.” “So, because you’re so concentrated on one thing, you end up having blinders. It’s like a cult of a molecule. And even a real, practical, capital access problem that makes you continue to move things forward” ______________________________________ “Another problem is that many of the drugs that get started, get started by people who don’t understand the competitive or commercial landscape and have no intent of ever actually manufacturing it. … Because they know someone else is going to buy it. So then their framework is not ‘Am I making a drug that’s going to make a difference for people?’ The framework is ‘Can I make something that I think someone will take off my hands?’ And that happens a lot.” “There are many acquisitions where a big pharma company spends $10B, $20B, and it’s a complete bust. So really no value is generated for patients but someone was able to get a good exit on that because they anticipated what someone would want. And a lot of decision making gets done like that”. _______________________________________ “I’m not saying that we have this all solved. But what we’re trying to do is create a framework where we are able to take many bets so that we don’t fall in love with anything, or we don’t have to fall in love with anything. … And then always hold up very explicitly what we know and what we don’t know along the dimensions that matter. The dimensions that matter are - Will it work? That’s a science. - When it gets where will people care? - Is it differentiated? - Does it solve a big problem? In order to get it there, is there a path with our resources and expertise that would allow us to see it through?” “When you start to hold things up like that, you start to see where the mistakes are, where the uncertainties are, and you can be more rational in deciding ‘We’re going to run it to here because we get to flip the card and if the card goes the wrong way we’re going to kill it because we’ve got something else behind it.’” “I do think that if done right, and if you can pick the right opportunities, the success rate can be well higher than an order of magnitude better. … And there are examples of this… companies I’ve mentioned, you know, Regeneron, their success rate is at least 10x the industry in bringing programs forward and getting them approved. … So it’s… you can do it better that way”

Jack Prescott

18,424 次观看 • 4 天前

Naval Ravikant: "I'm not scared of AI. I'm scared of what a very small number of people who control AI do to the rest of us." On E215, Naval broke down his main AI fear: consolidated control enabled by regulatory capture. "If you really think you're going to create God, do you want to put God on a leash with one entity controlling God?" "That to me is the real fear." "I'm not scared of AI. I'm scared of what a very small number of people who control AI do to the rest of us, 'for our own good.'" "I'm not an AI doomer. I don't think AI is going to end the world. That's a separate conversation." "But, there's this religion that comes along in many faces, which is that, 'Oh, climate change is going to end the world. AI is going to end the world. Asteroid's going to end the world. COVID-19 is going to end the world.' And it just has a way of fixating your attention, right? "It captures everybody's attention at once. So it's a very seductive thing." "And I think in the case of AI, it's really been overplayed by incentive bias. Motivated reasoning by the companies who are ahead and they want to pull up the ladder behind them." "I think they generally believe that there is safety risk, but I think they're motivated to believe in those safety risks and then they pass that along." "But it's kind of a weird position because they have to say, 'Oh, it's so dangerous that you shouldn't just let open-source go at it. And you should let just a few of us work with you on it. But it's not so dangerous that a private company can't own the whole thing.'" "Because if it was truly the Manhattan Project, if they were building nuclear weapons, you wouldn't want one company to own that." "So to me, the real issue boils down to, how do you push AI forward while not having just a very small number of players control the entire thing?"
1:13

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

The All-In Podcast

300,830 次观看 • 1 年前

Bill Ackman reveals the exact difference between valuing a stock and valuing a bond that most people never learn "A bond pays a 5% coupon interest rate. You get that every year, and it's very predictable. If it's a US Government Bond, you know you're going to get it. That's a pretty easy thing to value" "A stock is an interest in a business. It's like owning a piece of a company. A profitable business is like a bond in that it generates these coupons or these earnings or cash flow every year" "The difference is that a bond is a contract. You know what you're going to get. With a stock, you have to make predictions about the business" "How many widgets are they going to sell this year? How many next year? What are their costs going to be? How much money do they need to reinvest to keep the business going?" "What we do is try to find businesses where with a very high degree of confidence we know what those cash flows are going to be for a very long time. There are very few businesses you can have a really high degree of certainty about. Many investments are speculations because it's really very difficult to predict the future"
1:26

Bill Ackman reveals the exact difference between valuing a stock and valuing a bond that most people never learn "A bond pays a 5% coupon interest rate. You get that every year, and it's very predictable. If it's a US Government Bond, you know you're going to get it. That's a pretty easy thing to value" "A stock is an interest in a business. It's like owning a piece of a company. A profitable business is like a bond in that it generates these coupons or these earnings or cash flow every year" "The difference is that a bond is a contract. You know what you're going to get. With a stock, you have to make predictions about the business" "How many widgets are they going to sell this year? How many next year? What are their costs going to be? How much money do they need to reinvest to keep the business going?" "What we do is try to find businesses where with a very high degree of confidence we know what those cash flows are going to be for a very long time. There are very few businesses you can have a really high degree of certainty about. Many investments are speculations because it's really very difficult to predict the future"

Jaynit

160,132 次观看 • 20 天前

Yes, indeed, this is lawlessness by any standard. Even by banana republic standards, this is still lawlessness. Your country has a constitution, it has a government, it has a police service, and it has a ruling party. I am sure you can see that some of the people there are actually wearing ruling party T-shirts. It is lawless regardless of whoever does it. It is an embarrassment to South Africa as a country, what you are doing and what you are encouraging people to do. Your country has an immigration service. If people are in your country illegally, they should be arrested and deported through lawful processes. You do not go around destroying property, tearing down markets, and attacking people. It is illegal regardless of whoever does it. It is not illegal because I have said so. It is illegal because the laws of your country make it so. This is vigilantism, pure and simple, and it is tainting the reputation of South Africa, not only across Africa but across the world. If you have got satellite television in your home, you can see that these actions are being reported everywhere. It is not good for your country. This kind of barbarism undermines the rule of law, fuels division, and damages South Africa’s standing as a constitutional democracy. It is the actions of a few that are tainting the reputation of many. The average South African is not mindless like this. They respect the law, and they respect the fact that among them, in their communities, there are people from other countries. If those people are in the country illegally, you report them and the law takes its course through proper processes of arrest and deportation. You do not descend into mob justice, lawlessness, and destruction. That is not who South Africans are, and it must not be normalised.
2:51

Yes, indeed, this is lawlessness by any standard. Even by banana republic standards, this is still lawlessness. Your country has a constitution, it has a government, it has a police service, and it has a ruling party. I am sure you can see that some of the people there are actually wearing ruling party T-shirts. It is lawless regardless of whoever does it. It is an embarrassment to South Africa as a country, what you are doing and what you are encouraging people to do. Your country has an immigration service. If people are in your country illegally, they should be arrested and deported through lawful processes. You do not go around destroying property, tearing down markets, and attacking people. It is illegal regardless of whoever does it. It is not illegal because I have said so. It is illegal because the laws of your country make it so. This is vigilantism, pure and simple, and it is tainting the reputation of South Africa, not only across Africa but across the world. If you have got satellite television in your home, you can see that these actions are being reported everywhere. It is not good for your country. This kind of barbarism undermines the rule of law, fuels division, and damages South Africa’s standing as a constitutional democracy. It is the actions of a few that are tainting the reputation of many. The average South African is not mindless like this. They respect the law, and they respect the fact that among them, in their communities, there are people from other countries. If those people are in the country illegally, you report them and the law takes its course through proper processes of arrest and deportation. You do not descend into mob justice, lawlessness, and destruction. That is not who South Africans are, and it must not be normalised.

Hopewell Chin’ono

80,812 次观看 • 3 个月前