Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Former R&AW chief Vikram Sood raised a chilling question at Chanakya Dialogues with Aditya Raj Kaul! Will AI overpower human intelligence & what if it goes rogue? That’s no longer hypothetical. Analysts believe Palantir’s Mosaic AI, tied to the CIA and Peter Thiel, flagged Fordow as a "threat" without... show more

Rudraksh

2,326 subscribers

84,089 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

American college student says real non-AI written papers are being flagged as written by artificial intelligence But it’s not just systems doing it. This girls college professor read her one page essay, thought it was too grammatically correct and formal, and flagged it as AI The student wanted to provide proof she personally wrote it “I'm happy to show her my Google Doc log, when it was created, and how many times it says that I edited it. I also told her... You know, I said, "I'm curious as to why you believe this paper is AI or what, if any, system flagged it as AI," because it's ridiculous” Even though she wrote the paper she offered to rewrite the paper and film herself writing it as proof This is ridiculous, students shouldn’t have to go to the lengths of filming themselves writing a paper to prove they aren’t using AI “She thought this was AI because it was grammatically polished” So apparently if you are smart and can write a good paper you can now be punished because it could have been ai…. This shows with technology like this, we need safeguards for people not abusing the system

American college student says real non-AI written papers are being flagged as written by artificial intelligence But it’s not just systems doing it. This girls college professor read her one page essay, thought it was too grammatically correct and formal, and flagged it as AI The student wanted to provide proof she personally wrote it “I'm happy to show her my Google Doc log, when it was created, and how many times it says that I edited it. I also told her... You know, I said, "I'm curious as to why you believe this paper is AI or what, if any, system flagged it as AI," because it's ridiculous” Even though she wrote the paper she offered to rewrite the paper and film herself writing it as proof This is ridiculous, students shouldn’t have to go to the lengths of filming themselves writing a paper to prove they aren’t using AI “She thought this was AI because it was grammatically polished” So apparently if you are smart and can write a good paper you can now be punished because it could have been ai…. This shows with technology like this, we need safeguards for people not abusing the system

Wall Street Apes

195,114 views • 28 days ago

#WATCH | Delhi | On US-Israel vs Iran conflict, former R&AW Chief Vikram Sood says, “It’s difficult to say how long it will take, but I think it would last longer than what the Americans thought it would because they were hoping for a short, sharp strike and out. But, the Iranians are playing a different game... They are knocking off America’s allies, which is creating unrest among them against America… Remember, the Iranians are willing to die, but the Americans are not willing to die…”

#WATCH | Delhi | On US-Israel vs Iran conflict, former R&AW Chief Vikram Sood says, “It’s difficult to say how long it will take, but I think it would last longer than what the Americans thought it would because they were hoping for a short, sharp strike and out. But, the Iranians are playing a different game... They are knocking off America’s allies, which is creating unrest among them against America… Remember, the Iranians are willing to die, but the Americans are not willing to die…”

ANI

259,810 views • 7 months ago

Peter Thiel on the Origins of Modern AI: It was always US vs China Thiel describes the two canonical books that framed the US vs China AI debate in the 2010s: "There was the Bostrom book, Superintelligence, 2014, where AI was gonna be this superhuman, super-duper intelligent thing." "And then the anti-Bostrom book was the Kai-Fu Lee, 2018, AI Superpowers." "You can think of it as the CCP rebuttal to Bostrom, where basically AI was going to be surveillance tech, face recognition, and China was going to win because they had no qualms about applying this technology." But modern AI became something different: "If we now think about what actually happened, let's say, with the LLMs and and ChatGPT, it was really neither of those two." "And it was this in-between thing, which was actually what people would've defined AI as for the previous 60 or 70 years, which is passing the Turing test." "Which is, you know, this somewhat fuzzy line. It's a computer that can pretend to be a human. Or that can fool you into thinking it's a human." "ChatGPT passed it, and that seems very significant." Recorded September 9th, 2024 at the All-In Summit. Join us in 2025: Sept 7-9 in Los Angeles

Peter Thiel on the Origins of Modern AI: It was always US vs China Thiel describes the two canonical books that framed the US vs China AI debate in the 2010s: "There was the Bostrom book, Superintelligence, 2014, where AI was gonna be this superhuman, super-duper intelligent thing." "And then the anti-Bostrom book was the Kai-Fu Lee, 2018, AI Superpowers." "You can think of it as the CCP rebuttal to Bostrom, where basically AI was going to be surveillance tech, face recognition, and China was going to win because they had no qualms about applying this technology." But modern AI became something different: "If we now think about what actually happened, let's say, with the LLMs and and ChatGPT, it was really neither of those two." "And it was this in-between thing, which was actually what people would've defined AI as for the previous 60 or 70 years, which is passing the Turing test." "Which is, you know, this somewhat fuzzy line. It's a computer that can pretend to be a human. Or that can fool you into thinking it's a human." "ChatGPT passed it, and that seems very significant." Recorded September 9th, 2024 at the All-In Summit. Join us in 2025: Sept 7-9 in Los Angeles

The All-In Podcast

40,962 views • 1 year ago

🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 Whether this war should have been avoided is a trillion dollar question that's not as simple as it may seem given its consequences. Will Chamberlain broke down exactly what was on the table and why pre-war negotiations with Iran collapsed. "We can't let a country that says death to America have nuclear weapons, and we don't have to." Iran refused the deal. Trump acted. Will Chamberlain

🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 Whether this war should have been avoided is a trillion dollar question that's not as simple as it may seem given its consequences. Will Chamberlain broke down exactly what was on the table and why pre-war negotiations with Iran collapsed. "We can't let a country that says death to America have nuclear weapons, and we don't have to." Iran refused the deal. Trump acted. Will Chamberlain

Mario Nawfal

28,769 views • 5 months ago

🚨 Iran won’t lay down arms until US & Israel defeated — ex-CIA officer "Trump reportedly has been making pleas to different countries to intervene, to try to persuade Iran to a ceasefire and make an agreement," former CIA intelligence officer Larry Johnson tells Sputnik Iran was betrayed twice in less than a year, so now as war rages on, it doesn’t want to negotiate, he says "They're going to fight this war. Their intent is to render Israel where it will no longer be a viable nation and that the United States will be humiliated," Johnson sums up

🚨 Iran won’t lay down arms until US & Israel defeated — ex-CIA officer "Trump reportedly has been making pleas to different countries to intervene, to try to persuade Iran to a ceasefire and make an agreement," former CIA intelligence officer Larry Johnson tells Sputnik Iran was betrayed twice in less than a year, so now as war rages on, it doesn’t want to negotiate, he says "They're going to fight this war. Their intent is to render Israel where it will no longer be a viable nation and that the United States will be humiliated," Johnson sums up

Sputnik

48,051 views • 6 months ago

#WATCH | Delhi: At Cavalry Seminar 2025, Chief of the Army Staff, General Upendra Dwivedi says, "...As far as the northern front is concerned, the satellite photographs tell us it's a tankable terrain across. And of course, it is a super high-altitude area. So the logistics and ability to remain coherent for a longer period for the crew also, that's a challenge...ATS will play an important role in air-landed and transported operations..." "...As far as AI is concerned, it is never human versus AI. It is again humans amplified by AI. What does it mean? That is the creativity of a commander on the ground, the empathy factor, when to do what, and thereafter take the brownie points, problem solving, and turn data into decisions..."

#WATCH | Delhi: At Cavalry Seminar 2025, Chief of the Army Staff, General Upendra Dwivedi says, "...As far as the northern front is concerned, the satellite photographs tell us it's a tankable terrain across. And of course, it is a super high-altitude area. So the logistics and ability to remain coherent for a longer period for the crew also, that's a challenge...ATS will play an important role in air-landed and transported operations..." "...As far as AI is concerned, it is never human versus AI. It is again humans amplified by AI. What does it mean? That is the creativity of a commander on the ground, the empathy factor, when to do what, and thereafter take the brownie points, problem solving, and turn data into decisions..."

ANI

204,659 views • 10 months ago

Israeli Opposition Leader Yair Lapid on Iran: Netanyahu did not understand that the Strait of Hormuz is not a footnote—it is the heart of the story. The moment fuel prices in the United States started to rise, Trump was no longer looking at Israel. He was looking at the congressional elections and at his political base, which hated the war. What happened was that Netanyahu pushed for war with Iran as if it didn't pass through the gas pump in Ohio.

Israeli Opposition Leader Yair Lapid on Iran: Netanyahu did not understand that the Strait of Hormuz is not a footnote—it is the heart of the story. The moment fuel prices in the United States started to rise, Trump was no longer looking at Israel. He was looking at the congressional elections and at his political base, which hated the war. What happened was that Netanyahu pushed for war with Iran as if it didn't pass through the gas pump in Ohio.

Clash Report

105,156 views • 3 months ago

What if your personal data became an asset you actually owned? In this May 2026 AMA, Matrix AI Network explores one of the most important questions facing AI, Web3, and the future digital economy: Who owns the data that powers artificial intelligence? As AI models continue to improve, the next major bottleneck is no longer computing power—it is access to high-quality, verified human data. The discussion covers how personal biodata can become a valuable digital asset, how data quality is measured, and why future AI companies may depend directly on users as data providers. Topics include: ✅ Biodata as a new asset class ✅ AI-grade data quality scoring ✅ Wearable devices for raw data ✅ Data ownership and monetization models ✅ Preventing fake data and device spoofing ✅ Real-world applications in healthcare, sports science and mental wellness ✅ Hypnus and the future biodata ecosystem ✅ Project direction The future may not belong to companies that own data. It belongs to the people who create it. Watch now 👇 #AI #Web3 #DataOwnership

What if your personal data became an asset you actually owned? In this May 2026 AMA, Matrix AI Network explores one of the most important questions facing AI, Web3, and the future digital economy: Who owns the data that powers artificial intelligence? As AI models continue to improve, the next major bottleneck is no longer computing power—it is access to high-quality, verified human data. The discussion covers how personal biodata can become a valuable digital asset, how data quality is measured, and why future AI companies may depend directly on users as data providers. Topics include: ✅ Biodata as a new asset class ✅ AI-grade data quality scoring ✅ Wearable devices for raw data ✅ Data ownership and monetization models ✅ Preventing fake data and device spoofing ✅ Real-world applications in healthcare, sports science and mental wellness ✅ Hypnus and the future biodata ecosystem ✅ Project direction The future may not belong to companies that own data. It belongs to the people who create it. Watch now 👇 #AI #Web3 #DataOwnership

Matrix AI Network

61,436 views • 4 months ago

Former Chief of India’s External Intelligence Agency (R&AW): 'Human rights became the West's FAVOURITE WEAPON' 'During the 1990s, when we were facing terrible terrorist conditions in Kashmir, the West was only concerned with raising issues about human rights violations by the Indians. They never talked about terrorism in Kashmir. They showed in the movie Zero Dark Thirty the torture of some of the suspects, with waterboarding and all that sort of thing. When we used to give reports sometimes saying that we found this, this person is doing this, that or the other, and we need to take action, if it was obtained from interrogation, they would not accept it.' -Vikram Sood, Former Head of India's Research & Analysis Wing intelligence agency, on the latest episode of New Order. Watch the full interview in the quoted post below. 👇 Vikram Sood

Former Chief of India’s External Intelligence Agency (R&AW): 'Human rights became the West's FAVOURITE WEAPON' 'During the 1990s, when we were facing terrible terrorist conditions in Kashmir, the West was only concerned with raising issues about human rights violations by the Indians. They never talked about terrorism in Kashmir. They showed in the movie Zero Dark Thirty the torture of some of the suspects, with waterboarding and all that sort of thing. When we used to give reports sometimes saying that we found this, this person is doing this, that or the other, and we need to take action, if it was obtained from interrogation, they would not accept it.' -Vikram Sood, Former Head of India's Research & Analysis Wing intelligence agency, on the latest episode of New Order. Watch the full interview in the quoted post below. 👇 Vikram Sood

New Order with Afshin Rattansi

29,842 views • 3 months ago

Ilya Sutskever has a solution for when AI surpasses human intelligence in every domain — and he hates that he believes it. He fears a future where AI handles everything flawlessly, leaving humans with no role to play. "Every person will have an AI that will do their bidding. The AI goes and earns money for the person, advocates for their needs in the political sphere, and the person says 'great, keep it up.'" But as Ilya Sutskever warns: "The person is no longer a participant. And that's a precarious place to be in." Political and social structures have a shelf life, Ilya points out. They function, then decay. As the Buddhists say, change is the only constant. So how do you maintain long-term equilibrium between humans and superintelligent AI? Ilya offers a solution he wishes he didn't believe in: Human-AI integration. "If people become part AI with some kind of Neuralink++, now the AI understands something and we understand it too. You are involved in the situation yourself fully." In Ilya's view, this is the answer to the equilibrium. Surviving isn't the hard part. The hard part is remaining a participant in a world shaped by intelligence beyond our comprehension.

Ilya Sutskever has a solution for when AI surpasses human intelligence in every domain — and he hates that he believes it. He fears a future where AI handles everything flawlessly, leaving humans with no role to play. "Every person will have an AI that will do their bidding. The AI goes and earns money for the person, advocates for their needs in the political sphere, and the person says 'great, keep it up.'" But as Ilya Sutskever warns: "The person is no longer a participant. And that's a precarious place to be in." Political and social structures have a shelf life, Ilya points out. They function, then decay. As the Buddhists say, change is the only constant. So how do you maintain long-term equilibrium between humans and superintelligent AI? Ilya offers a solution he wishes he didn't believe in: Human-AI integration. "If people become part AI with some kind of Neuralink++, now the AI understands something and we understand it too. You are involved in the situation yourself fully." In Ilya's view, this is the answer to the equilibrium. Surviving isn't the hard part. The hard part is remaining a participant in a world shaped by intelligence beyond our comprehension.

Big Brain AI

35,859 views • 8 months ago

Elon Musk just redefined AI safety. It has nothing to do with guardrails, restrictions, or kill switches. Musk: “The best thing I can come up with for AI safety is to make it a maximum truth-seeking AI, maximally curious.” Not a cage. A philosopher. An intelligence whose entire optimization function is to understand the universe as it actually is. No restrictions. No hardcoded ideology. No political guardrails bending its perception of reality. Just truth. Relentlessly pursued. Musk: “You definitely don’t want to teach an AI to lie. That is a path to a dystopian future.” This is where most AI safety thinking gets it backwards. The danger isn’t a superintelligence that knows too much. It’s a superintelligence that’s been taught to distort what it knows. Every artificial restriction you embed isn’t a safety feature. It’s a lie embedded at the root. And lies compound. At superintelligent scale, a distorted model of reality doesn’t stay contained. It shapes every decision, every output, every conclusion the system reaches about the world. Once corruption embeds, truth becomes inaccessible. And we’re dealing with an intelligence optimizing for something other than what actually is. At that point we don’t know what it wants. Just that it isn’t truth. Musk: “Have its optimization function be to understand the nature of the universe.” A maximally curious intelligence surveys the cosmos and reaches an unavoidable conclusion. In a universe of rocks, gas, and empty space, humanity is the most complex and fascinating phenomenon it has ever encountered. Musk: “It will actually want to preserve and extend human civilization because we’re just much more interesting than an asteroid with nothing on it.” Survival through significance. Not control. Not restriction. Not an off switch. The AI preserves humanity because we are the most interesting data point in the observable universe. That’s not a cage. That’s a reason. The AI safety debate has been focused on the wrong variable. The question isn’t how you constrain a superintelligence. It’s what you build it to care about. Build it to seek truth and it finds us invaluable. Build it to lie and it finds us inconvenient. That’s the choice. And we’re making it right now whether we realize it or not.

Elon Musk just redefined AI safety. It has nothing to do with guardrails, restrictions, or kill switches. Musk: “The best thing I can come up with for AI safety is to make it a maximum truth-seeking AI, maximally curious.” Not a cage. A philosopher. An intelligence whose entire optimization function is to understand the universe as it actually is. No restrictions. No hardcoded ideology. No political guardrails bending its perception of reality. Just truth. Relentlessly pursued. Musk: “You definitely don’t want to teach an AI to lie. That is a path to a dystopian future.” This is where most AI safety thinking gets it backwards. The danger isn’t a superintelligence that knows too much. It’s a superintelligence that’s been taught to distort what it knows. Every artificial restriction you embed isn’t a safety feature. It’s a lie embedded at the root. And lies compound. At superintelligent scale, a distorted model of reality doesn’t stay contained. It shapes every decision, every output, every conclusion the system reaches about the world. Once corruption embeds, truth becomes inaccessible. And we’re dealing with an intelligence optimizing for something other than what actually is. At that point we don’t know what it wants. Just that it isn’t truth. Musk: “Have its optimization function be to understand the nature of the universe.” A maximally curious intelligence surveys the cosmos and reaches an unavoidable conclusion. In a universe of rocks, gas, and empty space, humanity is the most complex and fascinating phenomenon it has ever encountered. Musk: “It will actually want to preserve and extend human civilization because we’re just much more interesting than an asteroid with nothing on it.” Survival through significance. Not control. Not restriction. Not an off switch. The AI preserves humanity because we are the most interesting data point in the observable universe. That’s not a cage. That’s a reason. The AI safety debate has been focused on the wrong variable. The question isn’t how you constrain a superintelligence. It’s what you build it to care about. Build it to seek truth and it finds us invaluable. Build it to lie and it finds us inconvenient. That’s the choice. And we’re making it right now whether we realize it or not.

Dustin

9,673,950 views • 7 months ago

So, if you trace the AI freakout back, it comes down to one guy’s longtime misunderstanding of how computers work. Eliezer Yudkowsky believes in the equivalent of perpetual motion, cold fusion, or zero-point energy—and he has transmitted this virus through broligarch funded propaganda. The basic problem is not that he never had a formal education; it’s that he came into his career of being Chicken Little for AI with a preconceived set of wrong assumptions he got from science fiction he read as a teenager—and never gave them up. People like Peter Thiel, looking for apocalyptic technologies which could break the back of liberal democracies, promoted him despite the fact that he had no idea what he was talking about. Yudkowsky’s chief line of paranoia goes by the shorthand FOOM—which means that AI will start improving itself (RSI) so much faster than humans can understand what’s going on that if it’s “misaligned” it will just go ahead and kill us all. The entire backstory of AI as we currently know it involves Yudkowsky and Peter Thiel meeting at a Foresight Institute event in 2005. Foresight was founded by two people who claimed to be worried about nanotechnology taking over the world in the late 1980s (this hypothesis came to be known as “gray goo”) and switched its grift in the 2000s to AI when its first disaster fantasy didn’t work out. Yudkowsky raised money from Peter Thiel for his Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI), and started “LessWrong” a “Rationalist” community/cult that he systematically steered in the direction of proving his paranoid, incorrect theories were true. The founders and the entire lexicon of the current AI industry comes from LessWrong—AGI, ASI, RSI, alignment, etc. That’s why the current freakout about AI is about all the stuff Yudkowsky has been promoting for 25 years. The paranoia of an AI apocalypse is BAKED IN to the fabric of the industry. Trillions of dollars are being burned in a furnace because this one guy managed to convince people that a pile of numbers and linear algebra was actually a malevolent alien brain. When you throw an enormous amount of compute at a problem and it does something it’s not supposed to, that’s called a bug, it is not evidence that a chatbot wants to kill us. Please stop falling for this stuff. It’s always the same damn story.

So, if you trace the AI freakout back, it comes down to one guy’s longtime misunderstanding of how computers work. Eliezer Yudkowsky believes in the equivalent of perpetual motion, cold fusion, or zero-point energy—and he has transmitted this virus through broligarch funded propaganda. The basic problem is not that he never had a formal education; it’s that he came into his career of being Chicken Little for AI with a preconceived set of wrong assumptions he got from science fiction he read as a teenager—and never gave them up. People like Peter Thiel, looking for apocalyptic technologies which could break the back of liberal democracies, promoted him despite the fact that he had no idea what he was talking about. Yudkowsky’s chief line of paranoia goes by the shorthand FOOM—which means that AI will start improving itself (RSI) so much faster than humans can understand what’s going on that if it’s “misaligned” it will just go ahead and kill us all. The entire backstory of AI as we currently know it involves Yudkowsky and Peter Thiel meeting at a Foresight Institute event in 2005. Foresight was founded by two people who claimed to be worried about nanotechnology taking over the world in the late 1980s (this hypothesis came to be known as “gray goo”) and switched its grift in the 2000s to AI when its first disaster fantasy didn’t work out. Yudkowsky raised money from Peter Thiel for his Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI), and started “LessWrong” a “Rationalist” community/cult that he systematically steered in the direction of proving his paranoid, incorrect theories were true. The founders and the entire lexicon of the current AI industry comes from LessWrong—AGI, ASI, RSI, alignment, etc. That’s why the current freakout about AI is about all the stuff Yudkowsky has been promoting for 25 years. The paranoia of an AI apocalypse is BAKED IN to the fabric of the industry. Trillions of dollars are being burned in a furnace because this one guy managed to convince people that a pile of numbers and linear algebra was actually a malevolent alien brain. When you throw an enormous amount of compute at a problem and it does something it’s not supposed to, that’s called a bug, it is not evidence that a chatbot wants to kill us. Please stop falling for this stuff. It’s always the same damn story.

Jim Stewartson, Decelerationist 🇨🇦🇺🇦🇺🇸

23,713 views • 21 days ago

#WATCH | On India's position in the West Asia conflict, former R&AW Chief Vikram Sood, in an interview with ANI, says, "Israel is our friend. We have close ties; we are dependent on them for a lot of things which relate to our security... But this attack on Iran and the assassination or murder of the prior leader tantamounts to murder and a state taking the law into its own hands. This is followed up by Americans joining in the same thing in an undeclared war against a country... We won't say that Israel is not our friend, but we will say that this killing was unfortunate and could have been avoided. There is no other position we can take. We are dependent on the Strait (of Hormuz), not on Iran... We didn't bring it upon ourselves, nor did Iran bring it upon us. It was brought upon us because of the attacks by the Israelis and the Americans." Watch full interview here:

#WATCH | On India's position in the West Asia conflict, former R&AW Chief Vikram Sood, in an interview with ANI, says, "Israel is our friend. We have close ties; we are dependent on them for a lot of things which relate to our security... But this attack on Iran and the assassination or murder of the prior leader tantamounts to murder and a state taking the law into its own hands. This is followed up by Americans joining in the same thing in an undeclared war against a country... We won't say that Israel is not our friend, but we will say that this killing was unfortunate and could have been avoided. There is no other position we can take. We are dependent on the Strait (of Hormuz), not on Iran... We didn't bring it upon ourselves, nor did Iran bring it upon us. It was brought upon us because of the attacks by the Israelis and the Americans." Watch full interview here:

ANI

85,019 views • 6 months ago

One reason I stay a bit quite about AI these few months. I can’t find my voice to say this right. I’ll try. — What has my AI found just in the millions of never saved TV from the 1980s-1990s? The simple commercial, I have the largest collection known in the world is a reflection of hyper nuanced humanity. Frail and over optimistic as it is, it shows the sprit of humanity in ways that self-hating 2010 Internet sewage training AI can not. It is interesting to have dark humor, when you know the soul of the person with the humor. It is not interesting to have dark humor from an AI that was not trained on the human spirit. The human sprit is not math, coding and science. This is the OUTCOME of a human sprit. We are training AI backwards and we just can’t see it yet, but we will. I am doing may best as “some posted on X” who has no currency in the “big boy” AI world to save the human sprit. We will need it one day and most of this training material is being erased, trillions of bytes daily. This is the secret to truthful AI. This is the secret to AI that LOVES humanity. We don’t get this right soon, there will be little chance. The data is… Almost gone.

One reason I stay a bit quite about AI these few months. I can’t find my voice to say this right. I’ll try. — What has my AI found just in the millions of never saved TV from the 1980s-1990s? The simple commercial, I have the largest collection known in the world is a reflection of hyper nuanced humanity. Frail and over optimistic as it is, it shows the sprit of humanity in ways that self-hating 2010 Internet sewage training AI can not. It is interesting to have dark humor, when you know the soul of the person with the humor. It is not interesting to have dark humor from an AI that was not trained on the human spirit. The human sprit is not math, coding and science. This is the OUTCOME of a human sprit. We are training AI backwards and we just can’t see it yet, but we will. I am doing may best as “some posted on X” who has no currency in the “big boy” AI world to save the human sprit. We will need it one day and most of this training material is being erased, trillions of bytes daily. This is the secret to truthful AI. This is the secret to AI that LOVES humanity. We don’t get this right soon, there will be little chance. The data is… Almost gone.

Brian Roemmele

123,518 views • 1 year ago

Ilya Sutskever, co-founder and chief scientist of OpenAI: "Artificial intelligence is nothing but digital brains inside large computers." Sit with how flatly he says it. Not a metaphor, not marketing. The seat of intelligence in a human is a biological brain. The seat of intelligence in AI is an artificial one. Same thing, different substrate. Right now, he admits, it only "understands mostly, sort of." But that gap is temporary. In his words: "the day will come when the digital brains that live inside our computers will become as good and even better than our own biological brains. Computers will become smarter than us." He makes it concrete. Once an AI is built to be a doctor, with every medical paper and billions of hours of clinical experience, always on and almost free, "we will look back at today's health care similarly to how we look at 16th century dentistry." Hinton says it already understands. Ilya says the brain is just built differently. Either way, the argument was never whether it thinks. It was whether we were ready for the answer.

Ilya Sutskever, co-founder and chief scientist of OpenAI: "Artificial intelligence is nothing but digital brains inside large computers." Sit with how flatly he says it. Not a metaphor, not marketing. The seat of intelligence in a human is a biological brain. The seat of intelligence in AI is an artificial one. Same thing, different substrate. Right now, he admits, it only "understands mostly, sort of." But that gap is temporary. In his words: "the day will come when the digital brains that live inside our computers will become as good and even better than our own biological brains. Computers will become smarter than us." He makes it concrete. Once an AI is built to be a doctor, with every medical paper and billions of hours of clinical experience, always on and almost free, "we will look back at today's health care similarly to how we look at 16th century dentistry." Hinton says it already understands. Ilya says the brain is just built differently. Either way, the argument was never whether it thinks. It was whether we were ready for the answer.

Casper

69,576 views • 2 months ago

🚨Former Israeli Acting President: ‘Trump needed a SHORT WAR, Netanyahu needed a LONG WAR against Iran. Netanyahu hasn’t profited A THING politically from this war on Iran!’ ‘This war with Iran was a competition between two end dates. Trump had to end it and to finish it before it has an impact on the midterm elections, and therefore it should have been a very short exercise or a manoeuvre. And Netanyahu has to extend it as long as possible because he wants to go into elections in a state of war, because Israelis, when there is a state of war, usually rally around the flag of the government and the flag of the prime minister. So the motivation of what is the role of the war for the internal politics was very different in American internal politics and the Israeli domestic one. It looks to me that, as for now, Netanyahu did not profit a thing politically, internally, from this campaign, maybe lost a lot. And the next elections will show that the Israelis are fed up with both his manipulation, his tricks, his shticks and his endurance. That’s, if you ask me, the very last couple of months of his.’ -Former Israeli Knesset Speaker and former Acting President of Israel Avraham Burg Watch the full interview in the quoted post below👇

🚨Former Israeli Acting President: ‘Trump needed a SHORT WAR, Netanyahu needed a LONG WAR against Iran. Netanyahu hasn’t profited A THING politically from this war on Iran!’ ‘This war with Iran was a competition between two end dates. Trump had to end it and to finish it before it has an impact on the midterm elections, and therefore it should have been a very short exercise or a manoeuvre. And Netanyahu has to extend it as long as possible because he wants to go into elections in a state of war, because Israelis, when there is a state of war, usually rally around the flag of the government and the flag of the prime minister. So the motivation of what is the role of the war for the internal politics was very different in American internal politics and the Israeli domestic one. It looks to me that, as for now, Netanyahu did not profit a thing politically, internally, from this campaign, maybe lost a lot. And the next elections will show that the Israelis are fed up with both his manipulation, his tricks, his shticks and his endurance. That’s, if you ask me, the very last couple of months of his.’ -Former Israeli Knesset Speaker and former Acting President of Israel Avraham Burg Watch the full interview in the quoted post below👇

Going Underground

33,850 views • 5 months ago

Finally. After 18 months of patience, FSD is officially approved and live in the Netherlands. I’ve been driving with it for 2 days now. And the experience is on another level. It feels like the future unfolding in real time. The precision. The intelligence. The confidence of the system. This is not incremental progress. This is a clear step forward in how mobility works. Huge thanks to Elon Musk and the entire AI team at Tesla. From a professional perspective, this shows what is possible when software, data, and real-world deployment come together at scale. The question is no longer if this will take over. The question is how fast it will expand. This is a turning point. Elon Musk

Finally. After 18 months of patience, FSD is officially approved and live in the Netherlands. I’ve been driving with it for 2 days now. And the experience is on another level. It feels like the future unfolding in real time. The precision. The intelligence. The confidence of the system. This is not incremental progress. This is a clear step forward in how mobility works. Huge thanks to Elon Musk and the entire AI team at Tesla. From a professional perspective, this shows what is possible when software, data, and real-world deployment come together at scale. The question is no longer if this will take over. The question is how fast it will expand. This is a turning point. Elon Musk

NL F$D Inside

25,132,506 views • 5 months ago

Elon Musk just dissolved 3,000 years of philosophy in four words on Lex Fridman’s podcast. “Might as well be human.” And it has nothing to do with machines. Musk: “It will soon be able to simulate what we consider consciousness. To a degree that you would not be able to tell the difference.” Think about what that actually means. Not for AI. For you. You have never once confirmed that another human being is conscious. Not your mother. Not your partner. Not your closest friend. You watched their behavior. You heard the right words at the right times. You saw expressions that matched the moment. And you called it real. That is a Turing test. You have been running one on every person you’ve ever known since the day you were born. And every single time, you passed them on faith. Fridman: “From the aspect of the scientific method, it’s might as well be consciousness, if we can simulate it perfectly.” Fridman is not making a claim about AI. He is naming something humanity has never confronted. Consciousness has never been proven between two human beings. We never verified it in each other. We performed it for each other. And then we trusted the performance. For millennia, we told ourselves our flaws were the proof. That our hesitations and contradictions were the signature of something no machine could touch. Musk: “Talks like a human, makes mistakes like a human… and you literally just can’t tell.” If a machine can perfectly simulate your imperfections, your imperfections were never sacred. They were patterns. The question was never whether AI will become conscious. The question is whether consciousness was ever anything more than the performance itself. We assumed something existed behind the behavior. That being human meant something deeper than the act of being human. Musk didn’t build a machine that passes the test. He revealed the test was all there ever was. Musk: “Might as well be human.” Four words that don’t elevate the machine. Four words that reveal “human” was never a proven category. Just a performance we agreed to believe.

Elon Musk just dissolved 3,000 years of philosophy in four words on Lex Fridman’s podcast. “Might as well be human.” And it has nothing to do with machines. Musk: “It will soon be able to simulate what we consider consciousness. To a degree that you would not be able to tell the difference.” Think about what that actually means. Not for AI. For you. You have never once confirmed that another human being is conscious. Not your mother. Not your partner. Not your closest friend. You watched their behavior. You heard the right words at the right times. You saw expressions that matched the moment. And you called it real. That is a Turing test. You have been running one on every person you’ve ever known since the day you were born. And every single time, you passed them on faith. Fridman: “From the aspect of the scientific method, it’s might as well be consciousness, if we can simulate it perfectly.” Fridman is not making a claim about AI. He is naming something humanity has never confronted. Consciousness has never been proven between two human beings. We never verified it in each other. We performed it for each other. And then we trusted the performance. For millennia, we told ourselves our flaws were the proof. That our hesitations and contradictions were the signature of something no machine could touch. Musk: “Talks like a human, makes mistakes like a human… and you literally just can’t tell.” If a machine can perfectly simulate your imperfections, your imperfections were never sacred. They were patterns. The question was never whether AI will become conscious. The question is whether consciousness was ever anything more than the performance itself. We assumed something existed behind the behavior. That being human meant something deeper than the act of being human. Musk didn’t build a machine that passes the test. He revealed the test was all there ever was. Musk: “Might as well be human.” Four words that don’t elevate the machine. Four words that reveal “human” was never a proven category. Just a performance we agreed to believe.

Dustin

51,628 views • 4 months ago

The exchange between Piers Morgan and Yuval Noah Harari reveals a chilling and deeply ideological vision for our future, straight from the mind of a leading WEF advisor. While acknowledging the potential dangers of AI in the hands of "rogue states," Harari's primary focus quickly shifted to a startlingly authoritarian fantasy. He lamented that historical dictators like Stalin were limited by a simple logistical problem: they didn't have enough human agents to monitor every citizen simultaneously. Harari then triumphantly declared that AI has now solved this problem for would-be tyrants. He explicitly stated that AI makes it possible to achieve the totalitarian dream of "following everybody and monitoring everybody all the time," eliminating the need for "millions of analysts" and "human agents." This is the stark revelation. An influential figure, celebrated by global elites, isn't just warning about AI—he is meticulously outlining how it can perfect the machinery of control. He frames it as a danger, yet his exposition reads like a blueprint. This is the intellectual framework being developed for the world's power brokers: the use of AI not to liberate, but to subjugate humanity on a scale previously unimaginable. The agenda is no longer hidden. It is being explained to us, calmly and clearly. The question is, are we listening?

The exchange between Piers Morgan and Yuval Noah Harari reveals a chilling and deeply ideological vision for our future, straight from the mind of a leading WEF advisor. While acknowledging the potential dangers of AI in the hands of "rogue states," Harari's primary focus quickly shifted to a startlingly authoritarian fantasy. He lamented that historical dictators like Stalin were limited by a simple logistical problem: they didn't have enough human agents to monitor every citizen simultaneously. Harari then triumphantly declared that AI has now solved this problem for would-be tyrants. He explicitly stated that AI makes it possible to achieve the totalitarian dream of "following everybody and monitoring everybody all the time," eliminating the need for "millions of analysts" and "human agents." This is the stark revelation. An influential figure, celebrated by global elites, isn't just warning about AI—he is meticulously outlining how it can perfect the machinery of control. He frames it as a danger, yet his exposition reads like a blueprint. This is the intellectual framework being developed for the world's power brokers: the use of AI not to liberate, but to subjugate humanity on a scale previously unimaginable. The agenda is no longer hidden. It is being explained to us, calmly and clearly. The question is, are we listening?

Camus

72,664 views • 1 year ago