Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

🚨 FRANCOIS CHOLLET SAYS THE CURRENT LLM STACK IS THE WRONG PATH TO AGI Interviewer: “When will we accomplish the first definition of AGI?” Chollet confirms we are already on that exact trajectory, pointing out that: "Current technology can fully automate at human level or beyond any domain where...

chatgpt21's profile picture

Chris

40,729 subscribers

15,578 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Leopold explains his approach to not blowing up (2024) "Obviously, not blowing up is task number one and two or whatever. I think this investment firm is going to just be betting on AGI and superintelligence before the decade is out, making the bets you would make if you took that seriously." "I think if that's wrong, the firm is not going to do that well." "The thing you have to be able to resist is, you know, one or a couple or a few individual calls. It's like AI stagnates for a year because of the data wall, or you got the call wrong on when revenue would go up." "You have to get timing right. I do think in general that the sequence of bets on the way to AGI is actually pretty critical, and something people underrate."
0:42

Leopold explains his approach to not blowing up (2024) "Obviously, not blowing up is task number one and two or whatever. I think this investment firm is going to just be betting on AGI and superintelligence before the decade is out, making the bets you would make if you took that seriously." "I think if that's wrong, the firm is not going to do that well." "The thing you have to be able to resist is, you know, one or a couple or a few individual calls. It's like AI stagnates for a year because of the data wall, or you got the call wrong on when revenue would go up." "You have to get timing right. I do think in general that the sequence of bets on the way to AGI is actually pretty critical, and something people underrate."

dnap

2,331,686 views • 1 month ago

By now, it seems that Yann Lecun is the only one who does not believe in the future of LLMs to the extent that they will reach AGI. "At what point do we need a new architecture How do you think about what breakthroughs are needed?" Sam: "I think far enough that we can make something that will figure out the next breakthrough with the current technology."
0:32

By now, it seems that Yann Lecun is the only one who does not believe in the future of LLMs to the extent that they will reach AGI. "At what point do we need a new architecture How do you think about what breakthroughs are needed?" Sam: "I think far enough that we can make something that will figure out the next breakthrough with the current technology."

Chubby♨️

103,967 views • 11 months ago

Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI co-founder, on why the company that builds AGI shouldn't be chasing infinite profits: Speaking on the No Priors podcast, Ilya Sutskever turns a question on the very technology he's working to build. "If you believe that the technology that we are building, AGI, could potentially be so capable as to do every single task that people do... does it mean that it might unemploy everyone? Well, I don't know, but it's not impossible." From that possibility, Ilya Sutskever draws a conclusion about how such a company should be structured: "And if that's the case, it makes sense. It will make a lot of sense if the company that builds such a technology would not be incentivized to make infinite profits." But he doesn't present this as a settled view. He immediately points to the force that complicates it — competition: "I don't know if it will literally play out this way because of competition in AI. So there will be multiple companies and I think that will have some unforeseen implications on the argument which I'm making. But that was the thinking." His point is simple: if AGI can do everything a person can, it might put people out of work on a massive scale, and that changes things.
0:40

Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI co-founder, on why the company that builds AGI shouldn't be chasing infinite profits: Speaking on the No Priors podcast, Ilya Sutskever turns a question on the very technology he's working to build. "If you believe that the technology that we are building, AGI, could potentially be so capable as to do every single task that people do... does it mean that it might unemploy everyone? Well, I don't know, but it's not impossible." From that possibility, Ilya Sutskever draws a conclusion about how such a company should be structured: "And if that's the case, it makes sense. It will make a lot of sense if the company that builds such a technology would not be incentivized to make infinite profits." But he doesn't present this as a settled view. He immediately points to the force that complicates it — competition: "I don't know if it will literally play out this way because of competition in AI. So there will be multiple companies and I think that will have some unforeseen implications on the argument which I'm making. But that was the thinking." His point is simple: if AGI can do everything a person can, it might put people out of work on a massive scale, and that changes things.

Big Brain AI

13,398 views • 3 months ago

John Carmack: The code for AGI could conceivably be written by one individual After stepping down as CTO of Meta’s Oculus VR, legendary programmer John Carmack was trying to decide if he would work on nuclear fission or artificial general intelligence (AGI). He ultimately chose AGI. “I think [fission] is possible,” John says. “Somebody should be doing this, but it’s going to involve some politics, decent-sized teams, and a bunch of cross-functional stuff that I don’t love. While artificial general intelligence seems to me like the highest-leverage moment for a single individual potentially in the history of the world.” He explains: “With the things we know about the brain and what we can do with artificial intelligence . . . I’m not a madman for saying that it is likely that the code for artificial general intelligence is going to be tens of thousands of lines of code — not millions of lines of code.” He continues: “This is code that conceivably one individual could write, unlike writing a new web browser or operating system. And based on the progress that machine learning has made in the recent decade, it’s likely that the important things that we don’t know are relatively simple. There’s probably a handful of things — my bet is there’s less than six key insights — that need to be made. Each one of them can probably be written on the back of an envelope. We don’t know what they are, but when they’re put together in concert with GPUs at scale and the data that we all have access to, we can make something that behaves like a human being or living creature and that can then be educated in whatever ways we need to get to the point where we can have universal remote workers where anything that somebody does mediated by a computer, that doesn’t require physical interaction, an AGI will be able to do.” Carmack does not think this will be “unapproachably hard”: “That’s incredibly hubristic to say, but what I said a couple of years ago was that there’s a 50% chance that somewhere there will be signs of life of an AGI in 2030, and I’ve probably increased that slightly — maybe 55-60% now because I do think there’s a little sense of acceleration.” Source: Lex Fridman (Aug 2022)
3:10

John Carmack: The code for AGI could conceivably be written by one individual After stepping down as CTO of Meta’s Oculus VR, legendary programmer John Carmack was trying to decide if he would work on nuclear fission or artificial general intelligence (AGI). He ultimately chose AGI. “I think [fission] is possible,” John says. “Somebody should be doing this, but it’s going to involve some politics, decent-sized teams, and a bunch of cross-functional stuff that I don’t love. While artificial general intelligence seems to me like the highest-leverage moment for a single individual potentially in the history of the world.” He explains: “With the things we know about the brain and what we can do with artificial intelligence . . . I’m not a madman for saying that it is likely that the code for artificial general intelligence is going to be tens of thousands of lines of code — not millions of lines of code.” He continues: “This is code that conceivably one individual could write, unlike writing a new web browser or operating system. And based on the progress that machine learning has made in the recent decade, it’s likely that the important things that we don’t know are relatively simple. There’s probably a handful of things — my bet is there’s less than six key insights — that need to be made. Each one of them can probably be written on the back of an envelope. We don’t know what they are, but when they’re put together in concert with GPUs at scale and the data that we all have access to, we can make something that behaves like a human being or living creature and that can then be educated in whatever ways we need to get to the point where we can have universal remote workers where anything that somebody does mediated by a computer, that doesn’t require physical interaction, an AGI will be able to do.” Carmack does not think this will be “unapproachably hard”: “That’s incredibly hubristic to say, but what I said a couple of years ago was that there’s a 50% chance that somewhere there will be signs of life of an AGI in 2030, and I’ve probably increased that slightly — maybe 55-60% now because I do think there’s a little sense of acceleration.” Source: Lex Fridman (Aug 2022)

Startup Archive

23,720 views • 1 month ago

John Carmack: The code for AGI could conceivably be written by one individual After stepping down as CTO of Meta’s Oculus VR, legendary programmer John Carmack was trying to decide if he would work on nuclear fission or artificial general intelligence (AGI). He ultimately chose AGI. “I think [fission] is possible,” John says. “Somebody should be doing this, but it’s going to involve some politics, decent-sized teams, and a bunch of cross-functional stuff that I don’t love. While artificial general intelligence seems to me like the highest-leverage moment for a single individual potentially in the history of the world.” He explains: “With the things we know about the brain and what we can do with artificial intelligence . . . I’m not a madman for saying that it is likely that the code for artificial general intelligence is going to be tens of thousands of lines of code — not millions of lines of code.” He continues: “This is code that conceivably one individual could write, unlike writing a new web browser or operating system. And based on the progress that machine learning has made in the recent decade, it’s likely that the important things that we don’t know are relatively simple. There’s probably a handful of things — my bet is there’s less than six key insights — that need to be made. Each one of them can probably be written on the back of an envelope. We don’t know what they are, but when they’re put together in concert with GPUs at scale and the data that we all have access to, we can make something that behaves like a human being or living creature and that can then be educated in whatever ways we need to get to the point where we can have universal remote workers where anything that somebody does mediated by a computer, that doesn’t require physical interaction, an AGI will be able to do.” Carmack does not think this will be “unapproachably hard”: “That’s incredibly hubristic to say, but what I said a couple of years ago was that there’s a 50% chance that somewhere there will be signs of life of an AGI in 2030, and I’ve probably increased that slightly — maybe 55-60% now because I do think there’s a little sense of acceleration.” Video source: Lex Fridman (2022)
3:10

John Carmack: The code for AGI could conceivably be written by one individual After stepping down as CTO of Meta’s Oculus VR, legendary programmer John Carmack was trying to decide if he would work on nuclear fission or artificial general intelligence (AGI). He ultimately chose AGI. “I think [fission] is possible,” John says. “Somebody should be doing this, but it’s going to involve some politics, decent-sized teams, and a bunch of cross-functional stuff that I don’t love. While artificial general intelligence seems to me like the highest-leverage moment for a single individual potentially in the history of the world.” He explains: “With the things we know about the brain and what we can do with artificial intelligence . . . I’m not a madman for saying that it is likely that the code for artificial general intelligence is going to be tens of thousands of lines of code — not millions of lines of code.” He continues: “This is code that conceivably one individual could write, unlike writing a new web browser or operating system. And based on the progress that machine learning has made in the recent decade, it’s likely that the important things that we don’t know are relatively simple. There’s probably a handful of things — my bet is there’s less than six key insights — that need to be made. Each one of them can probably be written on the back of an envelope. We don’t know what they are, but when they’re put together in concert with GPUs at scale and the data that we all have access to, we can make something that behaves like a human being or living creature and that can then be educated in whatever ways we need to get to the point where we can have universal remote workers where anything that somebody does mediated by a computer, that doesn’t require physical interaction, an AGI will be able to do.” Carmack does not think this will be “unapproachably hard”: “That’s incredibly hubristic to say, but what I said a couple of years ago was that there’s a 50% chance that somewhere there will be signs of life of an AGI in 2030, and I’ve probably increased that slightly — maybe 55-60% now because I do think there’s a little sense of acceleration.” Video source: Lex Fridman (2022)

Startup Archive

41,429 views • 8 months ago

#WATCH | India AI Impact Summit 2026 | Delhi: Founder Chairman and CEO of Sampark Foundation & former CEO of HCL Technologies, Vineet Nayar says, "...From an employment point of view I think it is very important for us to understand that Indian companies, including Indian IT companies, are going to be profit-driven and therefore if you believe that they are going to create employment you must be dreaming. Therefore, the question is how do we create employment in this environment, and that employment comes from mass scale startups, which is what this government has already doing. So, how do we create new sets of people who are trying to solve new sets of problems not new sets of technology and if we do that we will get it right. I think we as Indians have to be very careful on who does data belong to and that is the debate we have a problem with. The LLM models which exist worldwide are far superior than the Indian models. Unfortunately, in India, we never develop products, so therefore we do not have SLMs and LLMs which are world-class. On one side, we have global LLM products which are coming to India and trading on our Indian data. Should we allowed that or should we not allowed that? But on the other side if we don't allow that then we have the data but we don't have the LLM models. So, how do we encourage technology completely to develop the LLM models. This needs radicals strategic thinking and a very important aspect otherwise we will either give up a data. So, I think it's a very critical aspect for us to think about - who does this data belong, what is the kind of incentives we are going to give to develop LLM technologies or SLM technologies fast so that we train on our data otherwise an LLM will come in with our data and we'll immediately see return and we'll celebrate and we will do all these kind of press releases but the India will lose a competitive advantage on something which is very critical for the next decade."
5:37

#WATCH | India AI Impact Summit 2026 | Delhi: Founder Chairman and CEO of Sampark Foundation & former CEO of HCL Technologies, Vineet Nayar says, "...From an employment point of view I think it is very important for us to understand that Indian companies, including Indian IT companies, are going to be profit-driven and therefore if you believe that they are going to create employment you must be dreaming. Therefore, the question is how do we create employment in this environment, and that employment comes from mass scale startups, which is what this government has already doing. So, how do we create new sets of people who are trying to solve new sets of problems not new sets of technology and if we do that we will get it right. I think we as Indians have to be very careful on who does data belong to and that is the debate we have a problem with. The LLM models which exist worldwide are far superior than the Indian models. Unfortunately, in India, we never develop products, so therefore we do not have SLMs and LLMs which are world-class. On one side, we have global LLM products which are coming to India and trading on our Indian data. Should we allowed that or should we not allowed that? But on the other side if we don't allow that then we have the data but we don't have the LLM models. So, how do we encourage technology completely to develop the LLM models. This needs radicals strategic thinking and a very important aspect otherwise we will either give up a data. So, I think it's a very critical aspect for us to think about - who does this data belong, what is the kind of incentives we are going to give to develop LLM technologies or SLM technologies fast so that we train on our data otherwise an LLM will come in with our data and we'll immediately see return and we'll celebrate and we will do all these kind of press releases but the India will lose a competitive advantage on something which is very critical for the next decade."

ANI

18,753 views • 6 months ago

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

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

Jim Fan

846,609 views • 2 years ago

🚨 JUST IN: Senate Leader John Thune says he will FORCE a vote on the SAVE America Act, but he can NOT guarantee it will pass because that needs 60 votes "That debate will happen. But like I said, I can guarantee the debate. I can guarantee a vote. I just can't guarantee an outcome." "There are a lot of optimistic views about what Democrats may or may not do. We all know, because we deal with them every day, that the Democrats are not all of a sudden going to decide that this is something they want to be for." "I think you have a lot of optimists out there, and I appreciate that, and a lot of passion and energy behind getting an outcome here." "But getting an outcome would require Democrat votes." "And, you know, we'll give them a chance. Like I said, they'll have that opportunity to vote one way or the other on this. But I would be very, very surprised."
1:03

🚨 JUST IN: Senate Leader John Thune says he will FORCE a vote on the SAVE America Act, but he can NOT guarantee it will pass because that needs 60 votes "That debate will happen. But like I said, I can guarantee the debate. I can guarantee a vote. I just can't guarantee an outcome." "There are a lot of optimistic views about what Democrats may or may not do. We all know, because we deal with them every day, that the Democrats are not all of a sudden going to decide that this is something they want to be for." "I think you have a lot of optimists out there, and I appreciate that, and a lot of passion and energy behind getting an outcome here." "But getting an outcome would require Democrat votes." "And, you know, we'll give them a chance. Like I said, they'll have that opportunity to vote one way or the other on this. But I would be very, very surprised."

Eric Daugherty

304,559 views • 5 months ago

Demis Hassabis: "Ten years from now, I think we will realize that we were standing in the foothills of the singularity now... I believe that we're only a few years away from [AGI], maybe 2030 plus or minus a year... I think [AGI] will be an enormous transformative technology, it's going to effectively be a new human era... We can feel this year, I would say, even though I've been working towards this for 30 years, I think this year with the way the agents are working and tool use, it started to become really useful, still early days of it, but genuinely useful in people's workflows... And it's not any one thing, it's several different technologies, several use cases, several things that I thought were maybe a bit further out, turned out to be now, that are coming together that make me feel that in aggregate. I think society needs to hear that because we don't have long to prepare for what that means."
1:40

Demis Hassabis: "Ten years from now, I think we will realize that we were standing in the foothills of the singularity now... I believe that we're only a few years away from [AGI], maybe 2030 plus or minus a year... I think [AGI] will be an enormous transformative technology, it's going to effectively be a new human era... We can feel this year, I would say, even though I've been working towards this for 30 years, I think this year with the way the agents are working and tool use, it started to become really useful, still early days of it, but genuinely useful in people's workflows... And it's not any one thing, it's several different technologies, several use cases, several things that I thought were maybe a bit further out, turned out to be now, that are coming together that make me feel that in aggregate. I think society needs to hear that because we don't have long to prepare for what that means."

prinz

49,368 views • 3 months ago

🚨 OPENAI PRESIDENT GREG BROCKMAN ON WHEN WE HIT AGI 🚨 Greg Brockman was asked if he agrees with NVIDIA's CEO that AGI is already here. His answer? Not quite yet, as people may know I definitely agree and align with Sam and Demi’s that we are 2 breakthroughs away but we are entering the final stretch. Here is exactly where Greg believes we stand right now: The Percentage: "I'd say I'm basically like 70, 80% there. So I think we're quite close." • The Official Timeline: "I think it's extremely clear that we are going to have AGI within the next couple years." The Concept of "Jagged Intelligence": Brockman admits we are currently sitting in a weird middle ground where AI is "jagged"—it is already operating at an AGI level for highly complex tasks, but still fails at random, basic things. "It is absolutely superhuman at many tasks. When it comes to writing code those kinds of things, the AI can just do it... But there's some very basic tasks that a human can do that our AI still struggle with." How Do We Close the Final 20%? To hit full AGI, the absolute floor of the models' reliability needs to be raised across the board. "The floor of task will just be almost for any intellectual task of how you use your computer, the AI will be able to do that."
0:42

🚨 OPENAI PRESIDENT GREG BROCKMAN ON WHEN WE HIT AGI 🚨 Greg Brockman was asked if he agrees with NVIDIA's CEO that AGI is already here. His answer? Not quite yet, as people may know I definitely agree and align with Sam and Demi’s that we are 2 breakthroughs away but we are entering the final stretch. Here is exactly where Greg believes we stand right now: The Percentage: "I'd say I'm basically like 70, 80% there. So I think we're quite close." • The Official Timeline: "I think it's extremely clear that we are going to have AGI within the next couple years." The Concept of "Jagged Intelligence": Brockman admits we are currently sitting in a weird middle ground where AI is "jagged"—it is already operating at an AGI level for highly complex tasks, but still fails at random, basic things. "It is absolutely superhuman at many tasks. When it comes to writing code those kinds of things, the AI can just do it... But there's some very basic tasks that a human can do that our AI still struggle with." How Do We Close the Final 20%? To hit full AGI, the absolute floor of the models' reliability needs to be raised across the board. "The floor of task will just be almost for any intellectual task of how you use your computer, the AI will be able to do that."

Chris

87,339 views • 5 months ago

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

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

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

27,551 views • 2 years ago

🚨ZUCK: "Probably in 2025, Meta, as well as other companies, will have an AI that can effectively be a mid-level engineer that you have at your company that can write code. In the beginning that will be very expensive to run, then at some point a lot of the code we have in our apps will be built by AI engineers instead of people engineers. In my opinion that will augment the people working on it. My view is that in the future people will be so much more creative and freed up to do crazy things."
1:02

🚨ZUCK: "Probably in 2025, Meta, as well as other companies, will have an AI that can effectively be a mid-level engineer that you have at your company that can write code. In the beginning that will be very expensive to run, then at some point a lot of the code we have in our apps will be built by AI engineers instead of people engineers. In my opinion that will augment the people working on it. My view is that in the future people will be so much more creative and freed up to do crazy things."

Autism Capital 🧩

1,666,526 views • 1 year ago

.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

72,475 views • 1 year ago

📁 Sam Altman says that: “ChatGPT is, I think, the fifth biggest website in the world now. If it stays on its current trajectory, it will be the biggest website in the world.” “There will be billions of people using free AGI at some point. Everyone will have access to great medical advice, to great education, and the ability to ask for any software to be made for free.” “Technology on the whole does a lot to spread massive global benefit, the story of the last couple of hundred years has been that, and we should not be ashamed of it.”
2:08

📁 Sam Altman says that: “ChatGPT is, I think, the fifth biggest website in the world now. If it stays on its current trajectory, it will be the biggest website in the world.” “There will be billions of people using free AGI at some point. Everyone will have access to great medical advice, to great education, and the ability to ask for any software to be made for free.” “Technology on the whole does a lot to spread massive global benefit, the story of the last couple of hundred years has been that, and we should not be ashamed of it.”

Jon Hernandez

226,732 views • 1 year ago

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

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

X Freeze

29,610 views • 23 days ago

MIT PhD student Alex Zhang admits current AI models might already be AGI with the right harness around them: "To an extent, the answer is kind of yes. The strongest thing I can say is that we can do a lot more with the current models that we have." "Whether that means actually automating things, I'm not actually sure, but one of the obvious things that we find with even harnesses outside of Prime Agent is that harnesses can greatly increase the capabilities and generalization of models." "There's a lot of cases where we think models can't be used or they can't be applied for these settings, but the likely answer is that this actually isn't true. You probably can apply a model to the setting if you have the right harness." alex zhang Seth Karten Prime Intellect
1:44

MIT PhD student Alex Zhang admits current AI models might already be AGI with the right harness around them: "To an extent, the answer is kind of yes. The strongest thing I can say is that we can do a lot more with the current models that we have." "Whether that means actually automating things, I'm not actually sure, but one of the obvious things that we find with even harnesses outside of Prime Agent is that harnesses can greatly increase the capabilities and generalization of models." "There's a lot of cases where we think models can't be used or they can't be applied for these settings, but the likely answer is that this actually isn't true. You probably can apply a model to the setting if you have the right harness." alex zhang Seth Karten Prime Intellect

MTS

28,436 views • 29 days ago

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."
1:12

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."

Patrick OShaughnessy

24,818 views • 7 months ago

Elon Musk on the importance of establishing the right values ​​in AGI: “I don't think anyone's ultimately going to have control over digital superintelligence any more than, say, a chimp would have control over humans. Like chimps don't have control over humans. There's nothing they could do. But I do think that it matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you instill in the AI. And my opinion on AI safety is, the most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking, like that you don't force the AI to believe things that are false.”
0:41

Elon Musk on the importance of establishing the right values ​​in AGI: “I don't think anyone's ultimately going to have control over digital superintelligence any more than, say, a chimp would have control over humans. Like chimps don't have control over humans. There's nothing they could do. But I do think that it matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you instill in the AI. And my opinion on AI safety is, the most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking, like that you don't force the AI to believe things that are false.”

Eva Fo𝕏 🦊 Claudius Nero's Legion

1,010,874 views • 9 months ago