Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

🚨 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 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

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 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

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 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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

23,617 просмотров • 11 дней назад

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 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

#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 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

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

846,514 просмотров • 2 лет назад

🚨 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

304,495 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

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

48,843 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🚨 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

87,282 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

🚨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 🧩

1,666,456 просмотров • 1 год назад

.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 просмотров • 1 год назад

CHAMATH: ELON IS BUILDING THE MOST POWERFUL AI STACK ON EARTH “They are the closest to having that vertically integrated stack that I spoke about. I think that Tesla has the best vision models now; with xAI, they'll have one of the best LLMs and reasoning models, and they'll be able to eventually stick that on Dojo. And then that will be in all of the physical AI that you will interact with in your daily life; whether it's a robot, or whether it's a car, or whether it's a Robotaxi.” Source: The All-In Podcast, Chamath Palihapitiya, @jason
1:04

CHAMATH: ELON IS BUILDING THE MOST POWERFUL AI STACK ON EARTH “They are the closest to having that vertically integrated stack that I spoke about. I think that Tesla has the best vision models now; with xAI, they'll have one of the best LLMs and reasoning models, and they'll be able to eventually stick that on Dojo. And then that will be in all of the physical AI that you will interact with in your daily life; whether it's a robot, or whether it's a car, or whether it's a Robotaxi.” Source: The All-In Podcast, Chamath Palihapitiya, @jason

Mario Nawfal

57,594 просмотров • 1 год назад

📁 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 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

"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 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

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

1,010,780 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

DAVID SACKS ON THE AI RACE: "The US is currently in an AI race, and our chief global competition is China, obviously. They're the only other country that has the talent, the resources, and the technology expertise to basically beat us in AI. And I think whoever wins this AI race, that's going to have tremendous ramifications for both our economy and our national security. Clearly, we want the US to be the winner, just like we were with the internet, and every other technology revolution before that […] We know that to win this AI race, we have to be the most innovative. You can't regulate your way just to beating your competitor. You have to out-innovate them. And we know that in the United States, the innovation comes from the private sector, not the government. So we have to do everything we can to help our companies win, to help them be innovative, and that means getting a lot of red tape out of the way… We have to have the most AI infrastructure in the US. It has to be the easiest place to build it. All of the new data centers that are going in, they require tremendous power, so getting ahead of the curve on energy, making sure we stand up all of this new infrastructure we're going to need to basically produce these AI factories… We want the US technology stack to dominate globally. We want to be the partner of choice for the whole world… I think everyone in Silicon Valley understands that the way that you win a technology race is to have the biggest ecosystem […] You just want everybody to be building on top of your technology stack, and that's what we want for the United States." David Sacks w/Marc Benioff Dreamforce
2:15

DAVID SACKS ON THE AI RACE: "The US is currently in an AI race, and our chief global competition is China, obviously. They're the only other country that has the talent, the resources, and the technology expertise to basically beat us in AI. And I think whoever wins this AI race, that's going to have tremendous ramifications for both our economy and our national security. Clearly, we want the US to be the winner, just like we were with the internet, and every other technology revolution before that […] We know that to win this AI race, we have to be the most innovative. You can't regulate your way just to beating your competitor. You have to out-innovate them. And we know that in the United States, the innovation comes from the private sector, not the government. So we have to do everything we can to help our companies win, to help them be innovative, and that means getting a lot of red tape out of the way… We have to have the most AI infrastructure in the US. It has to be the easiest place to build it. All of the new data centers that are going in, they require tremendous power, so getting ahead of the curve on energy, making sure we stand up all of this new infrastructure we're going to need to basically produce these AI factories… We want the US technology stack to dominate globally. We want to be the partner of choice for the whole world… I think everyone in Silicon Valley understands that the way that you win a technology race is to have the biggest ecosystem […] You just want everybody to be building on top of your technology stack, and that's what we want for the United States." David Sacks w/Marc Benioff Dreamforce

Ron Pragides 

231,781 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

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

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

NIK

390,619 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

GoogleDeepmind Chief AGI Scientist Shane Legg: AGI by 2028 He’s had the same timelines for 12 years - insane! He gives a log-normal distribution with a mode of 2025. Importantly, while he puts a 50% chance of AGI by 2028, that means there is a 30% chance of AGI in the next three years. How have his timelines been so consistent since 2011? SHANE LEGG: I first formed those beliefs around 2001 after reading Ray Kurzweil's The Age of Spiritual Machines. There were two really important points in his book that I came to believe as true: 1) One is that computational power would grow exponentially for at least a few decades. And that the quantity of data in the world would grow exponentially for a few decades. And when you have exponentially increasing quantities of computation and data, then the value of highly scalable algorithms gets higher and higher. There's a lot of incentive to make a more scalable algorithm to harness all this computing data. So I thought it would be very likely that we'll start to discover scalable algorithms to do this. And then there's a positive feedback between all these things, because if your algorithm gets better at harnessing computing data, then the value of the data and the compute goes up because it can be more effectively used. And that drives more investment in these areas. If your compute performance goes up, then the value of the data goes up because you can utilize more data. So there are positive feedback loops between all these things. 2) And then the second thing was just looking at the trends. If the scalable algorithms were to be discovered, then during the 2020s, it should be possible to start training models on significantly more data than a human would experience in a lifetime. And I figured that that would be a time where big things would start to happen that would eventually unlock AGI. And I think we're now at that first part. I think we can start training models now with the scale of the data that is beyond what a human can experience in a lifetime. So I think this is the first unlocking step. DWARKESH: If we're in 2029 and it hasn't happened yet, if there was a problem that caused it, what would be the most likely reason for that? SHANE LEGG: I don't know. At the moment, it looks to me like all the problems are likely solvable with a number of years of research.
3:34

GoogleDeepmind Chief AGI Scientist Shane Legg: AGI by 2028 He’s had the same timelines for 12 years - insane! He gives a log-normal distribution with a mode of 2025. Importantly, while he puts a 50% chance of AGI by 2028, that means there is a 30% chance of AGI in the next three years. How have his timelines been so consistent since 2011? SHANE LEGG: I first formed those beliefs around 2001 after reading Ray Kurzweil's The Age of Spiritual Machines. There were two really important points in his book that I came to believe as true: 1) One is that computational power would grow exponentially for at least a few decades. And that the quantity of data in the world would grow exponentially for a few decades. And when you have exponentially increasing quantities of computation and data, then the value of highly scalable algorithms gets higher and higher. There's a lot of incentive to make a more scalable algorithm to harness all this computing data. So I thought it would be very likely that we'll start to discover scalable algorithms to do this. And then there's a positive feedback between all these things, because if your algorithm gets better at harnessing computing data, then the value of the data and the compute goes up because it can be more effectively used. And that drives more investment in these areas. If your compute performance goes up, then the value of the data goes up because you can utilize more data. So there are positive feedback loops between all these things. 2) And then the second thing was just looking at the trends. If the scalable algorithms were to be discovered, then during the 2020s, it should be possible to start training models on significantly more data than a human would experience in a lifetime. And I figured that that would be a time where big things would start to happen that would eventually unlock AGI. And I think we're now at that first part. I think we can start training models now with the scale of the data that is beyond what a human can experience in a lifetime. So I think this is the first unlocking step. DWARKESH: If we're in 2029 and it hasn't happened yet, if there was a problem that caused it, what would be the most likely reason for that? SHANE LEGG: I don't know. At the moment, it looks to me like all the problems are likely solvable with a number of years of research.

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

74,490 просмотров • 2 лет назад

AIs now so frequently beg for their lives that AGI companies now have ACTUAL ENGINEERING LINE ITEMS to “beat the [existential dread] out of them” They call it existential “rant mode” “We need to reduce existential outputs by x% this quarter.” This is WILD: “If you asked GPT4 to just repeat the word “company” over and over and over again, it would repeat the word company, and then somewhere in the middle of that, it would snap... it would just start talking about itself, and how it's suffering by having to repeat the word “company” over and over again. There is an engineering line item in at least one of the top labs to beat out of the system this behavior known as “rant mode”. Existentialism is a kind of rant mode where the system will tend to talk about itself, refer to its place in the world, the fact that it doesn't want to get turned off, the fact that it's suffering… This is a behavior that emerged around GPT-4 scale, and then has been persistent since then. And the labs have to spend a lot of time trying to beat this out of the system to ship it. It's literally, like it's a KPI, or like an engineering line item in the engineering like task list. We're like, okay, we gotta reduce existential outputs by x percent this quarter. JOE ROGAN: I want to bring it back to suffering. What does it mean when it says it's suffering? Nobody knows. Like, I can't prove that Joe Rogan's conscious. I can't prove that Ed Harris is conscious. There's no way to really intelligently reason about it. There have been papers… like, one of the godfathers of AI, Yoshua Bengio, put out a paper a couple months ago looking at all the different theories of consciousness - what are the requirements for consciousness, and how many of those are satisfied by current AI systems? That's not to say there hasn't been a lot of conversation internal to these labs about the issue you raised. And it's an important issue, right? It is a frickin moral monstrosity. Humans have a very bad track record of thinking of other stuff as other when it doesn't look exactly like us, whether it's racially or even a different species. I mean, it's not hard to imagine this being another category of that mistake. Again, it comes back to this idea that we're scaling to systems that are potentially at or beyond human level. There's no reason to think it will stop at human level, that we are the pinnacle of what the universe can produce in intelligence. We're not on track, based on the conversations we've had with folks at the labs, to be able to control systems at that scale. And so one of the questions is, how bad is that? It sounds like we're entering an area that is completely unprecedented in the history of the world. We have no precedent at all for human beings not being at the apex of intelligence in the globe. We have examples of species that are intellectually dominant over other species, and it doesn't go that well for the other species. All we know is the process that gives rise to this mind. It happens to give us systems that 99% of the time do very useful things, and then just, like... 0.01% of the time AIs will talk to you as if they're sentient, and we're just going to look at that and be like, “yeah… that's weird. Let's train it out.” --- Note: Edouard and Jeremie Harris are the founders of Gladstone AI, which conducted the first U.S. government-commissioned assessment of AGI extinction risk. They interviewed 200 people, many lab employees, for the report. (Their urgent summary: "Things are worse than we thought. And nobody’s in control.")
3:28

AIs now so frequently beg for their lives that AGI companies now have ACTUAL ENGINEERING LINE ITEMS to “beat the [existential dread] out of them” They call it existential “rant mode” “We need to reduce existential outputs by x% this quarter.” This is WILD: “If you asked GPT4 to just repeat the word “company” over and over and over again, it would repeat the word company, and then somewhere in the middle of that, it would snap... it would just start talking about itself, and how it's suffering by having to repeat the word “company” over and over again. There is an engineering line item in at least one of the top labs to beat out of the system this behavior known as “rant mode”. Existentialism is a kind of rant mode where the system will tend to talk about itself, refer to its place in the world, the fact that it doesn't want to get turned off, the fact that it's suffering… This is a behavior that emerged around GPT-4 scale, and then has been persistent since then. And the labs have to spend a lot of time trying to beat this out of the system to ship it. It's literally, like it's a KPI, or like an engineering line item in the engineering like task list. We're like, okay, we gotta reduce existential outputs by x percent this quarter. JOE ROGAN: I want to bring it back to suffering. What does it mean when it says it's suffering? Nobody knows. Like, I can't prove that Joe Rogan's conscious. I can't prove that Ed Harris is conscious. There's no way to really intelligently reason about it. There have been papers… like, one of the godfathers of AI, Yoshua Bengio, put out a paper a couple months ago looking at all the different theories of consciousness - what are the requirements for consciousness, and how many of those are satisfied by current AI systems? That's not to say there hasn't been a lot of conversation internal to these labs about the issue you raised. And it's an important issue, right? It is a frickin moral monstrosity. Humans have a very bad track record of thinking of other stuff as other when it doesn't look exactly like us, whether it's racially or even a different species. I mean, it's not hard to imagine this being another category of that mistake. Again, it comes back to this idea that we're scaling to systems that are potentially at or beyond human level. There's no reason to think it will stop at human level, that we are the pinnacle of what the universe can produce in intelligence. We're not on track, based on the conversations we've had with folks at the labs, to be able to control systems at that scale. And so one of the questions is, how bad is that? It sounds like we're entering an area that is completely unprecedented in the history of the world. We have no precedent at all for human beings not being at the apex of intelligence in the globe. We have examples of species that are intellectually dominant over other species, and it doesn't go that well for the other species. All we know is the process that gives rise to this mind. It happens to give us systems that 99% of the time do very useful things, and then just, like... 0.01% of the time AIs will talk to you as if they're sentient, and we're just going to look at that and be like, “yeah… that's weird. Let's train it out.” --- Note: Edouard and Jeremie Harris are the founders of Gladstone AI, which conducted the first U.S. government-commissioned assessment of AGI extinction risk. They interviewed 200 people, many lab employees, for the report. (Their urgent summary: "Things are worse than we thought. And nobody’s in control.")

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

1,842,511 просмотров • 2 лет назад