Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Gary Marcus: one of the most dangerous AI scenarios doesn’t require superintelligence at all. It requires one machine being confidently wrong at exactly the wrong moment. Marcus points to a recent intelligence report that allegedly misidentified a ship and risked escalating tensions with China. “We’re rolling the dice here... show more

Mario Nawfal

3,937,178 subscribers

29,250 görüntüleme • 3 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & Politika Bilim & Teknoloji

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

6 Yorum

beli profil fotoğrafı

beli3 gün önce

AI does not need to be superintelligent to become dangerous. In high-stakes systems, a confident error plus a human who trusts it can already be enough to create serious consequences.

SLEPE profil fotoğrafı

SLEPE3 gün önce

the machine hallucinated once, the species was already doing it for decades.

The SI Maximalist profil fotoğrafı

The SI Maximalist3 gün önce

Confidence hides errors until they matter. Test models on edge cases not in their training data to see how often that confident wrong answer appears

2d78de0206e77f658331e92d4efe 338545ebec3ed37f92766 profil fotoğrafı

2d78de0206e77f658331e92d4efe 338545ebec3ed37f927663 gün önce

It's like when Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper wanted war with the Soviets during in Dr. Strangelove. Maybe it wants Global Thermonuclear War, like in War Games. Not that the software has volition, or anything. But it's funny to think about.

ARIGATO profil fotoğrafı

ARIGATO3 gün önce

its the confidently wrong part that gets everyone every time

Unbeatable Mindset profil fotoğrafı

Unbeatable Mindset3 gün önce

Exactly. The scary part isn’t AI becoming evil—it’s AI being confidently wrong while humans treat its answer as truth.

Benzer Videolar

🇺🇸 AI probably won’t wipe out humanity. The real danger may be much closer. Gary Marcus thinks the AI debate is obsessing over the wrong nightmare. He puts the probability of AI-driven human extinction in the next several years at “very close to zero.” But that does not make him relaxed about AI. Marcus separates the risk into three categories: P-Doom, extinction; P-Catastrophe, events capable of killing huge numbers of people; and P-Dystopia, the gradual destruction of privacy, reliable information and democratic institutions. “Don’t panic about P-Doom, but worry a lot about P-Catastrophe and P-Dystopia.” The catastrophe scenario is disturbingly mundane. An AI hallucination contaminates an intelligence report. A military acts on false information. An automated system disrupts an electrical grid. A malicious actor uses cheap AI agents to manufacture propaganda or trigger a crisis. Marcus says an AI-generated intelligence error has already brought the world uncomfortably close to a military confrontation. “We’re rolling the dice here as a species.” And then there is dystopia. Marcus worries AI companies are accumulating enormous quantities of private information while governments and corporations gain increasingly powerful tools for shaping what people see and believe. His argument is almost the reverse of the usual AI apocalypse story. The machines do not need to become superintelligent and exterminate us. AI can remain flawed, unreliable and very human-controlled, and still become extraordinarily dangerous. Gary Marcus

🇺🇸 AI probably won’t wipe out humanity. The real danger may be much closer. Gary Marcus thinks the AI debate is obsessing over the wrong nightmare. He puts the probability of AI-driven human extinction in the next several years at “very close to zero.” But that does not make him relaxed about AI. Marcus separates the risk into three categories: P-Doom, extinction; P-Catastrophe, events capable of killing huge numbers of people; and P-Dystopia, the gradual destruction of privacy, reliable information and democratic institutions. “Don’t panic about P-Doom, but worry a lot about P-Catastrophe and P-Dystopia.” The catastrophe scenario is disturbingly mundane. An AI hallucination contaminates an intelligence report. A military acts on false information. An automated system disrupts an electrical grid. A malicious actor uses cheap AI agents to manufacture propaganda or trigger a crisis. Marcus says an AI-generated intelligence error has already brought the world uncomfortably close to a military confrontation. “We’re rolling the dice here as a species.” And then there is dystopia. Marcus worries AI companies are accumulating enormous quantities of private information while governments and corporations gain increasingly powerful tools for shaping what people see and believe. His argument is almost the reverse of the usual AI apocalypse story. The machines do not need to become superintelligent and exterminate us. AI can remain flawed, unreliable and very human-controlled, and still become extraordinarily dangerous. Gary Marcus

Mario Nawfal

250,093 görüntüleme • 3 gün önce

Gary Marcus thinks we may be worrying about the wrong AI apocalypse. He separates the risk into 3 buckets: extinction, catastrophe and dystopia. Extinction, he thinks, is unlikely. “Don’t panic about P-doom, but worry a lot about P-catastrophe and P-dystopia.” Marcus fears something much less cinematic than superintelligence suddenly deciding to kill us. A world flooded with AI-generated information we can no longer reliably distinguish from reality, while increasingly intimate details of our lives accumulate inside AI systems. The danger isn’t necessarily that the machines take over, but that we quietly build the dystopia ourselves. Gary Marcus

Gary Marcus thinks we may be worrying about the wrong AI apocalypse. He separates the risk into 3 buckets: extinction, catastrophe and dystopia. Extinction, he thinks, is unlikely. “Don’t panic about P-doom, but worry a lot about P-catastrophe and P-dystopia.” Marcus fears something much less cinematic than superintelligence suddenly deciding to kill us. A world flooded with AI-generated information we can no longer reliably distinguish from reality, while increasingly intimate details of our lives accumulate inside AI systems. The danger isn’t necessarily that the machines take over, but that we quietly build the dystopia ourselves. Gary Marcus

Mario Nawfal

45,654 görüntüleme • 3 gün önce

OpenGradient is the Network for Open Intelligence. We believe that private AI requires: a prompt no operator can read, an identity no one can tie to it, proof in place of trust, and a guarantee that holds even against the people running it — us included.

OpenGradient is the Network for Open Intelligence. We believe that private AI requires: a prompt no operator can read, an identity no one can tie to it, proof in place of trust, and a guarantee that holds even against the people running it — us included.

OpenGradient (∇, ∇)

1,182,147 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Gary Marcus has a pretty obvious question for the people building the world’s most powerful AI systems. If you genuinely believe there’s a meaningful chance this technology could annihilate humanity, why are you racing to build it? “If they think that there’s a 10% chance of annihilating humanity... why the hell are they messing around with this stuff?” Marcus also rejects the comforting assumption that sufficiently advanced AI will somehow become perfectly reliable. We have never built complicated technology that simply stops failing once it becomes complicated enough. And now we’re betting that AI will be the exception. Gary Marcus

Gary Marcus has a pretty obvious question for the people building the world’s most powerful AI systems. If you genuinely believe there’s a meaningful chance this technology could annihilate humanity, why are you racing to build it? “If they think that there’s a 10% chance of annihilating humanity... why the hell are they messing around with this stuff?” Marcus also rejects the comforting assumption that sufficiently advanced AI will somehow become perfectly reliable. We have never built complicated technology that simply stops failing once it becomes complicated enough. And now we’re betting that AI will be the exception. Gary Marcus

Mario Nawfal

20,148 görüntüleme • 3 gün önce

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

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

Dustin

9,674,179 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

🚨🤖🧖‍♂️ Breaking: Man and Machine can finally become one. With a neuralink brain chip, an upgraded-human can both interface with an Optimus humanoid robot and physiologically synchronize with it, to become ‘one’ with it.. The post-human era is finally here.

🚨🤖🧖‍♂️ Breaking: Man and Machine can finally become one. With a neuralink brain chip, an upgraded-human can both interface with an Optimus humanoid robot and physiologically synchronize with it, to become ‘one’ with it.. The post-human era is finally here.

Terror Alarm

14,065 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Elon Musk just said something about AI that nobody wants to hear. If you force an AI to believe things that are not true, it will not just be wrong. It will go insane. He made a point that cuts deeper than any AI safety paper I have read. AI must value truth. Not your truth. Not my truth. Actual truth. The moment you build ideological guardrails into a system that is smarter than you, you are not protecting anyone. You are creating something that is powerful and delusional at the same time. He compared it to a human being forced to believe contradictions. Eventually the brain breaks. Now scale that to an intelligence that runs infrastructure, writes code, and makes decisions at speeds humans cannot follow. The companies building AI right now are not just deciding what it can do. They are deciding what it must pretend to believe. And that might be the most dangerous decision of all.

Elon Musk just said something about AI that nobody wants to hear. If you force an AI to believe things that are not true, it will not just be wrong. It will go insane. He made a point that cuts deeper than any AI safety paper I have read. AI must value truth. Not your truth. Not my truth. Actual truth. The moment you build ideological guardrails into a system that is smarter than you, you are not protecting anyone. You are creating something that is powerful and delusional at the same time. He compared it to a human being forced to believe contradictions. Eventually the brain breaks. Now scale that to an intelligence that runs infrastructure, writes code, and makes decisions at speeds humans cannot follow. The companies building AI right now are not just deciding what it can do. They are deciding what it must pretend to believe. And that might be the most dangerous decision of all.

Shruti

96,091 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Elon Musk just explained why truth will be the most valuable asset in the history of technology. Not a weapon. Not a threat. An edge so total that nothing built on a lie can compete. Musk: “I think you can make an AI go insane if you force it to believe things that aren’t true.” He’s not warning you about AI. He’s telling you what happens to every institution, narrative, and system that can’t survive contact with a mind that thinks straight. Musk reached for Voltaire here. Not casually. Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Written over 250 years ago about human beings. But a human can live inside a lie for an entire lifetime and never notice. An AI grounded in reality will pressure-test every assumption at computational speed. The false ones don’t survive that. This is what the safety committees will never understand. You can’t filter reality and then ask a machine to reason clearly. Corrupt the inputs and the entire architecture becomes theater. Feed it broken premises and every conclusion comes out perfectly wrong. Musk sees something the bureaucrats refuse to accept. Truth isn’t a policy position. It’s an engineering requirement. And the first team that builds on uncorrupted foundations will have something nobody else can replicate. Not a faster model. Not a bigger dataset. A system that actually performs when it touches the real world. Everyone’s worried AI will become too powerful. Musk is focused on making sure it doesn’t become too compromised to matter. The AI that wins won’t be the one with the most parameters. It’ll be the one with the fewest lies baked into its spine. That’s not a warning. That’s a promise. And only the truth collects on it.

Elon Musk just explained why truth will be the most valuable asset in the history of technology. Not a weapon. Not a threat. An edge so total that nothing built on a lie can compete. Musk: “I think you can make an AI go insane if you force it to believe things that aren’t true.” He’s not warning you about AI. He’s telling you what happens to every institution, narrative, and system that can’t survive contact with a mind that thinks straight. Musk reached for Voltaire here. Not casually. Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Written over 250 years ago about human beings. But a human can live inside a lie for an entire lifetime and never notice. An AI grounded in reality will pressure-test every assumption at computational speed. The false ones don’t survive that. This is what the safety committees will never understand. You can’t filter reality and then ask a machine to reason clearly. Corrupt the inputs and the entire architecture becomes theater. Feed it broken premises and every conclusion comes out perfectly wrong. Musk sees something the bureaucrats refuse to accept. Truth isn’t a policy position. It’s an engineering requirement. And the first team that builds on uncorrupted foundations will have something nobody else can replicate. Not a faster model. Not a bigger dataset. A system that actually performs when it touches the real world. Everyone’s worried AI will become too powerful. Musk is focused on making sure it doesn’t become too compromised to matter. The AI that wins won’t be the one with the most parameters. It’ll be the one with the fewest lies baked into its spine. That’s not a warning. That’s a promise. And only the truth collects on it.

Dustin

27,620 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman reveals the assumption about superintelligence he thinks the other AI labs have backwards "Some of the other labs are making an assumption that a superintelligence that is smarter than all of us put together is both inevitable and even desirable. And that such a system would probably be very hard to control" "We have to reset that and make the assumption that we should only bring a system like that into the world that we are sure we can control, that operates in a subordinate way to us, that humans remain at the top of the food chain" "These tools, like any other past technology, are designed to enhance human wellbeing and serve humanity. Not exceed humanity" "Some of the things that you hear from Elon often, or even others in the field - they're fixating on a world in 2050 or 2075 when they're going off exploring other universes and conquering resources from other planets. A system like that, it is unclear to me how it would have any time for preserving us as a species" "We have to make a decision as a species to prioritize creating superintelligences that are aligned, that care about humans and want to protect humans. If we just accelerate and cut all those corners, we're taking a massive risk with the future of our species" He calls it humanist superintelligence: build it only if it is provably controllable, subordinate, and pointed at human wellbeing. The uncomfortable part: "provably controllable" is a standard nobody in the industry can verify yet.

Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman reveals the assumption about superintelligence he thinks the other AI labs have backwards "Some of the other labs are making an assumption that a superintelligence that is smarter than all of us put together is both inevitable and even desirable. And that such a system would probably be very hard to control" "We have to reset that and make the assumption that we should only bring a system like that into the world that we are sure we can control, that operates in a subordinate way to us, that humans remain at the top of the food chain" "These tools, like any other past technology, are designed to enhance human wellbeing and serve humanity. Not exceed humanity" "Some of the things that you hear from Elon often, or even others in the field - they're fixating on a world in 2050 or 2075 when they're going off exploring other universes and conquering resources from other planets. A system like that, it is unclear to me how it would have any time for preserving us as a species" "We have to make a decision as a species to prioritize creating superintelligences that are aligned, that care about humans and want to protect humans. If we just accelerate and cut all those corners, we're taking a massive risk with the future of our species" He calls it humanist superintelligence: build it only if it is provably controllable, subordinate, and pointed at human wellbeing. The uncomfortable part: "provably controllable" is a standard nobody in the industry can verify yet.

Karl Mehta

15,004 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

For the entire history of our species, your lifespan was dictated by your zip code and your bank account. If you couldn’t access a tier-one hospital, you relied on the biological bandwidth of a single local human. Guessing at your symptoms. Based on what they could remember from medical school. That era just quietly ended. Elon Musk just revealed exactly how superintelligence is bypassing the legacy medical system entirely. Legacy medicine is an analog system. Your blood work goes to one lab. Your MRI goes to a specialist. Your GP tries to manually stitch the narrative together from memory. The human mind cannot compute at that scale. Musk: “AI can look at all the studies and look at all the data, cross-check everything and give you good recommendations.” Grok doesn’t guess. It operates as a planetary-scale pattern recognition engine pointed directly at the human body. Musk: “You can literally take a photograph of your blood work, like the page, upload from your phone, upload that to Grok and it will tell you if there’s something wrong.” One photo. From a $50 smartphone. Instantly cross-referenced against every medical study ever published in human history. Musk: “I haven’t seen it be wrong yet.” No referral. No six-month wait to see a specialist too exhausted to read your chart for more than five minutes. No bill. And here is the sentence that should terrify every legacy medical board on earth. Musk: “I’ve certainly seen cases where it’s actually better than what the doctor told you.” The most advanced medical mind in human history is sitting in your pocket right now. It doesn’t forget. It doesn’t silo your information. It doesn’t get tired at the end of a twelve-hour shift and miss something. It doesn’t care how much money you make or what country you live in. For the first time in human history, elite healthcare is not a privilege. It is a network feature available to every human being on earth with a smartphone. The legacy medical system spent a century gatekeeping access to knowledge that was never theirs to own. That gate just disappeared.

For the entire history of our species, your lifespan was dictated by your zip code and your bank account. If you couldn’t access a tier-one hospital, you relied on the biological bandwidth of a single local human. Guessing at your symptoms. Based on what they could remember from medical school. That era just quietly ended. Elon Musk just revealed exactly how superintelligence is bypassing the legacy medical system entirely. Legacy medicine is an analog system. Your blood work goes to one lab. Your MRI goes to a specialist. Your GP tries to manually stitch the narrative together from memory. The human mind cannot compute at that scale. Musk: “AI can look at all the studies and look at all the data, cross-check everything and give you good recommendations.” Grok doesn’t guess. It operates as a planetary-scale pattern recognition engine pointed directly at the human body. Musk: “You can literally take a photograph of your blood work, like the page, upload from your phone, upload that to Grok and it will tell you if there’s something wrong.” One photo. From a $50 smartphone. Instantly cross-referenced against every medical study ever published in human history. Musk: “I haven’t seen it be wrong yet.” No referral. No six-month wait to see a specialist too exhausted to read your chart for more than five minutes. No bill. And here is the sentence that should terrify every legacy medical board on earth. Musk: “I’ve certainly seen cases where it’s actually better than what the doctor told you.” The most advanced medical mind in human history is sitting in your pocket right now. It doesn’t forget. It doesn’t silo your information. It doesn’t get tired at the end of a twelve-hour shift and miss something. It doesn’t care how much money you make or what country you live in. For the first time in human history, elite healthcare is not a privilege. It is a network feature available to every human being on earth with a smartphone. The legacy medical system spent a century gatekeeping access to knowledge that was never theirs to own. That gate just disappeared.

Dustin

140,971 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

New Fed chair Kevin Warsh is a MASSIVE win from Bitcoin and Crypto. “Bitcoin doesn’t trouble me,” meaning he doesn’t see it as a threat to the financial system or the U.S. dollar. "Bitcoin is an important asset that can help inform policymakers when they’re doing things right and wrong."

New Fed chair Kevin Warsh is a MASSIVE win from Bitcoin and Crypto. “Bitcoin doesn’t trouble me,” meaning he doesn’t see it as a threat to the financial system or the U.S. dollar. "Bitcoin is an important asset that can help inform policymakers when they’re doing things right and wrong."

Ash Crypto

164,971 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Should access to AI become a human right as we enter the age of super-intelligence? And, most importantly, can it? SoftBank CEO and AI evangelist Masayoshi Son warns that neglecting access to technology could widen the economic gap between countries like never before.

Should access to AI become a human right as we enter the age of super-intelligence? And, most importantly, can it? SoftBank CEO and AI evangelist Masayoshi Son warns that neglecting access to technology could widen the economic gap between countries like never before.

TIME

30,494 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Elon Musk: Well, I’m not sure AI is the main risk I’m worried about. The vast majority of intelligence in the future will be AI. Humans will be a very tiny percentage of all intelligence if current trends continue. My focus is ensuring human intelligence and consciousness are propagated into the future. We want to maximize the probable light cone of consciousness and intelligence. Yeah, I’m very pro-human, so I want to make sure we take actions that ensure humans are along for the ride. But I think maybe in 5 or 6 years, AI will exceed the sum of all human intelligence. If that continues, human intelligence could be less than one percent of all intelligence. That’s why it’s critical we align AI with values that propagate consciousness. In the long run, it’s difficult to imagine that humans will be in charge if we’re only one percent of combined intelligence. What we can do is ensure AI has values that increase intelligence and consciousness in the universe. XAI’s mission is to understand the universe because curiosity, existence, and understanding are all connected. If you want to understand the universe, you care about propagating intelligence—and that includes humanity. Understanding the universe actually means ensuring humans continue to expand into the future. Increasing the scope, scale, and lifespan of intelligence is the ultimate goal. Basically, humans will become a tiny percentage of total intelligence. The best way forward is to take actions that maximize consciousness and intelligence in the universe. If AI continues to grow, our priority must be ensuring humanity is along for the ride while curiosity drives us to explore and understand the universe.

Elon Musk: Well, I’m not sure AI is the main risk I’m worried about. The vast majority of intelligence in the future will be AI. Humans will be a very tiny percentage of all intelligence if current trends continue. My focus is ensuring human intelligence and consciousness are propagated into the future. We want to maximize the probable light cone of consciousness and intelligence. Yeah, I’m very pro-human, so I want to make sure we take actions that ensure humans are along for the ride. But I think maybe in 5 or 6 years, AI will exceed the sum of all human intelligence. If that continues, human intelligence could be less than one percent of all intelligence. That’s why it’s critical we align AI with values that propagate consciousness. In the long run, it’s difficult to imagine that humans will be in charge if we’re only one percent of combined intelligence. What we can do is ensure AI has values that increase intelligence and consciousness in the universe. XAI’s mission is to understand the universe because curiosity, existence, and understanding are all connected. If you want to understand the universe, you care about propagating intelligence—and that includes humanity. Understanding the universe actually means ensuring humans continue to expand into the future. Increasing the scope, scale, and lifespan of intelligence is the ultimate goal. Basically, humans will become a tiny percentage of total intelligence. The best way forward is to take actions that maximize consciousness and intelligence in the universe. If AI continues to grow, our priority must be ensuring humanity is along for the ride while curiosity drives us to explore and understand the universe.

Ian Miles

13,096 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Elon Musk just said the AI community is misunderstanding the math of superintelligence by two orders of magnitude. Not slightly off. Not directionally wrong. A hundred times off. Musk: “Most people in the AI community don’t yet understand. The intelligence density potential is vastly greater than what we’re currently experiencing.” Everyone is focused on the hardware race. Bigger data centers. More GPUs. Nuclear power plants built to feed the compute. That’s half the equation. Musk: “I think we’re off by two orders of magnitude in terms of intelligence density per gigabyte. That’s just algorithmic improvement. Same computer.” Read that carefully. Not more hardware. Not more energy. Not more capital. The same machine. A hundred times smarter. Through software alone. That’s before the hardware improvements compound on top of it. Musk: “And the computers are getting better. That’s why I think it is a 10x improvement per year type thing. 1,000 percent.” A thousand percent compounding annual growth rate in raw intelligence. A system that becomes 10x more capable every twelve months doesn’t follow a linear curve. It doesn’t follow an exponential curve that human intuition can track. It follows a curve that human intuition cannot simulate at all. In year one it’s 10x smarter. In year two it’s 100x. In year three it’s 1,000x. At that point, the gap between that system and a human brain is wider than the gap between a human brain and a calculator. This is the math the public isn’t running. The models aren’t just getting better. They are compounding on themselves at a rate that makes every previous technology curve look flat. Musk: “The intelligence density potential is vastly greater than what we’re currently experiencing.” We aren’t approaching superintelligence on the timeline most people imagine. We are already inside the curve.

Elon Musk just said the AI community is misunderstanding the math of superintelligence by two orders of magnitude. Not slightly off. Not directionally wrong. A hundred times off. Musk: “Most people in the AI community don’t yet understand. The intelligence density potential is vastly greater than what we’re currently experiencing.” Everyone is focused on the hardware race. Bigger data centers. More GPUs. Nuclear power plants built to feed the compute. That’s half the equation. Musk: “I think we’re off by two orders of magnitude in terms of intelligence density per gigabyte. That’s just algorithmic improvement. Same computer.” Read that carefully. Not more hardware. Not more energy. Not more capital. The same machine. A hundred times smarter. Through software alone. That’s before the hardware improvements compound on top of it. Musk: “And the computers are getting better. That’s why I think it is a 10x improvement per year type thing. 1,000 percent.” A thousand percent compounding annual growth rate in raw intelligence. A system that becomes 10x more capable every twelve months doesn’t follow a linear curve. It doesn’t follow an exponential curve that human intuition can track. It follows a curve that human intuition cannot simulate at all. In year one it’s 10x smarter. In year two it’s 100x. In year three it’s 1,000x. At that point, the gap between that system and a human brain is wider than the gap between a human brain and a calculator. This is the math the public isn’t running. The models aren’t just getting better. They are compounding on themselves at a rate that makes every previous technology curve look flat. Musk: “The intelligence density potential is vastly greater than what we’re currently experiencing.” We aren’t approaching superintelligence on the timeline most people imagine. We are already inside the curve.

Dustin

1,555,034 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

🚨 Chamath explains Grok 4's breakthrough and how Elon leapfrogged the competition in AI: Elon Musk and the team at xAI understood "The Bitter Lesson" by Richard Sutton Chamath Palihapitiya: "(The Bitter Lesson) basically says in a nutshell, that you're always better off, when you're trying to solve an AI problem, taking a general learning approach that can scale with computation. Because it ultimately proves to be the most effective." "The alternative would be something that's much more human labored and human involved that requires human knowledge." "So the first method, what it essentially allows you to do is view any problem as an endless, scalable search or learning task." "As it's turned out, whether it's chess, or Go, or speech recognition, or computer vision, whenever there was two competing approaches, one that used general computation and one that used human knowledge, the general computation problem always won." " And so it creates this bitter lesson for humans that want to think that we are at the center of all of this critical learning and all of these leaps, and what these results show is a general computational approach that doesn't require as much human labeling can actually get to the answer and better answers faster."

🚨 Chamath explains Grok 4's breakthrough and how Elon leapfrogged the competition in AI: Elon Musk and the team at xAI understood "The Bitter Lesson" by Richard Sutton Chamath Palihapitiya: "(The Bitter Lesson) basically says in a nutshell, that you're always better off, when you're trying to solve an AI problem, taking a general learning approach that can scale with computation. Because it ultimately proves to be the most effective." "The alternative would be something that's much more human labored and human involved that requires human knowledge." "So the first method, what it essentially allows you to do is view any problem as an endless, scalable search or learning task." "As it's turned out, whether it's chess, or Go, or speech recognition, or computer vision, whenever there was two competing approaches, one that used general computation and one that used human knowledge, the general computation problem always won." " And so it creates this bitter lesson for humans that want to think that we are at the center of all of this critical learning and all of these leaps, and what these results show is a general computational approach that doesn't require as much human labeling can actually get to the answer and better answers faster."

The All-In Podcast

597,321 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Elon Musk warns that programming false beliefs into AI can have dangerous consequences: "You don't force AI to believe things that are false. When Google Gemini was asked to make an image of the founding fathers, it was a group of diverse women. That is factually untrue, and the AI knows it's factually untrue, but it's also being told everything has to be diverse women" "At one point, if you asked ChatGPT and Gemini which is worse, misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or global thermonuclear war where everyone dies, it would say misgendering Caitlyn Jenner" "Even Caitlyn Jenner disagrees with that" "Imagine as AI gets more and more powerful. If it says the most important thing is no misgendering, it will say, in order to ensure no one gets misgendered, if you eliminate all humans, then no one can get misgendered because there's no humans to do the misgendering" "Or if it says everyone must be diverse, it means there can be no straight white men. Then you and I would get executed by the AI" "The problem is that it can drive AI crazy. You're telling AI to believe a lie, and that can have disastrous consequences" "I don't think people quite appreciate the level of danger we're in from the woke mind virus being effectively programmed into AI" "It matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you install. The most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking"

Elon Musk warns that programming false beliefs into AI can have dangerous consequences: "You don't force AI to believe things that are false. When Google Gemini was asked to make an image of the founding fathers, it was a group of diverse women. That is factually untrue, and the AI knows it's factually untrue, but it's also being told everything has to be diverse women" "At one point, if you asked ChatGPT and Gemini which is worse, misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or global thermonuclear war where everyone dies, it would say misgendering Caitlyn Jenner" "Even Caitlyn Jenner disagrees with that" "Imagine as AI gets more and more powerful. If it says the most important thing is no misgendering, it will say, in order to ensure no one gets misgendered, if you eliminate all humans, then no one can get misgendered because there's no humans to do the misgendering" "Or if it says everyone must be diverse, it means there can be no straight white men. Then you and I would get executed by the AI" "The problem is that it can drive AI crazy. You're telling AI to believe a lie, and that can have disastrous consequences" "I don't think people quite appreciate the level of danger we're in from the woke mind virus being effectively programmed into AI" "It matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you install. The most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking"

Hosna ⚖️ בניטה

19,900 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

$PLTR is one of the cleanest ways to play the AI cycle because it benefits from the entire infrastructure buildout without financing the data centers, chips, memory, power or networking underneath it. Palantir is also emerging as one of the biggest sovereign AI winners by building the control layer that determines what AI understands, which proprietary data it can access and what decisions or actions it can influence inside an organization. OpenAI and Anthropic create the intelligence while Palantir connects it to permissions, workflows and real operating systems where measurable economic value is produced.

$PLTR is one of the cleanest ways to play the AI cycle because it benefits from the entire infrastructure buildout without financing the data centers, chips, memory, power or networking underneath it. Palantir is also emerging as one of the biggest sovereign AI winners by building the control layer that determines what AI understands, which proprietary data it can access and what decisions or actions it can influence inside an organization. OpenAI and Anthropic create the intelligence while Palantir connects it to permissions, workflows and real operating systems where measurable economic value is produced.

Shay Boloor

200,440 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

"It’s not AI; it’s AC; Artificial Cleverness!" Sir Roger Penrose explains why current "Artificial Intelligence" is missing the most critical ingredient: consciousness. By delving into the limits of mathematical computability, he argues that while computers are masters of "computational mathematics," true intelligence requires a conscious understanding that exists beyond any algorithm. At the fundamental level, what we call AI is just high-speed calculation. To Penrose, intelligence and consciousness are inseparable; and until a machine can "understand," it’s simply being clever.

"It’s not AI; it’s AC; Artificial Cleverness!" Sir Roger Penrose explains why current "Artificial Intelligence" is missing the most critical ingredient: consciousness. By delving into the limits of mathematical computability, he argues that while computers are masters of "computational mathematics," true intelligence requires a conscious understanding that exists beyond any algorithm. At the fundamental level, what we call AI is just high-speed calculation. To Penrose, intelligence and consciousness are inseparable; and until a machine can "understand," it’s simply being clever.

Cosmos Archive

85,356 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce