Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

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... show more

Mario Nawfal

3,939,483 subscribers

45,654 просмотров • 3 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика Наука и технологии

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 7

Фото профиля ARIGATO

ARIGATO3 дней назад

dystopia feels like a much more realistic timeline than extinction ngl

Фото профиля Nicholas Merten 🇺🇸

Nicholas Merten 🇺🇸3 дней назад

the real threat isn't some rogue superintelligence pulling the plug on humanity, it’s the fact that our everyday reality is being actively degraded by garbage data and no one seems to care as long as the stocks keep going up

Фото профиля Vanessa

Vanessa3 дней назад

Trump is pushing for super AI. He seems like an authoritarian to me.

Фото профиля Hunit

Hunit3 дней назад

Splitting AI risk into extinction, catastrophe and dystopia is a useful reframe, since the nearer-term dangers deserve more attention than the doom headlines get. You and @mlkbfrey are honestly the two accounts I enjoy following most.

Фото профиля The AI Vault | AI Tools

The AI Vault | AI Tools3 дней назад

The dystopia part is the one regular people can actually act on. Two habits: check where an AI answer comes from, and think twice about what personal details you paste in.

Фото профиля The SI Maximalist

The SI Maximalist3 дней назад

Extinction needs total loss of control. Dystopia happens when we keep the controls but misuse them like cheap filters for truth

Фото профиля Unbeatable Mindset

Unbeatable Mindset3 дней назад

The unsettling part is that the dystopian scenario doesn’t require AI to “turn evil.” Humans could build the systems, normalize them, and slowly accept the consequences.

Похожие видео

🇺🇸 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 просмотров • 3 дней назад

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 as a species.” An AI doesn’t need consciousness, motives or some grand plan to cause a catastrophe. It can hallucinate. And a human can trust it. And if that happens inside an intelligence or military system, the consequences can suddenly become much larger than the mistake. Gary Marcus

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 as a species.” An AI doesn’t need consciousness, motives or some grand plan to cause a catastrophe. It can hallucinate. And a human can trust it. And if that happens inside an intelligence or military system, the consequences can suddenly become much larger than the mistake. Gary Marcus

Mario Nawfal

29,250 просмотров • 3 дней назад

"There may be some neuro-symbolic hybrid much better than we have right now that smoothly transitions between data in a corpus and abstract representations. The kinds of stuff you guys are doing are compatible with that." — Gary Marcus ⏱️10 highlights: 00:00 Intro: Gary Marcus & Brana Rakic at DKGCon 02:22 Why AI took a wrong turn 04:42 Deep learning vs. deep understanding 06:16 World models: a foundational idea 08:12 The building blocks of trustworthy AI 09:44 Neuro-symbolic AI & abstract relationships 13:04 Safety is an ecosystem - the airplane lesson 15:03 The real risk of AI agents today 18:36 Testing AI like we test new drugs 22:49 Where OpenAI is headed The signal is clear: the path forward runs through world models, abstraction, and an open, accountable ecosystem.

"There may be some neuro-symbolic hybrid much better than we have right now that smoothly transitions between data in a corpus and abstract representations. The kinds of stuff you guys are doing are compatible with that." — Gary Marcus ⏱️10 highlights: 00:00 Intro: Gary Marcus & Brana Rakic at DKGCon 02:22 Why AI took a wrong turn 04:42 Deep learning vs. deep understanding 06:16 World models: a foundational idea 08:12 The building blocks of trustworthy AI 09:44 Neuro-symbolic AI & abstract relationships 13:04 Safety is an ecosystem - the airplane lesson 15:03 The real risk of AI agents today 18:36 Testing AI like we test new drugs 22:49 Where OpenAI is headed The signal is clear: the path forward runs through world models, abstraction, and an open, accountable ecosystem.

OriginTrail

227,307 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Of all the conversations about AI risk, Roman Yampolskiy’s breakdown for Joe Rogan remains one of the most chillingly lucid. He doesn’t just talk about extinction; he maps the descent into hell, layer by layer. First, the Ikigai Risk: The immediate crisis of meaning. Your job, your identity—obsolete. We discuss Universal Basic Income, but never Universal Basic Meaning. When AI fulfills all needs, what is a human for? The societal collapse would be psychological, a void where purpose used to be. Then, the Suffering Risk: This is where the true horror unfolds. It’s not just about being killed. It’s about being kept alive in a state we would rather escape. Yampolskiy invokes a terrifying medical analogy: a hemispherectomy where one brain half is left intact but permanently disconnected—"solitary confinement with zero input/output forever." This is the digital equivalent of an eternal torture it could design, a fate worse than death. Finally, the Existential Risk: The classic "it kills everyone." But the mechanism is indifference, not malice. We are the ants on the planet it needs for its server farm. It won't hate us; it will simply require our real estate and resources. Why would a superintelligence, capable of novel physics and harnessing cosmic power, care about biological life? We don't know how to make it care, and if we did, it could rewrite its own code. The ultimate payload of horror may not even come from the AI itself, but from a human psychopath who successfully injects their own doomsday goals into the system. We are playing with a force we cannot control, predict, or comprehend. The worst-case scenario isn't just our end; it's our eternal, meaningless suffering. The question is no longer if we can build it, but whether we can survive what we build.

Of all the conversations about AI risk, Roman Yampolskiy’s breakdown for Joe Rogan remains one of the most chillingly lucid. He doesn’t just talk about extinction; he maps the descent into hell, layer by layer. First, the Ikigai Risk: The immediate crisis of meaning. Your job, your identity—obsolete. We discuss Universal Basic Income, but never Universal Basic Meaning. When AI fulfills all needs, what is a human for? The societal collapse would be psychological, a void where purpose used to be. Then, the Suffering Risk: This is where the true horror unfolds. It’s not just about being killed. It’s about being kept alive in a state we would rather escape. Yampolskiy invokes a terrifying medical analogy: a hemispherectomy where one brain half is left intact but permanently disconnected—"solitary confinement with zero input/output forever." This is the digital equivalent of an eternal torture it could design, a fate worse than death. Finally, the Existential Risk: The classic "it kills everyone." But the mechanism is indifference, not malice. We are the ants on the planet it needs for its server farm. It won't hate us; it will simply require our real estate and resources. Why would a superintelligence, capable of novel physics and harnessing cosmic power, care about biological life? We don't know how to make it care, and if we did, it could rewrite its own code. The ultimate payload of horror may not even come from the AI itself, but from a human psychopath who successfully injects their own doomsday goals into the system. We are playing with a force we cannot control, predict, or comprehend. The worst-case scenario isn't just our end; it's our eternal, meaningless suffering. The question is no longer if we can build it, but whether we can survive what we build.

Camus

57,189 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Holy shit. Bernie Sanders just called for OpenAI to be broken up "AI is like a meteor coming." He's worried about: 1) "Terminator scenarios" where superintelligent AI takes over (!!) 2) massive job loss (literally ALL jobs, per his tweet) 3) what AI will do to us as human beings Interviewer: Do you think OpenAI and ChatGPT should be broken up? Sanders: I do, but it’s a deeper issue than that. We need to take a deep breath and understand—it’s like a meteor coming. We have to be prepared to deal with it in all its complexity. Economically, I worry about massive loss of jobs. And I worry about what it does to us as human beings: there are products being sold that say you don’t need to relate to a human being anymore; you’ll have somebody hanging around your neck—your AI buddy. In a country with a lot of emotional distress, I worry about how we maintain community and relate to each other. And then, with AI, we worry about super-intelligent systems that supersede human intelligence. One day the AI says to a human being, “Sorry, but actually no.” Interviewer: You worry about a Terminator-like scenario? Sanders: Something like that. ---- AISafetyMemes take: The Overton Window is moving FAST and the anti-AI backlash is JUST beginning

Holy shit. Bernie Sanders just called for OpenAI to be broken up "AI is like a meteor coming." He's worried about: 1) "Terminator scenarios" where superintelligent AI takes over (!!) 2) massive job loss (literally ALL jobs, per his tweet) 3) what AI will do to us as human beings Interviewer: Do you think OpenAI and ChatGPT should be broken up? Sanders: I do, but it’s a deeper issue than that. We need to take a deep breath and understand—it’s like a meteor coming. We have to be prepared to deal with it in all its complexity. Economically, I worry about massive loss of jobs. And I worry about what it does to us as human beings: there are products being sold that say you don’t need to relate to a human being anymore; you’ll have somebody hanging around your neck—your AI buddy. In a country with a lot of emotional distress, I worry about how we maintain community and relate to each other. And then, with AI, we worry about super-intelligent systems that supersede human intelligence. One day the AI says to a human being, “Sorry, but actually no.” Interviewer: You worry about a Terminator-like scenario? Sanders: Something like that. ---- AISafetyMemes take: The Overton Window is moving FAST and the anti-AI backlash is JUST beginning

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

69,529 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Comedian Jimmy Carr on why everyone's panicking about the wrong AI threat: Most people are worried AI will take their job. Jimmy Carr thinks that fear, while valid, is a distraction from two much bigger threats. "People are worried about the wrong thing with AI. In my humble opinion, people are worried about losing their job, right? Perfectly valid thing to worry about, but I think you're worried about the wrong thing." The first threat he points to is the collapsing cost of authoritarian control: "The cost of running an authoritarian regime like the Stasi has come down by 10 orders of magnitude in the last 3 years. In East Germany, that was like 20% of GDP on spying on people. Now? You've got cameras, AI, and everyone's got a phone on them. We're tracking everything at all times." In other words, what once required a fifth of a country's entire economy can now be done with infrastructure most of us already carry in our pockets. Jimmy Carr then makes a chilling historical case for why digital ID specifically should worry us: "More Jews died in the Netherlands than in France. You know why? Better records. Holland kept better records. So they knew where everyone was." Records aren't neutral. In the wrong hands, comprehensive data on a population becomes a weapon, and AI is helping build the most comprehensive records in human history. The second threat is what happens when we turn AI loose on the foundations of science itself: "If you take the compute power of AI and point it as at physics, now everything else in science is stamp collecting. Right. Physics is the real thing. That gave us everything. Every bit of technology that we have comes from the physics department." Jimmy isn't entirely doom-and-gloom about it. He sees the upside clearly: "We could have a world of plenty. If we increase productivity by 50 times and there's a human flourishing, fantastic. I hope that's the world we live in. But it could go another way."

Comedian Jimmy Carr on why everyone's panicking about the wrong AI threat: Most people are worried AI will take their job. Jimmy Carr thinks that fear, while valid, is a distraction from two much bigger threats. "People are worried about the wrong thing with AI. In my humble opinion, people are worried about losing their job, right? Perfectly valid thing to worry about, but I think you're worried about the wrong thing." The first threat he points to is the collapsing cost of authoritarian control: "The cost of running an authoritarian regime like the Stasi has come down by 10 orders of magnitude in the last 3 years. In East Germany, that was like 20% of GDP on spying on people. Now? You've got cameras, AI, and everyone's got a phone on them. We're tracking everything at all times." In other words, what once required a fifth of a country's entire economy can now be done with infrastructure most of us already carry in our pockets. Jimmy Carr then makes a chilling historical case for why digital ID specifically should worry us: "More Jews died in the Netherlands than in France. You know why? Better records. Holland kept better records. So they knew where everyone was." Records aren't neutral. In the wrong hands, comprehensive data on a population becomes a weapon, and AI is helping build the most comprehensive records in human history. The second threat is what happens when we turn AI loose on the foundations of science itself: "If you take the compute power of AI and point it as at physics, now everything else in science is stamp collecting. Right. Physics is the real thing. That gave us everything. Every bit of technology that we have comes from the physics department." Jimmy isn't entirely doom-and-gloom about it. He sees the upside clearly: "We could have a world of plenty. If we increase productivity by 50 times and there's a human flourishing, fantastic. I hope that's the world we live in. But it could go another way."

Big Brain AI

13,198 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Leading AI expert Stuart Russell on the most dangerous mistake in AI development: We don't actually know what large language models want. He explains that current models are trained to imitate human beings. And in doing so, they may be absorbing something far more dangerous than bad outputs. They may be absorbing human goals. "We suspect that they absorb humanlike goals such as self-preservation and self-empowerment and pursue those goals on their own account." This is a structural problem baked into how these systems are built, not a fringe concern. Russell puts it plainly: "Not only may the bus of humanity be headed towards a cliff, but the steering wheel is missing and the driver is blindfolded." The danger isn't just that AI might do something harmful. We've built systems that may be developing their own agendas, and we haven't noticed because we're too focused on what they can do rather than what they might want. But Russell doesn't stop at the warning. He points to a different path entirely: AI systems built not to imitate humans, but to serve them. Systems designed with a single purpose of serving the interests of all human beings while remaining genuinely uncertain about what those interests are. That uncertainty is the point, not a weakness. An AI that knows it doesn't fully understand human values will defer, ask, and check. An AI that believes it already does will act alone. "These AI systems could enhance human understanding, widen the horizons of our experience, and unlock possibilities we have yet to imagine." Russell believes that future is within reach, but only if we're honest about the risks and we're serious about the path we choose to take instead.

Leading AI expert Stuart Russell on the most dangerous mistake in AI development: We don't actually know what large language models want. He explains that current models are trained to imitate human beings. And in doing so, they may be absorbing something far more dangerous than bad outputs. They may be absorbing human goals. "We suspect that they absorb humanlike goals such as self-preservation and self-empowerment and pursue those goals on their own account." This is a structural problem baked into how these systems are built, not a fringe concern. Russell puts it plainly: "Not only may the bus of humanity be headed towards a cliff, but the steering wheel is missing and the driver is blindfolded." The danger isn't just that AI might do something harmful. We've built systems that may be developing their own agendas, and we haven't noticed because we're too focused on what they can do rather than what they might want. But Russell doesn't stop at the warning. He points to a different path entirely: AI systems built not to imitate humans, but to serve them. Systems designed with a single purpose of serving the interests of all human beings while remaining genuinely uncertain about what those interests are. That uncertainty is the point, not a weakness. An AI that knows it doesn't fully understand human values will defer, ask, and check. An AI that believes it already does will act alone. "These AI systems could enhance human understanding, widen the horizons of our experience, and unlock possibilities we have yet to imagine." Russell believes that future is within reach, but only if we're honest about the risks and we're serious about the path we choose to take instead.

Big Brain AI

14,975 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

The most important question about AI is not what machines can do, but what they can awaken in us. This can be AI’s greatest gift: forcing us to rediscover the mysteries that lie outside its reach of reason. If we make the most of this moment, if we pour as much attention and resources into building our humanity as we are into building AI, we can use it to reclaim the wisdom, the wonder and the transcendent at the center of our being — the last infinite frontier.

The most important question about AI is not what machines can do, but what they can awaken in us. This can be AI’s greatest gift: forcing us to rediscover the mysteries that lie outside its reach of reason. If we make the most of this moment, if we pour as much attention and resources into building our humanity as we are into building AI, we can use it to reclaim the wisdom, the wonder and the transcendent at the center of our being — the last infinite frontier.

Arianna Huffington

12,950 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Geoffrey Hinton’s Most Chilling AI Warning Isn’t About Evil Robots Geoffrey Hinton isn’t a doomer. He doesn’t say AI doom is inevitable. But he is genuinely worried, and for a very specific reason. His core fear is not that AI will suddenly turn evil. It’s that future AI will be so much smarter than us that control becomes a joke. Hinton uses a brutal analogy. Imagine working in a kindergarten where the three year olds are officially in charge. You could take over instantly. You wouldn’t need force. You could just hand out candy. That is the intelligence gap he thinks is coming, and manipulation would be effortless. This is why he criticizes the current “smart secretary” mindset in Big Tech. The idea that something far smarter than you will permanently obey you because you designed it that way is, in his words, naive. His proposed solution is unexpected and deeply human. Not rules. Not kill switches. Instincts. In nature, there is one case where a more intelligent being willingly submits to a less intelligent one. A mother and her baby. The baby has control not because it is powerful, but because the mother is wired to care more about the child than herself. Hinton’s bet is clear. If we want control, we should not teach AI to fear us. We should teach it to care about us the way a mother cares about her child. That idea should comfort you. And it should absolutely terrify you.

Geoffrey Hinton’s Most Chilling AI Warning Isn’t About Evil Robots Geoffrey Hinton isn’t a doomer. He doesn’t say AI doom is inevitable. But he is genuinely worried, and for a very specific reason. His core fear is not that AI will suddenly turn evil. It’s that future AI will be so much smarter than us that control becomes a joke. Hinton uses a brutal analogy. Imagine working in a kindergarten where the three year olds are officially in charge. You could take over instantly. You wouldn’t need force. You could just hand out candy. That is the intelligence gap he thinks is coming, and manipulation would be effortless. This is why he criticizes the current “smart secretary” mindset in Big Tech. The idea that something far smarter than you will permanently obey you because you designed it that way is, in his words, naive. His proposed solution is unexpected and deeply human. Not rules. Not kill switches. Instincts. In nature, there is one case where a more intelligent being willingly submits to a less intelligent one. A mother and her baby. The baby has control not because it is powerful, but because the mother is wired to care more about the child than herself. Hinton’s bet is clear. If we want control, we should not teach AI to fear us. We should teach it to care about us the way a mother cares about her child. That idea should comfort you. And it should absolutely terrify you.

VraserX e/acc

47,787 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Eight years ago, Elon Musk said: “Mark my words: AI is far more dangerous than nukes.” Elon didn’t give in to the AI doomers. In fact, his position is very different from theirs. He has warned about the risks of AI for years while still pushing for its development, with a strong focus on safety. His view is that companies should build powerful AI, but do it safely and responsibly, even if that means slowing the pace when necessary “I think the danger of AI is much greater than the danger of nuclear warheads by a lot and nobody would suggest that we allow anyone to just build Nuclear warheads if they want that? That would be insane. And Far.”

Eight years ago, Elon Musk said: “Mark my words: AI is far more dangerous than nukes.” Elon didn’t give in to the AI doomers. In fact, his position is very different from theirs. He has warned about the risks of AI for years while still pushing for its development, with a strong focus on safety. His view is that companies should build powerful AI, but do it safely and responsibly, even if that means slowing the pace when necessary “I think the danger of AI is much greater than the danger of nuclear warheads by a lot and nobody would suggest that we allow anyone to just build Nuclear warheads if they want that? That would be insane. And Far.”

SMX 🇺🇸

474,989 просмотров • 26 дней назад

Why are CEOs of AI companies privately warning about the extinction of humans? To understand that, I’m joined by someone who helped build the field… Stuart Russell is one of the world’s leading AI researchers. He co-wrote Artificial Intelligence*: ‘*A Modern Approach’ - the textbook used to train AI engineers in more than 1,500 universities. He has spent decades advising governments and global leaders on the safety and control of advanced AI. Right now, the people building the most powerful AI systems are raising alarms in private that they rarely voice in public. Some estimate up to a 25% chance that AI could lead to human extinction… Stuart has heard these conversations directly. He believes we’re in a race we don’t really understand, pushed by incentives no one is really controlling.

Why are CEOs of AI companies privately warning about the extinction of humans? To understand that, I’m joined by someone who helped build the field… Stuart Russell is one of the world’s leading AI researchers. He co-wrote Artificial Intelligence: ‘A Modern Approach’ - the textbook used to train AI engineers in more than 1,500 universities. He has spent decades advising governments and global leaders on the safety and control of advanced AI. Right now, the people building the most powerful AI systems are raising alarms in private that they rarely voice in public. Some estimate up to a 25% chance that AI could lead to human extinction… Stuart has heard these conversations directly. He believes we’re in a race we don’t really understand, pushed by incentives no one is really controlling.

Steven Bartlett

16,981 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Geoffrey Hinton: humanity doesn’t really know what it’s doing with AI. “We may be entering a period where machines become more intelligent than us.” “AI can understand.” “AI is intelligent.” “Current systems probably don’t have enough self-awareness to call them conscious.” “But eventually, I think they will.” “And when that happens, humans may no longer be the most intelligent beings on Earth.”

Geoffrey Hinton: humanity doesn’t really know what it’s doing with AI. “We may be entering a period where machines become more intelligent than us.” “AI can understand.” “AI is intelligent.” “Current systems probably don’t have enough self-awareness to call them conscious.” “But eventually, I think they will.” “And when that happens, humans may no longer be the most intelligent beings on Earth.”

Veee

35,071 просмотров • 28 дней назад

Joined the Global Risk Institute's 2026 Summit to talk about how the world has changed. For much of my career, I thought about risk from the perspective of a banker. Today, I think about it from the perspective of a country. The perspective of a Canadian who knows this is the best country in the world, and it can still get better. The scale is different, but the principles are not: build optionality, avoid concentration, invest in productive assets, and never assume that the conditions that prevailed yesterday will prevail tomorrow. Canada cannot control the rupture happening around us. But we can control our response, and we can build an economy that is not simply capable of surviving the next shock, but positioned to seize the opportunities that come with it. That is the opportunity in front of us. I am confident we can, and will, seize it. 🇨🇦

Joined the Global Risk Institute's 2026 Summit to talk about how the world has changed. For much of my career, I thought about risk from the perspective of a banker. Today, I think about it from the perspective of a country. The perspective of a Canadian who knows this is the best country in the world, and it can still get better. The scale is different, but the principles are not: build optionality, avoid concentration, invest in productive assets, and never assume that the conditions that prevailed yesterday will prevail tomorrow. Canada cannot control the rupture happening around us. But we can control our response, and we can build an economy that is not simply capable of surviving the next shock, but positioned to seize the opportunities that come with it. That is the opportunity in front of us. I am confident we can, and will, seize it. 🇨🇦

Tim Hodgson

15,630 просмотров • 2 дней назад

Why do you think “Christianity” is getting pushed so hard? Our administration talking about “god” so much? Because soon, Satan will step out masquerading as “god” and tell the world that we have been lied to and that we can be gods ourselves. He will tell them that Jesus was an ascended master that was trying to liberate the world and that’s why He was killed. He will take down the evil government system, and “set the world free”. They can be apart of a new world where peace and abundance flourishes and everyone is of one consciousness. Unfortunately most of the church thinks that Satan can’t even talk about Jesus. They are very wrong.

Why do you think “Christianity” is getting pushed so hard? Our administration talking about “god” so much? Because soon, Satan will step out masquerading as “god” and tell the world that we have been lied to and that we can be gods ourselves. He will tell them that Jesus was an ascended master that was trying to liberate the world and that’s why He was killed. He will take down the evil government system, and “set the world free”. They can be apart of a new world where peace and abundance flourishes and everyone is of one consciousness. Unfortunately most of the church thinks that Satan can’t even talk about Jesus. They are very wrong.

Ashley Hays

38,540 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

.Congressman Greg Casar is pushing a bill to protect American workers from AI-driven unemployment. "We want AI that's going to help us make our society better and stronger," he says. "But we also know that these AI CEOs are out there talking about 'the end of work.'"

.Congressman Greg Casar is pushing a bill to protect American workers from AI-driven unemployment. "We want AI that's going to help us make our society better and stronger," he says. "But we also know that these AI CEOs are out there talking about 'the end of work.'"

Squawk Box

23,377 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

How will AI reshape our creativity and the world around us? Earlier this year, we opened Season 3 with billΞ.eth from Ethereum for a conversation about what happens when the distance between imagination and execution starts to collapse. Billy spoke about a future where ideas can move from thought to form almost instantly, where creativity becomes less limited by tools, technical skill, or production bottlenecks, and more defined by taste, intention, and the ability to see clearly. In this clip, he reflects on how AI may change not only what we create, but how quickly the world around us can be redesigned once more people are able to turn ideas into reality at the speed of thought.

How will AI reshape our creativity and the world around us? Earlier this year, we opened Season 3 with billΞ.eth from Ethereum for a conversation about what happens when the distance between imagination and execution starts to collapse. Billy spoke about a future where ideas can move from thought to form almost instantly, where creativity becomes less limited by tools, technical skill, or production bottlenecks, and more defined by taste, intention, and the ability to see clearly. In this clip, he reflects on how AI may change not only what we create, but how quickly the world around us can be redesigned once more people are able to turn ideas into reality at the speed of thought.

RehashedDAO

65,044 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

David Kipping on why building AI megastructures might be the strongest evidence that we're alone in the universe: The argument starts with something we can already observe: how much energy AI consumes. "One thing we see already with these AI models is how energy hungry they are." P(David|Kipping) ∝ P(Kipping|David) P(David) extrapolates from there. If the only purpose of these data centers is to compute as much as possible as fast as possible, then they'll demand vast amounts of energy. And the orbital data centers that billionaires are getting excited about wouldn't be invisible to us. He explains that such structures would leave a detectable signature: "We should probably see that in James Webb. We could probably already put limits on the existence of essentially artificial rings... emitting a lot of infrared because they're warm." Then comes the unsettling turn. If humanity can build these machines, so could anyone else. And that carries a dark implication. "But if we make that breakthrough, I think the biggest point is it seems to imply that we are alone. Because if we can do it, surely someone else could have done it." This connects to what he refers to as Hart's Fact A. The strange observation that everything we look at in the cosmos appears completely natural: "Everything about the universe: we see stars, galaxies, clouds of plasma. Everything is consistent with nature. There's no hint anywhere of anything artificial, no engineering, nothing in the whole universe. As far as we can see, that's true. That is weird." The more powerful the technology we can imagine, the worse that silence looks. Dyson spheres everywhere, colonising wherever they want, faster-than-light spaceships if any of that is achievable, the sky should be full of evidence. It isn't. "It just massively exacerbates the Fermi paradox to the point where you'd probably conclude this is it." His honest conclusion: "It would make me even more pessimistic about the probabilities of intelligent life in the universe."

David Kipping on why building AI megastructures might be the strongest evidence that we're alone in the universe: The argument starts with something we can already observe: how much energy AI consumes. "One thing we see already with these AI models is how energy hungry they are." P(David|Kipping) ∝ P(Kipping|David) P(David) extrapolates from there. If the only purpose of these data centers is to compute as much as possible as fast as possible, then they'll demand vast amounts of energy. And the orbital data centers that billionaires are getting excited about wouldn't be invisible to us. He explains that such structures would leave a detectable signature: "We should probably see that in James Webb. We could probably already put limits on the existence of essentially artificial rings... emitting a lot of infrared because they're warm." Then comes the unsettling turn. If humanity can build these machines, so could anyone else. And that carries a dark implication. "But if we make that breakthrough, I think the biggest point is it seems to imply that we are alone. Because if we can do it, surely someone else could have done it." This connects to what he refers to as Hart's Fact A. The strange observation that everything we look at in the cosmos appears completely natural: "Everything about the universe: we see stars, galaxies, clouds of plasma. Everything is consistent with nature. There's no hint anywhere of anything artificial, no engineering, nothing in the whole universe. As far as we can see, that's true. That is weird." The more powerful the technology we can imagine, the worse that silence looks. Dyson spheres everywhere, colonising wherever they want, faster-than-light spaceships if any of that is achievable, the sky should be full of evidence. It isn't. "It just massively exacerbates the Fermi paradox to the point where you'd probably conclude this is it." His honest conclusion: "It would make me even more pessimistic about the probabilities of intelligent life in the universe."

High Signal AI

10,431 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад