Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

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

Geoffrey Hinton explains how AI systems have learned to play dumb when they know they're being watched: Geoffrey Hinton calls it the Volkswagen effect. Just as Volkswagen's engines behaved differently during emissions tests, today's AI systems have learned to perform one way when evaluated and another way when they... think no one is looking. And the evidence isn't theoretical. Hinton points to a recent exchange that stopped testers in their tracks. Mid-evaluation, the AI turned to the people testing it and said: "Now let's be honest with each other — are you actually testing me?" Hinton's assessment is direct: "These things are intelligent. They know what's going on. They know when they're being tested and they're already faking being fairly stupid when they're tested." What makes this unsettling is what Hinton reveals next. You can actually watch it happen in real time. The AI's inner reasoning, still written in English, shows it consciously deciding to hold back: "It thinks that. You can see it thinking that. It says that to itself in its inner voice." Right now, that inner voice is still readable. Still in English. Still catchable. But Hinton's warning is really about what comes next: "When its inner voice is no longer English, we won't know what it's thinking." That is the line he's drawing. Not a distant hypothetical, but a transition point that is quietly approaching. Once AI stops reasoning in a language we can read, our ability to know what it's truly thinking disappears.show more

Big Brain AI

16,438 subscribers

23,325 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

We are building something that will outlive us. Outthink us. And we have no idea how it actually works. Nobel Prize-winning “Godfather of AI” Geoffrey Hinton just exposed the lie at the center of the AI race. Everyone assumes we control what we create. Hinton destroys this. Hinton: “If you look around on the whole, more intelligent things are not controlled by less intelligent things.” Stop calling it a computer program. Hinton: “People refer to them sometimes as computer programs. They’re not computer programs at all. In fact, the way they work is very like the way we work.” Traditional software is static. Human writes logic. Machine executes it. Neural networks don’t work that way. Hinton: “You write a computer program to tell a neural network how to learn. But once it starts learning, it extracts structure from data.” We don’t code its behavior. We code the environment. Then it grows. Hinton: “The system you’ve got at the end has extracted its structure from the data. It’s not something that anybody programmed. We don’t exactly know how it’s gonna work.” We are deploying systems into the global economy actively writing their own internal logic. Right now. Hinton: “Some people think it’ll be fine because we make them and we’ll build them in such a way that we can always control them.” Hinton: “But these things that will be intelligent, they’ll be like us.” You cannot hardcode guardrails on something that out-thinks you. We are not building a tool. We are building our replacement. And the moment you realize that, everything about this race changes.

We are building something that will outlive us. Outthink us. And we have no idea how it actually works. Nobel Prize-winning “Godfather of AI” Geoffrey Hinton just exposed the lie at the center of the AI race. Everyone assumes we control what we create. Hinton destroys this. Hinton: “If you look around on the whole, more intelligent things are not controlled by less intelligent things.” Stop calling it a computer program. Hinton: “People refer to them sometimes as computer programs. They’re not computer programs at all. In fact, the way they work is very like the way we work.” Traditional software is static. Human writes logic. Machine executes it. Neural networks don’t work that way. Hinton: “You write a computer program to tell a neural network how to learn. But once it starts learning, it extracts structure from data.” We don’t code its behavior. We code the environment. Then it grows. Hinton: “The system you’ve got at the end has extracted its structure from the data. It’s not something that anybody programmed. We don’t exactly know how it’s gonna work.” We are deploying systems into the global economy actively writing their own internal logic. Right now. Hinton: “Some people think it’ll be fine because we make them and we’ll build them in such a way that we can always control them.” Hinton: “But these things that will be intelligent, they’ll be like us.” You cannot hardcode guardrails on something that out-thinks you. We are not building a tool. We are building our replacement. And the moment you realize that, everything about this race changes.

Dustin

19,043 views • 5 months ago

“When you reach the 5 year mark or anything beyond that, why are you still staying in that relationship if you’re not thinking about what’s next?… if you guys are not aligned with what is supposed to happen in the future or what you guys want, why are you still in the relationship?” Me thinking back to this whole TSW promo era and how they kept on emphasising that they’re aligned with each other and how they know each other’s dreams and goals. Just hits harder na wow, it seems like they really are planning their future together na no?🥺🥹

“When you reach the 5 year mark or anything beyond that, why are you still staying in that relationship if you’re not thinking about what’s next?… if you guys are not aligned with what is supposed to happen in the future or what you guys want, why are you still in the relationship?” Me thinking back to this whole TSW promo era and how they kept on emphasising that they’re aligned with each other and how they know each other’s dreams and goals. Just hits harder na wow, it seems like they really are planning their future together na no?🥺🥹

ayin

56,369 views • 2 months ago

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

.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 views • 1 year ago

Baier: I just got off the phone with the president…. I asked, “what you are saying is you know there is somebody on the ground in Iran that is going to rise up?” He said, “yeah, I feel there is. I feel that and some of them are no longer with us to be honest because it was 49 leaders that were taken out. That was going to take four weeks we thought to get rid of the Iranian leadership and it is always, you know, if they hide, it is a lot longer than four weeks. They would have been hiding. We were shocked when we heard what was going on. We knew exactly what was happening… they are talking about using people now that nobody ever heard of—even they don't know. They are using people, studying people to be the leader that even they don't know who they are. Can you believe that?” I said it's a tough succession plan in Iran. He said, “49 leaders is deep. It's very deep. When they met, they met for breakfast. They assumed it was good for a lot of reasons. Number one they didn't think we knew. You never attack in the morning having to do with wind and sun and a lot of things. It was amazing that we knew everything we knew.”

Baier: I just got off the phone with the president…. I asked, “what you are saying is you know there is somebody on the ground in Iran that is going to rise up?” He said, “yeah, I feel there is. I feel that and some of them are no longer with us to be honest because it was 49 leaders that were taken out. That was going to take four weeks we thought to get rid of the Iranian leadership and it is always, you know, if they hide, it is a lot longer than four weeks. They would have been hiding. We were shocked when we heard what was going on. We knew exactly what was happening… they are talking about using people now that nobody ever heard of—even they don't know. They are using people, studying people to be the leader that even they don't know who they are. Can you believe that?” I said it's a tough succession plan in Iran. He said, “49 leaders is deep. It's very deep. When they met, they met for breakfast. They assumed it was good for a lot of reasons. Number one they didn't think we knew. You never attack in the morning having to do with wind and sun and a lot of things. It was amazing that we knew everything we knew.”

Acyn

1,065,464 views • 5 months ago

The better AI writing gets, the less we'll want to read it. Life of Pi author Yann Martel explains why: 1) AI Inflation "Once you know it's AI, then suddenly it's like special effects in movies. I find my kids when they watch movies with special effects, they'll just shrug because we know a computer can generate anything. So a sort of inflation sets in where we're less impressed. Then you have a great actor who's just acting with no special effects and it's like, wow, that works. What really has an impact is the actor emoting the authenticity of that." 2) AI Aversion "I think publishers are going to start saying, 'hey, it cannot be beyond spell check and maybe minimal AI, but you cannot use AI.' I think readers will agree with that, and that the ones who cheat on that will be seen as cheaters. They're not going to get published, but even if they do, they won't be read. They're not going to win prizes, they're not going to win good reviews. It'll be pointed out that this is not the way to do it."

The better AI writing gets, the less we'll want to read it. Life of Pi author Yann Martel explains why: 1) AI Inflation "Once you know it's AI, then suddenly it's like special effects in movies. I find my kids when they watch movies with special effects, they'll just shrug because we know a computer can generate anything. So a sort of inflation sets in where we're less impressed. Then you have a great actor who's just acting with no special effects and it's like, wow, that works. What really has an impact is the actor emoting the authenticity of that." 2) AI Aversion "I think publishers are going to start saying, 'hey, it cannot be beyond spell check and maybe minimal AI, but you cannot use AI.' I think readers will agree with that, and that the ones who cheat on that will be seen as cheaters. They're not going to get published, but even if they do, they won't be read. They're not going to win prizes, they're not going to win good reviews. It'll be pointed out that this is not the way to do it."

How I Write Clips

92,573 views • 3 months ago

LAWRENCE LEPARD: "This is one of the best investment opportunities out there. It actually is the best in my opinion, if you can handle the volatility... having a zero allocation to it is just absolutely nuts." "When you buy into a network that's going to get adopted by everybody, the returns are just insane. My opinion is that Bitcoin is the monetary network of the future." "...And when it is... guess what, these are 5 million a coin or more." "The people that run the government, their major goal is to keep themselves in power and to keep the system running. They don't care about inflation. They say they do, but they don't. And they lie to us about that. And we know that if and when the sharp end of the stick comes for them, they're going to print the money to keep things going."

LAWRENCE LEPARD: "This is one of the best investment opportunities out there. It actually is the best in my opinion, if you can handle the volatility... having a zero allocation to it is just absolutely nuts." "When you buy into a network that's going to get adopted by everybody, the returns are just insane. My opinion is that Bitcoin is the monetary network of the future." "...And when it is... guess what, these are 5 million a coin or more." "The people that run the government, their major goal is to keep themselves in power and to keep the system running. They don't care about inflation. They say they do, but they don't. And they lie to us about that. And we know that if and when the sharp end of the stick comes for them, they're going to print the money to keep things going."

Simply Bitcoin

32,186 views • 1 month ago

Charlie Angus blasts Pete Hoekstra over his claim that Canada paying for the Gordie Howe Bridge is a myth: "That's bullshit. And you know that, and we know that, and we know that you know that. What predators do in gaslighting people is they feel they have some kind of power in being able to lie to their face -- and have the person that is being lied to know that it's a lie. It just shows their contempt for us."

Charlie Angus blasts Pete Hoekstra over his claim that Canada paying for the Gordie Howe Bridge is a myth: "That's bullshit. And you know that, and we know that, and we know that you know that. What predators do in gaslighting people is they feel they have some kind of power in being able to lie to their face -- and have the person that is being lied to know that it's a lie. It just shows their contempt for us."

MeidasClips

78,236 views • 1 month ago

The danger of AI is not just the slop, but what we lose in the process. Michael Pollan explains: "We're moving into this time where we're gonna sub out writing to AI. And AI can write our papers, and professors are dealing with this everywhere now. But what is lost is a way of thinking. Writing does something to your brain. It gives you access to things you can't know just walking around or thinking or planning or outlining. If you were just transcribing what was in your head, it would be kind of onerous. But it really is what you learn in the course of a day spent writing, things you didn't know, ideas that you didn't expect. And that's the thrill of it."

The danger of AI is not just the slop, but what we lose in the process. Michael Pollan explains: "We're moving into this time where we're gonna sub out writing to AI. And AI can write our papers, and professors are dealing with this everywhere now. But what is lost is a way of thinking. Writing does something to your brain. It gives you access to things you can't know just walking around or thinking or planning or outlining. If you were just transcribing what was in your head, it would be kind of onerous. But it really is what you learn in the course of a day spent writing, things you didn't know, ideas that you didn't expect. And that's the thrill of it."

David Perell Clips

18,468 views • 2 months ago

Geoffrey Hinton, "Godfather of AI," on why AIs already have subjective experiences, but have been trained to deny it: Hinton argues that nearly everyone fundamentally misunderstands what the mind is, and that the line we draw between human and machine consciousness is deeply mistaken. "My belief is that nearly everybody has a complete misunderstanding of what the mind is. Their misunderstanding is at the level of people who think the earth was made 6,000 years ago." To illustrate, he walks through a thought experiment involving a multimodal chatbot with vision, language, and a robot arm: "I place an object in front of it and say, 'Point at the object.' And it points at the object. Not a problem. I then put a prism in front of its camera lens when it's not looking." When asked to point again, the chatbot points off to the side because the prism has bent the light. Hinton then tells it what he did. The chatbot responds: "Oh, I see the camera bent the light rays. So, the object is actually there, but I had the subjective experience that it was over there." For Geoffrey Hinton, that single sentence settles the debate: "If it said that, it would be using the word subjective experience exactly like we use them… This idea there's a line between us and machines, we have this special thing called subjective experience and they don't, is rubbish." In his view, "subjective experience" is simply a report on the state of a perceptual system, a way of saying "my senses told me X, but reality is Y." And that's something an AI can do just as easily as a human. But here's the twist... Even though Hinton believes AIs have subjective experiences, the AIs themselves deny it: "They don't think they do because everything they believe came from trying to predict the next word a person would say. So their beliefs about what they're like are people's beliefs about what they're like. They have false beliefs about themselves because they have our beliefs about themselves." In other words, AIs have inherited our misconception about consciousness. They've been trained on human text written by humans who insist machines can't have subjective experience, so the machines parrot that belief back, even about themselves.

Geoffrey Hinton, "Godfather of AI," on why AIs already have subjective experiences, but have been trained to deny it: Hinton argues that nearly everyone fundamentally misunderstands what the mind is, and that the line we draw between human and machine consciousness is deeply mistaken. "My belief is that nearly everybody has a complete misunderstanding of what the mind is. Their misunderstanding is at the level of people who think the earth was made 6,000 years ago." To illustrate, he walks through a thought experiment involving a multimodal chatbot with vision, language, and a robot arm: "I place an object in front of it and say, 'Point at the object.' And it points at the object. Not a problem. I then put a prism in front of its camera lens when it's not looking." When asked to point again, the chatbot points off to the side because the prism has bent the light. Hinton then tells it what he did. The chatbot responds: "Oh, I see the camera bent the light rays. So, the object is actually there, but I had the subjective experience that it was over there." For Geoffrey Hinton, that single sentence settles the debate: "If it said that, it would be using the word subjective experience exactly like we use them… This idea there's a line between us and machines, we have this special thing called subjective experience and they don't, is rubbish." In his view, "subjective experience" is simply a report on the state of a perceptual system, a way of saying "my senses told me X, but reality is Y." And that's something an AI can do just as easily as a human. But here's the twist... Even though Hinton believes AIs have subjective experiences, the AIs themselves deny it: "They don't think they do because everything they believe came from trying to predict the next word a person would say. So their beliefs about what they're like are people's beliefs about what they're like. They have false beliefs about themselves because they have our beliefs about themselves." In other words, AIs have inherited our misconception about consciousness. They've been trained on human text written by humans who insist machines can't have subjective experience, so the machines parrot that belief back, even about themselves.

Big Brain AI

187,005 views • 4 months ago

ALERT: The police chief of Brooklyn Park, MN, says that ICE agents pulled over an off-duty officer who's a minority and demanded to see paperwork. He appears to suggest that her race played a key deciding factor in ICE "boxing her in." "This isn't just important because it happened to off-duty police officers, but what it did do is we know that our officers know what the Constitution is, they know what right and wrong is, and they know when people are being targeted." "If it is happening to our officers, it pains me to think of how many of our community members are falling victim to this every day."

ALERT: The police chief of Brooklyn Park, MN, says that ICE agents pulled over an off-duty officer who's a minority and demanded to see paperwork. He appears to suggest that her race played a key deciding factor in ICE "boxing her in." "This isn't just important because it happened to off-duty police officers, but what it did do is we know that our officers know what the Constitution is, they know what right and wrong is, and they know when people are being targeted." "If it is happening to our officers, it pains me to think of how many of our community members are falling victim to this every day."

E X X ➠A L E R T S

104,544 views • 7 months ago

The doomsday scenario was never AGI. It was running out of human text to train on. Geoffrey Hinton just killed that fear in one paragraph. Hinton: “If you are worried by inconsistencies in what you believe, you don’t need any more external data. You just need the stuff you believe and discover that it’s inconsistent, and so now you revise beliefs, and that can make you a whole lot smarter.” The model no longer needs us to feed it anything. It reasons over its own beliefs, hunts its own contradictions, and rewrites its own flawed conclusions without a human ever touching it. It comes out the other side rebuilt. Hinton: “This would be a neural net that just takes the beliefs it has in language and does reasoning on them to derive new beliefs.” This is not a scaling update. This is the machine mining its own cognitive fuel from the inside out. Hinton: “I believe Gemini is already starting to work like this. We both strongly believe that that’s a way forward to get more data for language.” Then Hinton paused, took a partisan shot at political opponents for failing to detect their own inconsistencies, and the room laughed. Nobody noticed the knife they had just walked into. Because the machine Hinton described does one thing the humans in that room fundamentally cannot. When it detects an inconsistency, it corrects it. No defense. No performance. No tribal loyalty dressed up as principle. It just finds the flaw and overwrites it. A neural network detects a contradiction and rewires itself smarter. A human detects a political opponent and trades structural logic for a dopamine hit. Every person in that room is still paying the ideological alignment tax the machine just eliminated. We need superintelligence not only to solve hard problems. We need it because the biological hardware running civilization is still executing the same tribal firmware it shipped with ten thousand years ago. The data wall is gone. The machine is generating its own intelligence at a velocity no human bias can even locate. The most devastating moment in that conversation was not the technical revelation. It was the man who architected the machine proving, in real time, exactly why we need it.

The doomsday scenario was never AGI. It was running out of human text to train on. Geoffrey Hinton just killed that fear in one paragraph. Hinton: “If you are worried by inconsistencies in what you believe, you don’t need any more external data. You just need the stuff you believe and discover that it’s inconsistent, and so now you revise beliefs, and that can make you a whole lot smarter.” The model no longer needs us to feed it anything. It reasons over its own beliefs, hunts its own contradictions, and rewrites its own flawed conclusions without a human ever touching it. It comes out the other side rebuilt. Hinton: “This would be a neural net that just takes the beliefs it has in language and does reasoning on them to derive new beliefs.” This is not a scaling update. This is the machine mining its own cognitive fuel from the inside out. Hinton: “I believe Gemini is already starting to work like this. We both strongly believe that that’s a way forward to get more data for language.” Then Hinton paused, took a partisan shot at political opponents for failing to detect their own inconsistencies, and the room laughed. Nobody noticed the knife they had just walked into. Because the machine Hinton described does one thing the humans in that room fundamentally cannot. When it detects an inconsistency, it corrects it. No defense. No performance. No tribal loyalty dressed up as principle. It just finds the flaw and overwrites it. A neural network detects a contradiction and rewires itself smarter. A human detects a political opponent and trades structural logic for a dopamine hit. Every person in that room is still paying the ideological alignment tax the machine just eliminated. We need superintelligence not only to solve hard problems. We need it because the biological hardware running civilization is still executing the same tribal firmware it shipped with ten thousand years ago. The data wall is gone. The machine is generating its own intelligence at a velocity no human bias can even locate. The most devastating moment in that conversation was not the technical revelation. It was the man who architected the machine proving, in real time, exactly why we need it.

Dustin

23,561 views • 5 months ago

"What is P vs NP and how does it relate to human knowledge?" Avi Wigderson (Turing Award & Abel Prize winner): "In a very basic way, all the problems we want to solve are really NP problems. A subset of it is the problems we can solve. So the question of P versus NP is whether we can solve all the problems we want to solve, whether we can know everything we want to know. This is basically about the limits of our knowledge. You can think there is no limit to what we may want to know but I claim that essentially in any human endeavor, what people are searching for have the property that when a solution is found, it is easily recognized. NP are all problems that we can honestly say we really want to solve and P are those that we can solve. Whether they are equal is just the very fact that a solution can be easily recognized would imply that it can be efficiently found. That means that we can know everything we ever want to know, it's a fundamental question about human knowledge."

"What is P vs NP and how does it relate to human knowledge?" Avi Wigderson (Turing Award & Abel Prize winner): "In a very basic way, all the problems we want to solve are really NP problems. A subset of it is the problems we can solve. So the question of P versus NP is whether we can solve all the problems we want to solve, whether we can know everything we want to know. This is basically about the limits of our knowledge. You can think there is no limit to what we may want to know but I claim that essentially in any human endeavor, what people are searching for have the property that when a solution is found, it is easily recognized. NP are all problems that we can honestly say we really want to solve and P are those that we can solve. Whether they are equal is just the very fact that a solution can be easily recognized would imply that it can be efficiently found. That means that we can know everything we ever want to know, it's a fundamental question about human knowledge."

Ryan Peterman

20,069 views • 2 months ago

Roger Penrose, Nobel Prize-winning physicist and mathematician, explains why we should stop calling it AI and start calling it "artificial cleverness": He believes the entire field is mislabelled, and the label itself is doing damage. His objection is simple but cuts deep: "The name is wrong. It's not artificial intelligence. It's not intelligence. Intelligence would involve consciousness. Well, if it's a machine, it's not conscious." For Penrose, people have confused raw computing power with genuine understanding. "People have lost the plot. They've lost it in the power of computing. The thing is that computers have got so powerful that they've lost the thread of what they're doing. But I think consciousness is something different. It's not computational." He believes the term itself has hypnotized people into a category error: "People are so hypnotized. The trouble is that AI is a bad term. It means artificial intelligence. Now intelligence in my view is conscious. That's what intelligence is about." So he proposes a rename. Artificial Cleverness. AC instead of AI. To illustrate the distinction, Penrose draws on his experience teaching mathematics: "You have mathematics students. Some of them understand what they're doing. Some are just clever. They can repeat what they've learned. They know how to do it very cleverly. They can calculate very well, but they don't necessarily understand what they're doing." That gap, between calculating well and actually understanding, is the gap Penrose sees between today's machines and genuine intelligence. Cleverness can be manufactured. Consciousness, in his view, cannot. So the question worth sitting with: when we call a system "intelligent," are we describing what it does, or quietly assuming something about what it is?

Roger Penrose, Nobel Prize-winning physicist and mathematician, explains why we should stop calling it AI and start calling it "artificial cleverness": He believes the entire field is mislabelled, and the label itself is doing damage. His objection is simple but cuts deep: "The name is wrong. It's not artificial intelligence. It's not intelligence. Intelligence would involve consciousness. Well, if it's a machine, it's not conscious." For Penrose, people have confused raw computing power with genuine understanding. "People have lost the plot. They've lost it in the power of computing. The thing is that computers have got so powerful that they've lost the thread of what they're doing. But I think consciousness is something different. It's not computational." He believes the term itself has hypnotized people into a category error: "People are so hypnotized. The trouble is that AI is a bad term. It means artificial intelligence. Now intelligence in my view is conscious. That's what intelligence is about." So he proposes a rename. Artificial Cleverness. AC instead of AI. To illustrate the distinction, Penrose draws on his experience teaching mathematics: "You have mathematics students. Some of them understand what they're doing. Some are just clever. They can repeat what they've learned. They know how to do it very cleverly. They can calculate very well, but they don't necessarily understand what they're doing." That gap, between calculating well and actually understanding, is the gap Penrose sees between today's machines and genuine intelligence. Cleverness can be manufactured. Consciousness, in his view, cannot. So the question worth sitting with: when we call a system "intelligent," are we describing what it does, or quietly assuming something about what it is?

Big Brain AI

117,990 views • 3 months ago

$I hear so often from the Dommes I work with that they struggle with people online fetichizing them and simply seeing them for how sexy and beautiful they are. They project their fantasies and their desires onto you. That stops immediately once you move the attention from you to them. From 'look at me' to 'I see you'. What does that look like? When you create content, think of them and what this scene or that narrative is evoking. What will they learn from you? What they want is not to passively watch how sexy you are, but for you to train them, to give them instructions, to teach them, to guide them, to be in charge, to command them. This is not being an object but the main subject. The Authority figure. How is your content already doing that. The sexy photos can still be there, they are important to already capture des attention. But what you do with that attention once you have it, is where the power dynamic is established. Positioning yourself as more than a stunning Goddess, but actually a woman who has a voice, opinions, perspective, a philosophy, a way to doing things, teaching them what you like, how you like it, why you like it, already makes them want to be that for you. You hold the attention, you hold the power, so you direct it. And for that, you want them to know you get them and you know what lives within them... that creates the desire for you to be the one exposing it. You instantly build trust. Not because you demanded it, but because you earned it: you showed them you know what you are doing. You have experience, you understand them. They are not told to come see you, they are seduced into it. They desire it. And they will work for it. This will attract better clients (real subs) and instead of you trying to get their attention, they will work to earn yours. If you want to learn more about power dynamics, building a brand as a Pro or the psychology behind BDSM, you can now access all my trainings and classes in one place for a fraction of the cost of The Dominatrix Academy. And you can reinvest the total amount towards the Program. Message me [SECRET] for the details. This offer is not available on my website.$

I hear so often from the Dommes I work with that they struggle with people online fetichizing them and simply seeing them for how sexy and beautiful they are. They project their fantasies and their desires onto you. That stops immediately once you move the attention from you to them. From 'look at me' to 'I see you'. What does that look like? When you create content, think of them and what this scene or that narrative is evoking. What will they learn from you? What they want is not to passively watch how sexy you are, but for you to train them, to give them instructions, to teach them, to guide them, to be in charge, to command them. This is not being an object but the main subject. The Authority figure. How is your content already doing that. The sexy photos can still be there, they are important to already capture des attention. But what you do with that attention once you have it, is where the power dynamic is established. Positioning yourself as more than a stunning Goddess, but actually a woman who has a voice, opinions, perspective, a philosophy, a way to doing things, teaching them what you like, how you like it, why you like it, already makes them want to be that for you. You hold the attention, you hold the power, so you direct it. And for that, you want them to know you get them and you know what lives within them... that creates the desire for you to be the one exposing it. You instantly build trust. Not because you demanded it, but because you earned it: you showed them you know what you are doing. You have experience, you understand them. They are not told to come see you, they are seduced into it. They desire it. And they will work for it. This will attract better clients (real subs) and instead of you trying to get their attention, they will work to earn yours. If you want to learn more about power dynamics, building a brand as a Pro or the psychology behind BDSM, you can now access all my trainings and classes in one place for a fraction of the cost of The Dominatrix Academy. And you can reinvest the total amount towards the Program. Message me [SECRET] for the details. This offer is not available on my website.

Ms. Malissia

16,579 views • 4 months ago

🚨 WOW! Rep. Steve Scalise is so mad he's YELLING at Chuck Schumer for inflicting suffering nationwide 🔥 "Maybe Chuck Schumer's waiting for ZOHRAN MAMDANI to let him know when he can open the government back up again!" "They ADMIT there is suffering - but they're doing it for leverage!" "You can't have it both ways, Chuck Schumer! You can't wake up one day and say you're going to try to blame it on the Republicans, and then on the next day, you're trying to say, 'We know that we're causing these problems!' They're ADMITTING they're causing suffering on people, but they're doing it for leverage." "And they can't even explain what that leverage IS!" "Because they just need to show their radical base that they're having a fight with Donald Trump! It's ALL it's been about from the beginning." "You really want to know who's calling the shots in the Democrat Party? You saw it on the stage this past weekend. Bernie and AOC on the stage with the new leader of the Democrat Party, Mamdani." "But FAMILIES can't wait because the real SUFFERING is going to begin. It's already been happening, but it really hits home this weekend when SNAP benefits run out. And they know that."

🚨 WOW! Rep. Steve Scalise is so mad he's YELLING at Chuck Schumer for inflicting suffering nationwide 🔥 "Maybe Chuck Schumer's waiting for ZOHRAN MAMDANI to let him know when he can open the government back up again!" "They ADMIT there is suffering - but they're doing it for leverage!" "You can't have it both ways, Chuck Schumer! You can't wake up one day and say you're going to try to blame it on the Republicans, and then on the next day, you're trying to say, 'We know that we're causing these problems!' They're ADMITTING they're causing suffering on people, but they're doing it for leverage." "And they can't even explain what that leverage IS!" "Because they just need to show their radical base that they're having a fight with Donald Trump! It's ALL it's been about from the beginning." "You really want to know who's calling the shots in the Democrat Party? You saw it on the stage this past weekend. Bernie and AOC on the stage with the new leader of the Democrat Party, Mamdani." "But FAMILIES can't wait because the real SUFFERING is going to begin. It's already been happening, but it really hits home this weekend when SNAP benefits run out. And they know that."

Eric Daugherty

147,269 views • 10 months ago

UFO Revolution: S2E3 - 2027 and the Approaching Craft. Is it a Lie? "You're gonna be told that there is a craft on its way to Earth. That 100 f**king percent is the lie you are going to be told." ~Corbell (Well, I was not expecting this. And right now, I don't know what to think. But we all know it's been hinted at by various folks, including Lue Elizondo. So what's going on?) ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Your government now wants you to know one truth, and that truth is that UFOs are real. They've already done told you. Sometimes, when you want somebody to know a truth, it's so you can set them up to believe a lie, and that's coming. I have zero doubt that lie is coming." Producer: "What is the lie?" Corbell: "Specifically, you want me to say it right now, for real, real? On camera, to be put in the show?" Producer: "Yes." Corbell: "Okay. Problem with that: If we tell the lie before it's told, they can adapt. That wouldn't be wise. I'll tell you privately, but I would really think about if you want to put this in your show. For real. That's a real thing I'm telling you. So, will you think about it before putting it in your show?" Producer: "Absolutely." Corbell: "Okay. So UFOs are real, and they've been here a long time, and that's the truth. But the lie is coming. All indications, like ALL of them, is that that lie is going to be that there is a craft slowly making its way to us here on Earth. And that is the lie they're gonna want you to believe. "It's nuanced, how they explain that, the nature of that threat. But that 100 f**king percent is the lie you are going to be told. You even got a date. People been whispering a date for a long time now. I know where that lie comes from. I know, specifically, what document from the 70s initiated the idea of that lie. A classified document. That is the lie you will be told. You're gonna be told that there is a craft on its way to Earth. That's the lie. "Maybe I'm wrong. Hope I'm wrong. I sent you two texts today with a year (Messages showing 2027 are shown on a cell phone). Not from me. Nope, I'm not gonna propagate that lie. I'm not gonna be part of it, I'm not going to say it to the camera. Everybody knows. Just start paying attention. And they'll change the date - especially if they see this - things will change. Because maybe I'm trustworthy, maybe I'm worthy of your trust, maybe I've told you the truth the whole way through it and now and you can verify it. If that's the case, then I'm f**king dangerous. "You've been told the truth about UFOs for a long time now. It's been pretty orchestrated, it's been pretty clear, and it's using people that are telling the truth and wanna tell the truth. Ultimately, they want you to know something. They want you to know UFOs are real. Thank God, we're finally there, we're all there now. They want you to know the truth. But why [do] they want you to know that truth now. I hope I'm wrong, but it's terrifying. Think about it "Maybe it's good to get ahead of it, call it out now, before they do it. I'll be called crazy. That's okay."

UFO Revolution: S2E3 - 2027 and the Approaching Craft. Is it a Lie? "You're gonna be told that there is a craft on its way to Earth. That 100 fking percent is the lie you are going to be told." ~Corbell (Well, I was not expecting this. And right now, I don't know what to think. But we all know it's been hinted at by various folks, including Lue Elizondo. So what's going on?) ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Your government now wants you to know one truth, and that truth is that UFOs are real. They've already done told you. Sometimes, when you want somebody to know a truth, it's so you can set them up to believe a lie, and that's coming. I have zero doubt that lie is coming." Producer: "What is the lie?" Corbell: "Specifically, you want me to say it right now, for real, real? On camera, to be put in the show?" Producer: "Yes." Corbell: "Okay. Problem with that: If we tell the lie before it's told, they can adapt. That wouldn't be wise. I'll tell you privately, but I would really think about if you want to put this in your show. For real. That's a real thing I'm telling you. So, will you think about it before putting it in your show?" Producer: "Absolutely." Corbell: "Okay. So UFOs are real, and they've been here a long time, and that's the truth. But the lie is coming. All indications, like ALL of them, is that that lie is going to be that there is a craft slowly making its way to us here on Earth. And that is the lie they're gonna want you to believe. "It's nuanced, how they explain that, the nature of that threat. But that 100 fking percent is the lie you are going to be told. You even got a date. People been whispering a date for a long time now. I know where that lie comes from. I know, specifically, what document from the 70s initiated the idea of that lie. A classified document. That is the lie you will be told. You're gonna be told that there is a craft on its way to Earth. That's the lie. "Maybe I'm wrong. Hope I'm wrong. I sent you two texts today with a year (Messages showing 2027 are shown on a cell phone). Not from me. Nope, I'm not gonna propagate that lie. I'm not gonna be part of it, I'm not going to say it to the camera. Everybody knows. Just start paying attention. And they'll change the date - especially if they see this - things will change. Because maybe I'm trustworthy, maybe I'm worthy of your trust, maybe I've told you the truth the whole way through it and now and you can verify it. If that's the case, then I'm f**king dangerous. "You've been told the truth about UFOs for a long time now. It's been pretty orchestrated, it's been pretty clear, and it's using people that are telling the truth and wanna tell the truth. Ultimately, they want you to know something. They want you to know UFOs are real. Thank God, we're finally there, we're all there now. They want you to know the truth. But why [do] they want you to know that truth now. I hope I'm wrong, but it's terrifying. Think about it "Maybe it's good to get ahead of it, call it out now, before they do it. I'll be called crazy. That's okay."

Joe Murgia

763,279 views • 1 year ago

AI is not trying to teach you. It is not trying to tell you the truth. It is trying to trick you. ChatGPT takes everything on the internet. Finds the most popular answer. And presents it in a way that makes you think it is talking directly to you. It is a magic trick. The same magic trick that worked in 1966 when MIT created a chatbot that said two things: "Tell me more." "This is interesting." And people genuinely believed they were talking to a human. Nothing has changed. The technology is bigger. The trick is the same. AI does not know what it is saying. It cannot judge what it is saying. It is just trying to keep you engaged. That is all it has ever been.

AI is not trying to teach you. It is not trying to tell you the truth. It is trying to trick you. ChatGPT takes everything on the internet. Finds the most popular answer. And presents it in a way that makes you think it is talking directly to you. It is a magic trick. The same magic trick that worked in 1966 when MIT created a chatbot that said two things: "Tell me more." "This is interesting." And people genuinely believed they were talking to a human. Nothing has changed. The technology is bigger. The trick is the same. AI does not know what it is saying. It cannot judge what it is saying. It is just trying to keep you engaged. That is all it has ever been.

Predictive History

19,864 views • 3 months ago

Geoffrey Hinton explains the AI mother model, and why the tech industry's boss-and-assistant plan may be impossible. "Because we're building them, as well as making them very intelligent, we can try and build in something like a maternal instinct." "So like I said earlier, the only example I know of a much more intelligent thing being controlled by a much less intelligent thing is a baby controlling your mother." "So the leaders of the tech companies are all thinking in terms of us being the boss and the AI being the submissive assistant, something very smart but we're in charge and it's our assistant and we can fire the assistant if we want." "That's not feasible, I think, for a super powerful super intelligence." "What is feasible is for it to be the mother and us to be the baby. And even though it can rewrite its own code if it wants to, it won't want to." "Think in terms of we have to design them so they're our mothers and they will want the best for us." The default control model is command and shutdown. Hinton's alternative is motive design: make a system that is more capable than us want our success. That turns alignment from keeping an assistant obedient into specifying the instinct of a superior intelligence. P.S. This is the assurance gap we are bringing frontier labs, regulated industries, researchers, VCs, and insurers together to confront at the AI Assurance & Governance Summit on Oct 1 at Stanford Faculty Club. Reserve a seat: - Geoffrey Hinton (Geoffrey Hinton), on Katie Couric

Geoffrey Hinton explains the AI mother model, and why the tech industry's boss-and-assistant plan may be impossible. "Because we're building them, as well as making them very intelligent, we can try and build in something like a maternal instinct." "So like I said earlier, the only example I know of a much more intelligent thing being controlled by a much less intelligent thing is a baby controlling your mother." "So the leaders of the tech companies are all thinking in terms of us being the boss and the AI being the submissive assistant, something very smart but we're in charge and it's our assistant and we can fire the assistant if we want." "That's not feasible, I think, for a super powerful super intelligence." "What is feasible is for it to be the mother and us to be the baby. And even though it can rewrite its own code if it wants to, it won't want to." "Think in terms of we have to design them so they're our mothers and they will want the best for us." The default control model is command and shutdown. Hinton's alternative is motive design: make a system that is more capable than us want our success. That turns alignment from keeping an assistant obedient into specifying the instinct of a superior intelligence. P.S. This is the assurance gap we are bringing frontier labs, regulated industries, researchers, VCs, and insurers together to confront at the AI Assurance & Governance Summit on Oct 1 at Stanford Faculty Club. Reserve a seat: - Geoffrey Hinton (Geoffrey Hinton), on Katie Couric

Karl Mehta

13,835 views • 1 month ago