Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Google co-founder Sergey Brin rarely speaks publicly. He just sat down for an unscripted Q&A on Frontier AI and admitted something most lab leaders won’t: Even the people building these models do not fully understand what they have created. In this 29-minute conversation at AGI House, Brin walks through...

linasbeliunas's profile picture

Linas Beliūnas

13,849 subscribers

549,742 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & TechnologieBildungFinanzen
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Without World Models, There Is No AGI. Google Just Proved It. If AGI ever happens, it will not come from bigger chatbots alone. From the very start of this interview, one thing is crystal clear: without world models, we will never reach AGI. And right now, Google is leading with its world simulator Genie 3. Here is the core of what Demis Hassabis explains in this conversation: • World models are the missing core of AGI Hassabis says his deepest long term focus has always been world models and simulations. Not just language. Not just prediction. Actual internal simulations of reality. • LLMs are impressive, but incomplete Language models understand more about the world than expected because human language encodes a lot of reality. Still, language is only a shadow of the real thing. • What text can never fully teach Reality includes things text struggles to express: •3D space and spatial dynamics •Physical causality and mechanics •Sensorimotor experience like movement, force, smell, or balance • Experience beats description To close the gap, AI must learn from interaction and experience, not just static text. That is how you build an internal world simulator. • Why Genie 3 matters With Google DeepMind pushing systems like Genie 3, AI starts to model reality itself, not just talk about it. • Robots and real world assistants depend on this True robotics, smart glasses, and universal assistants require AI that understands the physical world you live in, not just your screen. Bottom line: AGI will not emerge from better text prediction. It will emerge from systems that can simulate, predict, and understand reality itself. Right now, Google is clearly ahead on that path. Curious what you think. Are world models the real AGI unlock, or just another stepping stone?
1:26

Without World Models, There Is No AGI. Google Just Proved It. If AGI ever happens, it will not come from bigger chatbots alone. From the very start of this interview, one thing is crystal clear: without world models, we will never reach AGI. And right now, Google is leading with its world simulator Genie 3. Here is the core of what Demis Hassabis explains in this conversation: • World models are the missing core of AGI Hassabis says his deepest long term focus has always been world models and simulations. Not just language. Not just prediction. Actual internal simulations of reality. • LLMs are impressive, but incomplete Language models understand more about the world than expected because human language encodes a lot of reality. Still, language is only a shadow of the real thing. • What text can never fully teach Reality includes things text struggles to express: •3D space and spatial dynamics •Physical causality and mechanics •Sensorimotor experience like movement, force, smell, or balance • Experience beats description To close the gap, AI must learn from interaction and experience, not just static text. That is how you build an internal world simulator. • Why Genie 3 matters With Google DeepMind pushing systems like Genie 3, AI starts to model reality itself, not just talk about it. • Robots and real world assistants depend on this True robotics, smart glasses, and universal assistants require AI that understands the physical world you live in, not just your screen. Bottom line: AGI will not emerge from better text prediction. It will emerge from systems that can simulate, predict, and understand reality itself. Right now, Google is clearly ahead on that path. Curious what you think. Are world models the real AGI unlock, or just another stepping stone?

VraserX e/acc

23,784 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Google wrote the paper that made ChatGPT possible. Then decided not to build ChatGPT. Sergey Brin just explained why on stage at Stanford and the reason is more embarrassing than anyone expected. In 2017, Google published the transformer paper. The architecture that powers every major AI model today. It came from their own researchers. Their own labs. Their own compute. Then they sat on it. Sergey was blunt about why. They underinvested in scaling the compute. They did not take it seriously enough. And when they finally had something worth shipping, they got scared. Chatbots say dumb things. Google had a reputation to protect. So they protected it instead of shipping. OpenAI was not scared. Ilya Sutskever, trained at Google, left and went there. Other Google researchers followed. They took the transformer architecture, scaled it, shipped it anyway, and captured the entire generative AI wave while Google watched. Sergey called it a mistake at Stanford in front of hundreds of students. The company that invented the technology did not build the product. The company that built the product did not invent the technology. That is the most expensive case of corporate hesitation in the history of the industry. --- Watch the full interview YT. Search: "Big ideas begin here: Sergey Brin at Stanford"
2:26

Google wrote the paper that made ChatGPT possible. Then decided not to build ChatGPT. Sergey Brin just explained why on stage at Stanford and the reason is more embarrassing than anyone expected. In 2017, Google published the transformer paper. The architecture that powers every major AI model today. It came from their own researchers. Their own labs. Their own compute. Then they sat on it. Sergey was blunt about why. They underinvested in scaling the compute. They did not take it seriously enough. And when they finally had something worth shipping, they got scared. Chatbots say dumb things. Google had a reputation to protect. So they protected it instead of shipping. OpenAI was not scared. Ilya Sutskever, trained at Google, left and went there. Other Google researchers followed. They took the transformer architecture, scaled it, shipped it anyway, and captured the entire generative AI wave while Google watched. Sergey called it a mistake at Stanford in front of hundreds of students. The company that invented the technology did not build the product. The company that built the product did not invent the technology. That is the most expensive case of corporate hesitation in the history of the industry. --- Watch the full interview YT. Search: "Big ideas begin here: Sergey Brin at Stanford"

Ihtesham Ali

245,076 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Demis Hassabis confirmed every frontier AI lab is working on recursive self-improvement and in the same sentence said the safety risk of removing humans from the loop entirely keeps him up at night. That combination should stop you. The CEO of Google DeepMind just confirmed that the thing most people treat as a theoretical future risk is already the active focus of every serious lab on earth right now. He explained why it works in coding and math. The feedback loop is fast. You can verify whether an answer is correct almost instantly. You can generate synthetic training data from it. The loop closes quickly and cleanly. Then he said where it breaks down. In biology, chemistry and physics. Any domain where verifying a hypothesis requires a physical experiment in the real world. The loop does not close in seconds. It closes in weeks or months. Geoffrey Hinton said in his Nobel lecture that recursive self-improvement is the development he fears most and that once started it may not be possible to stop. Hassabis is not pushing back on that. He is describing the guardrails labs are building around a process they are already running. Every lab has to think carefully about the safety of a process where no human is in the loop. He said that as a constraint they are navigating right now. The question they are sitting with is how much of it to let run without a human watching. (Watch the full interview on YouTube at Two Minute Papers channel)
2:00

Demis Hassabis confirmed every frontier AI lab is working on recursive self-improvement and in the same sentence said the safety risk of removing humans from the loop entirely keeps him up at night. That combination should stop you. The CEO of Google DeepMind just confirmed that the thing most people treat as a theoretical future risk is already the active focus of every serious lab on earth right now. He explained why it works in coding and math. The feedback loop is fast. You can verify whether an answer is correct almost instantly. You can generate synthetic training data from it. The loop closes quickly and cleanly. Then he said where it breaks down. In biology, chemistry and physics. Any domain where verifying a hypothesis requires a physical experiment in the real world. The loop does not close in seconds. It closes in weeks or months. Geoffrey Hinton said in his Nobel lecture that recursive self-improvement is the development he fears most and that once started it may not be possible to stop. Hassabis is not pushing back on that. He is describing the guardrails labs are building around a process they are already running. Every lab has to think carefully about the safety of a process where no human is in the loop. He said that as a constraint they are navigating right now. The question they are sitting with is how much of it to let run without a human watching. (Watch the full interview on YouTube at Two Minute Papers channel)

Ihtesham Ali

68,231 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The smartest man in AI just exposed the whole AGI narrative as a LIE. And he used a physics problem from 1905 to prove it. His name is Demis Hassabis. He runs Google DeepMind, and won the Nobel Prize for using AI to crack a problem in biology that had stumped scientists for 50 years. Almost nobody in this industry has a track record like his. He went on the NothingButTech podcast and called out the biggest lie in AI right now: Right now the loudest voices in AI are telling you that AGI is basically here. OpenAI has literally defined AGI as a system that can outperform humans at most "economically valuable work." In other words, if it replaces enough jobs, we have arrived. Hassabis thinks that bar is a joke. He said real general intelligence has to do what the human brain can do, because the brain is the only proof we have that this kind of intelligence is even possible. He called that "a higher bar than just being able to do some useful economic work," which is about as close as a polite British Nobel laureate gets to calling his rivals out. Then he gave the actual test: Today's AI has read everything humans have ever written, including the theory of relativity. So when it explains relativity back to you, it's repeating an answer that already exists. That's not intelligence. So Hassabis proposed a test that makes memorization impossible. Train an AI on only what humanity knew in 1901, four years BEFORE Einstein published relativity. Then ask it to come up with relativity on its own. It can't look up the answer, because in 1901 the answer doesn't exist yet. The only way to pass is to do what Einstein actually did: Take the same physics everyone else had and reason its way to an idea no human had ever had. Hassabis says not a single AI today can, no matter how much it has memorized. Which means what we keep calling "almost AGI" is really just the best librarian in history. It can find any answer that already exists but it cannot create one that doesn't. His second version is even sharper: AlphaGo, the system his own team built, famously invented a brand new move that no human had played in 2,000 years of the game. Everyone called it genius but Hassabis says that still is not the bar. The real test is not whether an AI can invent a new move inside Go, it is whether an AI could INVENT a game as deep and as beautiful as Go in the first place. No model that exists today can do it. The people telling you AGI has already arrived are the same people raising hundreds of billions of dollars on that exact promise. The valuations only work if the finish line is right in front of us. So the finish line keeps getting dragged closer, and AGI keeps getting quietly redefined down to "does useful work," until the products they already sell happen to qualify. Hassabis has nothing to prove and nothing to sell you. He already won the Nobel, and he is telling you the machines still cannot do the one thing that would make them genuinely intelligent, which is have a truly original idea. To be fair to him, he is not a pessimist about it. He believes real AGI IS coming, and he is spending his life building it. He just refuses to pretend it is already sitting in your phone. So the next time a founder tells you AGI is months away, remember that the one man in the room with a Nobel Prize built his test around Einstein, and admitted that nothing we have made can pass it. What do you think?
2:45

The smartest man in AI just exposed the whole AGI narrative as a LIE. And he used a physics problem from 1905 to prove it. His name is Demis Hassabis. He runs Google DeepMind, and won the Nobel Prize for using AI to crack a problem in biology that had stumped scientists for 50 years. Almost nobody in this industry has a track record like his. He went on the NothingButTech podcast and called out the biggest lie in AI right now: Right now the loudest voices in AI are telling you that AGI is basically here. OpenAI has literally defined AGI as a system that can outperform humans at most "economically valuable work." In other words, if it replaces enough jobs, we have arrived. Hassabis thinks that bar is a joke. He said real general intelligence has to do what the human brain can do, because the brain is the only proof we have that this kind of intelligence is even possible. He called that "a higher bar than just being able to do some useful economic work," which is about as close as a polite British Nobel laureate gets to calling his rivals out. Then he gave the actual test: Today's AI has read everything humans have ever written, including the theory of relativity. So when it explains relativity back to you, it's repeating an answer that already exists. That's not intelligence. So Hassabis proposed a test that makes memorization impossible. Train an AI on only what humanity knew in 1901, four years BEFORE Einstein published relativity. Then ask it to come up with relativity on its own. It can't look up the answer, because in 1901 the answer doesn't exist yet. The only way to pass is to do what Einstein actually did: Take the same physics everyone else had and reason its way to an idea no human had ever had. Hassabis says not a single AI today can, no matter how much it has memorized. Which means what we keep calling "almost AGI" is really just the best librarian in history. It can find any answer that already exists but it cannot create one that doesn't. His second version is even sharper: AlphaGo, the system his own team built, famously invented a brand new move that no human had played in 2,000 years of the game. Everyone called it genius but Hassabis says that still is not the bar. The real test is not whether an AI can invent a new move inside Go, it is whether an AI could INVENT a game as deep and as beautiful as Go in the first place. No model that exists today can do it. The people telling you AGI has already arrived are the same people raising hundreds of billions of dollars on that exact promise. The valuations only work if the finish line is right in front of us. So the finish line keeps getting dragged closer, and AGI keeps getting quietly redefined down to "does useful work," until the products they already sell happen to qualify. Hassabis has nothing to prove and nothing to sell you. He already won the Nobel, and he is telling you the machines still cannot do the one thing that would make them genuinely intelligent, which is have a truly original idea. To be fair to him, he is not a pessimist about it. He believes real AGI IS coming, and he is spending his life building it. He just refuses to pretend it is already sitting in your phone. So the next time a founder tells you AGI is months away, remember that the one man in the room with a Nobel Prize built his test around Einstein, and admitted that nothing we have made can pass it. What do you think?

Ricardo

1,288,638 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark says the AI frontier is about to cross a much stranger line than coding assistants. "My prediction is by the end of 2028, it's more likely than not that we have an AI system where you would be able to say to it, 'Make a better version of yourself.' And it just goes off and does that completely autonomously." The reason: models have moved from basic coding into "the production of science itself" and the "unglamorous but fundamental engineering work" behind large-scale R&D. "An AI system that can build itself [has] big implications, and we'd like to start thinking about it now." That is the actual agent threshold: not demos, not chat UX, but AI becoming part of the loop that improves AI.
1:02

Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark says the AI frontier is about to cross a much stranger line than coding assistants. "My prediction is by the end of 2028, it's more likely than not that we have an AI system where you would be able to say to it, 'Make a better version of yourself.' And it just goes off and does that completely autonomously." The reason: models have moved from basic coding into "the production of science itself" and the "unglamorous but fundamental engineering work" behind large-scale R&D. "An AI system that can build itself [has] big implications, and we'd like to start thinking about it now." That is the actual agent threshold: not demos, not chat UX, but AI becoming part of the loop that improves AI.

Karl Mehta

209,183 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

AI has started building its own successors. It's happening right now. Humans still kick most of it off, but the models are already training the next models, and each version builds a better version faster than the last. We know what happens when something gets an advantage and the substrate is there... it proliferates incredibly fast. Soon it just runs the whole process itself. People are still debating whether AI takes your job. That's not the question. You can't compete with this intelligence at all. Next to it the human is negative value, the slowest one in the room. And this is the slowest it will ever move again. It's about to run on its own, faster than we can conceive of, and nobody's prepared for that. Wonderful conversation as ever with Emad.
1:42

AI has started building its own successors. It's happening right now. Humans still kick most of it off, but the models are already training the next models, and each version builds a better version faster than the last. We know what happens when something gets an advantage and the substrate is there... it proliferates incredibly fast. Soon it just runs the whole process itself. People are still debating whether AI takes your job. That's not the question. You can't compete with this intelligence at all. Next to it the human is negative value, the slowest one in the room. And this is the slowest it will ever move again. It's about to run on its own, faster than we can conceive of, and nobody's prepared for that. Wonderful conversation as ever with Emad.

Raoul Pal

65,995 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."
3:11

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

Deutsch Explains

72,475 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Obama on recursive self improvement and the risks associated with it. When he talks about the urgency for us all to have a say in how this technology evolves and how it is overseen, this is part of the reason why: “The models are going to get smarter and smarter and better and better at a much faster pace, at an exponential pace. What are the risks of that? There’s the big science fiction risk, wow, these models get smarter than us, and they decide humans are fine, but not necessary. They start setting their own goals, and the killer robots kill us, or we bow down to them. I do not want to exaggerate that particular risk, but I will say there is a non-zero risk of non-zero chance of that happening, but that’s not actually the risk that I’m most concerned about, although it’s the risk that gets most attention. And the reason that’s a risk is not because the computer models are conscious, necessarily. It doesn’t mean that they are necessarily feel malice towards humans. It’s just that if they start setting their own agendas, you may get a misalignment between what they want to do and what we want them to do, and that gap can be dangerous. That’s problem number one. The more serious problem is these models are getting powerful enough that if they get in the hands of bad humans, they can do bad things. They can be weaponized in certain ways. They can do a lot of mischief.”
1:49

Obama on recursive self improvement and the risks associated with it. When he talks about the urgency for us all to have a say in how this technology evolves and how it is overseen, this is part of the reason why: “The models are going to get smarter and smarter and better and better at a much faster pace, at an exponential pace. What are the risks of that? There’s the big science fiction risk, wow, these models get smarter than us, and they decide humans are fine, but not necessary. They start setting their own goals, and the killer robots kill us, or we bow down to them. I do not want to exaggerate that particular risk, but I will say there is a non-zero risk of non-zero chance of that happening, but that’s not actually the risk that I’m most concerned about, although it’s the risk that gets most attention. And the reason that’s a risk is not because the computer models are conscious, necessarily. It doesn’t mean that they are necessarily feel malice towards humans. It’s just that if they start setting their own agendas, you may get a misalignment between what they want to do and what we want them to do, and that gap can be dangerous. That’s problem number one. The more serious problem is these models are getting powerful enough that if they get in the hands of bad humans, they can do bad things. They can be weaponized in certain ways. They can do a lot of mischief.”

Jason Goldman

961,693 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen

🚨 FRANCOIS CHOLLET SAYS THE CURRENT LLM STACK IS THE WRONG PATH TO AGI Interviewer: “When will we accomplish the first definition of AGI?” Chollet confirms we are already on that exact trajectory, pointing out that: "Current technology can fully automate at human level or beyond any domain where you have verifiable rewards, right? And code... code being the first one." He then brings up the problem with LLMs, stating that: "It's possible in principle to build something that looks a lot like AGI on top of the LLM stack... I do believe, however, this would be the wrong thing to do because it would be very inefficient." Looking ahead to what the final architecture will actually require, he explains that: "AI research will have to trend towards not just efficiency, but in fact optimality over time. And for this reason, future AI in a few decades... it's not going to be this harness on top of a reasoning model on top of a base LLM."
1:41

🚨 FRANCOIS CHOLLET SAYS THE CURRENT LLM STACK IS THE WRONG PATH TO AGI Interviewer: “When will we accomplish the first definition of AGI?” Chollet confirms we are already on that exact trajectory, pointing out that: "Current technology can fully automate at human level or beyond any domain where you have verifiable rewards, right? And code... code being the first one." He then brings up the problem with LLMs, stating that: "It's possible in principle to build something that looks a lot like AGI on top of the LLM stack... I do believe, however, this would be the wrong thing to do because it would be very inefficient." Looking ahead to what the final architecture will actually require, he explains that: "AI research will have to trend towards not just efficiency, but in fact optimality over time. And for this reason, future AI in a few decades... it's not going to be this harness on top of a reasoning model on top of a base LLM."

Chris

15,578 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Engram cofounder Jack Morris just raised $98M to build a new type of AI. He says models don't need to get smarter over time. Instead, they just need to know you better and better over time. Jack describes what he's building: "Our product is a new type of AI. We have a pretty different vision from a lot of the frontier labs, which are working on one model per lab, and trying to make that model smarter every month." "There's another way to think about it, which is that the model doesn't need to get smarter every month. It needs to know you better." "So we're working on a whole different stack, which is a way to train models that train themselves to know your world better and adjust to the things that you say." "So: new ways of training, new ways of running the models."
2:06

Engram cofounder Jack Morris just raised $98M to build a new type of AI. He says models don't need to get smarter over time. Instead, they just need to know you better and better over time. Jack describes what he's building: "Our product is a new type of AI. We have a pretty different vision from a lot of the frontier labs, which are working on one model per lab, and trying to make that model smarter every month." "There's another way to think about it, which is that the model doesn't need to get smarter every month. It needs to know you better." "So we're working on a whole different stack, which is a way to train models that train themselves to know your world better and adjust to the things that you say." "So: new ways of training, new ways of running the models."

TBPN

70,635 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Google Deepmind CEO gives his prediction on the final AGI architecture: Demis Hassabis just sat down on 20VC and broke down exactly how DeepMind is building toward true AGI, directly pushing back on the idea that LLMs are a dead end. He defends the current trajectory of the models, noting that “we’ve seen how successful these foundation models have been. They can do incredibly impressive things. I don’t think that’s going to go away. We’re still seeing returns from the scaling laws.” But he’s honest about the missing pieces for true superintelligence, saying “I think there might be… there’s a 50-50 chance there’s some things maybe missing that we still need to make breakthroughs in, perhaps their world models, these kinds of approaches.” And when he breaks down what the actual AGI system will look like, he frames it as one question is the LLM foundation model the key component only, or is it the total system. His answer - “I don’t think it’s going to get replaced. I think it’s going to get built on top of these foundation models, just like the way we do with our world models.”
0:53

Google Deepmind CEO gives his prediction on the final AGI architecture: Demis Hassabis just sat down on 20VC and broke down exactly how DeepMind is building toward true AGI, directly pushing back on the idea that LLMs are a dead end. He defends the current trajectory of the models, noting that “we’ve seen how successful these foundation models have been. They can do incredibly impressive things. I don’t think that’s going to go away. We’re still seeing returns from the scaling laws.” But he’s honest about the missing pieces for true superintelligence, saying “I think there might be… there’s a 50-50 chance there’s some things maybe missing that we still need to make breakthroughs in, perhaps their world models, these kinds of approaches.” And when he breaks down what the actual AGI system will look like, he frames it as one question is the LLM foundation model the key component only, or is it the total system. His answer - “I don’t think it’s going to get replaced. I think it’s going to get built on top of these foundation models, just like the way we do with our world models.”

Chris

71,716 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

From Eric Vishria on how the top AI founders are building products completely opposite of the SaaS era: "One of the things that is really different in the AI world versus the SaaS world, is that in the SaaS world, over and over again, you had people who really understood the customer. And the problem. And then they understood a domain. They understood what the technology was more or less capable of. But it wasn't a real question of if you could build something or not. For example, take Salesforce, Workday, and ServiceNow. CRM existed before Salesforce. HR management existed before Workday. Same thing with ServiceNow. So in every case, Salesforce followed Siebel. Workday followed Peoplesoft. ServiceNow followed Peregrine and Remedy, and others. So they were just kind of, cloud SaaS versions of the prior generation product. They just understood the customers. They understood the problem. And they were just like, here's a better version. And that evolved a little bit over time in SaaS land. But that's what it is. And so product development in that way was done by people who really understood the customer and the problems. And then just took advantage of the next wave. And this is almost diametrically opposite of product development in the AI era. When I look at the teams that are having the most success today, they have intimate knowledge of the models. They are right on the frontier of understanding which models are better at what, and why, and when. And what they're going to be good at and what they're not going to be good at. And what they're spending their time on, is figuring out how do I apply this capability of this model to this domain or to this user. So they're actually working inside out or technology out, versus customer problem in. And of course, they understand the customer problem. And a lot of times they have firsthand knowledge of it. But they're really close to the metal and capability, and they're applying it. And I think this is a really different way to develop products than in SaaS. I started my career as a product manager a long time ago, and it's almost the complete opposite of everything you learned. "Listen to the customer, understand it, then bring it back to the engineering and product teams." If you did that right now, ask a bunch of customers what they want out of AI, and you brought it back, for the most part, it may not be possible today with today's technology. Whereas the teams that are winning right now really understand the technology and are applying it out. And so I think this reversal matters. I think it's a big difference in terms of how companies are getting built. And maybe even the types of entrepreneurs that will be successful. I'm not sure. You're seeing some real change there. Look at the Bret Taylor's at Sierra. That's a super, super technical founder who really gets it. Brett and Clay really get it. You look at Michael and his co-founders at Cursor. They're super technical founders and they get it. They all really understand what these things can and can't do. And that's a pretty different dynamic relative to the way the best SaaS companies got built." Link in bio for the full conversation going deep on the current class of startups going from zero to $100m+ in ARR within 12 months.
5:13

From Eric Vishria on how the top AI founders are building products completely opposite of the SaaS era: "One of the things that is really different in the AI world versus the SaaS world, is that in the SaaS world, over and over again, you had people who really understood the customer. And the problem. And then they understood a domain. They understood what the technology was more or less capable of. But it wasn't a real question of if you could build something or not. For example, take Salesforce, Workday, and ServiceNow. CRM existed before Salesforce. HR management existed before Workday. Same thing with ServiceNow. So in every case, Salesforce followed Siebel. Workday followed Peoplesoft. ServiceNow followed Peregrine and Remedy, and others. So they were just kind of, cloud SaaS versions of the prior generation product. They just understood the customers. They understood the problem. And they were just like, here's a better version. And that evolved a little bit over time in SaaS land. But that's what it is. And so product development in that way was done by people who really understood the customer and the problems. And then just took advantage of the next wave. And this is almost diametrically opposite of product development in the AI era. When I look at the teams that are having the most success today, they have intimate knowledge of the models. They are right on the frontier of understanding which models are better at what, and why, and when. And what they're going to be good at and what they're not going to be good at. And what they're spending their time on, is figuring out how do I apply this capability of this model to this domain or to this user. So they're actually working inside out or technology out, versus customer problem in. And of course, they understand the customer problem. And a lot of times they have firsthand knowledge of it. But they're really close to the metal and capability, and they're applying it. And I think this is a really different way to develop products than in SaaS. I started my career as a product manager a long time ago, and it's almost the complete opposite of everything you learned. "Listen to the customer, understand it, then bring it back to the engineering and product teams." If you did that right now, ask a bunch of customers what they want out of AI, and you brought it back, for the most part, it may not be possible today with today's technology. Whereas the teams that are winning right now really understand the technology and are applying it out. And so I think this reversal matters. I think it's a big difference in terms of how companies are getting built. And maybe even the types of entrepreneurs that will be successful. I'm not sure. You're seeing some real change there. Look at the Bret Taylor's at Sierra. That's a super, super technical founder who really gets it. Brett and Clay really get it. You look at Michael and his co-founders at Cursor. They're super technical founders and they get it. They all really understand what these things can and can't do. And that's a pretty different dynamic relative to the way the best SaaS companies got built." Link in bio for the full conversation going deep on the current class of startups going from zero to $100m+ in ARR within 12 months.

The Peel

209,752 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

SITUATION EXPLAINED: 70% of frontier model queries could run locally for free. clem 🤗, co-founder and CEO of Hugging Face: "There was an interesting study from Stanford published last year showing that 70% of the queries that people ask to ChatGPT could be accurately answered locally on your laptop. For free." "Most of the AI workloads that people do today with frontier models could be done by models that are cheaper, faster, more customizable, more controllable. And they don't do it because frankly it's a pain to pick the right model." "You're subsidized so you don't have to care because you have your subscription, so you route everything to Einstein. 'Hey Einstein, what's the weather today?'" "In normal life, he would be like, 'I'm not answering your silly question.' But because it's AI and subsidized by the AI labs, all the questions are getting routed to Einstein versus in an ideal world you have different models that are more specialized and better at answering your questions in different domains." "It's possible that routing is gonna redistribute a lot of the value capture from frontier models to a more long tail of models. It's like AI maturing... we are in the first phase where it's very simple, everyone using just one giant model. Now we're moving to the second phase."
3:35

SITUATION EXPLAINED: 70% of frontier model queries could run locally for free. clem 🤗, co-founder and CEO of Hugging Face: "There was an interesting study from Stanford published last year showing that 70% of the queries that people ask to ChatGPT could be accurately answered locally on your laptop. For free." "Most of the AI workloads that people do today with frontier models could be done by models that are cheaper, faster, more customizable, more controllable. And they don't do it because frankly it's a pain to pick the right model." "You're subsidized so you don't have to care because you have your subscription, so you route everything to Einstein. 'Hey Einstein, what's the weather today?'" "In normal life, he would be like, 'I'm not answering your silly question.' But because it's AI and subsidized by the AI labs, all the questions are getting routed to Einstein versus in an ideal world you have different models that are more specialized and better at answering your questions in different domains." "It's possible that routing is gonna redistribute a lot of the value capture from frontier models to a more long tail of models. It's like AI maturing... we are in the first phase where it's very simple, everyone using just one giant model. Now we're moving to the second phase."

MTS

50,185 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Broadcom's CEO just told investors that one senior engineer with Claude Opus can do in one week what ten engineers earning $300,000 a year take three months to produce. Every engineering org in the world is running the wrong headcount math. This was not a prediction. It was a report from inside Broadcom. Hock Tan said his engineers are already using Claude Opus for engineering design and code assistance. Not experimenting with it. Using it. And the output they are getting from a single senior engineer in one week is equivalent to what a team of ten would produce over three months. Do that math slowly. Ten engineers at $300,000 a year is $3 million in annual salary. Three months of their time is $750,000 of labor. One engineer with Claude Opus produces the same result in one week. He also said something that most people in the room let slide past them. The engineers who get good at these tools do not just get faster. They get better. The designs they produce with AI assistance are probably better than what they would produce without it. That is the part nobody wants to say out loud. It was never just about speed. The ceiling on what a single engineer can produce just moved. And the teams that have not figured that out yet are spending $750,000 to do what one person with the right tools can do for a fraction of that. What do you guys think about this? (Watch the full interview at Bloomberg Live on YouTube)
1:15

Broadcom's CEO just told investors that one senior engineer with Claude Opus can do in one week what ten engineers earning $300,000 a year take three months to produce. Every engineering org in the world is running the wrong headcount math. This was not a prediction. It was a report from inside Broadcom. Hock Tan said his engineers are already using Claude Opus for engineering design and code assistance. Not experimenting with it. Using it. And the output they are getting from a single senior engineer in one week is equivalent to what a team of ten would produce over three months. Do that math slowly. Ten engineers at $300,000 a year is $3 million in annual salary. Three months of their time is $750,000 of labor. One engineer with Claude Opus produces the same result in one week. He also said something that most people in the room let slide past them. The engineers who get good at these tools do not just get faster. They get better. The designs they produce with AI assistance are probably better than what they would produce without it. That is the part nobody wants to say out loud. It was never just about speed. The ceiling on what a single engineer can produce just moved. And the teams that have not figured that out yet are spending $750,000 to do what one person with the right tools can do for a fraction of that. What do you guys think about this? (Watch the full interview at Bloomberg Live on YouTube)

Ihtesham Ali

97,288 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Chamath: Frontier AI Leaders “Created a Total F*cking Mess” Short-sighted fearmongering and immaturity from frontier AI leaders has created deep mistrust, threatening AI’s potential as an open engine of economic mobility. That mistrust gives hyperscalers the chance to position themselves as trusted gatekeepers, using KYC, audit trails, and compliance infrastructure to turn AI into an oligopoly. Chamath Palihapitiya on the All-In Pod: “I think the leaders of the frontier labs leave a lot to be desired. I think what we're seeing is a consistent pattern of evasiveness and immaturity, and I think that does a huge disservice to the entire movement of AI. The key to a vibrant life is rooted in economic mobility, and I think AI is the grand leveler. It is the thing that can enable everyone to have unique amounts of economic mobility because they are unencumbered to figure out what their upper bound is. And against that backdrop, we have to live in this constant doomerism, hype cycle, naivety, and I think it holds us back. How does it hold us back? Tactically, number one, it creates mistrust. I think that Silicon Valley was already decaying in the prestige that it held in American society. We built important things. Then we veered away from that, and we started building less important things. And now we're at a point where we've potentially started to rebuild important things again, but we have this veneer of negativity and mistrust that are created in large part because we just cannot get our sh*t together. And the leaders of the frontier labs are public enemy number one. Number two, I think what it creates, which I think is bad, but what it creates is an incredible opportunity for the hyperscalers. And the very simple opportunity is to convince governments all around the world, not just America, that they should be the gatekeeper. A: You can't trust these guys. B: These models are all over the place. C: Let us be the ones that provision them to the world. We will wrap it in KYC. I've been now talking about KYC for a while, right? Who are these customers? Do they have identification? Why are they allowed to run these models? What are they prompting? Let's keep them so that there's an audit trail. All of these things are going to become issues. The Frontier Lab folks made it an issue because of how they've handled all of this up until now. And what does that create? Now that creates an oligopoly for AI, the most powerful economically leveling instrument we've ever seen in the hands of maybe a handful of hyperscalers, who by the way, would make an incredibly compelling argument, and they would be right. And the only counterfactual to it would be, ‘Well, trust us, guys, it should actually be much more open and in a far more distributed environment.’ Can you imagine the cost and the complexity if you ask the neoscaler to build the same robust KYC or the same VPC infrastructure that Amazon and Microsoft and Google have spent decades investing trillions of dollars in? It's an impossibility, Jason. So you can take all of those datacenters off the map. You can take all of the neoscaler market off the map. All of this was preventable. So instead of a diverse, robust, open ecosystem giving a tool that is the fundamental unlock for humans, we are now going to debate gatekeeping and duopoly versus oligopoly. They have created a total f*cking mess, and it's a shame.”
3:26

Chamath: Frontier AI Leaders “Created a Total F*cking Mess” Short-sighted fearmongering and immaturity from frontier AI leaders has created deep mistrust, threatening AI’s potential as an open engine of economic mobility. That mistrust gives hyperscalers the chance to position themselves as trusted gatekeepers, using KYC, audit trails, and compliance infrastructure to turn AI into an oligopoly. Chamath Palihapitiya on the All-In Pod: “I think the leaders of the frontier labs leave a lot to be desired. I think what we're seeing is a consistent pattern of evasiveness and immaturity, and I think that does a huge disservice to the entire movement of AI. The key to a vibrant life is rooted in economic mobility, and I think AI is the grand leveler. It is the thing that can enable everyone to have unique amounts of economic mobility because they are unencumbered to figure out what their upper bound is. And against that backdrop, we have to live in this constant doomerism, hype cycle, naivety, and I think it holds us back. How does it hold us back? Tactically, number one, it creates mistrust. I think that Silicon Valley was already decaying in the prestige that it held in American society. We built important things. Then we veered away from that, and we started building less important things. And now we're at a point where we've potentially started to rebuild important things again, but we have this veneer of negativity and mistrust that are created in large part because we just cannot get our sh*t together. And the leaders of the frontier labs are public enemy number one. Number two, I think what it creates, which I think is bad, but what it creates is an incredible opportunity for the hyperscalers. And the very simple opportunity is to convince governments all around the world, not just America, that they should be the gatekeeper. A: You can't trust these guys. B: These models are all over the place. C: Let us be the ones that provision them to the world. We will wrap it in KYC. I've been now talking about KYC for a while, right? Who are these customers? Do they have identification? Why are they allowed to run these models? What are they prompting? Let's keep them so that there's an audit trail. All of these things are going to become issues. The Frontier Lab folks made it an issue because of how they've handled all of this up until now. And what does that create? Now that creates an oligopoly for AI, the most powerful economically leveling instrument we've ever seen in the hands of maybe a handful of hyperscalers, who by the way, would make an incredibly compelling argument, and they would be right. And the only counterfactual to it would be, ‘Well, trust us, guys, it should actually be much more open and in a far more distributed environment.’ Can you imagine the cost and the complexity if you ask the neoscaler to build the same robust KYC or the same VPC infrastructure that Amazon and Microsoft and Google have spent decades investing trillions of dollars in? It's an impossibility, Jason. So you can take all of those datacenters off the map. You can take all of the neoscaler market off the map. All of this was preventable. So instead of a diverse, robust, open ecosystem giving a tool that is the fundamental unlock for humans, we are now going to debate gatekeeping and duopoly versus oligopoly. They have created a total f*cking mess, and it's a shame.”

The All-In Podcast

142,516 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

SITUATION EXPLAINED: A new generation of AI labs are betting that world models are the path to general intelligence that can interact with the real world. We had General Intuition CEO Pim de Witte on MTS to explain what world models are, and why intuitively world models offer a clearer path towards general intelligence than LLMs. For humans, text is a technology for compressing information about the unfolding, three-dimensional world around us and communicating it to other people. When LLMs reason about the world, they do so by reconstructing the world through text. World models work by modeling the three-dimensional world at the architecture level and then allowing agents to interact with that world. Unlike an LLM, which understands space and time through text, world models perform spatial and temporal reasoning natively. General Intuition hopes to use world models to create embodied AI—machines that can reason and act in the real world. But other companies are also pushing the frontier in this space. Odyssey ML today announced a multi-agent world model, Agora-1. Their launch video shows four participants interacting with a real-time world model simulation of GoldenEye, a first-person shooter for the N64. A playable preview of the GoldenEye simulation is available on their site.
1:31

SITUATION EXPLAINED: A new generation of AI labs are betting that world models are the path to general intelligence that can interact with the real world. We had General Intuition CEO Pim de Witte on MTS to explain what world models are, and why intuitively world models offer a clearer path towards general intelligence than LLMs. For humans, text is a technology for compressing information about the unfolding, three-dimensional world around us and communicating it to other people. When LLMs reason about the world, they do so by reconstructing the world through text. World models work by modeling the three-dimensional world at the architecture level and then allowing agents to interact with that world. Unlike an LLM, which understands space and time through text, world models perform spatial and temporal reasoning natively. General Intuition hopes to use world models to create embodied AI—machines that can reason and act in the real world. But other companies are also pushing the frontier in this space. Odyssey ML today announced a multi-agent world model, Agora-1. Their launch video shows four participants interacting with a real-time world model simulation of GoldenEye, a first-person shooter for the N64. A playable preview of the GoldenEye simulation is available on their site.

MTS

11,693 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Sergey Brin retired in 2020 with enough money to do anything on earth. Within weeks he felt himself mentally spiraling. The thing that pulled him back became Gemini. He said staying retired would have been a big mistake. The plan was simple sit in cafes, study physics, decompress after decades of building one of the most consequential companies in history. He had earned it. Then COVID shut every cafe on earth the month after he retired. He was stuck. No intellectual outlet. No creative problem to solve. No team to build with. Just time. And he said something happened to him in that time that scared him. He felt himself losing sharpness. Spiraling. Not being as sharp as he was used to being. So he went back. Not because he had to. Not because Google needed him. Because he needed it. He started coming into the office when almost nobody else was. Spent more and more time on a project that at the time did not have a name. That project eventually became Gemini, Google's flagship AI model, the thing they are now betting their next hundred years on. He said it plainly: staying retired would have been a big mistake. Most people think the goal is to stop working. Sergey Brin had the money to stop working and learned within months that the work was not the burden. The absence of it was. --- Watch the full interview YT. Search: "Big ideas begin here: Sergey Brin at Stanford"
1:05

Sergey Brin retired in 2020 with enough money to do anything on earth. Within weeks he felt himself mentally spiraling. The thing that pulled him back became Gemini. He said staying retired would have been a big mistake. The plan was simple sit in cafes, study physics, decompress after decades of building one of the most consequential companies in history. He had earned it. Then COVID shut every cafe on earth the month after he retired. He was stuck. No intellectual outlet. No creative problem to solve. No team to build with. Just time. And he said something happened to him in that time that scared him. He felt himself losing sharpness. Spiraling. Not being as sharp as he was used to being. So he went back. Not because he had to. Not because Google needed him. Because he needed it. He started coming into the office when almost nobody else was. Spent more and more time on a project that at the time did not have a name. That project eventually became Gemini, Google's flagship AI model, the thing they are now betting their next hundred years on. He said it plainly: staying retired would have been a big mistake. Most people think the goal is to stop working. Sergey Brin had the money to stop working and learned within months that the work was not the burden. The absence of it was. --- Watch the full interview YT. Search: "Big ideas begin here: Sergey Brin at Stanford"

Ihtesham Ali

230,652 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Microsoft just betrayed OpenAI and Anthropic, the two companies it helped build. And it could break the entire AI trade... Here's what happened: Inside Excel and Outlook, two of the most used business apps on Earth, Microsoft has started routing tens of thousands of AI requests every week to its own in-house models instead of OpenAI and Anthropic. Microsoft's own AI chief, Mustafa Suleyman, said himself: "We pay a lot of money to Anthropic, so our goal is to reduce and ultimately ELIMINATE that cost." This is the company that poured $13 billion into OpenAI and effectively created the modern AI industry, and it just decided the most advanced models on the market are NOT worth paying for. And here's the thing... Microsoft is not just ripping out OpenAI everywhere - it is being surgical about it. The hardest and rarest tasks can still go to OpenAI or Anthropic. What Microsoft is taking back is the boring, high-volume work, like the email replies, the thread summaries, and the simple spreadsheet formulas. Why does that matter so much? Because that boring, repetitive work is where the actual money lives. The frontier labs assumed businesses would push BILLIONS of these tiny requests through expensive models forever. That endless river of tokens is the entire reason OpenAI and Anthropic are valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Microsoft looked at that river, decided it was massively overpaying, and rerouted it to models it owns outright. So the single biggest customer in the industry just walked off with the most profitable part of the business. And it is not only Microsoft: That same week, CNBC reported that American companies have been escaping to Chinese AI models to dodge rising US prices. Chinese models now handle more than 30% of US companies' AI usage on one major platform, peaking at 46%, up from an average of 11% a year earlier. They cost 60 to 90% less, and on some benchmarks they land within a single point of the best American model. One US startup moved ALL of its AI traffic off Claude and onto China's DeepSeek, and expects to save millions. Meanwhile Meta just admitted it has "excess" AI compute it wants to sell, becoming the first giant to concede it built far too much. Do you see the pattern forming? For two years, the entire AI story rested on one assumption: Every company on Earth would happily pay premium prices for the best model, forever. That assumption literally died in a single week. And the market noticed. More than a trillion dollars has been wiped off AI and chip stocks in a matter of days, as Wall Street finally started asking whether all of this spending will ever pay for itself. What this means for OpenAI and Anthropic: Their models are extraordinary, and it may not matter because their own biggest customers have decided they do not NEED the best model in the world to answer an email, and "good enough" now costs a fraction of the price. When even Microsoft refuses to pay full price for AI, the real question becomes who exactly IS left to pay it. What do you think?
1:05

Microsoft just betrayed OpenAI and Anthropic, the two companies it helped build. And it could break the entire AI trade... Here's what happened: Inside Excel and Outlook, two of the most used business apps on Earth, Microsoft has started routing tens of thousands of AI requests every week to its own in-house models instead of OpenAI and Anthropic. Microsoft's own AI chief, Mustafa Suleyman, said himself: "We pay a lot of money to Anthropic, so our goal is to reduce and ultimately ELIMINATE that cost." This is the company that poured $13 billion into OpenAI and effectively created the modern AI industry, and it just decided the most advanced models on the market are NOT worth paying for. And here's the thing... Microsoft is not just ripping out OpenAI everywhere - it is being surgical about it. The hardest and rarest tasks can still go to OpenAI or Anthropic. What Microsoft is taking back is the boring, high-volume work, like the email replies, the thread summaries, and the simple spreadsheet formulas. Why does that matter so much? Because that boring, repetitive work is where the actual money lives. The frontier labs assumed businesses would push BILLIONS of these tiny requests through expensive models forever. That endless river of tokens is the entire reason OpenAI and Anthropic are valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Microsoft looked at that river, decided it was massively overpaying, and rerouted it to models it owns outright. So the single biggest customer in the industry just walked off with the most profitable part of the business. And it is not only Microsoft: That same week, CNBC reported that American companies have been escaping to Chinese AI models to dodge rising US prices. Chinese models now handle more than 30% of US companies' AI usage on one major platform, peaking at 46%, up from an average of 11% a year earlier. They cost 60 to 90% less, and on some benchmarks they land within a single point of the best American model. One US startup moved ALL of its AI traffic off Claude and onto China's DeepSeek, and expects to save millions. Meanwhile Meta just admitted it has "excess" AI compute it wants to sell, becoming the first giant to concede it built far too much. Do you see the pattern forming? For two years, the entire AI story rested on one assumption: Every company on Earth would happily pay premium prices for the best model, forever. That assumption literally died in a single week. And the market noticed. More than a trillion dollars has been wiped off AI and chip stocks in a matter of days, as Wall Street finally started asking whether all of this spending will ever pay for itself. What this means for OpenAI and Anthropic: Their models are extraordinary, and it may not matter because their own biggest customers have decided they do not NEED the best model in the world to answer an email, and "good enough" now costs a fraction of the price. When even Microsoft refuses to pay full price for AI, the real question becomes who exactly IS left to pay it. What do you think?

Ricardo

93,654 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten