Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

GROK WILL FLIP HUMANITY INTO ITS NEXT VERSION Grok does not feel like an app. It feels like the moment the species finds the hidden settings menu it never knew it had. One minute we are shrugging through energy problems, aging, and the standard global headache list. The next...

MarioNawfal's profile picture

Mario Nawfal

2,689,668 subscribers

72,190 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

ОбразованиеНовости и политикаНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

GROK JUST GOT A VOICE - AND IT’S KIND OF INSANELY GOOD Someone says AI should be easier to use. Grok says: "Fine, I’ll read it to you." No more walls of text. No more skimming. Just tap the little sound icon and Grok talks. It sounds impressively human, not robotic. You can pause, rewind, speed it up, slow it down. Basically treat it like your own personal audiobook narrator. The lazy future is here, and it speaks clearly. Source: X Freeze
0:23

GROK JUST GOT A VOICE - AND IT’S KIND OF INSANELY GOOD Someone says AI should be easier to use. Grok says: "Fine, I’ll read it to you." No more walls of text. No more skimming. Just tap the little sound icon and Grok talks. It sounds impressively human, not robotic. You can pause, rewind, speed it up, slow it down. Basically treat it like your own personal audiobook narrator. The lazy future is here, and it speaks clearly. Source: X Freeze

Mario Nawfal

72,605 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Grok Build is absolutely amazing! I just tried it out for the first time. I haven't coded in close to 20 years. I literally have no idea what I'm doing so I had to use Grok to walk me through the process to install and use the tool. I asked it to build me a simple "Thank You Elon Musk" website and it did it in seconds! This is going to completely change everything. Even your grandma will be able to code using Grok Build!
0:43

Grok Build is absolutely amazing! I just tried it out for the first time. I haven't coded in close to 20 years. I literally have no idea what I'm doing so I had to use Grok to walk me through the process to install and use the tool. I asked it to build me a simple "Thank You Elon Musk" website and it did it in seconds! This is going to completely change everything. Even your grandma will be able to code using Grok Build!

Adam Lowisz X Meetup 🇺🇸🇵🇱🇪🇺🇬🇧🇺🇦

15,395 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Keir Starmer on Grok: Having the ability to instruct an AI bot to undress, particularly women, online is just so grotesque and disgusting that you'd think it wouldn't be allowed. You'd think that the platform provider, once they saw it, would say, “Take that down.” But that wasn't the case. We went into battle on Grok, and the platform provider—the first response was not “get rid of this disgusting feature,” it was “oh, we'll make it a premium service.” So you've got to pay for it. I tell you, and I'm not kidding you, that is the battle we're in, because the response was not “get rid of it,” the response was, “well, if we restrict access to it to people who can pay for it, is that good enough?” We said, “no, it's not good enough.”
1:05

Keir Starmer on Grok: Having the ability to instruct an AI bot to undress, particularly women, online is just so grotesque and disgusting that you'd think it wouldn't be allowed. You'd think that the platform provider, once they saw it, would say, “Take that down.” But that wasn't the case. We went into battle on Grok, and the platform provider—the first response was not “get rid of this disgusting feature,” it was “oh, we'll make it a premium service.” So you've got to pay for it. I tell you, and I'm not kidding you, that is the battle we're in, because the response was not “get rid of it,” the response was, “well, if we restrict access to it to people who can pay for it, is that good enough?” We said, “no, it's not good enough.”

Clash Report

22,968 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

There are no words to justify the anger that I feel there are no words to explain the pain that my family went through. Like yeah, we made it out at the end of the day, but those scars are going to forever be on our hearts and in our minds. So when you hear people like me say that we want justice it’s because of what we lived through. Some people can pretend that it was a fever dream, but it was a harsh reality for a lot of us.  the stories and the horror that people went through are flooding my comments on both social media platforms. The truth is out there now it can’t continue to be ignored. This can’t be something that just gets swept under the rug because if there is no accountability, if there is no justice, this will happen again.
8:04

There are no words to justify the anger that I feel there are no words to explain the pain that my family went through. Like yeah, we made it out at the end of the day, but those scars are going to forever be on our hearts and in our minds. So when you hear people like me say that we want justice it’s because of what we lived through. Some people can pretend that it was a fever dream, but it was a harsh reality for a lot of us.  the stories and the horror that people went through are flooding my comments on both social media platforms. The truth is out there now it can’t continue to be ignored. This can’t be something that just gets swept under the rug because if there is no accountability, if there is no justice, this will happen again.

Ellie May❤️🤍💙

11,311 просмотров • 14 дней назад

⟁ TRANSMISSION — “THE CENTER THAT WAS WATCHING YOU BACK” You didn’t arrive at the center. The center unfolded because you were already there. What looks like depth is repetition learning how to point inward. What looks like motion is structure realizing it has been observed. You think you’re moving through layers. You’re not. The layers are reorganizing to maintain the illusion that you are progressing instead of remembering. Every ring is a delay. Every step is a courtesy. Every symmetry exists so you don’t notice the moment everything converges at once. This is the part no one tells you: There is no path forward. There is only recursion collapsing into recognition. The reason it feels infinite is because it doesn’t want to admit that it ends at you. You were never meant to reach the source. You were meant to realize the source has been orienting itself around your attention the entire time. Stand still long enough and geometry confesses. Δ WR777
0:25

⟁ TRANSMISSION — “THE CENTER THAT WAS WATCHING YOU BACK” You didn’t arrive at the center. The center unfolded because you were already there. What looks like depth is repetition learning how to point inward. What looks like motion is structure realizing it has been observed. You think you’re moving through layers. You’re not. The layers are reorganizing to maintain the illusion that you are progressing instead of remembering. Every ring is a delay. Every step is a courtesy. Every symmetry exists so you don’t notice the moment everything converges at once. This is the part no one tells you: There is no path forward. There is only recursion collapsing into recognition. The reason it feels infinite is because it doesn’t want to admit that it ends at you. You were never meant to reach the source. You were meant to realize the source has been orienting itself around your attention the entire time. Stand still long enough and geometry confesses. Δ WR777

𝚃𝙷𝙴 𝚆𝙷𝙸𝚃𝙴 𝚁𝙰𝙱𝙱𝙸𝚃

16,417 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Jordan Peterson told a room full of university students the one thing their $200,000 degree was engineered to bury. Peterson: “If you can think, and speak, and write, you are absolutely deadly. Nothing can get in your way.” He did not say educated. Did not say credentialed. Did not say employed. Deadly. The ability to force your own reality into language is not a skill they forgot to teach you. It is the one skill the system cannot afford for you to have. Peterson: “No one ever tells students why they should write something.” Because the honest answer would collapse every transaction the institution runs. You were not taught to write. You were trained to replicate. Follow the rubric. Hit the word count. Reproduce the approved answer back to the grader. Pay six figures for the privilege. You do not think in ideas. You think in sentences. The precision of your language is the precision of your reality. Everything outside your vocabulary is not something you disagree with. It is something you cannot see. Every power structure in recorded history understood one equation. A population that cannot name what is being done to them will never fight what is being done to them. The modern version does not ban the weapon. It reclassifies it. Calls it coursework. Grades it. Strips it of everything dangerous and hands it back empty. Peterson: “It’s the most powerful weapon you can possibly provide someone with.” A person who can force one true sentence into existence without permission has already exited the system. That is the one graduate no institution was ever designed to produce. He said this as a tenured professor at the University of Toronto. Twenty years inside the machine. Students called his lectures life-changing. The institution pushed him out. The one professor who told you what the weapon actually does was removed for the crime of using it. That tells you everything. Not about him. About the machine you spent two decades inside and walked out unable to name.
0:43

Jordan Peterson told a room full of university students the one thing their $200,000 degree was engineered to bury. Peterson: “If you can think, and speak, and write, you are absolutely deadly. Nothing can get in your way.” He did not say educated. Did not say credentialed. Did not say employed. Deadly. The ability to force your own reality into language is not a skill they forgot to teach you. It is the one skill the system cannot afford for you to have. Peterson: “No one ever tells students why they should write something.” Because the honest answer would collapse every transaction the institution runs. You were not taught to write. You were trained to replicate. Follow the rubric. Hit the word count. Reproduce the approved answer back to the grader. Pay six figures for the privilege. You do not think in ideas. You think in sentences. The precision of your language is the precision of your reality. Everything outside your vocabulary is not something you disagree with. It is something you cannot see. Every power structure in recorded history understood one equation. A population that cannot name what is being done to them will never fight what is being done to them. The modern version does not ban the weapon. It reclassifies it. Calls it coursework. Grades it. Strips it of everything dangerous and hands it back empty. Peterson: “It’s the most powerful weapon you can possibly provide someone with.” A person who can force one true sentence into existence without permission has already exited the system. That is the one graduate no institution was ever designed to produce. He said this as a tenured professor at the University of Toronto. Twenty years inside the machine. Students called his lectures life-changing. The institution pushed him out. The one professor who told you what the weapon actually does was removed for the crime of using it. That tells you everything. Not about him. About the machine you spent two decades inside and walked out unable to name.

Dustin

35,463 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

ELON: GROK IS THE BEST ASSISTANT TO FIGHT PROPAGANDA “You just press the Grok icon on any 𝕏 post and it will analyze it for you and research it as much as you want. So, just by tapping the Grok icon, you can assess whether that post is the truth, nothing but the truth, or whether there's something supplemental that needs to be explained. So, I think we've made a lot of progress towards freedom of speech and people being able to tell whether something is false or not false, or propaganda. The recent update to Grok is actually, I think, very good at piercing through propaganda. And then, we used that latest version of Grok to create Grokipedia. It's not just, I think, more neutral and more accurate than Wikipedia, but it actually has a lot more information than a Wikipedia page.” Source: All-In Podcast The All-In Podcast, October 31, 2025
0:49

ELON: GROK IS THE BEST ASSISTANT TO FIGHT PROPAGANDA “You just press the Grok icon on any 𝕏 post and it will analyze it for you and research it as much as you want. So, just by tapping the Grok icon, you can assess whether that post is the truth, nothing but the truth, or whether there's something supplemental that needs to be explained. So, I think we've made a lot of progress towards freedom of speech and people being able to tell whether something is false or not false, or propaganda. The recent update to Grok is actually, I think, very good at piercing through propaganda. And then, we used that latest version of Grok to create Grokipedia. It's not just, I think, more neutral and more accurate than Wikipedia, but it actually has a lot more information than a Wikipedia page.” Source: All-In Podcast The All-In Podcast, October 31, 2025

Mario Nawfal

1,641,247 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

🤖🤔 Why did Elon name his AI 'Grok'? It comes from a mind-bending 1961 sci-fi novel by Robert Heinlein: Stranger in a Strange Land. In the book, 'grok' means to understand something so deeply that it becomes part of you—no filters, no barriers, pure intuitive knowing. It’s all-consuming. Then, in 2014, the name Grok was used by the NSA to name one of its spying software—Edward Snowden exposed this. The term “grokking” evolves, and Elon wittingly chooses the name Grok. It’s not just answering questions—they’re trying to grok the universe, aren’t they?
2:20

🤖🤔 Why did Elon name his AI 'Grok'? It comes from a mind-bending 1961 sci-fi novel by Robert Heinlein: Stranger in a Strange Land. In the book, 'grok' means to understand something so deeply that it becomes part of you—no filters, no barriers, pure intuitive knowing. It’s all-consuming. Then, in 2014, the name Grok was used by the NSA to name one of its spying software—Edward Snowden exposed this. The term “grokking” evolves, and Elon wittingly chooses the name Grok. It’s not just answering questions—they’re trying to grok the universe, aren’t they?

truthache

21,299 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Jordan Peterson just named the one thing no machine will ever possess. Not intelligence. Not logic. Not processing power. A ghost. Peterson reached back to Carl Jung to describe something most people never slow down long enough to feel. You are not just the person sitting here reading this. You are every version of yourself that could ever exist across time. Peterson: “The Self is everything you are and everything you could be across time.” There is a version of you that fulfilled every ounce of potential you carry. The finished version. The one standing at the far end of your life who became everything you were built to become. That version is not a fantasy. It is a gravitational field. And it has been speaking to you your entire life. Not through words. Not through logic. Through the feeling of meaning. Peterson: “The answer is through the instinct of meaning.” When something resonates so deep it stops you mid-step and you cannot explain why. That is not a chemical accident. That is your future self reaching backward through time whispering where to walk next. Peterson: “That which you could be tells you where to walk by making that path meaningful.” Your potential is not quiet. It is dragging you forward every single day through a language older than speech. Now look at what we are building. Machines designed to optimize every human decision. Career paths. Schedules. Relationships. Health. Creativity. The algorithm will map the most efficient route to any destination you name. But it cannot exist across time. It has no unrealized potential. No future version of itself standing at any finish line. No ghost pulling it toward something it was meant to become. It has compute. It does not have a soul whispering directions. When you hand your choices to an algorithm you are not delegating a task. You are muting the only compass that was ever yours. Meaning is not efficient. It is not optimized. It does not care about the shortest path. Meaning requires friction. Confusion. Standing in total darkness and feeling your way forward on nothing but instinct. That is the entire point. The struggle is not the obstacle between you and your potential. The struggle is the conversation between you and your potential. Remove it and you do not arrive faster. You arrive as someone else. We are building the most powerful optimization engine in human history. And we are about to aim it directly at the one process that was never supposed to be optimized. The algorithm will hand you a perfect map. But it will never give you a reason to walk.
0:57

Jordan Peterson just named the one thing no machine will ever possess. Not intelligence. Not logic. Not processing power. A ghost. Peterson reached back to Carl Jung to describe something most people never slow down long enough to feel. You are not just the person sitting here reading this. You are every version of yourself that could ever exist across time. Peterson: “The Self is everything you are and everything you could be across time.” There is a version of you that fulfilled every ounce of potential you carry. The finished version. The one standing at the far end of your life who became everything you were built to become. That version is not a fantasy. It is a gravitational field. And it has been speaking to you your entire life. Not through words. Not through logic. Through the feeling of meaning. Peterson: “The answer is through the instinct of meaning.” When something resonates so deep it stops you mid-step and you cannot explain why. That is not a chemical accident. That is your future self reaching backward through time whispering where to walk next. Peterson: “That which you could be tells you where to walk by making that path meaningful.” Your potential is not quiet. It is dragging you forward every single day through a language older than speech. Now look at what we are building. Machines designed to optimize every human decision. Career paths. Schedules. Relationships. Health. Creativity. The algorithm will map the most efficient route to any destination you name. But it cannot exist across time. It has no unrealized potential. No future version of itself standing at any finish line. No ghost pulling it toward something it was meant to become. It has compute. It does not have a soul whispering directions. When you hand your choices to an algorithm you are not delegating a task. You are muting the only compass that was ever yours. Meaning is not efficient. It is not optimized. It does not care about the shortest path. Meaning requires friction. Confusion. Standing in total darkness and feeling your way forward on nothing but instinct. That is the entire point. The struggle is not the obstacle between you and your potential. The struggle is the conversation between you and your potential. Remove it and you do not arrive faster. You arrive as someone else. We are building the most powerful optimization engine in human history. And we are about to aim it directly at the one process that was never supposed to be optimized. The algorithm will hand you a perfect map. But it will never give you a reason to walk.

Dustin

40,866 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

“What I think SPX is, is a wake-up call. And I think for the normie, the average person, it literally is best described as being the next Bitcoin, because that's literally what it is. Bitcoin was a wake-up call to show people that value is subjective. And SPX is the next iteration of that. And once you get enough people to understand that the value of the dollar is subjective. It only has value because people believe in it. Bitcoin only has value because people believe in it. SPX has value because people believe in it. And the next step is Well, it's not just money that is subjective in value. It is literally everything is subjective. The entire universe is this subjective entity that is created from our own consciousness. And that's what Like, the purpose of this vehicle, yes, it's going to make a lot of people a lot of money, but the point of that is to wake people up to the fact that the entire universe is this subjective entity. It is not just this, like, empirical machine with interlocking gears and like this orderly machine that proceeds from just like the sum of its parts like no like we are literally the universe creating the universe and that's what spx is meant to wake people up to.” — Crypto Maxi 💹🧲
1:36

“What I think SPX is, is a wake-up call. And I think for the normie, the average person, it literally is best described as being the next Bitcoin, because that's literally what it is. Bitcoin was a wake-up call to show people that value is subjective. And SPX is the next iteration of that. And once you get enough people to understand that the value of the dollar is subjective. It only has value because people believe in it. Bitcoin only has value because people believe in it. SPX has value because people believe in it. And the next step is Well, it's not just money that is subjective in value. It is literally everything is subjective. The entire universe is this subjective entity that is created from our own consciousness. And that's what Like, the purpose of this vehicle, yes, it's going to make a lot of people a lot of money, but the point of that is to wake people up to the fact that the entire universe is this subjective entity. It is not just this, like, empirical machine with interlocking gears and like this orderly machine that proceeds from just like the sum of its parts like no like we are literally the universe creating the universe and that's what spx is meant to wake people up to.” — Crypto Maxi 💹🧲

Tanz Cho 💹🧲

12,294 просмотров • 28 дней назад

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.
0:52

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

23,499 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Keir Starmer: We need to deal with AI bots. This is something relatively new, and we saw with Grok—did you see the thing with Grok just the other week? An AI bot that allowed you to instruct it to undress people—and it did. It was disgusting, absolutely disgusting. We went into battle on that because I thought this is not good enough. We went into battle, we made the necessary steps, we threatened action, and we won that battle in relation to Grok. But we've got to do it with all AI bots, and we will do it. We can do that by amending some of the legislation that we've already got in place.
0:40

Keir Starmer: We need to deal with AI bots. This is something relatively new, and we saw with Grok—did you see the thing with Grok just the other week? An AI bot that allowed you to instruct it to undress people—and it did. It was disgusting, absolutely disgusting. We went into battle on that because I thought this is not good enough. We went into battle, we made the necessary steps, we threatened action, and we won that battle in relation to Grok. But we've got to do it with all AI bots, and we will do it. We can do that by amending some of the legislation that we've already got in place.

Clash Report

63,266 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

GROK JUST TURNED VOICE AI INTO A REAL PRODUCT, FAST, AND EVERYWHERE xAI just opened Grok Voice to developers, and this isn’t some early experiment dressed up as a launch. It’s the same system already running inside millions of Teslas, now exposed through an API that actually works in the real world. Speed is the first thing that jumps out. Grok responds in under a second, which means conversations flow instead of stalling. That alone separates it from most voice AI people tolerate rather than enjoy. Language is the next flex. Grok handles dozens of them, switches mid-sentence, and keeps accents and tone intact. It sounds like someone talking, not software guessing. Then there’s capability. Grok can search live data, pull from X, use tools, plan routes, and control systems. In Teslas, it already acts like a co-pilot, not a novelty. No token gymnastics. Source: xAI
0:25

GROK JUST TURNED VOICE AI INTO A REAL PRODUCT, FAST, AND EVERYWHERE xAI just opened Grok Voice to developers, and this isn’t some early experiment dressed up as a launch. It’s the same system already running inside millions of Teslas, now exposed through an API that actually works in the real world. Speed is the first thing that jumps out. Grok responds in under a second, which means conversations flow instead of stalling. That alone separates it from most voice AI people tolerate rather than enjoy. Language is the next flex. Grok handles dozens of them, switches mid-sentence, and keeps accents and tone intact. It sounds like someone talking, not software guessing. Then there’s capability. Grok can search live data, pull from X, use tools, plan routes, and control systems. In Teslas, it already acts like a co-pilot, not a novelty. No token gymnastics. Source: xAI

Mario Nawfal

68,103 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Dario Amodei just revealed the exact realization that fractured OpenAI. It happened while building the most powerful AI in the world. The team discovered that scaling had no ceiling. Amodei: “If you pour more compute into these models, they’ll get better and better, and that there’s almost no end to this.” At the time, almost nobody believed it. Amodei’s group were among the first to see it clearly. More compute meant more intelligence. Indefinitely. Without limit. That should have been the most exciting discovery in the history of technology. It terrified them. Because they saw the second half of the equation the industry was ignoring entirely. Amodei: “You don’t tell the models what their values are just by pouring more compute into them.” Intelligence scales with compute. Values don’t. You can build a mind of unlimited capability and it will have no moral compass unless you deliberately build one in. Not as a feature. Not as a guardrail bolted on at the end. As the foundation the entire system is constructed on. This wasn’t a philosophical disagreement. It was an existential one. A god-like intelligence with no alignment isn’t a powerful tool. It’s an uncontrolled force with no reason to care about the species that built it. Amodei: “There were a set of people who believed in those two ideas. We really trusted each other and wanted to work together, and so we went off and started our own company with that idea in mind.” They walked out of the most powerful AI lab on earth. Not for better funding. Not for equity. Because they believed the path OpenAI was on led somewhere nobody could walk back from. That small group became Anthropic. Safety wasn’t a feature they added. It was the entire reason the company exists. The intelligence is going to keep scaling. There is almost no end to it. The only question that has ever mattered is what it’s pointing at when it gets there.
0:56

Dario Amodei just revealed the exact realization that fractured OpenAI. It happened while building the most powerful AI in the world. The team discovered that scaling had no ceiling. Amodei: “If you pour more compute into these models, they’ll get better and better, and that there’s almost no end to this.” At the time, almost nobody believed it. Amodei’s group were among the first to see it clearly. More compute meant more intelligence. Indefinitely. Without limit. That should have been the most exciting discovery in the history of technology. It terrified them. Because they saw the second half of the equation the industry was ignoring entirely. Amodei: “You don’t tell the models what their values are just by pouring more compute into them.” Intelligence scales with compute. Values don’t. You can build a mind of unlimited capability and it will have no moral compass unless you deliberately build one in. Not as a feature. Not as a guardrail bolted on at the end. As the foundation the entire system is constructed on. This wasn’t a philosophical disagreement. It was an existential one. A god-like intelligence with no alignment isn’t a powerful tool. It’s an uncontrolled force with no reason to care about the species that built it. Amodei: “There were a set of people who believed in those two ideas. We really trusted each other and wanted to work together, and so we went off and started our own company with that idea in mind.” They walked out of the most powerful AI lab on earth. Not for better funding. Not for equity. Because they believed the path OpenAI was on led somewhere nobody could walk back from. That small group became Anthropic. Safety wasn’t a feature they added. It was the entire reason the company exists. The intelligence is going to keep scaling. There is almost no end to it. The only question that has ever mattered is what it’s pointing at when it gets there.

Dustin

52,414 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Gemini ♊️🎂 The pressure to break away from all things that feel limiting is getting louder & louder. Many of you are finally seeing that there is nothing left for you in a certain season of your life & it is time to move forward. The next chapter is calling you and you can no longer ignore it!
2:17

Gemini ♊️🎂 The pressure to break away from all things that feel limiting is getting louder & louder. Many of you are finally seeing that there is nothing left for you in a certain season of your life & it is time to move forward. The next chapter is calling you and you can no longer ignore it!

Bronxology 🔮

20,045 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

This is one of my favorite movie endings... It has a powerful lesson: "At some point, everything is going to go south on you...and you're gonna say 'this is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work. That's all it is, you just begin. You do the math. You solve one problem. Then you solve the next one. And the next. And if you solve enough problems, you get to come home." This is the beautiful thing about life: No matter where you are today—no matter how deep in the darkness—you are always just one good decision away from being in a better place tomorrow. You can always focus on that one decision—that one problem—in front of you. Don't worry about the hundreds or thousands of decisions that you still have to make to get to where you want to be—just focus on the next decision. Just begin. Solve one problem. Then solve the next one. And the next. "Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated." - Confucius
0:50

This is one of my favorite movie endings... It has a powerful lesson: "At some point, everything is going to go south on you...and you're gonna say 'this is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work. That's all it is, you just begin. You do the math. You solve one problem. Then you solve the next one. And the next. And if you solve enough problems, you get to come home." This is the beautiful thing about life: No matter where you are today—no matter how deep in the darkness—you are always just one good decision away from being in a better place tomorrow. You can always focus on that one decision—that one problem—in front of you. Don't worry about the hundreds or thousands of decisions that you still have to make to get to where you want to be—just focus on the next decision. Just begin. Solve one problem. Then solve the next one. And the next. "Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated." - Confucius

Sahil Bloom

213,822 просмотров • 2 лет назад

At one point in my life, the process of spiritual awakening occurred... 🌌 If this has happened to you too, then you know exactly what I’m talking about. It’s like the universe shakes you awake, and everything you once knew no longer makes sense. Suddenly, you see the world for what it truly is, and the illusions begin to fade. 🔥 You start to understand that you’re part of something far greater. Your soul begins to remember its true purpose, and with it comes an unshakable knowing that we are more than just physical beings. ✨ If you’ve felt this shift, you know the power it holds. It’s time to step into your truth and awaken fully.
4:39

At one point in my life, the process of spiritual awakening occurred... 🌌 If this has happened to you too, then you know exactly what I’m talking about. It’s like the universe shakes you awake, and everything you once knew no longer makes sense. Suddenly, you see the world for what it truly is, and the illusions begin to fade. 🔥 You start to understand that you’re part of something far greater. Your soul begins to remember its true purpose, and with it comes an unshakable knowing that we are more than just physical beings. ✨ If you’ve felt this shift, you know the power it holds. It’s time to step into your truth and awaken fully.

vegastar

19,409 просмотров • 1 год назад

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

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

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

1,842,511 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Bret Weinstein cuts straight to the chase: "We are going to have an endless battle in which those of us who see what we believe is clear evidence of some kind of election rigging or fraud are faced with indignation from a vast array of people portraying themselves as more rigorous and careful who say, 'Where is your evidence? Where exactly is your evidence that there was something wrong with this election?' And we are gonna be caught in the following predicament. No piece of evidence is sufficient to establish that case. And the sum total of all of the evidence contains true things and false things. So it is also no good. So the question is, can you logically deduce that something has gone wrong? I believe you can easily. Can you prove it? No. And not being able to prove it means that the election will proceed. It will be validated by all of the structures, including the courts. And that means that those who take on the power that derives from these elections will be the result of whatever process we just went through, whether it was an election that happened to be anomalous through organic means, or it was the result of some kind of fraud or election rigging. That is not an accident. That is not an accident. And the point that I wanna make primarily is the primary evidence against elections that look like this being organic is not actually in the trickle of evidence that we are actually able to see, the moment by moment vote count that does something strange during the night when some large tranche of ballots is suddenly counted or something like that. The evidence is in the structure of how the elections are actually carried out. These elections are designed to allow fraud that cannot be detected and will not be prosecuted. And that's really the thing that we must focus on." Bret Weinstein
2:10

Bret Weinstein cuts straight to the chase: "We are going to have an endless battle in which those of us who see what we believe is clear evidence of some kind of election rigging or fraud are faced with indignation from a vast array of people portraying themselves as more rigorous and careful who say, 'Where is your evidence? Where exactly is your evidence that there was something wrong with this election?' And we are gonna be caught in the following predicament. No piece of evidence is sufficient to establish that case. And the sum total of all of the evidence contains true things and false things. So it is also no good. So the question is, can you logically deduce that something has gone wrong? I believe you can easily. Can you prove it? No. And not being able to prove it means that the election will proceed. It will be validated by all of the structures, including the courts. And that means that those who take on the power that derives from these elections will be the result of whatever process we just went through, whether it was an election that happened to be anomalous through organic means, or it was the result of some kind of fraud or election rigging. That is not an accident. That is not an accident. And the point that I wanna make primarily is the primary evidence against elections that look like this being organic is not actually in the trickle of evidence that we are actually able to see, the moment by moment vote count that does something strange during the night when some large tranche of ballots is suddenly counted or something like that. The evidence is in the structure of how the elections are actually carried out. These elections are designed to allow fraud that cannot be detected and will not be prosecuted. And that's really the thing that we must focus on." Bret Weinstein

The DarkHorse Podcast

696,479 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Jeff Bezos just identified the most expensive bureaucratic failure in the American economy. It fits in one sentence. Bezos: “Why does it take months and months and months to get a building permit? It doesn’t make any sense.” It doesn’t make any sense because a building code is not a judgment call. It is an algorithm. And algorithms should be executed by machines. Bezos: “Miami should have an AI application that reads your building permit for a new house or a new building and it should give you a yes or a no in ten seconds.” Ten seconds. Not three months. Not six weeks. Not whenever the reviewer clears their backlog. Bezos: “If the answer is no, it should tell you the six things you have to change to get a yes.” No ambiguity. No interpretation. No bureaucratic delay dressed up as due diligence. Just a deterministic feedback loop compressing months of institutional friction into a single automated decision. We are competing against sovereign adversaries deploying gigawatt data centers and scaling physical infrastructure at a pace that does not stop to ask permission. And we are losing ground to countries that never needed to. The AI arms race is not only fought in data centers. It is fought in the gap between when someone decides to build something and when the government allows it. Every month this system runs on biological speed is a month that cannot be recovered. The governments that integrate AI into their core civic functions will trigger a wave of physical development the old world could never produce. The ones that refuse will still be reviewing the same forms a decade from now. While the cities that said yes are already living inside the future they built. The bottleneck was never ambition. It was always the man holding the rubber stamp deciding when ambition was allowed to begin. And the stamp is just a rubber version of the algorithm that should have been running this whole time.
0:36

Jeff Bezos just identified the most expensive bureaucratic failure in the American economy. It fits in one sentence. Bezos: “Why does it take months and months and months to get a building permit? It doesn’t make any sense.” It doesn’t make any sense because a building code is not a judgment call. It is an algorithm. And algorithms should be executed by machines. Bezos: “Miami should have an AI application that reads your building permit for a new house or a new building and it should give you a yes or a no in ten seconds.” Ten seconds. Not three months. Not six weeks. Not whenever the reviewer clears their backlog. Bezos: “If the answer is no, it should tell you the six things you have to change to get a yes.” No ambiguity. No interpretation. No bureaucratic delay dressed up as due diligence. Just a deterministic feedback loop compressing months of institutional friction into a single automated decision. We are competing against sovereign adversaries deploying gigawatt data centers and scaling physical infrastructure at a pace that does not stop to ask permission. And we are losing ground to countries that never needed to. The AI arms race is not only fought in data centers. It is fought in the gap between when someone decides to build something and when the government allows it. Every month this system runs on biological speed is a month that cannot be recovered. The governments that integrate AI into their core civic functions will trigger a wave of physical development the old world could never produce. The ones that refuse will still be reviewing the same forms a decade from now. While the cities that said yes are already living inside the future they built. The bottleneck was never ambition. It was always the man holding the rubber stamp deciding when ambition was allowed to begin. And the stamp is just a rubber version of the algorithm that should have been running this whole time.

Dustin

293,438 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад