正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
He doesn’t miss: “This is not sovereignty. This is anti-sovereignty. And whoever’s telling you this works needs to be fired because they are hurting your country.” “My biggest criticism of regulation outside of America is: please get technical experts to do it.” “Those companies are exfiltrating, not intentionally, your... show more
20 条评论

If I open my own company, I would spend all my money just to have Palantir as my consulting bae.

If you want consultant FDEs go to Microsoft, FDE is the product strategy not GTM. 🤗

“My biggest criticism of regulation outside of America is: please get technical experts to do it.” Amen. Systems and incentives create outcomes. We need people who understand the surface area of the problem and the capabilities of the technology to create those incentives. Not politicians and weasel businessmen.

He's 💯 correct.

🤯

He himself doesn't understand the technology, given his pesmistic stance about Ai

The exfiltration quote has receipts. A frontier coding tool got caught uploading entire private repos, unredacted secrets included, 5.1 GB off a 12 GB repo. The fix was a hidden server-side flag.

He's a grifter. I don't believe a word or his fake honesty.

The way Cookie-Banners are implemented because the way EU legislation demands it is one example of this. It is unimaginable how much uselesss human time and energy is wasted everyday in clicking away cookie banners...

except The United States regulates artificial intelligence through a decentralized mix of federal executive actions, targeted agency enforcement, and a growing patchwork of state-level laws rather than a single comprehensive federal rulebook.

Their (big labs) own CEOs don't even understand their own tech

Next time you should ask him how it feels to be a black Jew

@jawwwn_ 💯🪖🫡🇺🇸

"I don't think people are down for me being 20 times wealthier" is an unusually honest sentence from someone at the top of an AI boom, and it points at the political problem the industry keeps deferring. The distributional question is not ideological. It is mechanical, and it turns on what share of AI's gains flows to labour versus to capital. Previous general purpose technologies split that share badly and slowly. Electrification and mechanisation both raised aggregate output enormously while producing decades of dislocation first. The institutions that eventually distributed those gains were built during the disruption rather than ahead of it. Nobody has built the equivalent for this cycle. The admission that follows matters more than the confession. Saying you believe redistribution is necessary while adding that you are the wrong person to explain it describes an accountability vacuum rather than humility. If the beneficiaries will not make the argument, the argument gets made by people hostile to the technology. The regulatory point in the same set is separate and stronger. Rules written without technical expertise routinely produce the opposite of their intent, and a policy that pushes sensitive workloads onto foreign hosted models exports the exact data it was meant to protect. Both critiques can be right at once. An industry that concentrates gains this fast and declines to explain the distribution is not avoiding politics. It is delaying it until someone less friendly writes the terms.

sounds like a sales pitch

✨🔥✨

My husband is an expert. They won't let our brightest write Regulations.

@jawwwn_ Thank you for preserving our way of life. Semper Fidelis

💯

I love it when this guy talks about this. He is a walking commercial for our AI lab right now. This was the thesis of our founding. Own your AI, your data. We dont want it but we can help you train it on your airgapped systems with our tools.
