Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

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

How easily would it be for a future superintelligence to persuade humans to do its bidding? The most persuasive humans give us a lower bound. The best human politicians have been able to convince huge numbers of smart and shrewd people that they're on their side, even if their... show more

Dwarkesh Patel

233,625 subscribers

97,441 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

ELON: CHIMPS CAN'T CONTROL HUMANS, HUMANS WON'T CONTROL AI "Elon says once digital superintelligence arrives, no one will be able to control it. I don't think anyone's ultimately going to have control over digital superintelligence any more than a chimp would have control over humans. But I do think that it matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you instill in the AI. The most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking." Source: Elon Musk, Joe Rogan

ELON: CHIMPS CAN'T CONTROL HUMANS, HUMANS WON'T CONTROL AI "Elon says once digital superintelligence arrives, no one will be able to control it. I don't think anyone's ultimately going to have control over digital superintelligence any more than a chimp would have control over humans. But I do think that it matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you instill in the AI. The most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking." Source: Elon Musk, Joe Rogan

Mario Nawfal

1,248,407 views • 11 months ago

Bernie Sanders attacks Elon Musk and Bill Gates for promoting a near-future in which AI renders humans obsolete. "If there are no jobs and humans won't be needed for most things, how do people get an income to feed their families, to get health care, or to pay the rent?" The stage is being set for the introduction of universal basic income. But it'll only be available in the form of CBDCs, and people won't be eligible unless their digital ID shows that they're "fully vaccinated" and haven't committed any thought crimes.

Bernie Sanders attacks Elon Musk and Bill Gates for promoting a near-future in which AI renders humans obsolete. "If there are no jobs and humans won't be needed for most things, how do people get an income to feed their families, to get health care, or to pay the rent?" The stage is being set for the introduction of universal basic income. But it'll only be available in the form of CBDCs, and people won't be eligible unless their digital ID shows that they're "fully vaccinated" and haven't committed any thought crimes.

Wide Awake Media

14,938 views • 8 months ago

Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman reveals the assumption about superintelligence he thinks the other AI labs have backwards "Some of the other labs are making an assumption that a superintelligence that is smarter than all of us put together is both inevitable and even desirable. And that such a system would probably be very hard to control" "We have to reset that and make the assumption that we should only bring a system like that into the world that we are sure we can control, that operates in a subordinate way to us, that humans remain at the top of the food chain" "These tools, like any other past technology, are designed to enhance human wellbeing and serve humanity. Not exceed humanity" "Some of the things that you hear from Elon often, or even others in the field - they're fixating on a world in 2050 or 2075 when they're going off exploring other universes and conquering resources from other planets. A system like that, it is unclear to me how it would have any time for preserving us as a species" "We have to make a decision as a species to prioritize creating superintelligences that are aligned, that care about humans and want to protect humans. If we just accelerate and cut all those corners, we're taking a massive risk with the future of our species" He calls it humanist superintelligence: build it only if it is provably controllable, subordinate, and pointed at human wellbeing. The uncomfortable part: "provably controllable" is a standard nobody in the industry can verify yet.

Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman reveals the assumption about superintelligence he thinks the other AI labs have backwards "Some of the other labs are making an assumption that a superintelligence that is smarter than all of us put together is both inevitable and even desirable. And that such a system would probably be very hard to control" "We have to reset that and make the assumption that we should only bring a system like that into the world that we are sure we can control, that operates in a subordinate way to us, that humans remain at the top of the food chain" "These tools, like any other past technology, are designed to enhance human wellbeing and serve humanity. Not exceed humanity" "Some of the things that you hear from Elon often, or even others in the field - they're fixating on a world in 2050 or 2075 when they're going off exploring other universes and conquering resources from other planets. A system like that, it is unclear to me how it would have any time for preserving us as a species" "We have to make a decision as a species to prioritize creating superintelligences that are aligned, that care about humans and want to protect humans. If we just accelerate and cut all those corners, we're taking a massive risk with the future of our species" He calls it humanist superintelligence: build it only if it is provably controllable, subordinate, and pointed at human wellbeing. The uncomfortable part: "provably controllable" is a standard nobody in the industry can verify yet.

Karl Mehta

15,004 views • 2 months ago

John Major, "Populism is no longer a fringe problem of a few outlandish politicians, it's now mainstream and professional" "We should recognise the threat it poses to democracy" "If we do not, and it gains power, it will not tolerate its opponents" "It's not easy defeating populist groups offering disaffected people simple solutions to complex problems" "After all, if the established politicians have failed to find solutions, its human nature to look elsewhere" "Be careful where you look" "Populism, is a dead end" "I offer two antidotes to it's appeal" "The most effective of course is policies remove deeply felt grievances and gain political support. Contented nations don't support populism" "A return to stable growth will end much of the public dissatisfaction that has given life to populism" "Such a recovery would also ease the minds of the many people worried about their future" "Secondly, expose the dangers of its policies and the unworkability of its solutions" "But I do have a warning. Personal attacks on populist leaders as opposed to their policies can backfire and become counter productive" "Unworthy attacks could offer the populists the oxygen of public support" "A dissection of harmful undeliverable policy is the right way to take their support away" "the truth is, the only side populism is on is its own side. It cares for no one else" "And if it flourishes, democracy declines"

John Major, "Populism is no longer a fringe problem of a few outlandish politicians, it's now mainstream and professional" "We should recognise the threat it poses to democracy" "If we do not, and it gains power, it will not tolerate its opponents" "It's not easy defeating populist groups offering disaffected people simple solutions to complex problems" "After all, if the established politicians have failed to find solutions, its human nature to look elsewhere" "Be careful where you look" "Populism, is a dead end" "I offer two antidotes to it's appeal" "The most effective of course is policies remove deeply felt grievances and gain political support. Contented nations don't support populism" "A return to stable growth will end much of the public dissatisfaction that has given life to populism" "Such a recovery would also ease the minds of the many people worried about their future" "Secondly, expose the dangers of its policies and the unworkability of its solutions" "But I do have a warning. Personal attacks on populist leaders as opposed to their policies can backfire and become counter productive" "Unworthy attacks could offer the populists the oxygen of public support" "A dissection of harmful undeliverable policy is the right way to take their support away" "the truth is, the only side populism is on is its own side. It cares for no one else" "And if it flourishes, democracy declines"

Farrukh

52,372 views • 10 months ago

It takes a pure soul and a big heart to be able to care for animals who have a right on this planet as much as us humans. Heartfelt gratitude to these wonderful people, may their tribe grow. 🙏 #PunjabFloods

It takes a pure soul and a big heart to be able to care for animals who have a right on this planet as much as us humans. Heartfelt gratitude to these wonderful people, may their tribe grow. 🙏 #PunjabFloods

A Sidhu

11,214 views • 1 year ago

anyone who thinks I'm in favor of the push for anti privacy measures like facial scans and digital ID, I've made it clear from the beginning that I'm against them. The Roblox Corporation's over reliance on these technologies is part of the reason why their safety problem is as bad as it is. In my latest video, not only do I criticize their recent AI safety updates, I show how their company has been influencing politicians to support these measures for years (even prior to my c&d). Roblox has one of the lowest moderator to user ratios of any company their size. They have the resources to hire humans, but they'd rather lower their safety spending and put money towards stock buybacks and "real time dreaming" (their term for AI generated games). If they truly prioritize the safety of their users, they should prove it by investing in the human capital needed to track how predators bypass their systems and exploit their most vulnerable players.

anyone who thinks I'm in favor of the push for anti privacy measures like facial scans and digital ID, I've made it clear from the beginning that I'm against them. The Roblox Corporation's over reliance on these technologies is part of the reason why their safety problem is as bad as it is. In my latest video, not only do I criticize their recent AI safety updates, I show how their company has been influencing politicians to support these measures for years (even prior to my c&d). Roblox has one of the lowest moderator to user ratios of any company their size. They have the resources to hire humans, but they'd rather lower their safety spending and put money towards stock buybacks and "real time dreaming" (their term for AI generated games). If they truly prioritize the safety of their users, they should prove it by investing in the human capital needed to track how predators bypass their systems and exploit their most vulnerable players.

Schlep

77,590 views • 1 month ago

Zack Polanski, "I'll work with anyone who wants to tackle the climate crisis and wants to protect nature" "This issue has to be above parties" "It has to be about how do we protect people, how do we protect the planet and how do we lower bills" "Vested interests have really corrupted this debate, most obviously from the Reform UK party where between 2019-24 95% of their donations came from oil and gas companies" "If you have a party taking that much money from vested interests it becomes very difficult to believe that when they speak they're representing people and the planet's best interest, opposed to their donors" "The Labour party took £4.1 million from an asset hedge fund with links to oil and gas companies and arms companies, gambling companies and private healthcare companies" "There is a huge conversation to have about political donations, how they work, and how we make sure politicians are representing their constituents, rather than vested interests"

Zack Polanski, "I'll work with anyone who wants to tackle the climate crisis and wants to protect nature" "This issue has to be above parties" "It has to be about how do we protect people, how do we protect the planet and how do we lower bills" "Vested interests have really corrupted this debate, most obviously from the Reform UK party where between 2019-24 95% of their donations came from oil and gas companies" "If you have a party taking that much money from vested interests it becomes very difficult to believe that when they speak they're representing people and the planet's best interest, opposed to their donors" "The Labour party took £4.1 million from an asset hedge fund with links to oil and gas companies and arms companies, gambling companies and private healthcare companies" "There is a huge conversation to have about political donations, how they work, and how we make sure politicians are representing their constituents, rather than vested interests"

Farrukh

40,984 views • 1 month ago

Sam Altman says definitions of AGI from five years ago have already been surpassed the real breakthrough is superintelligence: a system that can discover new science by itself or greatly help humans do it "that would almost define superintelligence"

Sam Altman says definitions of AGI from five years ago have already been surpassed the real breakthrough is superintelligence: a system that can discover new science by itself or greatly help humans do it "that would almost define superintelligence"

Haider.

55,224 views • 1 year ago

My Tesla drives me anywhere with the press of a button on the screen. So many people have no idea, but autonomy is here. If you have a Tesla, you don't need to drive if you don't want to. The data already proves that Tesla FSD is 8x safer than humans at driving. Eight cameras and the best real-world Al are watching the roads to keep you safe at all times. It can even predict human driver movements before you do, almost like it sees the future. It's so smart. Driving in the future will essentially just become a niche thing.

My Tesla drives me anywhere with the press of a button on the screen. So many people have no idea, but autonomy is here. If you have a Tesla, you don't need to drive if you don't want to. The data already proves that Tesla FSD is 8x safer than humans at driving. Eight cameras and the best real-world Al are watching the roads to keep you safe at all times. It can even predict human driver movements before you do, almost like it sees the future. It's so smart. Driving in the future will essentially just become a niche thing.

Nic Cruz Patane

11,059 views • 4 months ago

OpenAI researcher Boaz Barak says he’d trade some AI-driven abundance to keep humans in control of their own destiny: "If our goal was to maximize energy production, create the most stuff, then I probably agree that in the end, we should just let the superintelligence optimize for that goal. They will do it better than us. But I don't think that's our goal as human beings." "Our goal as human beings is to control our own destiny and to do the things that we value. I don't want AI dictators, even if they are benevolent. I don't want AIs to be our parents." "Our goal as humans should be that we are still in charge of our own destiny, even if it means that we create a little bit less stuff. We have the Dyson spheres a little bit later." OpenAI

OpenAI researcher Boaz Barak says he’d trade some AI-driven abundance to keep humans in control of their own destiny: "If our goal was to maximize energy production, create the most stuff, then I probably agree that in the end, we should just let the superintelligence optimize for that goal. They will do it better than us. But I don't think that's our goal as human beings." "Our goal as human beings is to control our own destiny and to do the things that we value. I don't want AI dictators, even if they are benevolent. I don't want AIs to be our parents." "Our goal as humans should be that we are still in charge of our own destiny, even if it means that we create a little bit less stuff. We have the Dyson spheres a little bit later." OpenAI

MTS

15,263 views • 5 days ago

Asmongold thinks at minimum 80% of people in the US should lose their right to vote "This whole voting idea..obviously it didn't work..we gotta do something different..I would remove the right to vote from 80% of population..maybe 90%..why? bc they're f'in ret*rded" "Would do it on basis of being a net positive tax payer, being a homeowner, being able to pass a citizenship test..if ur in military" "The lower the threshold is for ppl being able to vote, the higher the amount of fraud and stupidity there is..a more educated and concentrated voting population would not have those problems (being tricked easily)"

Asmongold thinks at minimum 80% of people in the US should lose their right to vote "This whole voting idea..obviously it didn't work..we gotta do something different..I would remove the right to vote from 80% of population..maybe 90%..why? bc they're f'in ret*rded" "Would do it on basis of being a net positive tax payer, being a homeowner, being able to pass a citizenship test..if ur in military" "The lower the threshold is for ppl being able to vote, the higher the amount of fraud and stupidity there is..a more educated and concentrated voting population would not have those problems (being tricked easily)"

yeet

78,583 views • 5 months ago

Marc Andreessen says raw intelligence might be the worst qualification for leadership — and it changes everything about how we should think about AI. "If the leader is more than one standard deviation of IQ away from the followers, it's a real problem." Andreessen points to the US military, one of the earliest and most rigorous adopters of IQ testing, as the source of this insight. They slot people into specialties and leadership roles based on IQ scores. And over the years, they kept seeing the same pattern. A leader who is significantly less intelligent than their people struggles to model how those people think. That part is intuitive. But the reverse turns out to be equally true. "It's actually very hard for very smart people to model the internal thought processes of even moderately smart people." A leader who is two standard deviations above the norm of the organisation they're running also loses theory of mind, that ability to hold an accurate model of what's happening inside someone else's head. The gap is too wide in both directions. Andreessen then takes this to its logical conclusion: "If you had a person or a machine that had a thousand IQ or something like it, its understanding of reality would be so alien to the people or the things that it was managing that it wouldn't even be able to connect in any sort of realistic way." An AI that vastly outthinks every human in the room isn't positioned to lead those humans. It's positioned to be completely incomprehensible to them. Leadership has never really been an intelligence problem. It's a connection problem. And no amount of raw intelligence closes that gap — past a certain point, it only widens it. The world will not be run by the smartest thing in the room for a long time. Maybe ever.

Marc Andreessen says raw intelligence might be the worst qualification for leadership — and it changes everything about how we should think about AI. "If the leader is more than one standard deviation of IQ away from the followers, it's a real problem." Andreessen points to the US military, one of the earliest and most rigorous adopters of IQ testing, as the source of this insight. They slot people into specialties and leadership roles based on IQ scores. And over the years, they kept seeing the same pattern. A leader who is significantly less intelligent than their people struggles to model how those people think. That part is intuitive. But the reverse turns out to be equally true. "It's actually very hard for very smart people to model the internal thought processes of even moderately smart people." A leader who is two standard deviations above the norm of the organisation they're running also loses theory of mind, that ability to hold an accurate model of what's happening inside someone else's head. The gap is too wide in both directions. Andreessen then takes this to its logical conclusion: "If you had a person or a machine that had a thousand IQ or something like it, its understanding of reality would be so alien to the people or the things that it was managing that it wouldn't even be able to connect in any sort of realistic way." An AI that vastly outthinks every human in the room isn't positioned to lead those humans. It's positioned to be completely incomprehensible to them. Leadership has never really been an intelligence problem. It's a connection problem. And no amount of raw intelligence closes that gap — past a certain point, it only widens it. The world will not be run by the smartest thing in the room for a long time. Maybe ever.

Big Brain AI

366,743 views • 6 months ago

“A superintelligence would be a million times smarter than us.” Roman Yampolskiy, associate professor of computer science at the University of Louisville, warns that once AI surpasses humans at everything, we may no longer understand what it is doing. The real shift is not smarter tools. It is losing the ability to predict and control the systems shaping our world. Open intelligence only matters if humans remain in the loop.

“A superintelligence would be a million times smarter than us.” Roman Yampolskiy, associate professor of computer science at the University of Louisville, warns that once AI surpasses humans at everything, we may no longer understand what it is doing. The real shift is not smarter tools. It is losing the ability to predict and control the systems shaping our world. Open intelligence only matters if humans remain in the loop.

Jon Hernandez

26,061 views • 1 month ago

Nick Bostrom says AGI would not stop at the human level It would quickly become a superintelligence, with machine minds able to outthink even the best scientists and artists "it's really the last invention we will ever need to make" After that, machines would drive faster and better inventions on their own

Nick Bostrom says AGI would not stop at the human level It would quickly become a superintelligence, with machine minds able to outthink even the best scientists and artists "it's really the last invention we will ever need to make" After that, machines would drive faster and better inventions on their own

Haider.

23,250 views • 5 months ago

Corporations that are purely AI and robotics will vastly outperform any corporations that have people in the loop You can think of it like how 'computer' used to be a job that humans had. You would go and get a job as a computer where you would do calculations. They had entire skyscrapers full of humans....20, 30 floors of humans...just doing calculations. Now, that entire skyscraper of humans doing calculations can be replaced by a laptop with a spreadsheet. That spreadsheet can do vastly more calculations than an entire building full of human computers So, you think about it: what if only some of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by humans? That would be much worse than if all of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by the computer. And so, really what will happen is the pure AI, pure robotics corporations or collectives will far outperform any corporations that have humans in the loop. It will happen very quickly

Corporations that are purely AI and robotics will vastly outperform any corporations that have people in the loop You can think of it like how 'computer' used to be a job that humans had. You would go and get a job as a computer where you would do calculations. They had entire skyscrapers full of humans....20, 30 floors of humans...just doing calculations. Now, that entire skyscraper of humans doing calculations can be replaced by a laptop with a spreadsheet. That spreadsheet can do vastly more calculations than an entire building full of human computers So, you think about it: what if only some of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by humans? That would be much worse than if all of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by the computer. And so, really what will happen is the pure AI, pure robotics corporations or collectives will far outperform any corporations that have humans in the loop. It will happen very quickly

X Freeze

16,850,522 views • 7 months ago

Whatever situation is there in Delhi today, The Modi government & Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is Responsible for it. This interview of Dharmendra Pradhan is a month old, before the protest started. Now if this government had conveyed this information to the people on time. If people had been able to see this interview and this video at that time, then they would not have been brainwashed so quickly. Perhaps this situation would not have arisen. The Modi government & BJP do not know how to convey their message to the people. This is all that is needed Even now, if the Modi government had done this, then at least such a situation would not have arisen in the future.

Whatever situation is there in Delhi today, The Modi government & Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is Responsible for it. This interview of Dharmendra Pradhan is a month old, before the protest started. Now if this government had conveyed this information to the people on time. If people had been able to see this interview and this video at that time, then they would not have been brainwashed so quickly. Perhaps this situation would not have arisen. The Modi government & BJP do not know how to convey their message to the people. This is all that is needed Even now, if the Modi government had done this, then at least such a situation would not have arisen in the future.

Ajay Sphere 🇮🇳

126,986 views • 2 months ago

Elon Musk on the importance of establishing the right values in AGI: “I don't think anyone's ultimately going to have control over digital superintelligence any more than, say, a chimp would have control over humans. Like chimps don't have control over humans. There's nothing they could do. But I do think that it matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you instill in the AI. And my opinion on AI safety is, the most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking, like that you don't force the AI to believe things that are false.”

Elon Musk on the importance of establishing the right values in AGI: “I don't think anyone's ultimately going to have control over digital superintelligence any more than, say, a chimp would have control over humans. Like chimps don't have control over humans. There's nothing they could do. But I do think that it matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you instill in the AI. And my opinion on AI safety is, the most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking, like that you don't force the AI to believe things that are false.”

Eva Fo𝕏 🦊 Claudius Nero's Legion

1,010,874 views • 10 months ago

xQc reacts to Eddie’s comments on big streamers faking their way to the top and emphasizing hiding view counts "It's human nature..humans are very simple creatures in that regard..they love feedback loops..if the answer to getting it is easy..they'll cheat their way, it's a human nature problem" "How else do u do discoverability..so my idea way back..engagement spikes, I want to see something exciting going on, even if they have 10 views"

xQc reacts to Eddie’s comments on big streamers faking their way to the top and emphasizing hiding view counts "It's human nature..humans are very simple creatures in that regard..they love feedback loops..if the answer to getting it is easy..they'll cheat their way, it's a human nature problem" "How else do u do discoverability..so my idea way back..engagement spikes, I want to see something exciting going on, even if they have 10 views"

yeet

15,331 views • 4 months ago

Greene: How insulting is it that the GOP can't even fund homeland security right now while they're waging some war in a country that none of us have ever been to, against a foreign people that none of us know, killing many of these people, even to the point of killing their children. It's just absolutely absurd.

Greene: How insulting is it that the GOP can't even fund homeland security right now while they're waging some war in a country that none of us have ever been to, against a foreign people that none of us know, killing many of these people, even to the point of killing their children. It's just absolutely absurd.

Acyn

51,321 views • 6 months ago