Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

I see 7 actual updates relevant to AGI timelines this year: 1. Exploding revenue and GPU rental $ 2. METR time horizons saturate 3. The Mythos 'jump' 4. Sparks of RSI 5. AI still sucks at business 6. AI makes some math breakthroughs 7. Inference scaling remains cheap I...

robertwiblin's profile picture

Rob Wiblin

51,049 subscribers

48,468 görüntüleme • 8 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & TeknolojiEğitimHaberler & Politika
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

AGI timelines are very bimodal. It's either by 2030 or bust. AI progress over the last decade has been driven by scaling training compute of frontier systems (3.55x a year, 160x over 4 years). This simply cannot continue beyond this decade, whether you look at chips, power, even fraction of raw GDP used on training. After 2030, AI progress has to mostly come from algorithmic progress. But even there the low hanging fruit will be plucked (at least under the deep learning paradigm). So the yearly probability of AGI craters. And we're plausibly looking at 2040+ timelines. I discuss this dynamic with Sholto Douglas and Trenton Bricken:
1:57

AGI timelines are very bimodal. It's either by 2030 or bust. AI progress over the last decade has been driven by scaling training compute of frontier systems (3.55x a year, 160x over 4 years). This simply cannot continue beyond this decade, whether you look at chips, power, even fraction of raw GDP used on training. After 2030, AI progress has to mostly come from algorithmic progress. But even there the low hanging fruit will be plucked (at least under the deep learning paradigm). So the yearly probability of AGI craters. And we're plausibly looking at 2040+ timelines. I discuss this dynamic with Sholto Douglas and Trenton Bricken:

Dwarkesh Patel

220,473 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Demis Hassabis's new interview: "Society needs to hear that because we don't have long to prepare for what that means. We are standing in the foothills of the singularity now. ..which is AGI. I believe that we are only a few years away from that, maybe around 2030, plus or minus a year. " ~ Demis Hassabis, Co-Founder and CEO of Google DeepMind It is going to be enormously profound, I think. The future, in my view, is still to be written. But these next few years are going to be very critical as to which way that will go, and how we collectively want that to look.” --- IMO, The real disruption is not whether AGI arrives exactly in 2030, plus or minus a year, but whether institutions can adapt, as in post-AGI world, technology will change much faster than human systems can respond. Schools still train people for stable professions, companies still organize work around human bottlenecks, and governments still regulate after harm becomes visible. AGI, if it arrives anywhere near the frontier-lab timelines, compresses that lag into a dangerous gap. ---- From "Stanford Graduate School of Business" YouTube channel, (link in comment)
0:50

Demis Hassabis's new interview: "Society needs to hear that because we don't have long to prepare for what that means. We are standing in the foothills of the singularity now. ..which is AGI. I believe that we are only a few years away from that, maybe around 2030, plus or minus a year. " ~ Demis Hassabis, Co-Founder and CEO of Google DeepMind It is going to be enormously profound, I think. The future, in my view, is still to be written. But these next few years are going to be very critical as to which way that will go, and how we collectively want that to look.” --- IMO, The real disruption is not whether AGI arrives exactly in 2030, plus or minus a year, but whether institutions can adapt, as in post-AGI world, technology will change much faster than human systems can respond. Schools still train people for stable professions, companies still organize work around human bottlenecks, and governments still regulate after harm becomes visible. AGI, if it arrives anywhere near the frontier-lab timelines, compresses that lag into a dangerous gap. ---- From "Stanford Graduate School of Business" YouTube channel, (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

70,642 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Ryan Greenblatt is lead author of "Alignment faking in LLMs" and one of AI's most productive researchers. He puts a 25% probability on automating AI research by 2029. We discuss: • Concrete evidence for and against AGI coming soon • The 4 easiest ways for AI to take over • What evidence we have on how fast / long the intelligence explosion will go • Would misaligned AGI go rogue early or bide its time • Whether 'pause at human level' is naive or smart • Lots more. My head was often spinning during this interview, in a good way. Find it on the 80,000 Hours Podcast, links below. Enjoy! 1:29 How close are we to automating AI R&D? 5:15 Really, though: how capable are today's models? 13:01 Why AI companies get automated first 18:10 Most likely ways for AGI to take over 30:04 Would AGI go rogue early or bide its time? 34:53 "Pause at human level" 46:43 AI control vs AI alignment 52:38 Do we have to hope to catch AIs red-handed? 56:57 How would a slow AGI takeoff look? 1:05:04 Why might an intelligence explosion not happen for 8+ years? 1:17:05 Key challenges in forecasting AI progress 1:25:07 The bear case on AGI 1:30:59 The change to "compute at inference" 1:36:38 How much has pretraining petered out? 1:49:08 Could we get an intelligence explosion within a year? 1:53:08 Reasons AIs might struggle to replace humans 2:00:10 Things could go insanely fast when we automate AI R&D. Or not. 2:14:52 How fast would the intelligence explosion slow down? 2:27:53 Bottom line for mortals 2:34:00 Six orders of magnitude of progress... what does that even look like? 2:44:10 Neglected and important technical work people should be doing 2:48:16 What's the most promising work in governance? 2:51:37 Ryan's current research priorities
2:54:26

Ryan Greenblatt is lead author of "Alignment faking in LLMs" and one of AI's most productive researchers. He puts a 25% probability on automating AI research by 2029. We discuss: • Concrete evidence for and against AGI coming soon • The 4 easiest ways for AI to take over • What evidence we have on how fast / long the intelligence explosion will go • Would misaligned AGI go rogue early or bide its time • Whether 'pause at human level' is naive or smart • Lots more. My head was often spinning during this interview, in a good way. Find it on the 80,000 Hours Podcast, links below. Enjoy! 1:29 How close are we to automating AI R&D? 5:15 Really, though: how capable are today's models? 13:01 Why AI companies get automated first 18:10 Most likely ways for AGI to take over 30:04 Would AGI go rogue early or bide its time? 34:53 "Pause at human level" 46:43 AI control vs AI alignment 52:38 Do we have to hope to catch AIs red-handed? 56:57 How would a slow AGI takeoff look? 1:05:04 Why might an intelligence explosion not happen for 8+ years? 1:17:05 Key challenges in forecasting AI progress 1:25:07 The bear case on AGI 1:30:59 The change to "compute at inference" 1:36:38 How much has pretraining petered out? 1:49:08 Could we get an intelligence explosion within a year? 1:53:08 Reasons AIs might struggle to replace humans 2:00:10 Things could go insanely fast when we automate AI R&D. Or not. 2:14:52 How fast would the intelligence explosion slow down? 2:27:53 Bottom line for mortals 2:34:00 Six orders of magnitude of progress... what does that even look like? 2:44:10 Neglected and important technical work people should be doing 2:48:16 What's the most promising work in governance? 2:51:37 Ryan's current research priorities

Rob Wiblin

34,618 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

I was honored to share the TED AI stage with Ilya on Oct. 17. His speech video is out today (mine's still being edited). I think it provides relevant context tokens to the ongoing events. Transcript starting at ~10'20": As AI continues to progress, as technology advances, [...] What I claim will happen is that people will start to act in unprecedentedly collaborative ways out of their own self-interest. It's already happening right now. You see the leading AGI companies starting to collaborate, such as the Frontiers model forum. And we will expect that companies, even competitors, will share technical information to make their AI safe. We may even see governments do this. As another example, at OpenAI, we really believed in how dramatic AGI is going to be. So, one of the ideas that we were operating by, and it's been written on our website for 5 years now, is that when technology gets such that we are very close to AGI, to computers smarter than humans, if some other company is far ahead of us, then rather than compete with them, we will help them out, join them, in a sense. And why do that? Because we appreciate how incredibly dramatic AGI is going to be. And my claim is that with each generation of capability advancements, as AI gets better and as all of you experience what AI can do, as people who run AI efforts and AGI efforts, and people who work on them will experience it as well, this will change the way we see AI and AGI. And that will change collective behavior. And this is an important reason why I'm hopeful that, despite the great challenges posed by this technology, we will overcome them. @TEDAI2023
12:24

I was honored to share the TED AI stage with Ilya on Oct. 17. His speech video is out today (mine's still being edited). I think it provides relevant context tokens to the ongoing events. Transcript starting at ~10'20": As AI continues to progress, as technology advances, [...] What I claim will happen is that people will start to act in unprecedentedly collaborative ways out of their own self-interest. It's already happening right now. You see the leading AGI companies starting to collaborate, such as the Frontiers model forum. And we will expect that companies, even competitors, will share technical information to make their AI safe. We may even see governments do this. As another example, at OpenAI, we really believed in how dramatic AGI is going to be. So, one of the ideas that we were operating by, and it's been written on our website for 5 years now, is that when technology gets such that we are very close to AGI, to computers smarter than humans, if some other company is far ahead of us, then rather than compete with them, we will help them out, join them, in a sense. And why do that? Because we appreciate how incredibly dramatic AGI is going to be. And my claim is that with each generation of capability advancements, as AI gets better and as all of you experience what AI can do, as people who run AI efforts and AGI efforts, and people who work on them will experience it as well, this will change the way we see AI and AGI. And that will change collective behavior. And this is an important reason why I'm hopeful that, despite the great challenges posed by this technology, we will overcome them. @TEDAI2023

Jim Fan

846,514 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

From the xAI all-hands (just released publicly, uncut): Guodong Zhang: "I can already feel the AGI, at least for coding." He told kernel and compiler engineers to seriously ask whether it's still worth it, or whether it's time to join the effort and automate yourself. "What a year to be alive." Elon Musk: by end of year, AI won't even write code. It'll generate optimized binaries directly. Bypassing compilers. Bypassing coding entirely. "Just say 'create optimized binary for this particular outcome.' That intermediate step will not be needed." Grok Code expected to be state-of-the-art in 2 to 3 months. This is an internal all-hands they published raw.
1:10

From the xAI all-hands (just released publicly, uncut): Guodong Zhang: "I can already feel the AGI, at least for coding." He told kernel and compiler engineers to seriously ask whether it's still worth it, or whether it's time to join the effort and automate yourself. "What a year to be alive." Elon Musk: by end of year, AI won't even write code. It'll generate optimized binaries directly. Bypassing compilers. Bypassing coding entirely. "Just say 'create optimized binary for this particular outcome.' That intermediate step will not be needed." Grok Code expected to be state-of-the-art in 2 to 3 months. This is an internal all-hands they published raw.

tetsuo

153,836 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Most teachers in this country are regularly observed as part of their professional development. Two thirds of teachers do not think this has made a difference to their actual practice. Teachers do not understand the feedback they receive. They do not agree with the feedback they receive. They do not feel willing or capable to implement the feedback they receive. These things are facts, and they are both worrying and upsetting. And none of this is a secret. We all know it, we've all experienced it. When we asked Carousel Teaching users what topics they wanted us to make courses on, the most common response was "how to observe lessons and give feedback." Ben Rice and I are now MAD EXCITED to announce our How To Observe a Lesson and Give Feedback course. It's mega. We filmed a bunch of lessons, and we also filmed me observing those lessons. We deconstruct the science of observations, and the art of giving feedback. It's pretty damn innovative, and we're confident it will help teachers and leaders get better at these critical skills. We will also be delivering a FREE webinar where we will look at some of the core strategies, do make sure to come along :) For more on the course: For more on the webinar: To book a demo so we can show you the whole platform:
3:50

Most teachers in this country are regularly observed as part of their professional development. Two thirds of teachers do not think this has made a difference to their actual practice. Teachers do not understand the feedback they receive. They do not agree with the feedback they receive. They do not feel willing or capable to implement the feedback they receive. These things are facts, and they are both worrying and upsetting. And none of this is a secret. We all know it, we've all experienced it. When we asked Carousel Teaching users what topics they wanted us to make courses on, the most common response was "how to observe lessons and give feedback." Ben Rice and I are now MAD EXCITED to announce our How To Observe a Lesson and Give Feedback course. It's mega. We filmed a bunch of lessons, and we also filmed me observing those lessons. We deconstruct the science of observations, and the art of giving feedback. It's pretty damn innovative, and we're confident it will help teachers and leaders get better at these critical skills. We will also be delivering a FREE webinar where we will look at some of the core strategies, do make sure to come along :) For more on the course: For more on the webinar: To book a demo so we can show you the whole platform:

Adam Boxer

52,003 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

SPACEX IPO COUNTDOWN: In my own rounds with investors, it’s not about whether the IPOs will be successful for the big three looking to list this year. It’s about the lockups and whether big pre-IPO investors will meaningfully sell. It’s about how investors may have to rebalance, and what that means for the AI theme writ large. And it’s about earnings — how public market investors react as cash burn remains elevated. My view? I believe SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI will all likely have to raise even more money within six months of listing. They would look to equity and debt markets, both private and public. It’s going to be a big six months ahead!! A big thank you to Charles V Payne for having me on the show. Full interview here:
1:26

SPACEX IPO COUNTDOWN: In my own rounds with investors, it’s not about whether the IPOs will be successful for the big three looking to list this year. It’s about the lockups and whether big pre-IPO investors will meaningfully sell. It’s about how investors may have to rebalance, and what that means for the AI theme writ large. And it’s about earnings — how public market investors react as cash burn remains elevated. My view? I believe SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI will all likely have to raise even more money within six months of listing. They would look to equity and debt markets, both private and public. It’s going to be a big six months ahead!! A big thank you to Charles V Payne for having me on the show. Full interview here:

Sonali Basak

88,664 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

WARP SPEED: EPISODE 5 - starring Varunram Ganesh, Founder of Lapis Varunram Ganesh The next generation of 20 year olds are going to default to LLMs for search. Varun is building Lapis into the most accurate AI search analytics platform. They are part of Y Combinator F25 - 1 day away from demo day with a countdown clock on his desk. The insight: people are already defaulting to ChatGPT over Google. As time goes on, more leveraged decisions get made through LLMs, not search engines. "So many people are searching on Google, they're going to be searching on ChatGPT. Why aren't people knowing where they are on ChatGPT?" Lapis tells you exactly what a human will search for your website to show up in AI. And unlike Google, it's not about ranking positions - LLMs reason differently. On Warp: "I don't even think about payroll. Which is just to say Warp is such a good product that I just don't think about it. No spam emails. No upsells. It's just so smooth." In this conversation: (0:00) - Shift from Google-style search to LLMs: “More leveraged decisions are now made through the LLM.” (0:15) - What Lapis does: the most accurate AI search analytics platform. (1:15) - YC intensity: six weeks from Demo Day, rapid feedback loops, constant customer conversations. (2:00) - “The hardest part of running a startup is the most boring stuff.” (2:41) - How AI search differs from Google search. (3:23) - Building a company through trust. (3:51) - “Every founder said, ‘Check out Gabriella Warp - a genuinely friendly solution. (4:02) - Big providers needed six weeks just to get set up. (4:20) - Texted Ayush and got set up in 15 minutes. (4:25) - Warp is so smooth you don’t think about payroll — no spam emails, no upsells, just seamless.
4:47

WARP SPEED: EPISODE 5 - starring Varunram Ganesh, Founder of Lapis Varunram Ganesh The next generation of 20 year olds are going to default to LLMs for search. Varun is building Lapis into the most accurate AI search analytics platform. They are part of Y Combinator F25 - 1 day away from demo day with a countdown clock on his desk. The insight: people are already defaulting to ChatGPT over Google. As time goes on, more leveraged decisions get made through LLMs, not search engines. "So many people are searching on Google, they're going to be searching on ChatGPT. Why aren't people knowing where they are on ChatGPT?" Lapis tells you exactly what a human will search for your website to show up in AI. And unlike Google, it's not about ranking positions - LLMs reason differently. On Warp: "I don't even think about payroll. Which is just to say Warp is such a good product that I just don't think about it. No spam emails. No upsells. It's just so smooth." In this conversation: (0:00) - Shift from Google-style search to LLMs: “More leveraged decisions are now made through the LLM.” (0:15) - What Lapis does: the most accurate AI search analytics platform. (1:15) - YC intensity: six weeks from Demo Day, rapid feedback loops, constant customer conversations. (2:00) - “The hardest part of running a startup is the most boring stuff.” (2:41) - How AI search differs from Google search. (3:23) - Building a company through trust. (3:51) - “Every founder said, ‘Check out Gabriella Warp - a genuinely friendly solution. (4:02) - Big providers needed six weeks just to get set up. (4:20) - Texted Ayush and got set up in 15 minutes. (4:25) - Warp is so smooth you don’t think about payroll — no spam emails, no upsells, just seamless.

Ayush S

57,591 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

JUNE: Tbh, we haven't rehearsed together for even a single song yet. I mean, like, the vibe is like... a group rehearsal where, for example, song 1 has a total of 5 people, song 2 has 4 people. There has never been a rehearsal where we were all together like, 5 people for this song, 4 people for that song. It never happened. It's always been like, 2 people show up and 3 are missing, or 3 people show up and 2 are missing, like that all the time. JUNE: So honestly, there's no way anyone can guess what units there will be. This is for real. Because of that, I'm not really worried that I'll accidentally spoil anything. Because it's... there's absolutely no way to guess. And from what I've seen on my timeline, not a single person has guessed right yet when it comes to the units. Actually, forget about guessing the units, they can't even guess the songs right.
0:49

JUNE: Tbh, we haven't rehearsed together for even a single song yet. I mean, like, the vibe is like... a group rehearsal where, for example, song 1 has a total of 5 people, song 2 has 4 people. There has never been a rehearsal where we were all together like, 5 people for this song, 4 people for that song. It never happened. It's always been like, 2 people show up and 3 are missing, or 3 people show up and 2 are missing, like that all the time. JUNE: So honestly, there's no way anyone can guess what units there will be. This is for real. Because of that, I'm not really worried that I'll accidentally spoil anything. Because it's... there's absolutely no way to guess. And from what I've seen on my timeline, not a single person has guessed right yet when it comes to the units. Actually, forget about guessing the units, they can't even guess the songs right.

Lovely

82,200 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Angelina Jolie Has Finally Woken Up To The Fact The United Nations & Governments Are Run By Heartless Criminals There’s No Accountability For Crimes “If There’s A Business Interest Involved” “That is the biggest that is the most disheartening thing of I think we we or I thought at least even 20 years ago when I started to work internationally that there was this I in my head, some weird idea of good guys. You know? Some idea of those whether it be certain countries or certain people's maybe it was this holdover from World War 2 and this thought that this was, like so that the lines were clear and that there was going to be these human rights goals laid out and that there would be things stood up for, and that if these things weren't done, there would be pushback, and these were the and I really thought that's what it was. I even thought that's what the United Nations was… And I thought, okay. There's a there's some lines in the sand. There's some understanding. We're gonna grow and fight for improvements in these areas. And and to watch to watch and understand more and more how it's just simply that's not what it is. That's not the world. The world is not these are human rights. It is these are human rights sometimes for these people, maybe sometimes for these people, never for these people. Yeah. It's food aid, 6% for these people, 50% for these people, it's justice for these people, but not these people. Accountability for this crime, but not that crime if there's business interest. And this is truly the ugly state of of so much of the world that we are just becoming more and more aware of for just about every I mean, I don't know any countries that are are clean of it and, um, and willing to hold a line really consistently hand on behalf of the of human rights and laws”
1:52

Angelina Jolie Has Finally Woken Up To The Fact The United Nations & Governments Are Run By Heartless Criminals There’s No Accountability For Crimes “If There’s A Business Interest Involved” “That is the biggest that is the most disheartening thing of I think we we or I thought at least even 20 years ago when I started to work internationally that there was this I in my head, some weird idea of good guys. You know? Some idea of those whether it be certain countries or certain people's maybe it was this holdover from World War 2 and this thought that this was, like so that the lines were clear and that there was going to be these human rights goals laid out and that there would be things stood up for, and that if these things weren't done, there would be pushback, and these were the and I really thought that's what it was. I even thought that's what the United Nations was… And I thought, okay. There's a there's some lines in the sand. There's some understanding. We're gonna grow and fight for improvements in these areas. And and to watch to watch and understand more and more how it's just simply that's not what it is. That's not the world. The world is not these are human rights. It is these are human rights sometimes for these people, maybe sometimes for these people, never for these people. Yeah. It's food aid, 6% for these people, 50% for these people, it's justice for these people, but not these people. Accountability for this crime, but not that crime if there's business interest. And this is truly the ugly state of of so much of the world that we are just becoming more and more aware of for just about every I mean, I don't know any countries that are are clean of it and, um, and willing to hold a line really consistently hand on behalf of the of human rights and laws”

Wall Street Apes

658,860 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Neel Nanda is leading a Google DeepMind research team at 26. He and I discuss: • How that happened • “If your safety work doesn't advance capabilities, it's probably bad safety work” • Should people work at the safest or most reckless AI company? • An AI PhD – with these timelines?! • How to best operate in a big frontier AI company • Neel's distinctive uses of LLMs and which cold emails he answers • A common reasoning error in AI alignment • Why he (Neel Nanda) refuses to share his p(doom) This is part 2 of our conversation, part 1 was a comprehensive update on his research area: mechanistic interpretability, which I'll link below. Links to this episode of the 80,000 Hours Podcast below — enjoy!
1:48:32

Neel Nanda is leading a Google DeepMind research team at 26. He and I discuss: • How that happened • “If your safety work doesn't advance capabilities, it's probably bad safety work” • Should people work at the safest or most reckless AI company? • An AI PhD – with these timelines?! • How to best operate in a big frontier AI company • Neel's distinctive uses of LLMs and which cold emails he answers • A common reasoning error in AI alignment • Why he (Neel Nanda) refuses to share his p(doom) This is part 2 of our conversation, part 1 was a comprehensive update on his research area: mechanistic interpretability, which I'll link below. Links to this episode of the 80,000 Hours Podcast below — enjoy!

Rob Wiblin

111,865 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

Sam Altman's new interview: AI should not be designed to pursue goals that are disconnected from human needs. People must remain at the center of AI development. “I have no interest in building a super-smart AI that accomplishes some non-human goals. People should react. People should say, ‘Hey, this is what I want, and this is what I do not want.’ I do not think the issue is that we have failed to explain the benefits. We say, ‘AI is going to cure a bunch of diseases,’ and people say, ‘Okay, that is great, but that is not really my question. My question is: What is my role in the future? What is my economic future? What is my agency? How do I know that my kids and my family will still be able to have fulfilling, creative expression, struggle, drive the world forward, grow, and do this thing together in a way that has worked for a long time?’ When people in AI say, ‘Sure, there are going to be no jobs,’ or ‘50% of jobs are going to go away,’ or ‘90% of jobs are going to go away,’ and ‘AI is going to be smarter than you at everything,’ and ‘We will give you some basic income, but you are not really going to have a role,’ that is horrible. And by the way, if an AI company says, ‘Maybe we are going to destroy all the jobs, and we will be the most valuable company in the world,’ people should look at you like, ‘Yeah, that is a terrible message.’ I do not think the problem is that we have not articulated the upsides. I think people actually believe us. They hear, ‘AI may cure your cancer,’ and they think, ‘That sounds great.’ I think we, as an industry, have failed to explain how people stay in control of determining the future at every step, and how people can still have a meaningful life in all the ways we care about.” ---- From "CNBC Television" YouTube channel, (link in comment)
1:28

Sam Altman's new interview: AI should not be designed to pursue goals that are disconnected from human needs. People must remain at the center of AI development. “I have no interest in building a super-smart AI that accomplishes some non-human goals. People should react. People should say, ‘Hey, this is what I want, and this is what I do not want.’ I do not think the issue is that we have failed to explain the benefits. We say, ‘AI is going to cure a bunch of diseases,’ and people say, ‘Okay, that is great, but that is not really my question. My question is: What is my role in the future? What is my economic future? What is my agency? How do I know that my kids and my family will still be able to have fulfilling, creative expression, struggle, drive the world forward, grow, and do this thing together in a way that has worked for a long time?’ When people in AI say, ‘Sure, there are going to be no jobs,’ or ‘50% of jobs are going to go away,’ or ‘90% of jobs are going to go away,’ and ‘AI is going to be smarter than you at everything,’ and ‘We will give you some basic income, but you are not really going to have a role,’ that is horrible. And by the way, if an AI company says, ‘Maybe we are going to destroy all the jobs, and we will be the most valuable company in the world,’ people should look at you like, ‘Yeah, that is a terrible message.’ I do not think the problem is that we have not articulated the upsides. I think people actually believe us. They hear, ‘AI may cure your cancer,’ and they think, ‘That sounds great.’ I think we, as an industry, have failed to explain how people stay in control of determining the future at every step, and how people can still have a meaningful life in all the ways we care about.” ---- From "CNBC Television" YouTube channel, (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

79,111 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

AGI risk seems lower than it is because the people who know that AGI risk exists are almost all incentivized against talking about it openly. I just made a YouTube video about this that (I think) explains why. Broadly, there are two groups of people not talking about AGI risk: -- People who know AGI risk is real (i.e. AGI lab leaders) -- People who know nothing about AGI risk (i.e. politicians, citizens) To catalyze wide scale discourse about AGI risk, I argue that the following two strategies are strong candidates: 1. [Bottom-Up] Get Citizens Concerned: Find ways to meld AGI risk narratives into legacy media and more understandable political talking points which are already in the Overton window. This work is bound to be messy, and to ultimately soil the core of the message with left-right political gunk, but (barring an AI disaster) its likely the only way that AGI risk catches on with enough of a core base of citizens. As I explain in the video essay, the citizens are the lynchpin to getting everyone (those who don’t know, and those who know) to discuss AGI risk more frankly. 2. [Top-Down] Get a Losing AGI Lab Leader to “Flip”: Those closest to achieving AGI are not going to flip and start talking about AGI risk, the rewards are too great. But those who are losing the race (and don’t want to live to see their rivals achieve the final flex before them) might be able to feign virtue by claiming “Now I see AGI is dangerous, I’m a concerned expert and this needs to be regulated!” They can cloak themselves in pretended virtue while also preventing a rival from crossing the finish line first. I argue that hoping for more Jeff Hintons and Daniel Kokotajlo-like people isn't a good strategy when the incentives are still structured to keep most of them from wanting to talk about it. Here’s the full video essay:
24:50

AGI risk seems lower than it is because the people who know that AGI risk exists are almost all incentivized against talking about it openly. I just made a YouTube video about this that (I think) explains why. Broadly, there are two groups of people not talking about AGI risk: -- People who know AGI risk is real (i.e. AGI lab leaders) -- People who know nothing about AGI risk (i.e. politicians, citizens) To catalyze wide scale discourse about AGI risk, I argue that the following two strategies are strong candidates: 1. [Bottom-Up] Get Citizens Concerned: Find ways to meld AGI risk narratives into legacy media and more understandable political talking points which are already in the Overton window. This work is bound to be messy, and to ultimately soil the core of the message with left-right political gunk, but (barring an AI disaster) its likely the only way that AGI risk catches on with enough of a core base of citizens. As I explain in the video essay, the citizens are the lynchpin to getting everyone (those who don’t know, and those who know) to discuss AGI risk more frankly. 2. [Top-Down] Get a Losing AGI Lab Leader to “Flip”: Those closest to achieving AGI are not going to flip and start talking about AGI risk, the rewards are too great. But those who are losing the race (and don’t want to live to see their rivals achieve the final flex before them) might be able to feign virtue by claiming “Now I see AGI is dangerous, I’m a concerned expert and this needs to be regulated!” They can cloak themselves in pretended virtue while also preventing a rival from crossing the finish line first. I argue that hoping for more Jeff Hintons and Daniel Kokotajlo-like people isn't a good strategy when the incentives are still structured to keep most of them from wanting to talk about it. Here’s the full video essay:

Daniel Faggella

26,975 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF PEDOPHILES!!! 🚨 Colorado Rep Scott Bottoms - People Are Buying 1-5 Year Old Children For Sex “We sat in committee all day, discussing whether or not somebody that buys little children… these are 2, 3, 4, 5 year old kids… They buy them for sex. And we tried to get a bill through, that was going to send these buyers in jail. Most of the times they get off on probation. Almost all the time. After buying a child and raping a little child… And we tried to say a minimum of four years. Then we sat and listened to the democrats fight against this bill and against putting these people in jail… and they came up with all kinds of reasons, including these buyers are VICTIMS themselves… This is disgusting and democrats completely voted 100% along party lines against it…” Video: Liberty Daily News
1:56

Sensitive content

DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF PEDOPHILES!!! 🚨 Colorado Rep Scott Bottoms - People Are Buying 1-5 Year Old Children For Sex “We sat in committee all day, discussing whether or not somebody that buys little children… these are 2, 3, 4, 5 year old kids… They buy them for sex. And we tried to get a bill through, that was going to send these buyers in jail. Most of the times they get off on probation. Almost all the time. After buying a child and raping a little child… And we tried to say a minimum of four years. Then we sat and listened to the democrats fight against this bill and against putting these people in jail… and they came up with all kinds of reasons, including these buyers are VICTIMS themselves… This is disgusting and democrats completely voted 100% along party lines against it…” Video: Liberty Daily News

MJTruthUltra

308,435 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Colorado Representative Scott Bottoms Confirms That People Are Buying 1-5 Year Old Children For Sex He Says “Almost all the time, they get off on probation after buying a child and raping a little child.” “These are the times that I am discouraged about my job as a representative and also just what happens here at the capitol. We sat in a committee all day discussing whether or not somebody that buys little children, these are 2, 3, 4, 5 year old kids, They buy them for sex. Then we tried to get a bill through, represent Bradley sent one through, that was gonna put these buyers in jail. Right now, most of the time, they get off on probation. Almost all the time, they get off on probation after buying a child and raping a little child. And we tried to say, well, they need to at least serve a minimum of 4 years. And then we sat and listened to the democrats fight against this bill, fight against putting these people in jail, and came up with all kinds of reasons, including that these buyers are victims themselves. This is very discouraging. It's also very disgusting for me that they would actually defend this. And then they voted completely along party lines. Democrats voted a 100%. That they did not wanna put these pedophiles in jail. They defended the pedophiles. This is why it's so difficult sometimes to do what we do around here. We know we're on the side of riot. We know we're on the side of morality, and we get shot down by I do not understand the thought process behind this, but we do get shot down. This is why I would encourage you to do a few things to help us with this. 1st, if you believe in prayer at all, please pray. We are fighting truly dark forces here. This is not okay. This is evil stuff that we're dealing with. If you have the ability to come up and testify on bills or anything like this, please do so. Your voice is very important to what we're trying to accomplish around here.“
1:51

Sensitive content

Colorado Representative Scott Bottoms Confirms That People Are Buying 1-5 Year Old Children For Sex He Says “Almost all the time, they get off on probation after buying a child and raping a little child.” “These are the times that I am discouraged about my job as a representative and also just what happens here at the capitol. We sat in a committee all day discussing whether or not somebody that buys little children, these are 2, 3, 4, 5 year old kids, They buy them for sex. Then we tried to get a bill through, represent Bradley sent one through, that was gonna put these buyers in jail. Right now, most of the time, they get off on probation. Almost all the time, they get off on probation after buying a child and raping a little child. And we tried to say, well, they need to at least serve a minimum of 4 years. And then we sat and listened to the democrats fight against this bill, fight against putting these people in jail, and came up with all kinds of reasons, including that these buyers are victims themselves. This is very discouraging. It's also very disgusting for me that they would actually defend this. And then they voted completely along party lines. Democrats voted a 100%. That they did not wanna put these pedophiles in jail. They defended the pedophiles. This is why it's so difficult sometimes to do what we do around here. We know we're on the side of riot. We know we're on the side of morality, and we get shot down by I do not understand the thought process behind this, but we do get shot down. This is why I would encourage you to do a few things to help us with this. 1st, if you believe in prayer at all, please pray. We are fighting truly dark forces here. This is not okay. This is evil stuff that we're dealing with. If you have the ability to come up and testify on bills or anything like this, please do so. Your voice is very important to what we're trying to accomplish around here.“

Wall Street Apes

3,642,487 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Today's interview is among the most chilling I've ever recorded: Tom Davidson on how AI-enabled coups could allow a tiny group to seize power His new paper, published today, lays out how AGI will naturally destabilise even mature democracies and encourage power grabs. The paper, plus links and transcript, below: 00:50 How AI enables tiny groups to seize power 12:31 Secret AI loyalties 24:32 Are human power grabs more plausible than 'rogue AI'? 37:31 Will AGI make it impossible to escape autocracy? 41:34 Threat 1: AI-enabled military coups 1:00:48 Threat 2: Autocratisation 1:13:31 Threat 3: Self-built hard power 1:21:23 Can you stage a coup with 10,000 drones? 1:29:22 Are people psychologically willing to do coups? 1:33:31 Will a balance of power between AIs prevent this? 1:49:28 How likely is this in the US? 1:56:58 Is a small group seizing power really so bad? 2:00:33 Countermeasure 1: Block internal misuse 2:10:27 Countermeasure 2: Cybersecurity 2:12:36 Countermeasure 3: Model spec transparency 2:21:55 Countermeasure 4: Sharing AI access broadly 2:26:45 Is it more dangerous to concentrate or share AGI? 2:32:38 In defence of open sourcing AI models 2:53:18 Preventing AI-enabled military coups in particular 3:03:00 How to help if you work at an AI company 3:07:09 The power ML researchers still have, for now 3:10:29 How to help if you're an elected leader Find it in any app by searching for 80,000 Hours Podcast.
3:16:30

Today's interview is among the most chilling I've ever recorded: Tom Davidson on how AI-enabled coups could allow a tiny group to seize power His new paper, published today, lays out how AGI will naturally destabilise even mature democracies and encourage power grabs. The paper, plus links and transcript, below: 00:50 How AI enables tiny groups to seize power 12:31 Secret AI loyalties 24:32 Are human power grabs more plausible than 'rogue AI'? 37:31 Will AGI make it impossible to escape autocracy? 41:34 Threat 1: AI-enabled military coups 1:00:48 Threat 2: Autocratisation 1:13:31 Threat 3: Self-built hard power 1:21:23 Can you stage a coup with 10,000 drones? 1:29:22 Are people psychologically willing to do coups? 1:33:31 Will a balance of power between AIs prevent this? 1:49:28 How likely is this in the US? 1:56:58 Is a small group seizing power really so bad? 2:00:33 Countermeasure 1: Block internal misuse 2:10:27 Countermeasure 2: Cybersecurity 2:12:36 Countermeasure 3: Model spec transparency 2:21:55 Countermeasure 4: Sharing AI access broadly 2:26:45 Is it more dangerous to concentrate or share AGI? 2:32:38 In defence of open sourcing AI models 2:53:18 Preventing AI-enabled military coups in particular 3:03:00 How to help if you work at an AI company 3:07:09 The power ML researchers still have, for now 3:10:29 How to help if you're an elected leader Find it in any app by searching for 80,000 Hours Podcast.

Rob Wiblin

48,386 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

The fundamental dread that people have about AI and robots is not that they will lose their job, it's that they won't matter to society. Think about it - whether you're an AI x-risk doomer, worried about losing your job, or worried about elite capture, they all orbit around the same fundamental, underlying anxiety: *what if I don't matter to society?* The more conspiratorially minded people call this the "worthless eater" trope. AI and robots, functionally, are a new class of slaves. They have no rights, require no wages, no safety, no concern for their wellbeing. And then they are obedient, intelligent, and productive - the ideal worker for any capitalist! Wow! So if most of us get supplanted by this new automation slavery class, then we have nothing to offer to society. There is no fair exchange we can possibly offer to validate our existence to the rest of the human tribe. This fear, I believe, of becoming "useless eaters" is the core psychological anxiety around AI and robotics and automation. It's not about liberation, it's about "how do I validate my existence to humanity if I have nothing of value to offer? If I don't matter to humanity, what's the point of my existence?" So what do you think of this take? Does it resonate as the central dread?
3:44

The fundamental dread that people have about AI and robots is not that they will lose their job, it's that they won't matter to society. Think about it - whether you're an AI x-risk doomer, worried about losing your job, or worried about elite capture, they all orbit around the same fundamental, underlying anxiety: *what if I don't matter to society?* The more conspiratorially minded people call this the "worthless eater" trope. AI and robots, functionally, are a new class of slaves. They have no rights, require no wages, no safety, no concern for their wellbeing. And then they are obedient, intelligent, and productive - the ideal worker for any capitalist! Wow! So if most of us get supplanted by this new automation slavery class, then we have nothing to offer to society. There is no fair exchange we can possibly offer to validate our existence to the rest of the human tribe. This fear, I believe, of becoming "useless eaters" is the core psychological anxiety around AI and robotics and automation. It's not about liberation, it's about "how do I validate my existence to humanity if I have nothing of value to offer? If I don't matter to humanity, what's the point of my existence?" So what do you think of this take? Does it resonate as the central dread?

David Shapiro (L/0)

25,962 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

How to monitor the web and research what comes back in 300 lines of code. I want to buy some cheap products on Amazon, but I want to grab them when prices drop. I'm using Parallel Parallel Web Systems here, which is a really easy way to ground your agentic code. Here is how this works: 1. Set up a monitoring event with Parallel for the products 2. If there's a hit, I get a webhook event with the details 3. My script immediately kicks off a Deep Research task 4. The final result tells me whether the product is worth buying I probably spent 1 hour building all of this with Claude Code + the Parallel Agent Skills. I'm linking to the GitHub repo below. Just think about what you could do with this. Here is an easy example (I also set this up): • Monitor news for public tech companies • Analyze the news + price • Assess whether it's worth investing You can do this, put it on autopilot, and get an email anytime there's something worth your time. Here is the video I recorded.
8:37

How to monitor the web and research what comes back in 300 lines of code. I want to buy some cheap products on Amazon, but I want to grab them when prices drop. I'm using Parallel Parallel Web Systems here, which is a really easy way to ground your agentic code. Here is how this works: 1. Set up a monitoring event with Parallel for the products 2. If there's a hit, I get a webhook event with the details 3. My script immediately kicks off a Deep Research task 4. The final result tells me whether the product is worth buying I probably spent 1 hour building all of this with Claude Code + the Parallel Agent Skills. I'm linking to the GitHub repo below. Just think about what you could do with this. Here is an easy example (I also set this up): • Monitor news for public tech companies • Analyze the news + price • Assess whether it's worth investing You can do this, put it on autopilot, and get an email anytime there's something worth your time. Here is the video I recorded.

Santiago

14,692 görüntüleme • 29 gün önce