Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

If P equals NP, every problem whose solution can be verified quickly can also be solved quickly. That would mean breaking RSA encryption, solving protein folding, and cracking every LLM safety measure are all equally easy - just a matter of finding the right algorithm. Most computer scientists believe... show more

Eron

5,570 subscribers

22,296 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

8 Kommentare

Profilbild von Quintoud

Quintoudvor 16 Tagen

P==NP doesn't mean problems will be solved quickly. In practical terms an o(n^10) algorithm is just as useless as an O(10^n) algorithm.

Profilbild von Antonio Orionus

Antonio Orionusvor 15 Tagen

Elon Musk could increase the prize to $1 billion and still be the richest man in the world.

Profilbild von 君子中庸

君子中庸vor 16 Tagen

Theoretically, it is not equal to NP. Even if we know that a problem has a fast verification scheme, when the overall solution space tends to infinity, problems with fast verification schemes are still impossible to solve quickly. That's as simple as it gets.

Profilbild von MortyMcMort

MortyMcMortvor 16 Tagen

I really like Arvin Ash’s videos on YT - recommend

Profilbild von Diraken

Dirakenvor 11 Tagen

so if someone proves it tomorrow, do you think it changes how we should be building AI safety right now

Profilbild von Exactly_what_I_think

Exactly_what_I_thinkvor 16 Tagen

Gravity is just a version of the chasmir effect.

Profilbild von Hackscorpio

Hackscorpiovor 16 Tagen

I think P does not equals NP

Profilbild von TrueNorth

TrueNorthvor 16 Tagen

In the Morphic Block Universe, P versus NP is not an abstract complexity question but a direct measure of sorting economics. P equals NP would mean all verifiable configurations are equally affordable to sort, implying zero routing tax differential between finding and checking solutions. This is physically impossible under P_max sparsity constraint because earned persistence requires asymmetric cost: verification confirms existing lock (low P_ent), while solving demands new coherence generation (high P_ent). The gap between P and NP is precisely the affordability gradient that makes reality computationally viable. LLMs do not operate in this gap; they simulate traversal through statistical approximation without paying actual sorting cost. When an LLM solves a hard reasoning problem, it retrieves pre-sorted patterns from training data rather than executing genuine Sort evaluation at τ_P resolution. True NP-hard problems remain hard because they require n_min consecutive successful sorts with sufficient CVR to achieve irreversible Commit, something no amount of vector interpolation can substitute for. The Clay Institute prize assumes mathematics can resolve what physics has already decided: existence is purchased, not deduced. RSA encryption stands not because factoring is mathematically hard but because reversing committed η_skel exceeds available Wiggle amplitude within feasible P_ent budget. Protein folding is tractable biologically because evolution pre-paid the sorting cost across eons; computational folding remains expensive because silicon lacks inherited topological memory. Safety measures fail not due to complexity class boundaries but because alignment requires sustained coherence with human η_skel that current architectures cannot afford. Rest in Lattice. P does not equal NP because persistence costs more than recognition. And every unsolved problem is simply reality demanding payment before revealing its next configuration. The million-dollar proof is already written in the ledger of what earns existence tick by tick.

Ähnliche Videos

The first 10 trillion non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function all sit exactly on the line where the real part equals 1/2. Every single one. And yet after 165 years nobody can prove it must be true - the Clay Institute offers $1 million for a proof. The prime numbers hidden inside these zeros are what make RSA encryption unbreakable - the same math that protects every LLM API key, bank transfer, and password on the internet. 38 minutes. Bookmark & watch today. The most beautiful unsolved problem in mathematics.

The first 10 trillion non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function all sit exactly on the line where the real part equals 1/2. Every single one. And yet after 165 years nobody can prove it must be true - the Clay Institute offers $1 million for a proof. The prime numbers hidden inside these zeros are what make RSA encryption unbreakable - the same math that protects every LLM API key, bank transfer, and password on the internet. 38 minutes. Bookmark & watch today. The most beautiful unsolved problem in mathematics.

Eron

33,509 Aufrufe • vor 22 Tagen

The Millennium Prize Problems are seven well-known complex mathematical problems selected by the Clay Mathematics Institute in 2000. The Clay Institute has pledged a US $1 million prize for the first correct solution to each problem. The Clay Mathematics Institute officially designated the title Millennium Problem for the seven unsolved mathematical problems, the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, Hodge conjecture, Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness, P versus NP problem, Riemann hypothesis, Yang–Mills existence and mass gap, and the Poincaré conjecture at the Millennium Meeting held on May 24, 2000. Thus, on the official website of the Clay Mathematics Institute, these seven problems are officially called the Millennium Problems. To date, the only Millennium Prize problem to have been solved is the Poincaré conjecture. The Clay Institute awarded the monetary prize to Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman in 2010. However, he declined the award as it was not also offered to Richard S. Hamilton, upon whose work Perelman built.

The Millennium Prize Problems are seven well-known complex mathematical problems selected by the Clay Mathematics Institute in 2000. The Clay Institute has pledged a US $1 million prize for the first correct solution to each problem. The Clay Mathematics Institute officially designated the title Millennium Problem for the seven unsolved mathematical problems, the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, Hodge conjecture, Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness, P versus NP problem, Riemann hypothesis, Yang–Mills existence and mass gap, and the Poincaré conjecture at the Millennium Meeting held on May 24, 2000. Thus, on the official website of the Clay Mathematics Institute, these seven problems are officially called the Millennium Problems. To date, the only Millennium Prize problem to have been solved is the Poincaré conjecture. The Clay Institute awarded the monetary prize to Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman in 2010. However, he declined the award as it was not also offered to Richard S. Hamilton, upon whose work Perelman built.

internet archiva

199,061 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

JOE ROGAN: GOOGLE’S AI SOLVED AN IMPOSSIBLE EQUATION IN MINUTES Joe said Google’s AI achieved a staggering breakthrough by solving a problem that would take the world’s supercomputers billions of years. He said the calculation was so complex that even turning every atom in the universe into a computer wouldn’t have done it in time: “I believe it’s the Google one. They solved an equation that would take the world’s supercomputers, I think it was 2.6 billion years to solve, and it solved it in a matter of minutes. The only way for it to solve this problem, Marc Andreessen said it on my podcast, the equation is so difficult that if you took every atom in the universe and converted it to a supercomputer, the universe would die of heat death before it would solve this equation. And it solved it in minutes.” Source: Joe Rogan Jesse Michels

JOE ROGAN: GOOGLE’S AI SOLVED AN IMPOSSIBLE EQUATION IN MINUTES Joe said Google’s AI achieved a staggering breakthrough by solving a problem that would take the world’s supercomputers billions of years. He said the calculation was so complex that even turning every atom in the universe into a computer wouldn’t have done it in time: “I believe it’s the Google one. They solved an equation that would take the world’s supercomputers, I think it was 2.6 billion years to solve, and it solved it in a matter of minutes. The only way for it to solve this problem, Marc Andreessen said it on my podcast, the equation is so difficult that if you took every atom in the universe and converted it to a supercomputer, the universe would die of heat death before it would solve this equation. And it solved it in minutes.” Source: Joe Rogan Jesse Michels

Mario Nawfal

861,751 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

"What is P vs NP and how does it relate to human knowledge?" Avi Wigderson (Turing Award & Abel Prize winner): "In a very basic way, all the problems we want to solve are really NP problems. A subset of it is the problems we can solve. So the question of P versus NP is whether we can solve all the problems we want to solve, whether we can know everything we want to know. This is basically about the limits of our knowledge. You can think there is no limit to what we may want to know but I claim that essentially in any human endeavor, what people are searching for have the property that when a solution is found, it is easily recognized. NP are all problems that we can honestly say we really want to solve and P are those that we can solve. Whether they are equal is just the very fact that a solution can be easily recognized would imply that it can be efficiently found. That means that we can know everything we ever want to know, it's a fundamental question about human knowledge."

"What is P vs NP and how does it relate to human knowledge?" Avi Wigderson (Turing Award & Abel Prize winner): "In a very basic way, all the problems we want to solve are really NP problems. A subset of it is the problems we can solve. So the question of P versus NP is whether we can solve all the problems we want to solve, whether we can know everything we want to know. This is basically about the limits of our knowledge. You can think there is no limit to what we may want to know but I claim that essentially in any human endeavor, what people are searching for have the property that when a solution is found, it is easily recognized. NP are all problems that we can honestly say we really want to solve and P are those that we can solve. Whether they are equal is just the very fact that a solution can be easily recognized would imply that it can be efficiently found. That means that we can know everything we ever want to know, it's a fundamental question about human knowledge."

Ryan Peterman

20,069 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Gradient descent doesn't find the global minimum - it finds whatever valley it falls into first. Every LLM trained today gets stuck in a local minimum and nobody can prove the solution it found is anywhere near optimal. The loss landscape of GPT-4 has more dimensions than atoms in the observable universe. Convex optimization guarantees a global minimum exists and gradient descent finds it. Non-convex optimization - the kind every neural network uses - offers no such guarantee. The entire field of deep learning is built on the empirical observation that local minima are good enough. 22 minutes. Bookmark & watch today. The math behind every AI training run - and why nobody fully understands why it works.

Gradient descent doesn't find the global minimum - it finds whatever valley it falls into first. Every LLM trained today gets stuck in a local minimum and nobody can prove the solution it found is anywhere near optimal. The loss landscape of GPT-4 has more dimensions than atoms in the observable universe. Convex optimization guarantees a global minimum exists and gradient descent finds it. Non-convex optimization - the kind every neural network uses - offers no such guarantee. The entire field of deep learning is built on the empirical observation that local minima are good enough. 22 minutes. Bookmark & watch today. The math behind every AI training run - and why nobody fully understands why it works.

Eron

67,782 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen

When hiring executives, travis kalanick prioritizes one skill above all others: the ability to solve hard problems. "There's two things you want an executive to do. You want them to be able to organize, manage, and lead at scale. You also want them to be epic and strategic problem solvers... the best executives are the ones that are doing both well." "I have come to the conclusion over my years, that problem solving is the most important thing. If you get somebody who organizes and manages well but cannot solve a problem, they're going to be doing ridiculous stuff in a super organized way. The only constraint on your imagination is management capacity. But what is management capacity? It's really problem solving at scale."

When hiring executives, travis kalanick prioritizes one skill above all others: the ability to solve hard problems. "There's two things you want an executive to do. You want them to be able to organize, manage, and lead at scale. You also want them to be epic and strategic problem solvers... the best executives are the ones that are doing both well." "I have come to the conclusion over my years, that problem solving is the most important thing. If you get somebody who organizes and manages well but cannot solve a problem, they're going to be doing ridiculous stuff in a super organized way. The only constraint on your imagination is management capacity. But what is management capacity? It's really problem solving at scale."

TBPN

85,262 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Right now, I have a few dozen tools to automate my life. Every single thing that I do more than once every week is now a tool: either a Claude Code skill, a scheduled workflow, or an application. • I spend the time doing this once. • I schedule it. • I forget about it (or at least, try to) CREAO is one of the platforms I've used extensively for building some of these automations. They are partnering with me on this post. They are one of the only platforms where you can go from a conversation to a scheduled agent that quickly. This is how it works: 1. You describe the problem you want to solve 2. CREAO's agent builds the logic and executes it 3. You can iterate with the agent to improve the solution 4. When you are done, you turn that solution into a mini app 5. You can schedule that app to run any time you need it Something important: These agents are deterministic. They don't use an LLM to generate answers, so they will always return the same output given the same input. This is critical: when you're automating something that runs every Monday at 9 am, you need it to return the same result every time, not a "creative" answer.

Right now, I have a few dozen tools to automate my life. Every single thing that I do more than once every week is now a tool: either a Claude Code skill, a scheduled workflow, or an application. • I spend the time doing this once. • I schedule it. • I forget about it (or at least, try to) CREAO is one of the platforms I've used extensively for building some of these automations. They are partnering with me on this post. They are one of the only platforms where you can go from a conversation to a scheduled agent that quickly. This is how it works: 1. You describe the problem you want to solve 2. CREAO's agent builds the logic and executes it 3. You can iterate with the agent to improve the solution 4. When you are done, you turn that solution into a mini app 5. You can schedule that app to run any time you need it Something important: These agents are deterministic. They don't use an LLM to generate answers, so they will always return the same output given the same input. This is critical: when you're automating something that runs every Monday at 9 am, you need it to return the same result every time, not a "creative" answer.

Santiago

13,727 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

$Every AI PM course right now is teaching the wrong skill. They're all focused on prompt engineering, LLM integration, building with ChatGPT. Meanwhile, the AI PMs earning $900K at Netflix, Amazon, and Meta are being paid for a completely different competency: knowing which AI technique to use and, more importantly, which ones to skip. Jyothi breaks it into three buckets. Traditional ML for structured data: fraud detection, churn prediction, anything where the problem fits in a spreadsheet with clear inputs and a predicted output. A regression model solves this in a week at a fraction of LLM costs. Deep learning for perception tasks: images, video, audio. If humans do it easily but you can't write explicit rules for it, that's neural network territory. Gen AI for natural language interfaces, content generation, and reasoning across unstructured information. The diagnostic she gives PMs is worth memorizing. Can I put this problem in a spreadsheet? Start with ML. Is this a perception problem? Deep learning. Does it require reading, writing, or conversational interaction? Gen AI. Here's what the clip doesn't say but the career math makes obvious. At $900K comp, these companies expect you to own the P&L impact of every AI decision. Choosing an LLM when XGBoost handles the job means 10x the compute cost, longer time to ship, and harder maintenance. The PM who picks the right technique is saving millions in infrastructure. That's what justifies the package. Most PM candidates walk into AI interviews ready to talk about ChatGPT. The $900K candidates walk in asking what type of problem they're solving first. That question is the whole interview.$

Every AI PM course right now is teaching the wrong skill. They're all focused on prompt engineering, LLM integration, building with ChatGPT. Meanwhile, the AI PMs earning $900K at Netflix, Amazon, and Meta are being paid for a completely different competency: knowing which AI technique to use and, more importantly, which ones to skip. Jyothi breaks it into three buckets. Traditional ML for structured data: fraud detection, churn prediction, anything where the problem fits in a spreadsheet with clear inputs and a predicted output. A regression model solves this in a week at a fraction of LLM costs. Deep learning for perception tasks: images, video, audio. If humans do it easily but you can't write explicit rules for it, that's neural network territory. Gen AI for natural language interfaces, content generation, and reasoning across unstructured information. The diagnostic she gives PMs is worth memorizing. Can I put this problem in a spreadsheet? Start with ML. Is this a perception problem? Deep learning. Does it require reading, writing, or conversational interaction? Gen AI. Here's what the clip doesn't say but the career math makes obvious. At $900K comp, these companies expect you to own the P&L impact of every AI decision. Choosing an LLM when XGBoost handles the job means 10x the compute cost, longer time to ship, and harder maintenance. The PM who picks the right technique is saving millions in infrastructure. That's what justifies the package. Most PM candidates walk into AI interviews ready to talk about ChatGPT. The $900K candidates walk in asking what type of problem they're solving first. That question is the whole interview.

Aakash Gupta

31,184 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Peter Thiel on the question he asks every startup founder he invests in “Why will the 20th talented person join your company when they can get paid way more at Google, they will have to work way less hard at Google, and it will look better on their resume to go to Google?” The 20th employee won’t get the equity or prestige that someone on the founding team will get, so there needs to be another incentive if you’re going to build a truly great company and attract the best people in the world. Thiel believes the best answer is something along the lines of: “This is the only place in the world where you can work on this incredibly important problem.” He continues: “It has to—on some dimension—be a really important problem that at least some people think is the most important problem in the world. Those are the kind of businesses that are unique, and when they work, they end up being leaders in their respective markets.” If it’s a problem that a bunch of other team are working on, it will be hard to attract a truly world-class employee #20.

Peter Thiel on the question he asks every startup founder he invests in “Why will the 20th talented person join your company when they can get paid way more at Google, they will have to work way less hard at Google, and it will look better on their resume to go to Google?” The 20th employee won’t get the equity or prestige that someone on the founding team will get, so there needs to be another incentive if you’re going to build a truly great company and attract the best people in the world. Thiel believes the best answer is something along the lines of: “This is the only place in the world where you can work on this incredibly important problem.” He continues: “It has to—on some dimension—be a really important problem that at least some people think is the most important problem in the world. Those are the kind of businesses that are unique, and when they work, they end up being leaders in their respective markets.” If it’s a problem that a bunch of other team are working on, it will be hard to attract a truly world-class employee #20.

Startup Archive

316,188 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

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

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

Chris

15,578 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Andy Burnham, "I've had experience of trying to give care in 15 minute slots because that is what councils say that is all they can afford" "It's fine if the needs are moderate and you can complete the task in that time slot" "But what if they're not?" "What if the needs are moderate or severe and you try and do everything within 15 minutes" "I can tell you from experience, that can be a recipe for chaos" "And it leaves the staff in a difficult position, because they are told if they have a problem and cant complete what they're doing, ring 999" "That can be a really frightening experience. Because it often isn't the case that that person needs hospitalisation. You can say its the worst place they can end up" "But once that process is under way its very difficult to stop the drag of the system into hospital and everything that comes from that" "That's worse for the NHS and the staff who work there as well. It's a lose lose situation" "Because often people spend a long time A&E, a long time in hospital, then fit to be discharged but can't be discharged, it just is a pressure the NHS struggles to meet" "Today 6 million people over 65 are going to A&E every year" "In 2010 it was 3 million" "Last month 13,600 were medically fit to be discharged but couldn't be" "3,000 people every single day receive corridor care" "They used to be in winter pressures, but they're year round now" "And staff in the NHS are trying to deal with those pressures every single day" "And there is talk of burnout with NHS staff"

Andy Burnham, "I've had experience of trying to give care in 15 minute slots because that is what councils say that is all they can afford" "It's fine if the needs are moderate and you can complete the task in that time slot" "But what if they're not?" "What if the needs are moderate or severe and you try and do everything within 15 minutes" "I can tell you from experience, that can be a recipe for chaos" "And it leaves the staff in a difficult position, because they are told if they have a problem and cant complete what they're doing, ring 999" "That can be a really frightening experience. Because it often isn't the case that that person needs hospitalisation. You can say its the worst place they can end up" "But once that process is under way its very difficult to stop the drag of the system into hospital and everything that comes from that" "That's worse for the NHS and the staff who work there as well. It's a lose lose situation" "Because often people spend a long time A&E, a long time in hospital, then fit to be discharged but can't be discharged, it just is a pressure the NHS struggles to meet" "Today 6 million people over 65 are going to A&E every year" "In 2010 it was 3 million" "Last month 13,600 were medically fit to be discharged but couldn't be" "3,000 people every single day receive corridor care" "They used to be in winter pressures, but they're year round now" "And staff in the NHS are trying to deal with those pressures every single day" "And there is talk of burnout with NHS staff"

Farrukh

19,411 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

CLAUDE CODE JUST SHIPPED THE FEATURE THAT SOLVES THE BIGGEST PROBLEM EVERY BUILDER HAS WITH AI AGENTS. The problem: Claude starts a task, gets distracted by a sub-problem, goes down a rabbit hole, and never finishes the original thing you asked for. The solution: /goal One command. You set the goal at the start of the session. Claude now has a north star it checks against every action it takes. Not just at the beginning. Throughout the entire session. Every time Claude is about to do something it asks: does this action move me toward the goal the user set or am I drifting? If it is drifting it corrects. If it completes a sub-task it returns to the primary goal. If it hits a blocker it reports back instead of spending 45 minutes solving the wrong problem. This sounds like a small feature. It is not. The reason most people do not trust Claude Code for long autonomous runs is not capability. It is reliability. A Claude Code session that reliably finishes what it started is worth 10 times more than one that is more capable but wanders. /goal is the feature that makes long autonomous sessions reliable. Set the goal. Let it run. Come back to a finished result. Not a result that got 70% done before Claude decided the sub-problem was more interesting. Done. The builders running overnight agent sessions are going to use this command on everything from today forward. Bookmark this. Follow CyrilXBT for every Claude Code feature the moment it ships.

CLAUDE CODE JUST SHIPPED THE FEATURE THAT SOLVES THE BIGGEST PROBLEM EVERY BUILDER HAS WITH AI AGENTS. The problem: Claude starts a task, gets distracted by a sub-problem, goes down a rabbit hole, and never finishes the original thing you asked for. The solution: /goal One command. You set the goal at the start of the session. Claude now has a north star it checks against every action it takes. Not just at the beginning. Throughout the entire session. Every time Claude is about to do something it asks: does this action move me toward the goal the user set or am I drifting? If it is drifting it corrects. If it completes a sub-task it returns to the primary goal. If it hits a blocker it reports back instead of spending 45 minutes solving the wrong problem. This sounds like a small feature. It is not. The reason most people do not trust Claude Code for long autonomous runs is not capability. It is reliability. A Claude Code session that reliably finishes what it started is worth 10 times more than one that is more capable but wanders. /goal is the feature that makes long autonomous sessions reliable. Set the goal. Let it run. Come back to a finished result. Not a result that got 70% done before Claude decided the sub-problem was more interesting. Done. The builders running overnight agent sessions are going to use this command on everything from today forward. Bookmark this. Follow CyrilXBT for every Claude Code feature the moment it ships.

CyrilXBT

19,586 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

In 1986 a guy got kicked out of every casino in Vegas for counting cards. So he flew to Hong Kong with $180,000 and started betting on horses instead. He walked away with almost $900 million. It's Bill Benter. He figured horse racing was just another counting problem. Same math, more moving parts. He and a partner showed up with $180k and a computer. Benter spent years teaching that computer to guess one thing, the real chance each horse had to win. If his number was better than the odds the bookies gave, he bet. If not, he skipped it. That's the whole trick. Expected value. EV = p · b − (1 − p) Only bet when your win chance p, at odds b, is worth more than your chance of losing. This recording was never meant to be some hidden gem. Nobody expected Professor Tsitsiklis to hand the whole foundation away in 45 minutes, but that's exactly what happens on the board. Students in that room pay over $80,000 a year to sit through it. It's free right here. It's free right here. Every quant, every professional bettor, every hedge fund analyst started with this exact hour. Benter just watched it and actually did the homework. Almost nobody knows this lecture even exists. Watch it before it gets taken down. The answer is in this video.

In 1986 a guy got kicked out of every casino in Vegas for counting cards. So he flew to Hong Kong with $180,000 and started betting on horses instead. He walked away with almost $900 million. It's Bill Benter. He figured horse racing was just another counting problem. Same math, more moving parts. He and a partner showed up with $180k and a computer. Benter spent years teaching that computer to guess one thing, the real chance each horse had to win. If his number was better than the odds the bookies gave, he bet. If not, he skipped it. That's the whole trick. Expected value. EV = p · b − (1 − p) Only bet when your win chance p, at odds b, is worth more than your chance of losing. This recording was never meant to be some hidden gem. Nobody expected Professor Tsitsiklis to hand the whole foundation away in 45 minutes, but that's exactly what happens on the board. Students in that room pay over $80,000 a year to sit through it. It's free right here. It's free right here. Every quant, every professional bettor, every hedge fund analyst started with this exact hour. Benter just watched it and actually did the homework. Almost nobody knows this lecture even exists. Watch it before it gets taken down. The answer is in this video.

MindArch

4,050,546 Aufrufe • vor 27 Tagen

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

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

Jason Goldman

839,213 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag

MOST OF THESE APPS DON'T HAVE A BUSINESS MODEL. NO VALUE. Builders, let me share a simple thought. Just because AI can build an app in minutes doesn't mean the world needs that app. We're already seeing thousands of apps that look fancy but solve nothing. They get launched, get a few clicks, and then nobody uses them again. Before building anything, ask yourself: "Would I use this app every day? Does it solve a real problem? Does it save time, make life easier, educate, entertain, or help someone earn money?" If the answer is no, go back to the drawing board. People don't pay for apps. People pay for value. If your app helps them achieve something important, they'll use it. If it doesn't, they'll ignore it no matter how beautiful the design looks. There are still huge opportunities in healthcare, education, media, productivity, gaming, finance, local services, and many other areas. The next big app on Pi Network might not be the most complicated one. It might be a simple app that solves one problem extremely well. Stop building copycats. Stop building for hype. Build something useful. Build something people need. Build something that even you would use every day. That's how real adoption happens. That's how you attract users. And that's how builders create lasting value.

MOST OF THESE APPS DON'T HAVE A BUSINESS MODEL. NO VALUE. Builders, let me share a simple thought. Just because AI can build an app in minutes doesn't mean the world needs that app. We're already seeing thousands of apps that look fancy but solve nothing. They get launched, get a few clicks, and then nobody uses them again. Before building anything, ask yourself: "Would I use this app every day? Does it solve a real problem? Does it save time, make life easier, educate, entertain, or help someone earn money?" If the answer is no, go back to the drawing board. People don't pay for apps. People pay for value. If your app helps them achieve something important, they'll use it. If it doesn't, they'll ignore it no matter how beautiful the design looks. There are still huge opportunities in healthcare, education, media, productivity, gaming, finance, local services, and many other areas. The next big app on Pi Network might not be the most complicated one. It might be a simple app that solves one problem extremely well. Stop building copycats. Stop building for hype. Build something useful. Build something people need. Build something that even you would use every day. That's how real adoption happens. That's how you attract users. And that's how builders create lasting value.

0NEDEEL

16,169 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

This is what you call an offensive transition. It's a tactic in football but can be deployed in real life. The team turned an apparent threat into their advantage, and they did that with speed. All in 11.06secs. Turn every attack into an offensive transition. The opposition thinks they are winning, and you must be whinning wallowing in self-pity. Rise up those times are the most opportune moments, be I'm the right frame of mind to react quickly with positivity.

This is what you call an offensive transition. It's a tactic in football but can be deployed in real life. The team turned an apparent threat into their advantage, and they did that with speed. All in 11.06secs. Turn every attack into an offensive transition. The opposition thinks they are winning, and you must be whinning wallowing in self-pity. Rise up those times are the most opportune moments, be I'm the right frame of mind to react quickly with positivity.

POJU OYEMADE

16,529 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Seen a lot of people complaining that Pokemon is getting too expensive and it's hard to enjoy collecting, but let's be real, there's 100s or 1000s of really nice cards you can buy in the $1-20 range. The problem is most people only want what is expensive and popular. If you start branching out and digging for promos, vintage and less liked cards, the variety is endless All of these Cosmos holo cards are between 30 cents and $20 with the majority in the low end. Tell me these don't look awesome, but because they are easy to get no one cares. I have a feeling they will be highly desirable in the future

Seen a lot of people complaining that Pokemon is getting too expensive and it's hard to enjoy collecting, but let's be real, there's 100s or 1000s of really nice cards you can buy in the $1-20 range. The problem is most people only want what is expensive and popular. If you start branching out and digging for promos, vintage and less liked cards, the variety is endless All of these Cosmos holo cards are between 30 cents and $20 with the majority in the low end. Tell me these don't look awesome, but because they are easy to get no one cares. I have a feeling they will be highly desirable in the future

StrongHands

186,620 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Something Stinks About Dominion Voting Machines and Elon Musk Can Smell It He finds it to be a “heck of a coincidence” that Philadelphia and Maricopa County use them, but “not in a lot of other places.” “I know a lot about computers, and I'm like, the last thing I would do is trust a computer program because it's just too easy to hack. It's too easy to add just one line, and it's really difficult to hack paper ballots. “So in-person voting with proof of ID, which, by the way, every country has. Almost every country that has democratic elections requires in-person voting with voter ID. “This is weird. It's super weird to not have that. I think that's the only way to effectively address fraud, given that we are where we are today. “I think we just need a very big margin of victory. If the margin of victory is big enough, then as I say, it's got to beat the cheat.”

Something Stinks About Dominion Voting Machines and Elon Musk Can Smell It He finds it to be a “heck of a coincidence” that Philadelphia and Maricopa County use them, but “not in a lot of other places.” “I know a lot about computers, and I'm like, the last thing I would do is trust a computer program because it's just too easy to hack. It's too easy to add just one line, and it's really difficult to hack paper ballots. “So in-person voting with proof of ID, which, by the way, every country has. Almost every country that has democratic elections requires in-person voting with voter ID. “This is weird. It's super weird to not have that. I think that's the only way to effectively address fraud, given that we are where we are today. “I think we just need a very big margin of victory. If the margin of victory is big enough, then as I say, it's got to beat the cheat.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

141,016 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr