Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

In 1997 the greatest chess player who ever lived sat down against a machine, lost, and immediately accused it of cheating. IBM's answer was to switch the machine off, take it apart, and refuse to ever play him again. The match was carried on live television. IBM's market value...

413,653 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

35 Comments

X3 Firearms's profile picture
X3 Firearms2 months ago

IBM released the logs years later. But since they took so long we can never know for sure that they are originals( their own fault)

Patrick J. Murphy's profile picture
Patrick J. Murphy2 months ago

it's his personality. he also reacted petulantly when Magnus, as a young child, held him to stalemate

Scabby Doo's profile picture
Scabby Doo2 months ago

Chess players seem to be really narcissistic. It’s a board game bro, chill out, it doesn’t make you the smartest man in the world, it’s just a fuckin game.

Walter's profile picture
Walter2 months ago

Years ago in a chess tournament I made an error and had a losing position. With my clock running I left the table for 20 minutes, came back, made a move and my opponent was so unnerved by my leaving he made 2 errors and I won the game. There’s more to it than intelligence.

Nature in Motion's profile picture
Nature in Motion2 months ago

the bug possibility makes his paranoia feel a lot more tragic than petty

TB's profile picture
TB2 months ago

FYI, he's still bitter, just try following him.

Greg Arena's profile picture
Greg Arena2 months ago

The house always wins because the odds are in their favor.

Derrick Ashworth's profile picture
Derrick Ashworth2 months ago

Isn’t chess a game you can’t really cheat at in this spot?

Hof's profile picture
Hof2 months ago

Also see this movie

GUNDAM CACA's profile picture
GUNDAM CACA2 months ago

And now the equivalent to Deep Blue is found in your X Box.

nebul's profile picture
nebul2 months ago

Who do I hate more? The ruthless corp or the homeland traitor?

Preston Tsao's profile picture
Preston Tsao2 months ago

Deep Blue was the old artificial intelligence model based upon feeding a mainframe massive amounts of rules. DeepMind changed the paradigm by teaching a computer to beat Atari games by playing the games. Then chess and then Goh.

Paul Docherty's profile picture
Paul Docherty2 months ago

Kasparov really does come across as a childish cunt

TheWorldHasGoneMad's profile picture
TheWorldHasGoneMad2 months ago

Gary is a loser...always was, always has been.

Creatiore Di soldi's profile picture
Creatiore Di soldi2 months ago

The CiA was behind it …

Nils ᛏ Westergaup's profile picture
Nils ᛏ Westergaup2 months ago

Yea they cheated lmao

Coach Brian M. Zusi's profile picture
Coach Brian M. Zusi2 months ago

I was involved with the TV production side of this match. We had a separate chess board that followed each sides moves. One of my jobs was to replicate each move for that board and track the game.

Victor's profile picture
Victor2 months ago

the move was hardcoded, like a book move in the opening. that was the cheating

Jonesy's profile picture
Jonesy2 months ago

@grok what was the tech behind deep blue? LLM?

@signature20's profile picture
@signature202 months ago

I guess I’d be paranoid IBM too if I grew up in USSR

Mamis Justin's profile picture
Mamis Justin2 months ago

Odds were 200 : 1 in London against IBM Hmmmm Maybe check into that

Mijurei's profile picture
Mijurei2 months ago

the move that broke him was later blamed on a bug. he lost to noise he read as genius

Pistol's profile picture
Pistol2 months ago

Great

Chajkovska's profile picture
Chajkovska1 month ago

The deeper story isn’t that Kasparov lost to Deep Blue. It’s that 1997 was one of the first moments humanity realized machines could beat us at something we considered uniquely intellectual. Are we repeating that psychological shock now with AI?

Márcio Pereira's profile picture
Márcio Pereira2 months ago

Não sei como ele se sujeitou a essa asneira.

Jay Jay's profile picture
Jay Jay2 months ago

6 games over 9 days. Im confused

TJ Young's profile picture
TJ Young2 months ago

I remember that

HeadRushCapital's profile picture
HeadRushCapital2 months ago

It was a game

Rob Watson's profile picture
Rob Watson2 months ago

Chess might seem complex but it's a highly constrained closed system. Human intelligence is way beyong a simple chess match.

Eric's profile picture
Eric2 months ago

IBM released the logs.

ViralStrike's profile picture
ViralStrike2 months ago

He’s not the greatest who ever lived. He was the greatest of his day.

kajal das's profile picture
kajal das2 months ago

খুব সুন্দর😍💓

Franz Grüber's profile picture
Franz Grüber2 months ago

watch AlphaGo too!!! It’s tremendous.

Alexandr's profile picture
Alexandr2 months ago

Вот где у него крышу то снесло) не перенес нагрузки) но там сто пудово мог быть гроссмейстер, американцы известные подлецы

Jerub's profile picture
Jerub2 months ago

Thank you for sharing

Related Videos

Elon Musk said the most dangerous thing ever spoken on a stage. Not about Mars. Not about rockets. About you. Musk: “The most important mistake I see smart people making is assuming that they’re smart.” He wasn’t talking about IQ. He was talking about what happens when intelligence becomes your identity. Kasparov. Greatest chess mind in human history. Deep Blue crushed him in 1997. Your phone can now crush the world chess champion. Not a close match. Not on his best day. Literally. The world didn’t panic. It adjusted the definition. “Chess isn’t real intelligence.” Nobody flinched. Musk: “We just keep moving the goalposts.” That line should terrify you more than any AI headline ever written. Because he’s not describing technology. He’s describing a pattern that has never once been broken. Machine beats human at chess. “That’s just pattern matching.” Machine beats human at language. “That’s just autocomplete.” Machine beats human at reasoning. “That’s just…” You see where this ends. Every time a machine crosses a line we said only humans could cross, we don’t sit with it. We redraw the line. And call it nuance. That is not intelligence defending itself. That is pride bleeding out slowly enough to mistake for composure. Elon didn’t say machines are smarter to provoke a reaction. He said it because the people who refuse to hear it are the ones it’s coming for. Not from AI. From the version of themselves that would rather redefine reality than face it. That’s the real danger he was pointing at. Not the machine that outperforms you. The story you tell yourself about why it doesn’t count. One day there will be no goalpost left to move. The people who spent years moving them won’t have sharpened a thing. Too busy protecting their ego. The machine didn’t replace you. You were just standing where the goalpost used to be.

Dustin

108,099 views • 4 months ago

A pilot put a passenger jet down on a river and got every person on board off alive. Within days, investigators were asking him what he had eaten for lunch. He told them a tuna sandwich. Then they asked whether he had had a candy bar. Whether he had had a soda. That is not small talk. There is a precise reason those 2 questions could have ended his career, and Tom Hanks lays it out in about 4 sentences. The pilot is Chesley Sullenberger. Hanks played him, spent time with him first, and says the man walked him through the entire script telling him which parts never happened. As Hanks was told it, the stake was money. If the board could establish that the pilot did 1 thing wrong, the insurance on an airplane he puts at 17 million dollars would not have to be paid out. Every question in that room was built for that. It went on for the better part of a year. In the film it takes days, because films cannot afford a year. What was happening to him has a name in psychology. Baruch Fischhoff described it in 1975 and called it creeping determinism. Once you know how something ended, the ending looks like it was always coming, and every road you did not take looks like it was sitting right there, clearly marked, the whole time. Which is why the question "why did you not do this instead" is close to unanswerable. It is asked by people who know the ending, to a person who did not have it. There is a second effect underneath, well documented in aviation and in medicine. The person at the centre of the investigation frequently comes out of it in worse condition than the people he saved. Researchers gave that person a name. He is the second victim. Hanks is 67 when he says this, and what he admires is not the landing. It is a distinction he makes in 1 sentence near the end, and it is the whole reason he told the story at all. He saved everyone on that plane. Then he spent a year proving he had not eaten a candy bar.

Stefan.

210,938 views • 1 month ago

Jensen Huang was asked about the people technology left behind. He didn't offer a plan. He said the gap already closed. Huang: "All of a sudden artificial intelligence closed that technology divide." That divide was never a gap in ability. It was a language requirement. Huang: "Anybody could be a software programmer now." Every tool we ever built charged admission, and the price was always a language. The press needed literacy. The engine needed the manual. The computer needed code. Every tool in history had the same shape. The human moved toward the machine, compressed into a form it could parse. Whoever couldn't compress stayed outside. Code was always a human speaking machine. Seventy years of people translating themselves down into something a processor would accept. It just learned to speak back. Nothing has ever moved in that direction before. So we sorted people by the toll and pretended we were sorting by mind. The ones who paid became skilled. Everyone else became unskilled, a word that has never once described a real person. It only meant fluent in nothing the market was buying. Huang: "Everybody who are really gifted at their craft but maybe they don't know how to scale themselves with technology, they now have AI to help scale them." The best cook in a village of four thousand died the best cook in a village of four thousand. Not from a shortage of ability, but from a second requirement that had nothing to do with the first. Go back far enough in your own family and there is someone who was extraordinary at something. The world never found out. Neither did they. Ability was never distributed by geography. Access was, and access is the only thing that got recorded. Every system you move through in a day was built by the narrow band who could speak to a machine. Not the best ideas anyone had. The ideas that survived translation. We have never once seen what the rest of the species would have made. The scarcity was never in the talent. It was in the distance between holding it and reaching anyone. That distance was the product the technology industry sold. Huang: "They're welcomed into the world's economy, not burdened by technology anymore because AI made that possible." Burdened. Technology sold itself as leverage for a century, and the man supplying the whole industry just called it a weight. A developer you couldn't afford. A site that broke on a Sunday with no one to call. You paid the technology industry for permission to be findable. Nobody on earth got smarter this decade. The door stopped asking for a password. Huang: "Five years from now, it is likely that we're all going to be more gainfully employed. The economy is gonna be more productive." He grounds that in the labor shortage already on the books. Open work with nobody there to do it, inside an economy panicking about a machine that takes work away. Both cannot be true. The fear says there won't be enough work for us. The ledger says there aren't enough of us for the work. Every time a tool stopped requiring a specialist, the specialist lost a monopoly and everyone else gained a century. Writing left the scribes. The press left the church. The computer left the lab. The barrier was also a shelter. Everyone left outside got to keep the version of themselves that was never tested. For most of history that was a mercy. The wall did the refusing, so you never had to hear it from anyone else. The wall is gone. Now you find out. Nothing about you changed. The requirement did. For the first time, the only thing between what you can do and who it reaches is whether you do it.

Dustin

431,395 views • 2 months ago

The man who invented modern fantasy didn't publish his first novel until he was forty-five. By that age, J.R.R. Tolkien had already built a respectable life. He was an Oxford professor, an expert in ancient languages, with a wife and four children and a settled academic career. He was exactly the kind of man who might reasonably have decided that the shape of his life was already fixed. The work he would be remembered for, he had not yet even begun... The story, which Tolkien told himself, is that one summer he was grading examination papers, when he turned a page and found that a student had left it blank. Without quite knowing why, he wrote a single sentence on it: "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." He did not know what a hobbit was. He had spent years inventing languages and mythologies as a private passion, and telling stories to his own children, never imagining any of it would reach the world. But that one line began to grow. It became a story, and then a book, and in 1937, at the age of forty-five, Tolkien published The Hobbit. It was a success, and his publisher asked for a sequel. Tolkien warned them it might take some time. It took 17 years... He wrote it in the margins of a demanding full-time job, revising endlessly, doubting it often. When The Lord of the Rings was finally published, in 1954 and 1955, he was in his early sixties. That book, begun as a middle-aged professor's private side project, went on to sell well over a hundred million copies, to invent modern fantasy as we know it, and to reshape the imagination of the entire world. Tolkien already had a full and respectable life behind him. And still, the thing he is remembered for, the thing that outlived him and reached hundreds of millions of people, was something he began at forty-five, at an age when it would have been the easiest thing in the world to tell himself he had already missed his chance. He didn't. It's never as late as it feels.

James Lucas

94,603 views • 3 months ago

Jensen Huang just told the story of how the AI revolution started with one customer, one box, and a second-floor room nobody thought twice about. Nobody on Earth wanted it. Huang: “When I announced this thing, nobody in the world wanted it. I had no purchase orders. Not one.” Nvidia had spent billions building the DGX-1. The first AI supercomputer purpose-built for deep learning. $300,000 per unit. The entire technology industry looked at it and passed. Every hyperscaler. Every research lab. Every Fortune 500 with a machine learning team. Not one purchase order. Then Elon Musk found Huang at a fireside chat in 2015. Huang: “He goes, ‘You know what? I have a company that could really use this.’” His first customer. His only customer. Then Musk finished the sentence. Huang: “He goes, ‘It’s a non-profit company.’ And all the blood drained out of my face.” Billions in R&D. A $300,000 machine. And the one person on Earth who wanted it could not pay for it. Huang built it anyway. Huang: “I boxed one up. I drove it up to San Francisco and I delivered it to Elon in 2016.” Not shipped. Not handed off to a freight company. The CEO of Nvidia personally boxed the first AI supercomputer and drove it to San Francisco himself. That is not a delivery. That is a bet. Huang: “I walked up to the second floor where they were all kind of in a room. That place turned out to have been OpenAI.” Pieter Abbeel was there. Ilya Sutskever was there. A handful of researchers, one supercomputer, and a room nobody outside that building could have named. No campus. No valuation. No infrastructure. Just raw talent and one machine the rest of the world had already rejected. Huang: “Just a bunch of people in a room.” That room built ChatGPT. That room triggered a $200 billion industry. That room forced every government on Earth to rethink national security. It started because one founder saw what the entire market refused to see, and one CEO drove the weapon there himself. The trillion-dollar AI industry did not begin in a boardroom. It began with a box in the back of a car, a non-profit that could not afford it, and a bet that every serious person in technology thought was insane. The market was unanimous. The market was wrong.

Dustin

25,119 views • 6 months ago

Warren McCulloch modeled the first neural net in 1943 and asked only 1 question his whole life. He was 19 in 1917, raised for the Episcopal ministry, soaked in theology, until mathematics seduced him. His defense was that the ideas in the mind of God are logic. The question never changed. What is a number that a man may know it, and a man that he may know a number. He cracked the first half and admitted on camera the second half never came. So he settled for a frog, opened its eye at MIT and asked what it tells a frog’s brain. He said your brain is not a sequential machine and not a parallel one either. It is the mouth of the Nile, every stream mixed with every other stream before the water reaches the sea. Anastomotic, the old Greek word, the only one he had for it. Then he said the part nobody quotes. You run well to 16, and after that thousands of neurons die per day. He guessed 10% of the big cells in his own cerebellum were already holes filled with glia. He built the theory to survive that, a cell dying, firing pip pip pip, quitting, the system holding. His family still reaches 100. The interviewer pushed and said a machine will never love your 2 grandchildren the way you do. McCulloch answered that if he could do it, a mechanism could do it. Man won’t survive forever, he said, the sun makes that improbable, something else comes. The machines would be standing on our shoulders. He said it beside a lake he built himself 30 years earlier by damming a stream. His last words on the tape were don’t shake the table.

West Lord

79,616 views • 2 months ago

The cold is British. They just never told you. ❄️🇬🇧 Every air conditioner, every fridge, every freezer on earth, the cold inside all of it was first made by a Scotsman. In 1756. ❄️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 His name was William Cullen, a doctor in Edinburgh. In a warm room, with no ice and no winter, he drew the air from a glass of ether until it boiled cold and drank the heat from the water around it, until the water froze. No one had ever done it before. Then he wrote it down and walked away. No machine, no patent, no fortune. Just the proof, on a bench. It sat there the better part of a century. A British bench built the first machine that worked, and a Scot carried it across the world to Australia, where it froze meat and cooled beer. But cold was only half the story. ❄️📖 To master the air itself took another Scot. When the Houses of Parliament burned down in 1834, David Boswell Reid made the new building breathe, its gothic spires its lungs. At St George's Hall in Liverpool in 1851 he built what is often called the first air-conditioned building on earth. It should have made him. He died forgotten in America instead. 40 years on, Willis Carrier built the machine and earned his name as the father of modern air conditioning. He earned every bit of it. But he did not make the cold. The cold was British. America took that inheritance and cooled the world with it, and that is no theft. That is what an inheritance is for. We are the home of British heroes. Not built by ads, not by the government, built by us. There's a place for you with us. Be part of us. ☝️🇬🇧 Be Proud Of Us. 🙏🇬🇧

Proudofus.uk

56,349 views • 3 months ago

In 1950 a scientist at Bell Labs admitted, out loud, that he was envious of the geniuses in the offices around him. He was sharing an attic with Claude Shannon. So instead of resenting them, he spent the rest of his career studying exactly what separated the great ones from everyone else, and near the end of his life he laid the whole answer out in a single talk. His name was Richard Hamming. He was honest about where he started. At Los Alamos, he called himself a janitor of science, one of the people who kept things running while the important decisions happened without him. He was, in his own words, plain envious. And rather than swallow it, he turned it into a question. What actually is the difference between the first-class people and the rest of us? His first answer is uncomfortable, because it removes every excuse. It is not luck, though luck plays a part. It is not raw IQ, since plenty of the greats did not test especially well, and Einstein spent seven years in a patent office before anyone noticed him. What it comes down to, again and again, is that the able people simply work on important problems, and they work on them relentlessly, while everyone else stays busy with whatever happens to be in front of them. Then he tells the story that stays with you. For years he ate lunch with the physicists, the Nobel winners, and learned how they thought. One day he turned to a chemist at the table and asked, if what you are working on is not important, and not likely to lead to anything important, why are you working on it? The man was offended. But months later he stopped Hamming in the hallway and admitted the question had gotten under his skin. That chemist went on to run his department and join the National Academy. Of everyone else at that table, Hamming says, he never heard of a single one again. He noticed the same pattern in something as small as an office door. The people who worked with their doors closed got more done in the moment, but ten years later they no longer knew what was worth doing. The ones who left their doors open stayed connected to what actually mattered, even at the cost of constant interruption. And underneath all of it was a habit most people never build. He set aside Friday afternoons, every week, for nothing but great thoughts. No task, no email, just the question of what the important problems in his field really were, and whether he was working on any of them. He was not claiming to be the smartest man in the building. He knew he was not. That was the entire point. He watched the smartest men closely, took what he could use, and made himself into someone who did work that lasted. As he put it near the end, no one ever told him these things. He had to find them alone. You have no such excuse.

Zyron

16,163 views • 2 months ago

Quentin Taratino said Lawrence Fishburne’s performance in King of New York was so incredible he thought - “he could be the greatest actor of his generation”. He explains: "As great as Christopher Walken is in this movie. To me, it's Larry Fishburne's movie - it was the rock that becomes a diamond aspect of the movie. It's why I could defend this movie against all comers, because to me, Fish's performance in this movie was comparable to a young Brando. It was the most exciting performance by an actor of his generation that I'd seen in a movie of that time. And I thought, well, that's it. There is a new Marlon Brando, and his name is Larry Fishburne - it was amazing, it was mesmerizing… He is the first hip hop gangster in movie history. That character had never been done before this. He invented that character. And he invented it as something to do. It wasn't in the original script. He came up with that himself… The three big Fishburne moments to me, is his opening sequence with…Tito. That's it, with Tito - black glove dude. And his reunion with Frank. And then it's the chicken scene (see below). Those are his three big arias. Not only that though - expressions that I would later hear for the rest of the decade, I actually heard for the first time in that scene. I'd never heard the expression; “I'll slap the black off you” before. That was the first time I heard it when Fish says it to Snipes. I've since heard it many times… And that was actually the first time I ever heard, “fuck you very much”. And I would proceed to hear that for the rest of the 90s. But those were the first times I'd ever heard those expressions… As terrific as he has been in other things - the level of excitement that I had over him when this movie was over, I have never had that excitement again. I thought, with this, he could be the greatest actor of his generation. That was an actual, real fucking thing. He could be the greatest actor of his generation after seeing this." Quote comes from The Rewatchables podcast

Gangster Cinema Central

658,892 views • 4 months ago

Elon Musk just put an expiration date on the human hand. Four years. The one tool that was never replaced. Everything else we ever made was something for it to hold. Musk: “You have a recursive, multiplicable, triple exponential. Put a little margin on it, better than any human in four years.” Not a narrow task. Not one industry. Any human. Most progress rides a single exponential. One curve, steep enough to outrun intuition. One curve is why the phone in your pocket humiliates the computer that flew Apollo. Sixty years, running alone. He is describing three, stacked and multiplying. Musk: “You have an exponential increase in the AI software capability, exponential increase in the AI chip capability, and an exponential increase in the electromechanical dexterity.” Better chips shorten the training cycle. Better software sharpens the hands. Better hands generate the physical data that trains the software. Each one pays the other two back. Say each curve only doubles once a year. Four years in, one of them is sixteen times better. Three of them multiplied is four thousand times better. Same four years. One number your instincts can hold. The other they cannot. Then the whole loop goes into a machine that builds itself. Every unit shortens the time to the next. Nobody has ever noticed an exponential from the inside. You do not feel it coming. You feel late. Maybe four years is six. The date is arguable. The direction is not. But the machines are the smaller story. Human skill has always been perishable. Knowledge compounds because we write it down. Every generation starts higher than the last. Skill does not. It lives in one body, in one city, for thirty good years, then goes in the ground. We can copy what a master knew. We have never once copied what a master could do. The best hands that ever lived belonged to someone whose name we will never know. Every civilization ever built has been rebuilding the same hands from scratch. So we did what people do with a limit they cannot beat. We gave it a nicer name. We called it craft. We called it bedside manner. We called it the human touch. Then it came apart, in the least dramatic way possible. Musk: “I wouldn’t want the best ophthalmologist, even the steadiest hand out there, with a hand laser on my eyeball.” Millions of people handed a machine their eyesight. Because the machine does not sneeze, does not tire, does not have a bad morning. Nobody agonized. There was no debate about the soul of ophthalmology. The objection never changes. People will still want a human in the loop. Five words. Musk: “For a less assured outcome.” We only defend the human in the loop while the stakes stay abstract. With a laser pointed at your optic nerve, you do not want a soul. You want a guarantee. The human in the loop was never a standard. It was a shortage. Soon, insisting on one stops being a principle and becomes negligence. For ten thousand years, a human life was priced by what it could do that nobody else could. That price is going to zero. It only reads like a loss because we have never had to tell being needed apart from being worth something. Necessity did that math for everyone before us. Hunger. Distance. The limits of two hands. Everyone who ever lived was handed their answer before they arrived. A field to work. A wound to close. A child to feed. You were whatever the moment was short of. Even love came with work attached. Someone to carry. Someone to sit up with through a fever. Someone to bury. We have never seen what is left of it once the work is gone. Nobody has ever had to say out loud what a person is for. Not what you are needed for. What you are for. Nothing is pointing at us anymore. We are the first who get to step out of the loop and answer it ourselves.

Dustin

37,012 views • 2 months ago

Elon Musk just told you what Tesla was actually built for. It was never cars. Musk: “If successful, Optimus will be the biggest product ever.” The automobile reshaped civilization. The smartphone rewired human behavior. He’s saying Optimus dwarfs both. Then he ranked it against everything else he’s building. Musk: “It might be more of my mental cycles than anything else, any other single thing, on Optimus.” The man building the world’s most valuable car company, landing rockets on drone ships, and racing toward superintelligence spends most of his thinking on the robot. Musk: “It will have the manual dexterity of a human, an AI mind that can navigate and comprehend reality, and be made in very high volume.” Human hands. A mind that comprehends the physical world. Volume manufacturing. Three problems no one has solved. He’s going after all three at once, in the same machine. Musk: “None of the actuators in Optimus are available from an existing supply chain. We have to recreate it from scratch.” No existing parts. No existing suppliers. No existing industry. He’s building the entire manufacturing base from nothing. Then putting a robot on top of it. This is the pattern people keep missing. He didn’t build an electric car. He built Gigafactories, a global charging network, and a battery supply chain that made EVs inevitable. The car was the output. He didn’t build a rocket. He built the engines, the factory, and the landing systems until reusable launch became routine. The rocket was the output. Then the machine handed him a second business. Global satellite internet had been impossible for decades, not technically but financially, because nobody could afford to launch thousands of satellites. Once the rockets came back and flew again, that cost collapsed. Starlink wasn’t a new bet. It was leftover capacity. Same play. Every time. Build the machine that builds the machine. Then the thing becomes unstoppable. Optimus is that play at a scale that makes everything before it look small. Every product in human history extended a single human capability. The hammer extended the fist. The telescope extended the eye. The computer extended the mind. Optimus doesn’t extend one capability. It replicates all of them. At volume. Every economy, every government, every career path, every border ever drawn was organized around one scarcity. Human hands and human hours. Optimus is what happens when that scarcity disappears. For ten thousand years, human worth was measured by output. What you could build. What you could carry. What you could produce. Every one of those years was spent building tools to escape that measurement. Not once did we stop to ask what’s waiting on the other side. We’re approaching the moment the measurement breaks. Not a new product. Not a new industry. The first real test of whether we can define ourselves by anything other than our labor. And the man forcing that question just told you it takes more of his mind than cars, rockets, and superintelligence combined.

Dustin

277,626 views • 2 months ago

This painting shows the most heartbreaking reunion in all of literature. To understand it, you have to know who the dog is... His name is Argos, and he belongs to Ulysses, the Greek hero also known as Odysseus. Before Ulysses sailed away to fight in the Trojan War, he had raised Argos from a puppy, a fast and beautiful hunting dog. Then the war called, and Ulysses left. He would not come home for twenty years. When Ulysses finally set foot on his own island again, he came in disguise, dressed as a beggar, so that no one would know him. His house was full of men trying to steal his wife and his kingdom. To survive, he had to remain a stranger in his own home. No one recognized him. Not his loyal servants. Not the people who had known him all his life. But lying in the dirt by the gate, old and forgotten, covered in ticks, too weak to stand, was a dog. Argos had waited twenty years. And the moment he saw him, he knew. He was the only one. Nearly blind, half dead, he lifted his head and pricked up his ears, and he wagged his tail for the master he had never stopped waiting for. Ulysses saw him. And because he was in disguise, surrounded by enemies, he could not run to him, could not kneel down, could not say his name. He could only look at his old friend and, turning his face away so no one would see, let a single tear fall. And then, in Homer's own words, "the dark shadow of death closed down on Argos' eyes, the instant he had seen Odysseus, twenty years away." He had held on to life for one reason only: he was waiting to see him come home. And the moment he did, he could finally let go... It is such a beautiful painting, and the look on that dog's face is so universal, so instantly understood by anyone who has ever loved and waited, that it is enough to bring a grown man to tears.

James Lucas

107,414 views • 2 months ago