正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Jeff Bezos went on stage and explained why he thinks AI will cause a labor shortage, not unemployment: "If you take a step back, broadly civilizational wealth, all of civilizational wealth, is driven by invention" "6,000 years ago somebody invented the plow and we all got wealthier" "Then much...

jaynitx's profile picture

Jaynit

56,925 subscribers

18,308 次观看 • 1 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Jeff Bezos on why everyone is wrong about AI: "AI is going to create a labor shortage. We have an endless set of things to invent. Today, we're limited not by our imagination, but by what we can actually do. Every single person in this audience has had an idea. For a new business, a new product, a new device they wish they could manufacture. And it just stayed in your head. It went nowhere. The reason it stayed in your head and went nowhere is because it's too hard to do it and it wasn't worth it. If we can accelerate the dream-build loop, all of the ideas will become possible. And we end up being limited not by our capabilities, but by our imagination."
1:05

Jeff Bezos on why everyone is wrong about AI: "AI is going to create a labor shortage. We have an endless set of things to invent. Today, we're limited not by our imagination, but by what we can actually do. Every single person in this audience has had an idea. For a new business, a new product, a new device they wish they could manufacture. And it just stayed in your head. It went nowhere. The reason it stayed in your head and went nowhere is because it's too hard to do it and it wasn't worth it. If we can accelerate the dream-build loop, all of the ideas will become possible. And we end up being limited not by our capabilities, but by our imagination."

Giuliano

15,963 次观看 • 1 个月前

Jeff Bezos on AI: I know there's a lot of concern that many people have, including many smart people, that AI is going to make humans redundant. I totally disagree with this point of view, and I think in fact AI is going to create a labor shortage because it's going to make it possible for people to identify more problems.
1:01

Jeff Bezos on AI: I know there's a lot of concern that many people have, including many smart people, that AI is going to make humans redundant. I totally disagree with this point of view, and I think in fact AI is going to create a labor shortage because it's going to make it possible for people to identify more problems.

Clash Report

51,297 次观看 • 1 个月前

Jeff Bezos reveals why he thinks AI will cause a labor shortage, not mass unemployment "There's so many people who are afraid AI is going to take their job. I think there's going to be a labor shortage as a result" "All these smart people keep saying there's going to be no more radiologists because AI can read X-rays better, no more software engineers because AI can program better. These people are wrong" "What's really going to happen is it's going to elevate all of these people. You've been digging out a basement with a shovel, and somebody is about to hand you a bulldozer" "We're going to have so much productivity that a lot of people with two-earner income households, one of them is going to drop out of the workforce" "I predict we will actually have deflation of certain core things. Food will get cheaper and housing construction will get cheaper"
4:27

Jeff Bezos reveals why he thinks AI will cause a labor shortage, not mass unemployment "There's so many people who are afraid AI is going to take their job. I think there's going to be a labor shortage as a result" "All these smart people keep saying there's going to be no more radiologists because AI can read X-rays better, no more software engineers because AI can program better. These people are wrong" "What's really going to happen is it's going to elevate all of these people. You've been digging out a basement with a shovel, and somebody is about to hand you a bulldozer" "We're going to have so much productivity that a lot of people with two-earner income households, one of them is going to drop out of the workforce" "I predict we will actually have deflation of certain core things. Food will get cheaper and housing construction will get cheaper"

Jaynit

506,398 次观看 • 2 个月前

Bartiromo: What can you do to offset the job cuts that will, no doubt, come as a result of A.I. Efficiency? Trump: One thing, very simple, bring more companies in, more jobs. You know, the truth is we done have enough people to take care of these jobs. So it's perfect timing. We don't have enough people. You know, my biggest problem is they're coming in and they have to hire thousands and thousands of workers. This is perfect if timing. We don't have enough people. If AI is so good, which I hear it is and there's a lot of money being spent by very smart people. I'll tell you, we are dominating A.I., that's the the other thing. And they all said, well, we'd have a problem because of electricity, we don't make enough electricity. We would have to double our electric power, can you believe that? And you know what I did, I had an idea, I said, when you build your plant, you're going to become an electric utility. You're not going to take it from an old grid that's been here for a hundred years. You're going to take it right from a new facility, and they said, they actually looked at me and they said, you'd do that? Of course I would. It's a national emergency. I'm going to approve everything, and you'll have your approval in two weeks.
2:46

Bartiromo: What can you do to offset the job cuts that will, no doubt, come as a result of A.I. Efficiency? Trump: One thing, very simple, bring more companies in, more jobs. You know, the truth is we done have enough people to take care of these jobs. So it's perfect timing. We don't have enough people. You know, my biggest problem is they're coming in and they have to hire thousands and thousands of workers. This is perfect if timing. We don't have enough people. If AI is so good, which I hear it is and there's a lot of money being spent by very smart people. I'll tell you, we are dominating A.I., that's the the other thing. And they all said, well, we'd have a problem because of electricity, we don't make enough electricity. We would have to double our electric power, can you believe that? And you know what I did, I had an idea, I said, when you build your plant, you're going to become an electric utility. You're not going to take it from an old grid that's been here for a hundred years. You're going to take it right from a new facility, and they said, they actually looked at me and they said, you'd do that? Of course I would. It's a national emergency. I'm going to approve everything, and you'll have your approval in two weeks.

Acyn

92,623 次观看 • 1 年前

Jeff Bezos on his favorite interview question “When I interview people, I ask them to give me an example of something they've invented. And I always point out, it doesn't have to be something that you actually took to the patent office. It could be a metric that you invented and followed carefully. It could be a business process that you invented. You want to select people who like to invent their way out of boxes.” A lot of people will immediately jump to what Jeff calls an “either or” solution (e.g. “We can do A or B.”). But as Jeff explains: “The right question is how can we do A and B? What invention do we need to be able to do both?”
0:31

Jeff Bezos on his favorite interview question “When I interview people, I ask them to give me an example of something they've invented. And I always point out, it doesn't have to be something that you actually took to the patent office. It could be a metric that you invented and followed carefully. It could be a business process that you invented. You want to select people who like to invent their way out of boxes.” A lot of people will immediately jump to what Jeff calls an “either or” solution (e.g. “We can do A or B.”). But as Jeff explains: “The right question is how can we do A and B? What invention do we need to be able to do both?”

Startup Archive

175,614 次观看 • 1 个月前

IN OUR HANDS: Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar says that despite the narratives, the future of AI is still being decided "every single day by the actions that we take." "Are we going to use it to build trinkets of marginal value — or are we going to use it to actually reindustrialize the country, to drive American prosperity, to create jobs, to have a normative view of the productivity that we can get from this to make our country great?"
3:17

IN OUR HANDS: Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar says that despite the narratives, the future of AI is still being decided "every single day by the actions that we take." "Are we going to use it to build trinkets of marginal value — or are we going to use it to actually reindustrialize the country, to drive American prosperity, to create jobs, to have a normative view of the productivity that we can get from this to make our country great?"

Fox News

50,271 次观看 • 5 个月前

Jeff Bezos on his favorite interview question “When I interview people, I ask them to give me an example of something they've invented. And I always point out, it doesn't have to be something that you actually took to the patent office. It could be a metric that you invented and followed carefully. It could be a business process that you invented. You want to select people who like to invent their way out of boxes.” A lot of people will immediately jump to what Jeff calls an “either or” solution (e.g. “We can do A or B.”). But as Jeff explains: “The right question is how can we do A and B? What invention do we need to be able to do both?”
0:31

Jeff Bezos on his favorite interview question “When I interview people, I ask them to give me an example of something they've invented. And I always point out, it doesn't have to be something that you actually took to the patent office. It could be a metric that you invented and followed carefully. It could be a business process that you invented. You want to select people who like to invent their way out of boxes.” A lot of people will immediately jump to what Jeff calls an “either or” solution (e.g. “We can do A or B.”). But as Jeff explains: “The right question is how can we do A and B? What invention do we need to be able to do both?”

Startup Archive

1,846,369 次观看 • 8 个月前

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.
3:08

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

Deutsch Explains

143,913 次观看 • 1 年前

David Sacks: The Techno-Realist On E215, David Sacks explained a third category outside of techno-optimist and doomer: "Given the choice between the two categories of techno-optimist and techno-pessimist, I'm definitely in the optimist camp. And I think we should be." "But I think there's actually a third category that I would submit: techno-realist." "Which is, technology is going to happen. Trying to stop it is like ordering the tides to stop." "AI is going to happen. We might as well be the leader." "If we don't do it, somebody else will. China's going to do it or somebody else will do it." "If we don't, we could lose in a key category that has implications for national security, for our economy, for many things." "That's just not a world we want to live in." "So, I think a lot of this debate is sort of academic because the question is just, is it going to happen or not?" "And I think the answer is yes. So then we want to control it." "There's not a tremendous amount of choice in this, I think."
0:43

David Sacks: The Techno-Realist On E215, David Sacks explained a third category outside of techno-optimist and doomer: "Given the choice between the two categories of techno-optimist and techno-pessimist, I'm definitely in the optimist camp. And I think we should be." "But I think there's actually a third category that I would submit: techno-realist." "Which is, technology is going to happen. Trying to stop it is like ordering the tides to stop." "AI is going to happen. We might as well be the leader." "If we don't do it, somebody else will. China's going to do it or somebody else will do it." "If we don't, we could lose in a key category that has implications for national security, for our economy, for many things." "That's just not a world we want to live in." "So, I think a lot of this debate is sort of academic because the question is just, is it going to happen or not?" "And I think the answer is yes. So then we want to control it." "There's not a tremendous amount of choice in this, I think."

The All-In Podcast

154,319 次观看 • 1 年前

Kamala Harris: We cannot despair. We cannot despair. The nature of a democracy is such that I think there's a duality. On the one hand, there's an incredible strength when our democracy is intact. An incredible strength in what it does to protect the freedoms and rights of its people. Oh, there's great strength in that. And it is very fragile. It is only as strong as our willingness to fight for it. And so that's the moment we're in. And I say do not despair because in a democracy, as long as we can keep it, in our democracy the people, every individual has the power to make a decision about what this will be. And so let's not feel powerless. Because then we have been defeated. And that's not our character as the American people. We are not one to be defeated. We rise to a moment and we stand on broad shoulders of people who have fought this fight before for our country. And in many ways let us look at the challenge then that we are being presented and not be overwhelmed by it. The baton is now in our hands, to fight for, not against, but for this country we love.
2:12

Kamala Harris: We cannot despair. We cannot despair. The nature of a democracy is such that I think there's a duality. On the one hand, there's an incredible strength when our democracy is intact. An incredible strength in what it does to protect the freedoms and rights of its people. Oh, there's great strength in that. And it is very fragile. It is only as strong as our willingness to fight for it. And so that's the moment we're in. And I say do not despair because in a democracy, as long as we can keep it, in our democracy the people, every individual has the power to make a decision about what this will be. And so let's not feel powerless. Because then we have been defeated. And that's not our character as the American people. We are not one to be defeated. We rise to a moment and we stand on broad shoulders of people who have fought this fight before for our country. And in many ways let us look at the challenge then that we are being presented and not be overwhelmed by it. The baton is now in our hands, to fight for, not against, but for this country we love.

Acyn

343,187 次观看 • 1 年前

VP VANCE PREDICTED: PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET ANGRY, AND RIGHTFULLY SO "This stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice. People are going to get angry, and rightfully so." If you want justice, you've got to empower the President of the United States to actually appoint the officers of justice all over the country. The Democrats are stalling that, and we're going to wake up in a couple of years, if we don't have more U.S. attorneys approved, if we don't have more judges approved, we're going to wake up in a couple of years and realize that we've done a lot of great work at the Trump administration, but justice is not being meted out as it should be because we don't have the people on the ground. That is a big problem, and I know that's somewhat unrelated to Arctic Frost, but it actually is related to Arctic Frost, because you cannot get the justice for the people who are targeted by the Biden administration unless we've got good people, especially in these U.S. attorneys offices, and that's something we've got to pay attention to over the next year. Spying on President Trump, prosecuting him, investigating senators, congressmen, and congressmen who are just aligned with the President of the United States some of this stuff is going to get covered by statute of limitations, but some of this stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people who watch your show are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans, excuse my language, if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice, people are going to get angry, and rightfully so. If you want justice, you've got to empower the President of the United States to actually appoint the officers of justice all over the country. The Democrats are stalling that, and we're going to wake up in a couple of years, if we don't have more U.S. attorneys approved, if we don't have more judges approved, we're going to wake up in a couple of years and realize that we've done a lot of great work at the Trump administration, but justice is not being meted out as it should be because we don't have the people on the ground. That is a big problem, and I know that's somewhat unrelated to Arctic Frost, but it actually is related to Arctic Frost, because you cannot get the justice for the people who are targeted by the Biden administration unless we've got good people, especially in these U.S. attorneys offices, and that's something we've got to pay attention to over the next year. Spying on President Trump, prosecuting him, investigating senators, congressmen, and congressmen who are just aligned with the President of the United States some of this stuff is going to get covered by statute of limitations, but some of this stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people who watch your show are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans, excuse my language, if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice, people are going to get angry, and rightfully so.
3:02

VP VANCE PREDICTED: PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET ANGRY, AND RIGHTFULLY SO "This stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice. People are going to get angry, and rightfully so." If you want justice, you've got to empower the President of the United States to actually appoint the officers of justice all over the country. The Democrats are stalling that, and we're going to wake up in a couple of years, if we don't have more U.S. attorneys approved, if we don't have more judges approved, we're going to wake up in a couple of years and realize that we've done a lot of great work at the Trump administration, but justice is not being meted out as it should be because we don't have the people on the ground. That is a big problem, and I know that's somewhat unrelated to Arctic Frost, but it actually is related to Arctic Frost, because you cannot get the justice for the people who are targeted by the Biden administration unless we've got good people, especially in these U.S. attorneys offices, and that's something we've got to pay attention to over the next year. Spying on President Trump, prosecuting him, investigating senators, congressmen, and congressmen who are just aligned with the President of the United States some of this stuff is going to get covered by statute of limitations, but some of this stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people who watch your show are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans, excuse my language, if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice, people are going to get angry, and rightfully so. If you want justice, you've got to empower the President of the United States to actually appoint the officers of justice all over the country. The Democrats are stalling that, and we're going to wake up in a couple of years, if we don't have more U.S. attorneys approved, if we don't have more judges approved, we're going to wake up in a couple of years and realize that we've done a lot of great work at the Trump administration, but justice is not being meted out as it should be because we don't have the people on the ground. That is a big problem, and I know that's somewhat unrelated to Arctic Frost, but it actually is related to Arctic Frost, because you cannot get the justice for the people who are targeted by the Biden administration unless we've got good people, especially in these U.S. attorneys offices, and that's something we've got to pay attention to over the next year. Spying on President Trump, prosecuting him, investigating senators, congressmen, and congressmen who are just aligned with the President of the United States some of this stuff is going to get covered by statute of limitations, but some of this stuff we can and we should prosecute, and I'm just telling you, this is going to be a real problem, and the people who watch your show are going to get really pissed at Senate Republicans, excuse my language, if we don't have the U.S. attorneys on the ground to actually achieve justice, people are going to get angry, and rightfully so.

Svetlana Lokhova

254,325 次观看 • 6 个月前

David Friedberg: The AI Jobs Panic Is a Crock of Sh*t Why? The revenue potential outweighs the cost savings by 100x. “There is no job loss with AI. I've said it a thousand times, and I will say it again, and again, and again. What I see on the ground, and what I've seen at dozens of companies, including my company that I run, there are two sides to a business. There is revenue and there’s costs. On the cost side of the equation, AI can be used to reduce humans doing things that cost money, to some extent. The effect there, I would argue, is nominal. The real opportunity with AI is on the revenue side, where suddenly one engineer can do 100x or 1000x what they used to be able to do, meaning you can make more products at your company, whether those are agricultural seed products, or boats and ships, or software for companies, or clothing, or what have you. Because of AI, everyone has the ability to expand their revenue base to create more products, and that is the foundation of good economic prosperity. It is called productivity. We can grow productivity in this country with AI. So where I see AI being used is on the revenue side 100x more than the cost side. And in that equation, people are hiring like crazy. We cannot hire enough people. I just had a review meeting with my product and engineering team two days ago, and they're like, ‘We want to add an extra 15 headcount to our engineering squads because we have all this opportunity to do stuff that we couldn't otherwise do.’ So we are going to hire more people. And to Sacks' point, we are seeing that show up in the jobs numbers. The idea that AI is going to destroy jobs is a Luddite idea that is being disproven every single day, and I see it on the ground. It is only a matter of time before people wake up to this and they realize that this narrative that they've all been sold is a crock of sh*t.”
1:42

David Friedberg: The AI Jobs Panic Is a Crock of Sh*t Why? The revenue potential outweighs the cost savings by 100x. “There is no job loss with AI. I've said it a thousand times, and I will say it again, and again, and again. What I see on the ground, and what I've seen at dozens of companies, including my company that I run, there are two sides to a business. There is revenue and there’s costs. On the cost side of the equation, AI can be used to reduce humans doing things that cost money, to some extent. The effect there, I would argue, is nominal. The real opportunity with AI is on the revenue side, where suddenly one engineer can do 100x or 1000x what they used to be able to do, meaning you can make more products at your company, whether those are agricultural seed products, or boats and ships, or software for companies, or clothing, or what have you. Because of AI, everyone has the ability to expand their revenue base to create more products, and that is the foundation of good economic prosperity. It is called productivity. We can grow productivity in this country with AI. So where I see AI being used is on the revenue side 100x more than the cost side. And in that equation, people are hiring like crazy. We cannot hire enough people. I just had a review meeting with my product and engineering team two days ago, and they're like, ‘We want to add an extra 15 headcount to our engineering squads because we have all this opportunity to do stuff that we couldn't otherwise do.’ So we are going to hire more people. And to Sacks' point, we are seeing that show up in the jobs numbers. The idea that AI is going to destroy jobs is a Luddite idea that is being disproven every single day, and I see it on the ground. It is only a matter of time before people wake up to this and they realize that this narrative that they've all been sold is a crock of sh*t.”

The All-In Podcast

152,117 次观看 • 1 个月前

This is chilling and uncomfortable. But, I get it. In a weird but compelling way, I get it. As a people, we move on. We move to the next headline quickly. We are shocked, we lament, protest, etc but eventually ... WE MOVE ON. This AI rendering of a story is morbid and uncomfortable... And even triggering. But, dammit, maybe this is what is needed. Evil gets shielded and protected by our need to not want to be confronted by truths that make us uncomfortable. How many stories of families hiding traumas and crimes of familial culprits because they don't want to expose the shame of umdeni? What does that do but protect perpetrators? Our discomfort about our reality can be a hindrance to accountability. The shame and discomfort should be reserved for the culprit. We are surprised how recidivism is so high in Mzansi, but we forget that we protect criminals' dignity more than the victims'. There is a lot that is cringe-y about AI and it should be regulated. This, though chilling, I feel it is a necessary evil if it will make Olorato and many like her not to become old news because today we have moved on to a new shocking headline. Remember her and live with the reality that you or someone you love and/or know may be next.
2:27

This is chilling and uncomfortable. But, I get it. In a weird but compelling way, I get it. As a people, we move on. We move to the next headline quickly. We are shocked, we lament, protest, etc but eventually ... WE MOVE ON. This AI rendering of a story is morbid and uncomfortable... And even triggering. But, dammit, maybe this is what is needed. Evil gets shielded and protected by our need to not want to be confronted by truths that make us uncomfortable. How many stories of families hiding traumas and crimes of familial culprits because they don't want to expose the shame of umdeni? What does that do but protect perpetrators? Our discomfort about our reality can be a hindrance to accountability. The shame and discomfort should be reserved for the culprit. We are surprised how recidivism is so high in Mzansi, but we forget that we protect criminals' dignity more than the victims'. There is a lot that is cringe-y about AI and it should be regulated. This, though chilling, I feel it is a necessary evil if it will make Olorato and many like her not to become old news because today we have moved on to a new shocking headline. Remember her and live with the reality that you or someone you love and/or know may be next.

Kgopolo

67,351 次观看 • 5 个月前

💬: has there been a moment when a fan discovered something from your songs or your music videos that you never even discovered before? they gave it another meaning? 🦮: oh well i think if you're an ENHYPEN fan, if you're an ENGENE, you know that we have a lot of story behind all the things we do, and all the music videos we film. all the details, we really look into the details, we take care of the details. 🦮: so there are indeed a lot of hidden messages and hidden, but you know, they're hidden for a reason, so we can't really say the answer right here, right now, but.. in the future, there's going to be a lot of messages and all the little details that we want to put in and we want to make it into not just in the music videos, but in all of our content. so hope you guys look forward to it and just keep on, you know, guessing what it is
1:01

💬: has there been a moment when a fan discovered something from your songs or your music videos that you never even discovered before? they gave it another meaning? 🦮: oh well i think if you're an ENHYPEN fan, if you're an ENGENE, you know that we have a lot of story behind all the things we do, and all the music videos we film. all the details, we really look into the details, we take care of the details. 🦮: so there are indeed a lot of hidden messages and hidden, but you know, they're hidden for a reason, so we can't really say the answer right here, right now, but.. in the future, there's going to be a lot of messages and all the little details that we want to put in and we want to make it into not just in the music videos, but in all of our content. so hope you guys look forward to it and just keep on, you know, guessing what it is

샐마•𝗘𝗡╸

194,262 次观看 • 6 天前

David Friedberg Explains Why AI Will Break Every Economic Model: Will Output Surpass Consumptive Capacity? I think fundamentally, if you're driving productivity with AI, you're driving leverage on human time and leverage on capital. The question is, how quickly can you drive that up? And that's a function of how much consumption there is, how much capacity there is for consumption. So if your earnings are the same, but things are getting more expensive, you're not happy. If your earnings go up by 10% and things stay the same price, you got 10% more than you had last year, you're gonna be happy. I just think all humans are driven by this need to consume more each year than they did last year. So I think for me, that's the lower limit on consumptive capacity in the world. The question that we're now facing, which we've never faced in human history before, is there an upper limit on consumptive capacity? Because AI creates such a profound shift in productivity and in leverage that normally you would say, “Hey, when we get a new tool or we get new leverage in a system, we build a new technology, we can make more with less.” Therefore, everyone gets access to more things for the same price or the cost of things that they consume come down by a certain price. But there may be a situation now where the ability to make stuff exceeds the capacity to consume stuff, and that is something that I don't think we’ve faced before. And I think that's where a lot of the models start to break. Just general economic models, just general productivity models and general social models. And this goes to the point about, like, what is everyone going to do? In the same way that I think we've argued that maybe SaaS was a transitory business phenomenon that existed between the foundation of the internet and the era of AI, it may be the case that knowledge work in general is also a transitory phenomenon that only existed between the foundation of the computer, or computing tools, and the existence of AI, generally speaking. And if all of that goes away very quickly, and all of those people can be redistributed and recast into doing other higher level, more creative things, their productivity goes up by 100x, is there really a consumer on the other end of all of that productivity? Is there really enough consumptive capacity? And I think that's the profound question that we all face.
2:18

David Friedberg Explains Why AI Will Break Every Economic Model: Will Output Surpass Consumptive Capacity? I think fundamentally, if you're driving productivity with AI, you're driving leverage on human time and leverage on capital. The question is, how quickly can you drive that up? And that's a function of how much consumption there is, how much capacity there is for consumption. So if your earnings are the same, but things are getting more expensive, you're not happy. If your earnings go up by 10% and things stay the same price, you got 10% more than you had last year, you're gonna be happy. I just think all humans are driven by this need to consume more each year than they did last year. So I think for me, that's the lower limit on consumptive capacity in the world. The question that we're now facing, which we've never faced in human history before, is there an upper limit on consumptive capacity? Because AI creates such a profound shift in productivity and in leverage that normally you would say, “Hey, when we get a new tool or we get new leverage in a system, we build a new technology, we can make more with less.” Therefore, everyone gets access to more things for the same price or the cost of things that they consume come down by a certain price. But there may be a situation now where the ability to make stuff exceeds the capacity to consume stuff, and that is something that I don't think we’ve faced before. And I think that's where a lot of the models start to break. Just general economic models, just general productivity models and general social models. And this goes to the point about, like, what is everyone going to do? In the same way that I think we've argued that maybe SaaS was a transitory business phenomenon that existed between the foundation of the internet and the era of AI, it may be the case that knowledge work in general is also a transitory phenomenon that only existed between the foundation of the computer, or computing tools, and the existence of AI, generally speaking. And if all of that goes away very quickly, and all of those people can be redistributed and recast into doing other higher level, more creative things, their productivity goes up by 100x, is there really a consumer on the other end of all of that productivity? Is there really enough consumptive capacity? And I think that's the profound question that we all face.

The All-In Podcast

81,878 次观看 • 5 个月前

"When social media first started rising, we didn't necessarily realize how much of that was actually just foundational infrastructure for the future of humanity.” Ben Fielding of gensyn on why AI is about to repeat the mistake social media made, and how we can still fix it: "This isn't just a product that you chat with. It's actually new fundamental infrastructure for humanity, and we should build that learning from the lessons from before. If we let a single company build AI, they hold an enormous amount of power in the world." "If you actually distribute that out and provide it in a kind of sovereign way — it's on all of our own devices and we own it — then actually you steer the world in a very different social direction."
0:45

"When social media first started rising, we didn't necessarily realize how much of that was actually just foundational infrastructure for the future of humanity.” Ben Fielding of gensyn on why AI is about to repeat the mistake social media made, and how we can still fix it: "This isn't just a product that you chat with. It's actually new fundamental infrastructure for humanity, and we should build that learning from the lessons from before. If we let a single company build AI, they hold an enormous amount of power in the world." "If you actually distribute that out and provide it in a kind of sovereign way — it's on all of our own devices and we own it — then actually you steer the world in a very different social direction."

a16z crypto

78,712 次观看 • 3 个月前

Is it possible to have an entire company of A players? Adam has 400 employees and a $150 billion market cap. His answer to this question was insightful: “We expect our engineers to be product people so we don't have much of a product org. We expect them to be A players. Now to have a team of A players you've got to be able to recognize A players. I know that Giovanni is an A-plus player. I know that he has no tolerance for anything that's not an A player. He's very quick to go "You've got to be at this level or you're out." Putting people like that in leadership roles allows me to have confidence because they're impatient and they're not going to enable talent that's not qualified in these key roles. You're always turning over people that don't meet your need. You want to be as lean as possible. Now when you have an A player you don't want to cut those people. Those people are super powerful—especially as we go forward. You're going to need lean teams that know how to use AI. Your best people know how to use AI better than your mediocre people and it's not by some sort of linear function. It's much greater than that. Our team is constructed to have leaders who are A players or A-plus players who can see the A players underneath and who have no patience for anything that's not a A player and are very willing to fire on sight if they feel like you're not cutting it. Because we are lean most of our people are very smart. But sometimes being smart is not enough. You've got to be really into building what we want to build. If you're not cut out for it you're going to get really good severance and you go off along your way.”
1:53

Is it possible to have an entire company of A players? Adam has 400 employees and a $150 billion market cap. His answer to this question was insightful: “We expect our engineers to be product people so we don't have much of a product org. We expect them to be A players. Now to have a team of A players you've got to be able to recognize A players. I know that Giovanni is an A-plus player. I know that he has no tolerance for anything that's not an A player. He's very quick to go "You've got to be at this level or you're out." Putting people like that in leadership roles allows me to have confidence because they're impatient and they're not going to enable talent that's not qualified in these key roles. You're always turning over people that don't meet your need. You want to be as lean as possible. Now when you have an A player you don't want to cut those people. Those people are super powerful—especially as we go forward. You're going to need lean teams that know how to use AI. Your best people know how to use AI better than your mediocre people and it's not by some sort of linear function. It's much greater than that. Our team is constructed to have leaders who are A players or A-plus players who can see the A players underneath and who have no patience for anything that's not a A player and are very willing to fire on sight if they feel like you're not cutting it. Because we are lean most of our people are very smart. But sometimes being smart is not enough. You've got to be really into building what we want to build. If you're not cut out for it you're going to get really good severance and you go off along your way.”

David Senra

54,987 次观看 • 2 个月前

Austen Allred on Gauntlet AI: "We're very up front that we're 80 to 100 hours a week. If you think that that's a terrible idea, please don't come." "We're in Austin, all right? That's a sacrifice for a lot of people. If you don't think like coming to Austin for 100 hours a week and jamming on AI unpaid and just building stuff to figure out how much you can learn and hopefully getting a job on the other side... if you don't think that's awesome, that's totally fine. Please don't come." "There are some psychos out there that think that that's a good time. We wanna collect all those psychos. So come all, come all ye crazy people. And if that's not for you, that's okay." "There are companies that come to us and say, "Hey, we want, you know, 100 engineers that are going to sit in our division of printer drivers and sit there." And I'm like, "They would kill themselves." The people that are coming to Gauntlet would not do that. And so we turn companies down too." So we know who we are, we know what we stand for. You know, it helps that I'm one of those people that would've loved that. So is Ash Tilawat, and so is everybody else that works at Gauntlet. "So it's not hard for us to find other crazy people like ourselves. And that doesn't have to be you. That's okay." "We're not trying to empire build or solve all of humanity's greatest problems. We know that there's a limit to who we're addressing and what we're addressing at any given time." "So our goal is to be the best thing we can possibly be for that weird island of misfits. And for the companies that need a weird island of misfits, we'll be that all day long."
1:51

Austen Allred on Gauntlet AI: "We're very up front that we're 80 to 100 hours a week. If you think that that's a terrible idea, please don't come." "We're in Austin, all right? That's a sacrifice for a lot of people. If you don't think like coming to Austin for 100 hours a week and jamming on AI unpaid and just building stuff to figure out how much you can learn and hopefully getting a job on the other side... if you don't think that's awesome, that's totally fine. Please don't come." "There are some psychos out there that think that that's a good time. We wanna collect all those psychos. So come all, come all ye crazy people. And if that's not for you, that's okay." "There are companies that come to us and say, "Hey, we want, you know, 100 engineers that are going to sit in our division of printer drivers and sit there." And I'm like, "They would kill themselves." The people that are coming to Gauntlet would not do that. And so we turn companies down too." So we know who we are, we know what we stand for. You know, it helps that I'm one of those people that would've loved that. So is Ash Tilawat, and so is everybody else that works at Gauntlet. "So it's not hard for us to find other crazy people like ourselves. And that doesn't have to be you. That's okay." "We're not trying to empire build or solve all of humanity's greatest problems. We know that there's a limit to who we're addressing and what we're addressing at any given time." "So our goal is to be the best thing we can possibly be for that weird island of misfits. And for the companies that need a weird island of misfits, we'll be that all day long."

Ben Averbook

12,153 次观看 • 9 个月前

Kennedy closed with something rare in government: momentum—and a plan to win. The tide is officially turning for MAHA. He didn’t just announce the end of petroleum dyes. He declared the beginning of something much bigger. “It’s not the time to stop, it’s the time to redouble your efforts because we have them on the run now, and we are going to win this battle,” he said. “Four years from now we’re going to have most of these products off the market, or you will know about them when you go in the grocery store.” [Audience ignites] Then came the moment that connected it all—from toxic ingredients to national strength to the American dream. “Finally and most importantly I want to thank President Trump. President Trump often says that he is going to make America great again. He knows he cannot make our country great again, if our country is weak, if we’re not healthy. If we don’t have vigor. If we’re not a robust people.” “He says he will restore the American dream and a healthy person has a thousand dreams. The sick person only has one. And right now there is 60% of people in this country who have only one dream.” “If they can make it through a day without pain, with energy, without having to take medications. And we are going to change that for our country.” Kennedy wrapped it all with a promise—one that signals a new era for the FDA and the people it serves: “I want to thank the moms and thank President Trump for his confidence in my leadership, and for allowing me to surround myself with such an extraordinary team of scientists who are going to restore transparency to this agency.” “We’re going to restore gold-standard science, so we know what’s in our food and we can eliminate it.” And just like that, the war on toxic food had its shot heard ‘round the world.
1:39

Kennedy closed with something rare in government: momentum—and a plan to win. The tide is officially turning for MAHA. He didn’t just announce the end of petroleum dyes. He declared the beginning of something much bigger. “It’s not the time to stop, it’s the time to redouble your efforts because we have them on the run now, and we are going to win this battle,” he said. “Four years from now we’re going to have most of these products off the market, or you will know about them when you go in the grocery store.” [Audience ignites] Then came the moment that connected it all—from toxic ingredients to national strength to the American dream. “Finally and most importantly I want to thank President Trump. President Trump often says that he is going to make America great again. He knows he cannot make our country great again, if our country is weak, if we’re not healthy. If we don’t have vigor. If we’re not a robust people.” “He says he will restore the American dream and a healthy person has a thousand dreams. The sick person only has one. And right now there is 60% of people in this country who have only one dream.” “If they can make it through a day without pain, with energy, without having to take medications. And we are going to change that for our country.” Kennedy wrapped it all with a promise—one that signals a new era for the FDA and the people it serves: “I want to thank the moms and thank President Trump for his confidence in my leadership, and for allowing me to surround myself with such an extraordinary team of scientists who are going to restore transparency to this agency.” “We’re going to restore gold-standard science, so we know what’s in our food and we can eliminate it.” And just like that, the war on toxic food had its shot heard ‘round the world.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

443,019 次观看 • 1 年前