Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

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 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

JEFF BEZOS SAYS AI IS GOING TO CREATE A LABOR SHORTAGE "I know there's a lot of concern that many people have, including many smart people, that AI is going to make humans redundant and so on. I totally disagree with this point of view." He says AI will make it possible for people to identify more problems, and that we have an endless set of things to invent. "Today, we are limited not by our imaginations, but by what we can actually do." Everyone in the room, he said, has had an idea for a business or a product they wished they could build. It stayed in their head because it was too hard and it wasn't worth it. "If we can accelerate the dream build loop, all of the ideas will then become possible. And then we end up being limited not by our capabilities, but by our imaginations."
1:05

JEFF BEZOS SAYS AI IS GOING TO CREATE A LABOR SHORTAGE "I know there's a lot of concern that many people have, including many smart people, that AI is going to make humans redundant and so on. I totally disagree with this point of view." He says AI will make it possible for people to identify more problems, and that we have an endless set of things to invent. "Today, we are limited not by our imaginations, but by what we can actually do." Everyone in the room, he said, has had an idea for a business or a product they wished they could build. It stayed in their head because it was too hard and it wasn't worth it. "If we can accelerate the dream build loop, all of the ideas will then become possible. And then we end up being limited not by our capabilities, but by our imaginations."

WOLF

108,766 Aufrufe • vor 19 Tagen

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

16,752 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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

52,093 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

JEFF BEZOS: “I know there's a lot of concern that many smart people have, that AI is going to make humans redundant. I totally disagree with this point of view. In fact, AI is going to create a labor shortage … We have an endless set of things to invent.”
1:52

JEFF BEZOS: “I know there's a lot of concern that many smart people have, that AI is going to make humans redundant. I totally disagree with this point of view. In fact, AI is going to create a labor shortage … We have an endless set of things to invent.”

Chief Nerd

254,767 Aufrufe • vor 11 Tagen

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

506,945 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🔥JEFF BEZOS: AI WILL CREATE A LABOR SHORTAGE, NOT MASS UNEMPLOYMENT The Amazon founder says fears that AI will replace humans are wrong. Bezos argues AI could create a labor shortage by revealing an “endless” number of new problems to solve and things for humans to build.
0:28

🔥JEFF BEZOS: AI WILL CREATE A LABOR SHORTAGE, NOT MASS UNEMPLOYMENT The Amazon founder says fears that AI will replace humans are wrong. Bezos argues AI could create a labor shortage by revealing an “endless” number of new problems to solve and things for humans to build.

Coin Bureau

26,720 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

.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

143,949 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

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 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

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

154,348 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

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

254,370 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Hunt: So, who’s right on data centers? President Trump or Governor Shapiro? Fetterman: Oh, the president is actually right overall. I mean, you know, uh, we we used to be moving forward on data centers and now, I mean, he's actually scared by the polls. So I mean, what really what's really motivated by more than just the polls overall, you know, I set out I set up my message on it on data centers just a couple days on X where I'm saying it's, you know, the president happens to be right in this. You know, I think it's it's very necessary that we win the war on AI. Uh, we, I think it's necessary because AI is going to transform our world. And, you know, it can be either us be the leaders or it can be the Chinese. And we could we could live under those rules and they're going to build unlimited data centers. And they're not really, uh, really stopped by with the kind of like democracy and the kinds of rules that, that we have overall, I think it's important. And I would remind people, like a lot of the opposition is, is been driven by the ccp and a lot of a lot of influence. So I think now withwith data centers, uh, also there's the facts now that it, it consumes a very, very, maybe one tenth of 1%, you know, compared to almonds and compared to other other things, part of our economy and also our land usage as well, too. Pennsylvania, you know, we are energy rich, we are water rich. And we have we're land rich now. So I think it's an important part of our economy, not just for Pennsylvania's but also the country right now.
2:02

Hunt: So, who’s right on data centers? President Trump or Governor Shapiro? Fetterman: Oh, the president is actually right overall. I mean, you know, uh, we we used to be moving forward on data centers and now, I mean, he's actually scared by the polls. So I mean, what really what's really motivated by more than just the polls overall, you know, I set out I set up my message on it on data centers just a couple days on X where I'm saying it's, you know, the president happens to be right in this. You know, I think it's it's very necessary that we win the war on AI. Uh, we, I think it's necessary because AI is going to transform our world. And, you know, it can be either us be the leaders or it can be the Chinese. And we could we could live under those rules and they're going to build unlimited data centers. And they're not really, uh, really stopped by with the kind of like democracy and the kinds of rules that, that we have overall, I think it's important. And I would remind people, like a lot of the opposition is, is been driven by the ccp and a lot of a lot of influence. So I think now withwith data centers, uh, also there's the facts now that it, it consumes a very, very, maybe one tenth of 1%, you know, compared to almonds and compared to other other things, part of our economy and also our land usage as well, too. Pennsylvania, you know, we are energy rich, we are water rich. And we have we're land rich now. So I think it's an important part of our economy, not just for Pennsylvania's but also the country right now.

Acyn

204,594 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

Sam Altman: "I think we should be more of a platform company than a product company.” “We just merged ChatGPT and Codex together. So we used to have ChatGPT, Codex, and the API. And Codex, sort of unfortunately named, but that was not just coding, it could do any kind of work, which confused people." “What I think most people want is the single interface to their own personal or their company's AGI that can kind of help them with whatever they need. And then the ability with an API to build anything they want on top of it. And that is the platform that we should offer to the world." “We're going to sell great AI at every point on the cost-performance curve. You want really high end AI to discover science, that's great. You want really inexpensive AI to do a massive amount of volume of work that maybe doesn't require genius level intelligence, we got you covered there too.” “I don't think we should go build every product category. I don't think we should go try to compete with all of our customers. I don't think we should try to subsume the entire economy. I think we should offer this platform and try to have 100 million new businesses and 8 billion people use it in all kinds of new ways."
2:11

Sam Altman: "I think we should be more of a platform company than a product company.” “We just merged ChatGPT and Codex together. So we used to have ChatGPT, Codex, and the API. And Codex, sort of unfortunately named, but that was not just coding, it could do any kind of work, which confused people." “What I think most people want is the single interface to their own personal or their company's AGI that can kind of help them with whatever they need. And then the ability with an API to build anything they want on top of it. And that is the platform that we should offer to the world." “We're going to sell great AI at every point on the cost-performance curve. You want really high end AI to discover science, that's great. You want really inexpensive AI to do a massive amount of volume of work that maybe doesn't require genius level intelligence, we got you covered there too.” “I don't think we should go build every product category. I don't think we should go try to compete with all of our customers. I don't think we should try to subsume the entire economy. I think we should offer this platform and try to have 100 million new businesses and 8 billion people use it in all kinds of new ways."

dnap

322,713 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Sam Altman says AI leaders have done a terrible job at communicating to the public: “The, ‘Dear peasants, we will bequeath upon you these gifts of a cure for cancer and material wealth and great entertainment, and you stop complaining, and we'll make all the decisions about the future and just trust us, we'll be benevolent dictators.’ That’s not good. Not good.” “A lot of the people building AI have been saying, ‘There's a 25% chance we're going to destroy the world, and yet we're going to race ahead to do it because otherwise those bad guys will do it first.’” “Or, ‘Man, this thing is going to be really terrible, and 50% of the jobs are going to go away in the next year, and we hope you all are okay, but it seems really scary.’” “We have not, as a field, done a very good job of explaining to people what the benefits are and how the downsides can be mitigated—and we certainly have not done a good job even if people have had answers like saying, ‘There's going to be UBI, or work will be optional.’” “There's been very little discussion from people about how and why it's important that people have more power and personal freedom in the world, not less. And that matters a lot to most people.” “The ability of people to influence their own future and collectively design where society is going to go, and the autonomy that comes with that, is very important. I don't think a lot of people in the AI field… they feel it for themselves, but they don't spend much time thinking about it, reflecting on or acknowledging how important that is to other people.”
3:19

Sam Altman says AI leaders have done a terrible job at communicating to the public: “The, ‘Dear peasants, we will bequeath upon you these gifts of a cure for cancer and material wealth and great entertainment, and you stop complaining, and we'll make all the decisions about the future and just trust us, we'll be benevolent dictators.’ That’s not good. Not good.” “A lot of the people building AI have been saying, ‘There's a 25% chance we're going to destroy the world, and yet we're going to race ahead to do it because otherwise those bad guys will do it first.’” “Or, ‘Man, this thing is going to be really terrible, and 50% of the jobs are going to go away in the next year, and we hope you all are okay, but it seems really scary.’” “We have not, as a field, done a very good job of explaining to people what the benefits are and how the downsides can be mitigated—and we certainly have not done a good job even if people have had answers like saying, ‘There's going to be UBI, or work will be optional.’” “There's been very little discussion from people about how and why it's important that people have more power and personal freedom in the world, not less. And that matters a lot to most people.” “The ability of people to influence their own future and collectively design where society is going to go, and the autonomy that comes with that, is very important. I don't think a lot of people in the AI field… they feel it for themselves, but they don't spend much time thinking about it, reflecting on or acknowledging how important that is to other people.”

David Senra

32,300 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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

152,633 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Mikel Arteta on how he handles transfer speculation with his players: "Very simple. Whatever you read, if you have a question, come and knock on my door and I will tell you whether it is true or not. If we put now the catalogue on all these walls about all the players that we wanted in the last three months, I think we need the whole building to put it on. So I think they know that there's so much speculation with a lot of players. "If ever they feel the doubt of what we think of them and if we're going to recruit a player, I tell them straight away. Normally I do it - so, 'we're going to sign somebody in their position', and normally tell them that these are the plans and these are the reasons why we have the plans. 'We still believe the same in you, but the competition is going to increase.' I prefer to do it that way."
0:49

Mikel Arteta on how he handles transfer speculation with his players: "Very simple. Whatever you read, if you have a question, come and knock on my door and I will tell you whether it is true or not. If we put now the catalogue on all these walls about all the players that we wanted in the last three months, I think we need the whole building to put it on. So I think they know that there's so much speculation with a lot of players. "If ever they feel the doubt of what we think of them and if we're going to recruit a player, I tell them straight away. Normally I do it - so, 'we're going to sign somebody in their position', and normally tell them that these are the plans and these are the reasons why we have the plans. 'We still believe the same in you, but the competition is going to increase.' I prefer to do it that way."

Connor Humm

179,646 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten