Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

John Carmack: The code for AGI could conceivably be written by one individual After stepping down as CTO of Meta’s Oculus VR, legendary programmer John Carmack was trying to decide if he would work on nuclear fission or artificial general intelligence (AGI). He ultimately chose AGI. “I think [fission]... is possible,” John says. “Somebody should be doing this, but it’s going to involve some politics, decent-sized teams, and a bunch of cross-functional stuff that I don’t love. While artificial general intelligence seems to me like the highest-leverage moment for a single individual potentially in the history of the world.” He explains: “With the things we know about the brain and what we can do with artificial intelligence . . . I’m not a madman for saying that it is likely that the code for artificial general intelligence is going to be tens of thousands of lines of code — not millions of lines of code.” He continues: “This is code that conceivably one individual could write, unlike writing a new web browser or operating system. And based on the progress that machine learning has made in the recent decade, it’s likely that the important things that we don’t know are relatively simple. There’s probably a handful of things — my bet is there’s less than six key insights — that need to be made. Each one of them can probably be written on the back of an envelope. We don’t know what they are, but when they’re put together in concert with GPUs at scale and the data that we all have access to, we can make something that behaves like a human being or living creature and that can then be educated in whatever ways we need to get to the point where we can have universal remote workers where anything that somebody does mediated by a computer, that doesn’t require physical interaction, an AGI will be able to do.” Carmack does not think this will be “unapproachably hard”: “That’s incredibly hubristic to say, but what I said a couple of years ago was that there’s a 50% chance that somewhere there will be signs of life of an AGI in 2030, and I’ve probably increased that slightly — maybe 55-60% now because I do think there’s a little sense of acceleration.” Video source: Lex Fridman (2022)show more

Startup Archive

118,532 subscribers

39,477 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Образование Новости и политика Наука и технологии

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

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

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

Chris

15,578 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🚨 JUST IN: Senate Leader John Thune says he will FORCE a vote on the SAVE America Act, but he can NOT guarantee it will pass because that needs 60 votes "That debate will happen. But like I said, I can guarantee the debate. I can guarantee a vote. I just can't guarantee an outcome." "There are a lot of optimistic views about what Democrats may or may not do. We all know, because we deal with them every day, that the Democrats are not all of a sudden going to decide that this is something they want to be for." "I think you have a lot of optimists out there, and I appreciate that, and a lot of passion and energy behind getting an outcome here." "But getting an outcome would require Democrat votes." "And, you know, we'll give them a chance. Like I said, they'll have that opportunity to vote one way or the other on this. But I would be very, very surprised."

🚨 JUST IN: Senate Leader John Thune says he will FORCE a vote on the SAVE America Act, but he can NOT guarantee it will pass because that needs 60 votes "That debate will happen. But like I said, I can guarantee the debate. I can guarantee a vote. I just can't guarantee an outcome." "There are a lot of optimistic views about what Democrats may or may not do. We all know, because we deal with them every day, that the Democrats are not all of a sudden going to decide that this is something they want to be for." "I think you have a lot of optimists out there, and I appreciate that, and a lot of passion and energy behind getting an outcome here." "But getting an outcome would require Democrat votes." "And, you know, we'll give them a chance. Like I said, they'll have that opportunity to vote one way or the other on this. But I would be very, very surprised."

Eric Daugherty

304,474 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Ilya Sutskever explains why AI will do 100% the work that human can do within few years. "Slowly but surely, or maybe not so slowly, AI will keep getting better. The day will come when AI will do all of our, all the things that we can do, not just some of them, but all of them. Anything which I can learn, anything which any one of you can learn, the AI could do as well. How do we know this, by the way? How can I be so sure? How can I be so sure of that? The reason is that all of us have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer. That's why we have a brain; the brain is a biological computer. So why can't the digital computer, a digital brain, do the same things? This is the one-sentence summary for why AI will be able to do all those things: because we have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer." --- Full Video on 'University of Toronto' YT Channel (link in comment)

Ilya Sutskever explains why AI will do 100% the work that human can do within few years. "Slowly but surely, or maybe not so slowly, AI will keep getting better. The day will come when AI will do all of our, all the things that we can do, not just some of them, but all of them. Anything which I can learn, anything which any one of you can learn, the AI could do as well. How do we know this, by the way? How can I be so sure? How can I be so sure of that? The reason is that all of us have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer. That's why we have a brain; the brain is a biological computer. So why can't the digital computer, a digital brain, do the same things? This is the one-sentence summary for why AI will be able to do all those things: because we have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer." --- Full Video on 'University of Toronto' YT Channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

334,691 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Former Fox News host Geraldo Rivera: “By focusing on the censorship aspect and the First Amendment aspect, it’s losing sight of what should be the lead and that’s that Jimmy Kimmel owes the family of Charlie Kirk and his wife Erika, two small children, an apology. You know, you know, what’s he saying? That if you’re if you’re a member of MAGA and Charlie is a friend of MAG, of MAGA, then he had it coming. It’s just — it’s — it’s in some ways — it’s very — it’s — extremely — extremely insensitive. The country is in a country is in a very tough spot right now. Everyone is walking on eggshells. The First Amendment is not a license to incite hatred and, you know, I think that we can think that we can start the discussion once Jimmy Kimmel apologizes, then they can talk about the business aspects and whether or not he gets whether or not he gets back on the schedule and so forth, but there’s got to there’s got to be a recognition that a terrible thing has happened here, and that millions of Americans are grievously hurt by what happened. You know, there is a — Charlie Kirk was beloved by many. And to just trample over it. He’s not even buried yet for goodness sake. And to make fun of the flags at half staff and so forth. I just half staff and so forth. I just think that we’ve got to look at it with a — with a notion that the country has to be healed, that we have to work to bring people together, that we need to respect each other. You know, we don’t have to agree, but we have to respect. And I think that, you know, the audience has deserted him for a good reason.”

Former Fox News host Geraldo Rivera: “By focusing on the censorship aspect and the First Amendment aspect, it’s losing sight of what should be the lead and that’s that Jimmy Kimmel owes the family of Charlie Kirk and his wife Erika, two small children, an apology. You know, you know, what’s he saying? That if you’re if you’re a member of MAGA and Charlie is a friend of MAG, of MAGA, then he had it coming. It’s just — it’s — it’s in some ways — it’s very — it’s — extremely — extremely insensitive. The country is in a country is in a very tough spot right now. Everyone is walking on eggshells. The First Amendment is not a license to incite hatred and, you know, I think that we can think that we can start the discussion once Jimmy Kimmel apologizes, then they can talk about the business aspects and whether or not he gets whether or not he gets back on the schedule and so forth, but there’s got to there’s got to be a recognition that a terrible thing has happened here, and that millions of Americans are grievously hurt by what happened. You know, there is a — Charlie Kirk was beloved by many. And to just trample over it. He’s not even buried yet for goodness sake. And to make fun of the flags at half staff and so forth. I just half staff and so forth. I just think that we’ve got to look at it with a — with a notion that the country has to be healed, that we have to work to bring people together, that we need to respect each other. You know, we don’t have to agree, but we have to respect. And I think that, you know, the audience has deserted him for a good reason.”

Curtis Houck

825,225 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Demis Hassabis: it's “nonsense” to claim that today's AI chatbots have PhD intelligence “And maybe scaling will get us there, but if I was to bet, I think there are probably one or two missing breakthroughs that are still required and will come over the next five or so years.” Demis Hassabis at the All-In Summit: “You often hear some of our competitors talk about these modern systems that we have today are PhD intelligences.” “I think that's nonsense. They're not PhD intelligences.” “They have some capabilities that are PhD level, but they're not, in general, capable. And that's exactly what general intelligence should be (capable) of, of performing across the board at the PhD level.” “In fact, as we all know, interacting with today's chatbots, if you pose the question in a certain way, they can make simple mistakes with even high school maths and simple counting.” “That shouldn't be possible for a true AGI system.” “So I think that we are maybe, I would say sort of 5-10 years away from having an AGI system that's capable of doing those things.” “Another thing that's missing is continual learning, this ability to like online teach the system something new or adjust its behavior in some way.” “And so a lot of these, I think, core capabilities are still missing.”

Demis Hassabis: it's “nonsense” to claim that today's AI chatbots have PhD intelligence “And maybe scaling will get us there, but if I was to bet, I think there are probably one or two missing breakthroughs that are still required and will come over the next five or so years.” Demis Hassabis at the All-In Summit: “You often hear some of our competitors talk about these modern systems that we have today are PhD intelligences.” “I think that's nonsense. They're not PhD intelligences.” “They have some capabilities that are PhD level, but they're not, in general, capable. And that's exactly what general intelligence should be (capable) of, of performing across the board at the PhD level.” “In fact, as we all know, interacting with today's chatbots, if you pose the question in a certain way, they can make simple mistakes with even high school maths and simple counting.” “That shouldn't be possible for a true AGI system.” “So I think that we are maybe, I would say sort of 5-10 years away from having an AGI system that's capable of doing those things.” “Another thing that's missing is continual learning, this ability to like online teach the system something new or adjust its behavior in some way.” “And so a lot of these, I think, core capabilities are still missing.”

The All-In Podcast

33,934 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

.Naval: Every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species. One of the things that you really learn when you read David Deutsch’s theories and you authenticate them for yourself is you realize humans are universal explainers. That means everything that we know in the universe follows the laws of physics, and there’s no reason to believe otherwise. If you think otherwise, then please present your better theory that explains the world. If you can’t do that, then you have to go with the laws of physics. Well, the laws of physics are completely computable. They can fit inside a Turing machine or computer, and a computer can simulate the laws of physics with arbitrary accuracy, limited only by the specific power of that computer. If you increase the power of that computer, you can simulate them more accurately. So humans already simulate—in our minds we simulate—and through our computers we simulate the weather, we simulate quasars, we even simulate human systems. We simulate the economy. We simulate all kinds of things. So anything that can be understood, we can understand in our minds. This is something the AGI people get wrong when they talk about superintelligence. There is nothing out there that can understand something fundamentally that we can’t understand. It might be faster at it, it might have more compute, it might have more memory, but there’s no concept that it can understand that we can’t ourselves understand. So we are maximal universal explainers. That means every human is capable of unbounded creativity. Anyone could be the next Einstein or Fermi or Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Jonas Salk or whatever. So we can create anything. And if we can create anything, every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species.

.Naval: Every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species. One of the things that you really learn when you read David Deutsch’s theories and you authenticate them for yourself is you realize humans are universal explainers. That means everything that we know in the universe follows the laws of physics, and there’s no reason to believe otherwise. If you think otherwise, then please present your better theory that explains the world. If you can’t do that, then you have to go with the laws of physics. Well, the laws of physics are completely computable. They can fit inside a Turing machine or computer, and a computer can simulate the laws of physics with arbitrary accuracy, limited only by the specific power of that computer. If you increase the power of that computer, you can simulate them more accurately. So humans already simulate—in our minds we simulate—and through our computers we simulate the weather, we simulate quasars, we even simulate human systems. We simulate the economy. We simulate all kinds of things. So anything that can be understood, we can understand in our minds. This is something the AGI people get wrong when they talk about superintelligence. There is nothing out there that can understand something fundamentally that we can’t understand. It might be faster at it, it might have more compute, it might have more memory, but there’s no concept that it can understand that we can’t ourselves understand. So we are maximal universal explainers. That means every human is capable of unbounded creativity. Anyone could be the next Einstein or Fermi or Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Jonas Salk or whatever. So we can create anything. And if we can create anything, every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species.

Arjun Khemani

32,810 просмотров • 1 год назад

Demis Hassabis: "Ten years from now, I think we will realize that we were standing in the foothills of the singularity now... I believe that we're only a few years away from [AGI], maybe 2030 plus or minus a year... I think [AGI] will be an enormous transformative technology, it's going to effectively be a new human era... We can feel this year, I would say, even though I've been working towards this for 30 years, I think this year with the way the agents are working and tool use, it started to become really useful, still early days of it, but genuinely useful in people's workflows... And it's not any one thing, it's several different technologies, several use cases, several things that I thought were maybe a bit further out, turned out to be now, that are coming together that make me feel that in aggregate. I think society needs to hear that because we don't have long to prepare for what that means."

Demis Hassabis: "Ten years from now, I think we will realize that we were standing in the foothills of the singularity now... I believe that we're only a few years away from [AGI], maybe 2030 plus or minus a year... I think [AGI] will be an enormous transformative technology, it's going to effectively be a new human era... We can feel this year, I would say, even though I've been working towards this for 30 years, I think this year with the way the agents are working and tool use, it started to become really useful, still early days of it, but genuinely useful in people's workflows... And it's not any one thing, it's several different technologies, several use cases, several things that I thought were maybe a bit further out, turned out to be now, that are coming together that make me feel that in aggregate. I think society needs to hear that because we don't have long to prepare for what that means."

prinz

48,754 просмотров • 24 дней назад

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

Deutsch Explains

72,455 просмотров • 1 год назад

.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.

.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 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨 OPENAI PRESIDENT GREG BROCKMAN ON WHEN WE HIT AGI 🚨 Greg Brockman was asked if he agrees with NVIDIA's CEO that AGI is already here. His answer? Not quite yet, as people may know I definitely agree and align with Sam and Demi’s that we are 2 breakthroughs away but we are entering the final stretch. Here is exactly where Greg believes we stand right now: The Percentage: "I'd say I'm basically like 70, 80% there. So I think we're quite close." • The Official Timeline: "I think it's extremely clear that we are going to have AGI within the next couple years." The Concept of "Jagged Intelligence": Brockman admits we are currently sitting in a weird middle ground where AI is "jagged"—it is already operating at an AGI level for highly complex tasks, but still fails at random, basic things. "It is absolutely superhuman at many tasks. When it comes to writing code those kinds of things, the AI can just do it... But there's some very basic tasks that a human can do that our AI still struggle with." How Do We Close the Final 20%? To hit full AGI, the absolute floor of the models' reliability needs to be raised across the board. "The floor of task will just be almost for any intellectual task of how you use your computer, the AI will be able to do that."

🚨 OPENAI PRESIDENT GREG BROCKMAN ON WHEN WE HIT AGI 🚨 Greg Brockman was asked if he agrees with NVIDIA's CEO that AGI is already here. His answer? Not quite yet, as people may know I definitely agree and align with Sam and Demi’s that we are 2 breakthroughs away but we are entering the final stretch. Here is exactly where Greg believes we stand right now: The Percentage: "I'd say I'm basically like 70, 80% there. So I think we're quite close." • The Official Timeline: "I think it's extremely clear that we are going to have AGI within the next couple years." The Concept of "Jagged Intelligence": Brockman admits we are currently sitting in a weird middle ground where AI is "jagged"—it is already operating at an AGI level for highly complex tasks, but still fails at random, basic things. "It is absolutely superhuman at many tasks. When it comes to writing code those kinds of things, the AI can just do it... But there's some very basic tasks that a human can do that our AI still struggle with." How Do We Close the Final 20%? To hit full AGI, the absolute floor of the models' reliability needs to be raised across the board. "The floor of task will just be almost for any intellectual task of how you use your computer, the AI will be able to do that."

Chris

87,235 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Mark Zuckerberg: “I don’t believe in delegating” “There’s this theory that a lot of people have which is that the job of a leader is to hire people and delegate things to them. My theory is there is so much going on across the company that I can’t possibly be involved in all of it, so all these people are going to have a ton of stuff they’re going to do. But fundamentally, if there’s a decision that I want to be involved with, I’m going to be involved in it… I think that’s generally a good way for founders to operate.” Mark continues: “If you’re running the company and there’s something important — at whatever level of detail in the organization — I don’t get the logic of saying, ‘I’m not going to be involved in that.’” Of course you want to have humility that you may not have the most context immediately, but in Mark’s view, the CEO must take ownership of the company’s most important problems. To ensure that his time is constantly spent on the most important priority for the company, Mark has very few recurring meetings and tries to keep his schedule as open as possible: “II generally keep a bunch of time open so that stuff is pretty dynamic — I can wake up in the morning and be like, ‘OK, I need to work on these three things today, and I want to make sure I have a block of time where I can go do that.’” Video source: Stripe (2025)

Mark Zuckerberg: “I don’t believe in delegating” “There’s this theory that a lot of people have which is that the job of a leader is to hire people and delegate things to them. My theory is there is so much going on across the company that I can’t possibly be involved in all of it, so all these people are going to have a ton of stuff they’re going to do. But fundamentally, if there’s a decision that I want to be involved with, I’m going to be involved in it… I think that’s generally a good way for founders to operate.” Mark continues: “If you’re running the company and there’s something important — at whatever level of detail in the organization — I don’t get the logic of saying, ‘I’m not going to be involved in that.’” Of course you want to have humility that you may not have the most context immediately, but in Mark’s view, the CEO must take ownership of the company’s most important problems. To ensure that his time is constantly spent on the most important priority for the company, Mark has very few recurring meetings and tries to keep his schedule as open as possible: “II generally keep a bunch of time open so that stuff is pretty dynamic — I can wake up in the morning and be like, ‘OK, I need to work on these three things today, and I want to make sure I have a block of time where I can go do that.’” Video source: Stripe (2025)

Startup Archive

326,029 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."

Patrick OShaughnessy

24,818 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI co-founder, on why the company that builds AGI shouldn't be chasing infinite profits: Speaking on the No Priors podcast, Ilya Sutskever turns a question on the very technology he's working to build. "If you believe that the technology that we are building, AGI, could potentially be so capable as to do every single task that people do... does it mean that it might unemploy everyone? Well, I don't know, but it's not impossible." From that possibility, Ilya Sutskever draws a conclusion about how such a company should be structured: "And if that's the case, it makes sense. It will make a lot of sense if the company that builds such a technology would not be incentivized to make infinite profits." But he doesn't present this as a settled view. He immediately points to the force that complicates it — competition: "I don't know if it will literally play out this way because of competition in AI. So there will be multiple companies and I think that will have some unforeseen implications on the argument which I'm making. But that was the thinking." His point is simple: if AGI can do everything a person can, it might put people out of work on a massive scale, and that changes things.

Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI co-founder, on why the company that builds AGI shouldn't be chasing infinite profits: Speaking on the No Priors podcast, Ilya Sutskever turns a question on the very technology he's working to build. "If you believe that the technology that we are building, AGI, could potentially be so capable as to do every single task that people do... does it mean that it might unemploy everyone? Well, I don't know, but it's not impossible." From that possibility, Ilya Sutskever draws a conclusion about how such a company should be structured: "And if that's the case, it makes sense. It will make a lot of sense if the company that builds such a technology would not be incentivized to make infinite profits." But he doesn't present this as a settled view. He immediately points to the force that complicates it — competition: "I don't know if it will literally play out this way because of competition in AI. So there will be multiple companies and I think that will have some unforeseen implications on the argument which I'm making. But that was the thinking." His point is simple: if AGI can do everything a person can, it might put people out of work on a massive scale, and that changes things.

Big Brain AI

13,398 просмотров • 23 дней назад

Jed York was asked if he feels like he owes it to the core of 49ers that are 30+ years old, to be active in free agency to try and “go for it” since they sat out free agency last year: “I think we always go for it. Free agency — I don’t know that it’s all cracked up to be. If there’s somebody we think is an impact player, we’ll add that person. Trent Williams was a third round trade. Not a massive decision to go make that trade, but a massive impact to our team. I don’t know what the haul of picks there were that we traded for Christian McCaffrey, but we traded a lot of picks. When those type of things come up, we will do what we can to add impact players to our roster. We’re always going to be evaluating free agency, but just spending money to spend money in free agency doesn’t necessarily make the team better.” via: Alex Sherman

Jed York was asked if he feels like he owes it to the core of 49ers that are 30+ years old, to be active in free agency to try and “go for it” since they sat out free agency last year: “I think we always go for it. Free agency — I don’t know that it’s all cracked up to be. If there’s somebody we think is an impact player, we’ll add that person. Trent Williams was a third round trade. Not a massive decision to go make that trade, but a massive impact to our team. I don’t know what the haul of picks there were that we traded for Christian McCaffrey, but we traded a lot of picks. When those type of things come up, we will do what we can to add impact players to our roster. We’re always going to be evaluating free agency, but just spending money to spend money in free agency doesn’t necessarily make the team better.” via: Alex Sherman

Coach Yac 🗣

78,248 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

🚨 NEW: Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, discusses the definition of consciousness in AI and states that AI will generate the majority of the worlds future knowledge “In the future, maybe in a couple of years, 90% of the world’s knowledge will likely be generated by AI. And that’s fine. What difference does it make to me that I’m learning from a textbook that was generated by a bunch of people I don’t know? Versus knowledge from computers that are simulating all of these things? I don’t think there’s much of a difference. We still have to fact check it and make sure it’s based on first principles, just like we do today.”

🚨 NEW: Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, discusses the definition of consciousness in AI and states that AI will generate the majority of the worlds future knowledge “In the future, maybe in a couple of years, 90% of the world’s knowledge will likely be generated by AI. And that’s fine. What difference does it make to me that I’m learning from a textbook that was generated by a bunch of people I don’t know? Versus knowledge from computers that are simulating all of these things? I don’t think there’s much of a difference. We still have to fact check it and make sure it’s based on first principles, just like we do today.”

Autism Capital 🧩

47,929 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Iran, Strait of Hormuz: "They’re going to be open one way or the other. So they need to be open, what’s happening there is unlawful, it’s illegal, it’s unsustainable for the world, it’s unacceptable. I don’t know of any country in the world that does. The Russians are not in favor of a tolling system, the Chinese are not in favor of a tolling system. I mean, there’s no country in the world that’s in favor of a tolling system, except for the regime in Iran. So that’s not acceptable, that cannot happen. The straits need to be open, unimpeded, without tools. And obviously that needs to happen immediately as soon as anything is agreed to. Well, look, I think our position is well stated. The president had a very important, I think, historic call just a couple days ago with a number of leaders from the region. I think there’s strong alignment and agreement on what a preliminary draft should look like. I think like anything with something like this, it’s going to take a couple days to settle on, even down to the disagreements over a word sentence. So we’ll have to work through that. If there’s going to be a deal, we’re going to have to work through that. But this is, you know, it’s either going to be a good deal or there isn’t going to be one."

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Iran, Strait of Hormuz: "They’re going to be open one way or the other. So they need to be open, what’s happening there is unlawful, it’s illegal, it’s unsustainable for the world, it’s unacceptable. I don’t know of any country in the world that does. The Russians are not in favor of a tolling system, the Chinese are not in favor of a tolling system. I mean, there’s no country in the world that’s in favor of a tolling system, except for the regime in Iran. So that’s not acceptable, that cannot happen. The straits need to be open, unimpeded, without tools. And obviously that needs to happen immediately as soon as anything is agreed to. Well, look, I think our position is well stated. The president had a very important, I think, historic call just a couple days ago with a number of leaders from the region. I think there’s strong alignment and agreement on what a preliminary draft should look like. I think like anything with something like this, it’s going to take a couple days to settle on, even down to the disagreements over a word sentence. So we’ll have to work through that. If there’s going to be a deal, we’re going to have to work through that. But this is, you know, it’s either going to be a good deal or there isn’t going to be one."

Open Source Intel

258,148 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Greg Brockman talks about when OpenAI first realized that AGI can't be achieved with "Non-Profit" status and the decided to abandon its Non-Profit roots. "In 2017, we started to think very hard about, first of all, how do we really achieve the mission? How do we actually build an AGI? What will that look like? And we started to do the math on compute. You start to realize that it is going to take a big computer. We came across a company called Cerebras, which was building a unique piece of computing hardware. The kind of computer that they were promising, we realized, was going to be far advanced from where our compute calculations looked. As you start to realize, if we could buy a lot of those computers, we could actually probably succeed at building an AGI. If we could get exclusive access to Cerebras, that could give us an overwhelming advantage. If we could buy very large data centers, that could be something unique as well. The thing about nonprofit fundraising is that I think there is essentially a cap to what is possible there. And so Elon, Sam, Ilya, and I all agreed that the only path forward for OpenAI, and the only path to achieve the mission, was to create a for-profit entity associated with OpenAI in some form. And so, we were committed to that direction. That is something that we knew was the only way to achieve the mission." --- From "The Knowledge Project Podcast" YT Channel (link in comment)

Greg Brockman talks about when OpenAI first realized that AGI can't be achieved with "Non-Profit" status and the decided to abandon its Non-Profit roots. "In 2017, we started to think very hard about, first of all, how do we really achieve the mission? How do we actually build an AGI? What will that look like? And we started to do the math on compute. You start to realize that it is going to take a big computer. We came across a company called Cerebras, which was building a unique piece of computing hardware. The kind of computer that they were promising, we realized, was going to be far advanced from where our compute calculations looked. As you start to realize, if we could buy a lot of those computers, we could actually probably succeed at building an AGI. If we could get exclusive access to Cerebras, that could give us an overwhelming advantage. If we could buy very large data centers, that could be something unique as well. The thing about nonprofit fundraising is that I think there is essentially a cap to what is possible there. And so Elon, Sam, Ilya, and I all agreed that the only path forward for OpenAI, and the only path to achieve the mission, was to create a for-profit entity associated with OpenAI in some form. And so, we were committed to that direction. That is something that we knew was the only way to achieve the mission." --- From "The Knowledge Project Podcast" YT Channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

10,204 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

ELON: AI WILL SOON BE SMARTER THAN HUMANS IN EVERY WAY WITH AGI Elon warned that the age of artificial general intelligence is near, saying humans will soon no longer be the smartest beings on Earth. He said AGI will surpass human capability entirely and could even replicate human thought and behavior: “Well, I mean, humans have been the smartest creature on Earth for a long time, and that is going to change with what’s typically called artificial general intelligence. This is an AI that is smarter than a human in every way and could even simulate a human.” Source: Axel Springer Award

ELON: AI WILL SOON BE SMARTER THAN HUMANS IN EVERY WAY WITH AGI Elon warned that the age of artificial general intelligence is near, saying humans will soon no longer be the smartest beings on Earth. He said AGI will surpass human capability entirely and could even replicate human thought and behavior: “Well, I mean, humans have been the smartest creature on Earth for a long time, and that is going to change with what’s typically called artificial general intelligence. This is an AI that is smarter than a human in every way and could even simulate a human.” Source: Axel Springer Award

Mario Nawfal

78,877 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Mark Zuckerberg on why he prefers to recruit people directly out of college In this interview from 2005, a 21-year-old Mark Zuckerberg is asked what he looks for in a new hire. There’s two things, he says. “Number one is raw intelligence. You can hire someone who has been doing software engineering for 10 years, and if they’ve been doing it for 10 years, that’s probably what they’ll be doing for the rest of their life. That’s cool — there are some things that that person can do and they’re definitely useful in an organization and can do a lot of stuff. But if you find someone whose raw intelligence exceeds theirs but has 10 years less experience, they can probably adapt and learn way quicker. Within a very short amount of time they’ll be able to do a lot of things that [the person with 10 years of experience] will never be able to do. So that’s the most important thing that I look for.” The second thing he looks for is alignment with what the company is trying to do: “People can be really smart or have skills that are directly applicable, but if they don’t really believe in it, then they’re not going to work hard or care enough to develop the relevant experience in order to succeed. The best people I’ve hired so far have been people who didn’t really have that much engineering experience. I hired a couple of electric engineers out of Stanford to do programming stuff, and they had very little programming experience going in, but they were really smart and really willing to go at it. The guy who just wrote photos was one of those guys, and if you’re willing to just do whatever it takes to get photos out, then you’re probably more valuable than someone who is just a career software engineer.” He concludes: “Those are the things I’m looking for and why I would rather recruit people out of college.” Video source: Stanford eCorner (2005)

Mark Zuckerberg on why he prefers to recruit people directly out of college In this interview from 2005, a 21-year-old Mark Zuckerberg is asked what he looks for in a new hire. There’s two things, he says. “Number one is raw intelligence. You can hire someone who has been doing software engineering for 10 years, and if they’ve been doing it for 10 years, that’s probably what they’ll be doing for the rest of their life. That’s cool — there are some things that that person can do and they’re definitely useful in an organization and can do a lot of stuff. But if you find someone whose raw intelligence exceeds theirs but has 10 years less experience, they can probably adapt and learn way quicker. Within a very short amount of time they’ll be able to do a lot of things that [the person with 10 years of experience] will never be able to do. So that’s the most important thing that I look for.” The second thing he looks for is alignment with what the company is trying to do: “People can be really smart or have skills that are directly applicable, but if they don’t really believe in it, then they’re not going to work hard or care enough to develop the relevant experience in order to succeed. The best people I’ve hired so far have been people who didn’t really have that much engineering experience. I hired a couple of electric engineers out of Stanford to do programming stuff, and they had very little programming experience going in, but they were really smart and really willing to go at it. The guy who just wrote photos was one of those guys, and if you’re willing to just do whatever it takes to get photos out, then you’re probably more valuable than someone who is just a career software engineer.” He concludes: “Those are the things I’m looking for and why I would rather recruit people out of college.” Video source: Stanford eCorner (2005)

Startup Archive

54,696 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад