正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Jordan Peterson explains Hayek’s “knowledge problem” argument “The proposition that central planning will work is the proposition that you can substitute one expert mind for a million distributed expert minds.” “That’s obviously not the case, because each person is going to have knowledge that pertains to their locality that... show more

F. A. Hayek Quotes

33,553 subscribers

76,166 次观看 • 5 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Interviewer: The Kremlin is claiming that Ukraine is trying to get a nuclear weapon via Britain and France. Is that the case? Zelensky: I didn’t have proposition… but with pleasure. Interviewer: So we can put that to bed. That’s not happening at all? Zelensky: No. It’s not happening.

Interviewer: The Kremlin is claiming that Ukraine is trying to get a nuclear weapon via Britain and France. Is that the case? Zelensky: I didn’t have proposition… but with pleasure. Interviewer: So we can put that to bed. That’s not happening at all? Zelensky: No. It’s not happening.

Clash Report

153,041 次观看 • 6 个月前

The country is now engaged in a great trial, of the proposition that we are a nation of laws, and the rule of law applies to everyone. Jim Jordan believes that it should not apply to the leader of his party. That is a different proposition. And it is called, dictatorship.

The country is now engaged in a great trial, of the proposition that we are a nation of laws, and the rule of law applies to everyone. Jim Jordan believes that it should not apply to the leader of his party. That is a different proposition. And it is called, dictatorship.

Senator Adam Schiff

448,772 次观看 • 3 年前

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

.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 次观看 • 2 年前

Elon Musk: “You’d think that if you’re going to be appointed as a judge, you have to have proven that you have an excellent knowledge of the law and that you will make your decisions according to the law. That’s what we assume should be a requirement. You’ve got to know what the law is, and then you need to make decisions in accordance with the law. Not vibes. You can’t be just vibing as a judge.”

Elon Musk: “You’d think that if you’re going to be appointed as a judge, you have to have proven that you have an excellent knowledge of the law and that you will make your decisions according to the law. That’s what we assume should be a requirement. You’ve got to know what the law is, and then you need to make decisions in accordance with the law. Not vibes. You can’t be just vibing as a judge.”

Mars University

13,099,590 次观看 • 5 个月前

The fastest way to make a million dollars is to solve a problem for people. People pay you because you saved them time, money and make their lives more productive. Find a pain point that you know everyone has and then provide a product or service that solves for that.

The fastest way to make a million dollars is to solve a problem for people. People pay you because you saved them time, money and make their lives more productive. Find a pain point that you know everyone has and then provide a product or service that solves for that.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

193,466 次观看 • 4 个月前

SITUATION EXPLAINED: Thinking Machines just published their mission statement. • Mission: build AI that extends human will and judgment, not replaces it • The tacit knowledge argument: central planning fails not because of insufficient intelligence but because productive knowledge is local, fleeting, and held privately, the same reason a single AI alignment spec will fail • The "intelligence curse": power that needs nothing from people loses the incentive to care for their needs. A single locus of AI value alignment becomes a locus of power to be captured • Decentralized alignment: human values resist consolidation just like human knowledge does... today the values and voice of AI are decided in a handful of places, and that's dangerous • Today each lab trains its next flagship model on its previous one... whatever character emerges from that loop, everyone gets the same one, each generation inheriting the traits of the last • Their answer: AI that is more capable because it encourages human participation... alignment that arises from diverse AIs shaped by the people who own them sof 𓋹: "This is going to be very soon the winning narrative. People are gonna get so sick of hearing super intelligent stuff because they're like, I don't see anything that proves that right now. All this messaging is just gonna start becoming like, oh, make you the best human, make you a superhuman, make you awesome." Theo Jaffee: "I think it's a way better vision for AI to be customized to people in different organizations rather than to have just one Claude that is the same everywhere. Kind of like a deity."

SITUATION EXPLAINED: Thinking Machines just published their mission statement. • Mission: build AI that extends human will and judgment, not replaces it • The tacit knowledge argument: central planning fails not because of insufficient intelligence but because productive knowledge is local, fleeting, and held privately, the same reason a single AI alignment spec will fail • The "intelligence curse": power that needs nothing from people loses the incentive to care for their needs. A single locus of AI value alignment becomes a locus of power to be captured • Decentralized alignment: human values resist consolidation just like human knowledge does... today the values and voice of AI are decided in a handful of places, and that's dangerous • Today each lab trains its next flagship model on its previous one... whatever character emerges from that loop, everyone gets the same one, each generation inheriting the traits of the last • Their answer: AI that is more capable because it encourages human participation... alignment that arises from diverse AIs shaped by the people who own them sof 𓋹: "This is going to be very soon the winning narrative. People are gonna get so sick of hearing super intelligent stuff because they're like, I don't see anything that proves that right now. All this messaging is just gonna start becoming like, oh, make you the best human, make you a superhuman, make you awesome." Theo Jaffee: "I think it's a way better vision for AI to be customized to people in different organizations rather than to have just one Claude that is the same everywhere. Kind of like a deity."

MTS

14,305 次观看 • 2 个月前

.Naval: You have a beautiful definition of knowledge, which most people don’t even try to tackle, about how knowledge perpetuates itself in the environment. You gave some really good examples. One was around genes. Successful, highly adapted genes contain a lot of knowledge and can cause themselves to be replicated because they’re survivors. In the same way, knowledge itself is a survivor, in that if you transmit to me the knowledge of how to build a computer, it’s an incredibly useful thing. I’m going to build more and more computers and that knowledge will be passed on. Your underlying point that you repeated here was if you want to understand the physical universe you have to understand knowledge, because it is the thing that over time takes over and changes more and more the universe—more than almost anything else. You have to understand all the explanations behind it. You can’t just say “particle collisions” because that explains everything, so it explains nothing. It’s not a useful level to operate at. Therefore, the things that create knowledge are uniquely influential in the universe. And as far as we know, there are only two systems that create knowledge. There’s evolution and there are humans. But is there a difference even between these two forms of knowledge creation, between evolution and between humans? David Deutsch: Yes. I have argued that the human way of creating knowledge is the ultimate one, that there aren’t any more powerful ones than that. This is the argument against the supernatural. Assuming that there is a form of knowledge creation that’s more powerful than ours is equivalent to invoking the supernatural, which is therefore a bad explanation—as invoking the supernatural always is. The difference between biological evolution and human creative thought is that biological evolution is inherently limited in its range. That’s because biological evolution has no foresight. It can’t see a problem and conjecture a solution. Whenever biological evolution produces a solution to something, it’s always before natural selection has even begun. This is Charles Darwin’s insight. This is the difference between Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the other theories of evolution that had been around for a century or more before that, including Charles Darwin’s grandfather and Lamarck. The thing they didn’t get is that the creation of knowledge in evolution begins before. That means that biological evolution can’t reach places that are not reachable by successive improvements, each of which allows a viable organism to exist. Creationists say that biological evolution has, in fact, reached things that are not reachable by incremental steps, each of which is a viable organism. They’re factually mistaken. The thing which they have in mind is the idea of a creator who can imagine things that don’t exist and who can create an idea that is not the culmination of a whole load of viable things. A thinking being can create something that’s a culmination of a whole load of non-viable things. Explanatory creativity makes humans unique Out of all the billions and billions of species that have ever existed, none of them has ever made a campfire, even though many of them would’ve been helped by having the genetic capacity to make campfires. The reason it didn’t happen in the biosphere is that there is no such thing as making a partially functional campfire; whereas there is, for example, with making hot water. The bombardier beetles squirt boiling water at their enemies. You can easily see that just squirting cold water at your enemies is not totally unhelpful. Then making it a bit hotter and a bit hotter. Squirting boiling water no doubt required many adaptations to make sure the beetle didn’t boil itself while it was making this boiling water. That happened because there was a sequence of steps in between, all of which were useful. But with campfires, it’s very hard to see how that could happen. Humans have explanatory creativity. Once you have that, you can get to the moon. You can cause asteroids which are heading towards the earth to turn around and go away. Perhaps no other planet in the universe has that power, and it has it only because of the presence of explanatory creativity on it.

.Naval: You have a beautiful definition of knowledge, which most people don’t even try to tackle, about how knowledge perpetuates itself in the environment. You gave some really good examples. One was around genes. Successful, highly adapted genes contain a lot of knowledge and can cause themselves to be replicated because they’re survivors. In the same way, knowledge itself is a survivor, in that if you transmit to me the knowledge of how to build a computer, it’s an incredibly useful thing. I’m going to build more and more computers and that knowledge will be passed on. Your underlying point that you repeated here was if you want to understand the physical universe you have to understand knowledge, because it is the thing that over time takes over and changes more and more the universe—more than almost anything else. You have to understand all the explanations behind it. You can’t just say “particle collisions” because that explains everything, so it explains nothing. It’s not a useful level to operate at. Therefore, the things that create knowledge are uniquely influential in the universe. And as far as we know, there are only two systems that create knowledge. There’s evolution and there are humans. But is there a difference even between these two forms of knowledge creation, between evolution and between humans? David Deutsch: Yes. I have argued that the human way of creating knowledge is the ultimate one, that there aren’t any more powerful ones than that. This is the argument against the supernatural. Assuming that there is a form of knowledge creation that’s more powerful than ours is equivalent to invoking the supernatural, which is therefore a bad explanation—as invoking the supernatural always is. The difference between biological evolution and human creative thought is that biological evolution is inherently limited in its range. That’s because biological evolution has no foresight. It can’t see a problem and conjecture a solution. Whenever biological evolution produces a solution to something, it’s always before natural selection has even begun. This is Charles Darwin’s insight. This is the difference between Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the other theories of evolution that had been around for a century or more before that, including Charles Darwin’s grandfather and Lamarck. The thing they didn’t get is that the creation of knowledge in evolution begins before. That means that biological evolution can’t reach places that are not reachable by successive improvements, each of which allows a viable organism to exist. Creationists say that biological evolution has, in fact, reached things that are not reachable by incremental steps, each of which is a viable organism. They’re factually mistaken. The thing which they have in mind is the idea of a creator who can imagine things that don’t exist and who can create an idea that is not the culmination of a whole load of viable things. A thinking being can create something that’s a culmination of a whole load of non-viable things. Explanatory creativity makes humans unique Out of all the billions and billions of species that have ever existed, none of them has ever made a campfire, even though many of them would’ve been helped by having the genetic capacity to make campfires. The reason it didn’t happen in the biosphere is that there is no such thing as making a partially functional campfire; whereas there is, for example, with making hot water. The bombardier beetles squirt boiling water at their enemies. You can easily see that just squirting cold water at your enemies is not totally unhelpful. Then making it a bit hotter and a bit hotter. Squirting boiling water no doubt required many adaptations to make sure the beetle didn’t boil itself while it was making this boiling water. That happened because there was a sequence of steps in between, all of which were useful. But with campfires, it’s very hard to see how that could happen. Humans have explanatory creativity. Once you have that, you can get to the moon. You can cause asteroids which are heading towards the earth to turn around and go away. Perhaps no other planet in the universe has that power, and it has it only because of the presence of explanatory creativity on it.

Deutsch Explains

186,454 次观看 • 1 年前

The most important question about any decision isn’t who’s smart enough to make it, but who actually has the knowledge to make it. In 1945, Friedrich Hayek pointed out that most of what we need to know to make good decisions is never written down anywhere. It’s scattered in millions of people’s heads, about local prices, preferences, and circumstances that no single expert could ever collect. Then in 1980, Thomas Sowell expanded that idea into a full theory in “Knowledge and Decisions”. Hayek himself called it one of the best explanations of his own work. Sowell’s point is that political and legal systems concentrate decisions in a few “articulate” people, while markets let millions of people with direct knowledge decide for themselves. Intentions are irrelevant. The question is who actually knows enough and who pays the price when they’re wrong.

The most important question about any decision isn’t who’s smart enough to make it, but who actually has the knowledge to make it. In 1945, Friedrich Hayek pointed out that most of what we need to know to make good decisions is never written down anywhere. It’s scattered in millions of people’s heads, about local prices, preferences, and circumstances that no single expert could ever collect. Then in 1980, Thomas Sowell expanded that idea into a full theory in “Knowledge and Decisions”. Hayek himself called it one of the best explanations of his own work. Sowell’s point is that political and legal systems concentrate decisions in a few “articulate” people, while markets let millions of people with direct knowledge decide for themselves. Intentions are irrelevant. The question is who actually knows enough and who pays the price when they’re wrong.

Rothmus 🏴

22,837 次观看 • 1 个月前

The best way to make money today is to take advantage of the knowledge gap between the young and the old. Once that gap is filled. Once EVERYONE is using A.I. to solve their own problems? It’s over.

The best way to make money today is to take advantage of the knowledge gap between the young and the old. Once that gap is filled. Once EVERYONE is using A.I. to solve their own problems? It’s over.

Andrew Tate

209,740 次观看 • 7 个月前

“You start to realize that if you make it all about winning and losing for your players, then that means that the only thing that matters in their life is winning and losing. There’s so much to win at, so much to learn. It’s fun coming to work everyday because it’s not work,” Geno Auriemma

“You start to realize that if you make it all about winning and losing for your players, then that means that the only thing that matters in their life is winning and losing. There’s so much to win at, so much to learn. It’s fun coming to work everyday because it’s not work,” Geno Auriemma

The Winning Difference

20,198 次观看 • 7 个月前

I’m sure everyone who stats-trolled Aella over the years will be happy to see that she now seems to have a much better grasp of how science and the growth of knowledge work than the average redpill guy. The hypothetico-deductive method and it’s consequences

I’m sure everyone who stats-trolled Aella over the years will be happy to see that she now seems to have a much better grasp of how science and the growth of knowledge work than the average redpill guy. The hypothetico-deductive method and it’s consequences

Rota 🚪🧎‍♂️

6,305,129 次观看 • 1 年前

.@seckennedy: "We're going to drive that knowledge and that system across the country, so that every American can get affordable, high quality food accessible."

.@seckennedy: "We're going to drive that knowledge and that system across the country, so that every American can get affordable, high quality food accessible."

HHS Rapid Response

29,903 次观看 • 7 个月前

I’m not sure what the point of this is, but it’s a good time to remind everyone that too much sugar will make you obese and diabetic. That’s best case scenario. Worst case, it feeds cancer.

I’m not sure what the point of this is, but it’s a good time to remind everyone that too much sugar will make you obese and diabetic. That’s best case scenario. Worst case, it feeds cancer.

ⱤɆ₳Ⱡ ฿Ɇ₦

279,702 次观看 • 2 个月前

The mental aspect of football shouldn’t be forgotten. To win, you have to believe you can win. Use your mind, remember your coaching and bring that to the field. At QB Collective, football minds like Brian Baldinger provide trusted knowledge and a passion to share that knowledge.

The mental aspect of football shouldn’t be forgotten. To win, you have to believe you can win. Use your mind, remember your coaching and bring that to the field. At QB Collective, football minds like Brian Baldinger provide trusted knowledge and a passion to share that knowledge.

COLLECTIVE FOOTBALL

32,710 次观看 • 1 年前

Kim Goeun: “I don’t think this job is something that I can do alone. That's why I believe the most important thing right now is to have mindset that I’m working on the set together with everyone, not just me. Each person has their own role and being expert in their own field, and their contribution should be respected. I want to continue to cherish the job that I’ve chosen to do with the mindset that we are all part of the work”

Kim Goeun: “I don’t think this job is something that I can do alone. That's why I believe the most important thing right now is to have mindset that I’m working on the set together with everyone, not just me. Each person has their own role and being expert in their own field, and their contribution should be respected. I want to continue to cherish the job that I’ve chosen to do with the mindset that we are all part of the work”

tan🫐

38,618 次观看 • 1 年前

CIA Director Ratcliffe credits President Trump’s leadership: "I know that the confidence of CIA's officers is boosted by the knowledge that their work is informing a president who’s not afraid to make the hardest decisions when the stakes are highest."

CIA Director Ratcliffe credits President Trump’s leadership: "I know that the confidence of CIA's officers is boosted by the knowledge that their work is informing a president who’s not afraid to make the hardest decisions when the stakes are highest."

Trump War Room

39,327 次观看 • 5 个月前