Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Marc Andreessen says raw intelligence might be the worst qualification for leadership — and it changes everything about how we should think about AI. "If the leader is more than one standard deviation of IQ away from the followers, it's a real problem." Andreessen points to the US military,... one of the earliest and most rigorous adopters of IQ testing, as the source of this insight. They slot people into specialties and leadership roles based on IQ scores. And over the years, they kept seeing the same pattern. A leader who is significantly less intelligent than their people struggles to model how those people think. That part is intuitive. But the reverse turns out to be equally true. "It's actually very hard for very smart people to model the internal thought processes of even moderately smart people." A leader who is two standard deviations above the norm of the organisation they're running also loses theory of mind, that ability to hold an accurate model of what's happening inside someone else's head. The gap is too wide in both directions. Andreessen then takes this to its logical conclusion: "If you had a person or a machine that had a thousand IQ or something like it, its understanding of reality would be so alien to the people or the things that it was managing that it wouldn't even be able to connect in any sort of realistic way." An AI that vastly outthinks every human in the room isn't positioned to lead those humans. It's positioned to be completely incomprehensible to them. Leadership has never really been an intelligence problem. It's a connection problem. And no amount of raw intelligence closes that gap — past a certain point, it only widens it. The world will not be run by the smartest thing in the room for a long time. Maybe ever.show more

Big Brain AI

15,497 subscribers

366,029 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Education News & Politics Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Marc Andreessen posted that "High IQ experts work for mid IQ generalists." We asked him to elaborate. "So I think two things are true: One is we all underrate the importance of intelligence." "Even just the very idea that some people are smarter than other people just really freaks people out, and people don't like to talk about it. And we really struggle with that as a society." "On the other hand, the people who are in the fields that involve intelligence probably overrate intelligence. And you might even coin a term like maybe 'intelligence supremacist' or something like that." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 Erik Torenberg

Marc Andreessen posted that "High IQ experts work for mid IQ generalists." We asked him to elaborate. "So I think two things are true: One is we all underrate the importance of intelligence." "Even just the very idea that some people are smarter than other people just really freaks people out, and people don't like to talk about it. And we really struggle with that as a society." "On the other hand, the people who are in the fields that involve intelligence probably overrate intelligence. And you might even coin a term like maybe 'intelligence supremacist' or something like that." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 Erik Torenberg

a16z

456,354 views • 9 months ago

Marc Andreessen says AI is hyper democratizing. “Is the future of the world going to be one or a small number of companies, or for that matter, governments or super AIs that kind of own and control everything?” “Or is this a technology that's going to diffuse out and be in everybody's hands?” “This is the time in which AI is actually hyper democratizing. It has spread to more individuals, both in the country and around the world in the shortest period of time of any new technology I think in history.” “The best AIs in the world are in the consumer products.” “This technology is going to be in everybody's hands. And everybody is going to be able to use it to optimize the things that they do, have it be a thought partner, assistant for building companies.” Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸

Marc Andreessen says AI is hyper democratizing. “Is the future of the world going to be one or a small number of companies, or for that matter, governments or super AIs that kind of own and control everything?” “Or is this a technology that's going to diffuse out and be in everybody's hands?” “This is the time in which AI is actually hyper democratizing. It has spread to more individuals, both in the country and around the world in the shortest period of time of any new technology I think in history.” “The best AIs in the world are in the consumer products.” “This technology is going to be in everybody's hands. And everybody is going to be able to use it to optimize the things that they do, have it be a thought partner, assistant for building companies.” Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸

a16z

79,935 views • 9 months ago

Gary Lineker on Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, "One of the most important films I've ever seen. Certainly the most moving" "It needed to be seen. It really did need to be seen" "I think the BBC should hold it's head in shame, I really do" "As somebody who worked for the BBC for 30 years, to see the way it's declined in the last year or two, it's been devastating" "I defended the BBC and defended the BBC against claims that its impartial" "The BBC talks about impartiality all the time" "The truth is, at this very moment at the very top of the BBC. Not the thousands of people who work at the BBC who are good people that understand what is going on here" "We can see it, we see it on our phones every day" "The problem is they're bowing to the pressure from the top" "This is a worry" "I think the time is coming where a lot of people are going to be answerable to this. And complicity is something that will come to many"

Gary Lineker on Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, "One of the most important films I've ever seen. Certainly the most moving" "It needed to be seen. It really did need to be seen" "I think the BBC should hold it's head in shame, I really do" "As somebody who worked for the BBC for 30 years, to see the way it's declined in the last year or two, it's been devastating" "I defended the BBC and defended the BBC against claims that its impartial" "The BBC talks about impartiality all the time" "The truth is, at this very moment at the very top of the BBC. Not the thousands of people who work at the BBC who are good people that understand what is going on here" "We can see it, we see it on our phones every day" "The problem is they're bowing to the pressure from the top" "This is a worry" "I think the time is coming where a lot of people are going to be answerable to this. And complicity is something that will come to many"

Farrukh

16,402 views • 1 year ago

We asked Marc Andreessen what he thought about the UFO file drop today. "I want to believe. I haven't seen the one yet that tipped me over." "I think, if you could build up a UFO cult around something, then you make any investigation into that topic something that people feel like they can't do." "I think for a long time a lot of pilots didn't want to report what they had seen because they didn't wanna be viewed that they were UFO nuts." "And of course, if there are actually UFOs out there, that is a very big problem... if the Chinese are testing some sort of new advanced high-speed drone or something you want the pilots to be able to report that even if they think that it might get mischaracterized as a UFO." "The new media environment is extremely conducive to the spread of every UFO theory in the world." "It's also extremely conducive to the spread of propaganda campaigns if you wanted to hide real information by spreading propaganda." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 Erik Torenberg

We asked Marc Andreessen what he thought about the UFO file drop today. "I want to believe. I haven't seen the one yet that tipped me over." "I think, if you could build up a UFO cult around something, then you make any investigation into that topic something that people feel like they can't do." "I think for a long time a lot of pilots didn't want to report what they had seen because they didn't wanna be viewed that they were UFO nuts." "And of course, if there are actually UFOs out there, that is a very big problem... if the Chinese are testing some sort of new advanced high-speed drone or something you want the pilots to be able to report that even if they think that it might get mischaracterized as a UFO." "The new media environment is extremely conducive to the spread of every UFO theory in the world." "It's also extremely conducive to the spread of propaganda campaigns if you wanted to hide real information by spreading propaganda." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 Erik Torenberg

MTS

35,789 views • 3 months ago

Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, says every company now runs on two kinds of capital, and leaking one of them is a one-way door: "This economy is going to be shaped going forward by both human capital and, let's call it, this token capital. That is true for Microsoft, that is true for a new startup, that's going to be true for any bank that's been in existence for 100 years." "The interplay between human capital and token capital, and compounding the returns of it, is what you need to do." "What is the tacit knowledge of an enterprise or a firm? It's the unique ways that you're able to operate, pass judgment, have taste." "The model, in some sense, is able to extract that tacit knowledge through human trajectories, and then code it in a set of weights in a model." "Every enterprise now needs to be more mindful about that interplay of humans and their digital estate working together, those trajectories training the models that they keep as IP versus leak it." "Because if you leak it, it's a one-way door. You're done in some sense." The moat was never the data sitting in your warehouse. It was the judgment your people apply to it, and AI now turns that judgment into weights you either own or hand away. Treat your tacit knowledge like a patent, not a prompt. The firms that pipe a hundred years of taste into someone else's frontier model are trading a permanent edge for a quarter of convenience.

Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, says every company now runs on two kinds of capital, and leaking one of them is a one-way door: "This economy is going to be shaped going forward by both human capital and, let's call it, this token capital. That is true for Microsoft, that is true for a new startup, that's going to be true for any bank that's been in existence for 100 years." "The interplay between human capital and token capital, and compounding the returns of it, is what you need to do." "What is the tacit knowledge of an enterprise or a firm? It's the unique ways that you're able to operate, pass judgment, have taste." "The model, in some sense, is able to extract that tacit knowledge through human trajectories, and then code it in a set of weights in a model." "Every enterprise now needs to be more mindful about that interplay of humans and their digital estate working together, those trajectories training the models that they keep as IP versus leak it." "Because if you leak it, it's a one-way door. You're done in some sense." The moat was never the data sitting in your warehouse. It was the judgment your people apply to it, and AI now turns that judgment into weights you either own or hand away. Treat your tacit knowledge like a patent, not a prompt. The firms that pipe a hundred years of taste into someone else's frontier model are trading a permanent edge for a quarter of convenience.

Karl Mehta

34,573 views • 1 month ago

Peter Jackson talks about AI in Hollywood. Calls it “a tool” like stop-motion or CGI before and what ultimately matters is “imagination, originality” of whoever uses the tool: “I think AI — used in the right way — is a tool like any other tool. [The original] King Kong…was stop-motion and done by a person moving a rubber creature. Why shouldn't somebody on a computer using AI software be able to create their own imagery? They should. It's a tool. It's no different from many other tools that have existed over the years. But the other side of it is that it's always going to come down to the imagination and originality of the person feeding the instructions into the AI program. It's not that you're going to type in an instruction and it's going to generate your shot, and that's that. The question is: is it actually interesting? Is it funny? Is it imaginative? And are you going to stitch it together to make a narrative, a story? Some people will make really great films that way. Some people will do exactly the same process and their film will be crap, just like in the normal film industry. Whether it's AI or anything else, it comes down to whether the person behind it — or the people behind it — have originality, imagination, and an ability to entertain people.”

Peter Jackson talks about AI in Hollywood. Calls it “a tool” like stop-motion or CGI before and what ultimately matters is “imagination, originality” of whoever uses the tool: “I think AI — used in the right way — is a tool like any other tool. [The original] King Kong…was stop-motion and done by a person moving a rubber creature. Why shouldn't somebody on a computer using AI software be able to create their own imagery? They should. It's a tool. It's no different from many other tools that have existed over the years. But the other side of it is that it's always going to come down to the imagination and originality of the person feeding the instructions into the AI program. It's not that you're going to type in an instruction and it's going to generate your shot, and that's that. The question is: is it actually interesting? Is it funny? Is it imaginative? And are you going to stitch it together to make a narrative, a story? Some people will make really great films that way. Some people will do exactly the same process and their film will be crap, just like in the normal film industry. Whether it's AI or anything else, it comes down to whether the person behind it — or the people behind it — have originality, imagination, and an ability to entertain people.”

Bearly AI

43,816 views • 2 months ago

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump is ROASTING the Biden administration while taking a victory lap on historic peace in the Middle East "We're going to get a lot of people joining the Abraham Accords...you had the Biden administration, which is the WORST administration in the history of our country." "And obviously, they did NOTHING on that, and anything else." "A lot of people, even today, they're talking about all joining up. So, so many people have talked to me about that, and it's going to be a great tribute to really the United States." "I mean, the United States has worked very hard in the Middle East, so it would be a tribute to us, and to Jared [Kushner], and to Steve [Witkoff], and to all of the people, Marco - all of the people that have worked so hard on that." "And it really is going to bring - it's going to guarantee that it all stays together." It's insane to think about. They really did NOTHING for peace across 4 whole years. Then compare it to the last 9 months.

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump is ROASTING the Biden administration while taking a victory lap on historic peace in the Middle East "We're going to get a lot of people joining the Abraham Accords...you had the Biden administration, which is the WORST administration in the history of our country." "And obviously, they did NOTHING on that, and anything else." "A lot of people, even today, they're talking about all joining up. So, so many people have talked to me about that, and it's going to be a great tribute to really the United States." "I mean, the United States has worked very hard in the Middle East, so it would be a tribute to us, and to Jared [Kushner], and to Steve [Witkoff], and to all of the people, Marco - all of the people that have worked so hard on that." "And it really is going to bring - it's going to guarantee that it all stays together." It's insane to think about. They really did NOTHING for peace across 4 whole years. Then compare it to the last 9 months.

Eric Daugherty

46,906 views • 9 months ago

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 views • 7 months ago

Marc Andreessen says 99.9999% of the value of AI will accrue to the users of AI, not the companies who create it: "If you look at the total amount of economic value creation downstream of the internet—something like 99% of that accrued to the users of the internet, not the companies that built the internet." "Same thing with a smartphone. Who gets the economic value of the smartphone? Everybody in the world who uses a smartphone to become more productive in their life or in their business gets 99% of the value from the smartphone. Apple and Google get 1% of the value from the smartphone." "I think AI is going to be exactly the same way. It might even be greater than that—it might be 99.9999% of the value of AI is gonna accrue to the users, not to the companies that make the AI." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 with Harry Stebbings

Marc Andreessen says 99.9999% of the value of AI will accrue to the users of AI, not the companies who create it: "If you look at the total amount of economic value creation downstream of the internet—something like 99% of that accrued to the users of the internet, not the companies that built the internet." "Same thing with a smartphone. Who gets the economic value of the smartphone? Everybody in the world who uses a smartphone to become more productive in their life or in their business gets 99% of the value from the smartphone. Apple and Google get 1% of the value from the smartphone." "I think AI is going to be exactly the same way. It might even be greater than that—it might be 99.9999% of the value of AI is gonna accrue to the users, not to the companies that make the AI." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 with Harry Stebbings

a16z

39,093 views • 4 months ago

Rubio on Cuba: The fundamental problem Cuba has is that it has no economy, and the people who are in charge of that country and in control of it don’t know how to improve the everyday lives of their people without giving up power over the sectors they control. They want to control everything. They don’t want the people of Cuba to control anything. So they don’t know how to get themselves out of this. And to the extent that they’ve been offered opportunities to do so, they don’t seem to be able to comprehend or accept them in any way. They would much rather be in charge of a dying country than allow it to prosper.

Rubio on Cuba: The fundamental problem Cuba has is that it has no economy, and the people who are in charge of that country and in control of it don’t know how to improve the everyday lives of their people without giving up power over the sectors they control. They want to control everything. They don’t want the people of Cuba to control anything. So they don’t know how to get themselves out of this. And to the extent that they’ve been offered opportunities to do so, they don’t seem to be able to comprehend or accept them in any way. They would much rather be in charge of a dying country than allow it to prosper.

Clash Report

139,958 views • 5 months ago

"Courage is far shorter in supply than genius." - Peter Thiel "One of the challenges in writing a book about entrepreneurship or teaching a class on this is that there is sort of no formula. And I think science always starts with a number two. It starts with experiments you can repeat, things you can do over and over again. But there's sort of a sense in which every moment in the history of business, every moment in the history of technology happens only once. The next Mark Zuckerberg will not be starting a social networking company. The next Larry Page will not start a search engine. The next Bill Gates will not be starting an operating system. And so if you are trying to copy these people, you're in some sense not learning from them. And so I think one of the really big challenges in teaching or writing about entrepreneurship is what can you say about being an entrepreneur at all when the key thing is always to do something new, different, that's not precisely been done before. And so the point of departure I start with in Zero to One is a somewhat indirect approach by asking a series of contrarian questions. The business question is, what great company is nobody starting? The more intellectual version of this question is, tell me something true that very few people agree with you on. And this is a fantastic interview question. It turns out to be quite a hard question, even when people can read on the internet that you ask of everybody who comes in the door, it still is a hard question. It's one of those unusual questions where if you know it's on the test, it's still hard. And it's hard not just because we sort of think that new things require brilliance or something like that, but because it's socially difficult. If I ask you that question, if you tell me something like the education system is screwed up or our political system doesn't work very well, those are true answers, but they're not actually good answers because all of us already know them to be true. The good answers are ones that are somehow uncomfortable that the person interviewing you does not actually want to hear. And I think we live in this world where courage is in far shorter supply than genius. And so it is sort of this, it is in a sense this problem of political correctness properly understood, is this very deep, very, very broad sort of a problem."

"Courage is far shorter in supply than genius." - Peter Thiel "One of the challenges in writing a book about entrepreneurship or teaching a class on this is that there is sort of no formula. And I think science always starts with a number two. It starts with experiments you can repeat, things you can do over and over again. But there's sort of a sense in which every moment in the history of business, every moment in the history of technology happens only once. The next Mark Zuckerberg will not be starting a social networking company. The next Larry Page will not start a search engine. The next Bill Gates will not be starting an operating system. And so if you are trying to copy these people, you're in some sense not learning from them. And so I think one of the really big challenges in teaching or writing about entrepreneurship is what can you say about being an entrepreneur at all when the key thing is always to do something new, different, that's not precisely been done before. And so the point of departure I start with in Zero to One is a somewhat indirect approach by asking a series of contrarian questions. The business question is, what great company is nobody starting? The more intellectual version of this question is, tell me something true that very few people agree with you on. And this is a fantastic interview question. It turns out to be quite a hard question, even when people can read on the internet that you ask of everybody who comes in the door, it still is a hard question. It's one of those unusual questions where if you know it's on the test, it's still hard. And it's hard not just because we sort of think that new things require brilliance or something like that, but because it's socially difficult. If I ask you that question, if you tell me something like the education system is screwed up or our political system doesn't work very well, those are true answers, but they're not actually good answers because all of us already know them to be true. The good answers are ones that are somehow uncomfortable that the person interviewing you does not actually want to hear. And I think we live in this world where courage is in far shorter supply than genius. And so it is sort of this, it is in a sense this problem of political correctness properly understood, is this very deep, very, very broad sort of a problem."

Founder Mode

12,339 views • 6 months ago

ELON: EVERYONE ON EARTH WILL WANT THEIR OWN ROBOT “My prediction is the robots will actually make so many robots and AI that they will actually saturate all human needs, meaning you won't be able to even think of something to ask the robot for at a certain point. There'll be more robots than people. I think everyone on Earth is going to have one and going to want one, because who wouldn't want a robot to, assuming it's very safe, watch over your kids, take care of your pet. If you have elderly parents, it's very difficult to take care of them. It's expensive, and there just aren't enough young people to take care of the old people. If you had a robot that could take care of and protect an elderly parent, I think that would be great. That would be an amazing thing to have. And I think we will have those things.” Source: Elon Musk Interview at WEF, January 2026

ELON: EVERYONE ON EARTH WILL WANT THEIR OWN ROBOT “My prediction is the robots will actually make so many robots and AI that they will actually saturate all human needs, meaning you won't be able to even think of something to ask the robot for at a certain point. There'll be more robots than people. I think everyone on Earth is going to have one and going to want one, because who wouldn't want a robot to, assuming it's very safe, watch over your kids, take care of your pet. If you have elderly parents, it's very difficult to take care of them. It's expensive, and there just aren't enough young people to take care of the old people. If you had a robot that could take care of and protect an elderly parent, I think that would be great. That would be an amazing thing to have. And I think we will have those things.” Source: Elon Musk Interview at WEF, January 2026

Mario Nawfal

47,723 views • 6 months ago

Elon Musk: To really be intelligent, AI has to make predictions that are in line with reality. “It's incredibly important for an AI model to be grounded in reality. I have a saying, which is physics is the law and everything else is a recommendation. I'm not suggesting people break the laws made by humans, we should generally obey the laws of humans. But I've seen many people break human made laws, but I have not seen anyone break the laws of physics. So, for any given AI, grounding it against reality and reality, for example, as you mentioned with the car, it needs to drive safely and correctly. The humanoid robot Optimus needs to perform the task that it's being asked to perform. These are things that are very helpful for ensuring that the model is truthful and accurate because it has to adhere to the laws of physics. So I think that's actually maybe somewhat overlooked or at least not talked about enough is that to really be intelligent it's got to make predictions that are in line with reality. In other words, physics.” Conversation with Satya Nadella, May 19, 2025

Elon Musk: To really be intelligent, AI has to make predictions that are in line with reality. “It's incredibly important for an AI model to be grounded in reality. I have a saying, which is physics is the law and everything else is a recommendation. I'm not suggesting people break the laws made by humans, we should generally obey the laws of humans. But I've seen many people break human made laws, but I have not seen anyone break the laws of physics. So, for any given AI, grounding it against reality and reality, for example, as you mentioned with the car, it needs to drive safely and correctly. The humanoid robot Optimus needs to perform the task that it's being asked to perform. These are things that are very helpful for ensuring that the model is truthful and accurate because it has to adhere to the laws of physics. So I think that's actually maybe somewhat overlooked or at least not talked about enough is that to really be intelligent it's got to make predictions that are in line with reality. In other words, physics.” Conversation with Satya Nadella, May 19, 2025

ELON CLIPS

675,927 views • 7 months ago

.David Sacks: "You're gonna see in the wake of this is that a lot of Jewish people are realizing that they don't have a home on the left anymore. And I expect that many Jews are going to start shifting right into the Republican Party, to a place where I've been for a while.... But I think what's happened over the last few decades is that the civil rights movement, in particular, and the left have moved to this woke ideology where it's no longer about colorblindness. It's more about identity groups. And instead of trying to get past racial differences, it's been about accentuating them. And so we've had this whole equity agenda, which is really defined as redistribution from one racial group to another racial group. I think that, for whatever reason, a lot of Jews just hadn't confronted the reality that the left had really changed in this way. I think it goes back to the fact that they thought if we're going to be defining identity groups in this woke way, Jews obviously should be one of these victim groups, but they're waking up to the fact that Jews are not. Jews are in the minds of this woke ideology, just white people with a Jewish background. As a result, they're part of an oppressor class. And I think that a lot of Jewish people who are waking up to this are realizing this is actually a very destructive ideology, and it makes us the bad guys. So I would expect that, again, a lot of Jewish people are waking up to how the left has changed... and I would expect there to be kind of a pilgrimage now of more Jews in America towards the right, as opposed to remaining on the left where they've always been." Via The All-In Podcast:

.David Sacks: "You're gonna see in the wake of this is that a lot of Jewish people are realizing that they don't have a home on the left anymore. And I expect that many Jews are going to start shifting right into the Republican Party, to a place where I've been for a while.... But I think what's happened over the last few decades is that the civil rights movement, in particular, and the left have moved to this woke ideology where it's no longer about colorblindness. It's more about identity groups. And instead of trying to get past racial differences, it's been about accentuating them. And so we've had this whole equity agenda, which is really defined as redistribution from one racial group to another racial group. I think that, for whatever reason, a lot of Jews just hadn't confronted the reality that the left had really changed in this way. I think it goes back to the fact that they thought if we're going to be defining identity groups in this woke way, Jews obviously should be one of these victim groups, but they're waking up to the fact that Jews are not. Jews are in the minds of this woke ideology, just white people with a Jewish background. As a result, they're part of an oppressor class. And I think that a lot of Jewish people who are waking up to this are realizing this is actually a very destructive ideology, and it makes us the bad guys. So I would expect that, again, a lot of Jewish people are waking up to how the left has changed... and I would expect there to be kind of a pilgrimage now of more Jews in America towards the right, as opposed to remaining on the left where they've always been." Via The All-In Podcast:

KanekoaTheGreat

542,992 views • 2 years ago

Indyref 2014 was rigged, most of it happened in plain sight. Sara Salyers of Salvo.Scot explains how. "In a consultative referendum, an opinion poll, there's no contract, there's no actual requirement, which David Cameron did point out, to abide by the results of that referendum. "So they did not then set it up in the way that a proper constitutional referendum would have been set up according to international standards to begin with. "The people who would be voting in that referendum would be people who had a stake in the future of the nation whose future they were voting on. "We had every boy and his dog able to vote. So people who hadn't been in Scotland for, you know, more than maybe a few months, basically, all these people had a vote on the future of Scotland as an independent nation, which is, if you just think about it, think how absurd that is, people with no stake. "Now, had that been serious, you know, a real referendum, that we were going to be allowed to have a chance of winning, they would have applied international standards, they would have used something like the new Caledonia franchise, which is a really solid. "And it doesn't exclude people who've moved into Scotland. It isn't just ethnic Scots, it's, you know, it's people who have a genuine stake, interest in the future of that nation. That franchise, it shouldn't be a council... local council franchise, it should be one that reflects the stakeholders, who are the real stakeholders, and that's what that needs to be. That it wasn't, should have told us everything. "Then we had the Edinburgh Agreement, and the Edinburgh Agreement said that there was a Purdah period, during which no new policies were to be announced. There was no... you know, all the campaigning would go on and then it stops. You can rehearse the arguments and everything that's been put forward, but nothing new should be introduced. "Well, we got 'The Vow', 'Devo Max', less than two days before the vote. 'If you vote No, you will get this'. Of course, that did not deliver, but it completely breached the Edinburgh Agreement. "Well, what the sad afterwards was, 'Well, there's no evidence that it altered people's minds. Of course it did. Of course it told people, 'Well, if you don't want to go all the way to independence, we could have,' I think Gordon Brown said, 'it would be almost a federal relationship,' you know, blah, blah, blah. "And that that meant people could say, 'Well, if we're afraid of what will happen, afraid of being pulled out of the European Union, we'd like a lot more power, but we were not sure about a total break...'. Well, of course, then they voted No. "Then you also had the media. And in a properly run referendum, according to international rules, you make sure it's 50-50, that people get both sides of the argument, absolutely equally. "There was a full study done, and it took one guy, Glasgow University lecturer in particular, to go through everything and come back and say, 'Look, it was over 70%, 'No' media coverage', and that also breaches international standards. "So we didn't have any possibility of a fair referendum. And that wasn't coincidental. And had there been any kind of vote tampering, say, with the postal vote, because it was only consultative and there was no actual, therefore fraud, it makes it nearly impossible to get a judicial review. "And there is no way, no matter what they have said, no matter what they have told us, 'Get a majority of members elected to Westminster' and that 'You don't need a referendum', or if 'Scotland wants to leave, then it has the right to do so'. No matter what the British State has said, that was never true." Sara Salyers on the @untribalpol @TheScotCongress

Indyref 2014 was rigged, most of it happened in plain sight. Sara Salyers of Salvo.Scot explains how. "In a consultative referendum, an opinion poll, there's no contract, there's no actual requirement, which David Cameron did point out, to abide by the results of that referendum. "So they did not then set it up in the way that a proper constitutional referendum would have been set up according to international standards to begin with. "The people who would be voting in that referendum would be people who had a stake in the future of the nation whose future they were voting on. "We had every boy and his dog able to vote. So people who hadn't been in Scotland for, you know, more than maybe a few months, basically, all these people had a vote on the future of Scotland as an independent nation, which is, if you just think about it, think how absurd that is, people with no stake. "Now, had that been serious, you know, a real referendum, that we were going to be allowed to have a chance of winning, they would have applied international standards, they would have used something like the new Caledonia franchise, which is a really solid. "And it doesn't exclude people who've moved into Scotland. It isn't just ethnic Scots, it's, you know, it's people who have a genuine stake, interest in the future of that nation. That franchise, it shouldn't be a council... local council franchise, it should be one that reflects the stakeholders, who are the real stakeholders, and that's what that needs to be. That it wasn't, should have told us everything. "Then we had the Edinburgh Agreement, and the Edinburgh Agreement said that there was a Purdah period, during which no new policies were to be announced. There was no... you know, all the campaigning would go on and then it stops. You can rehearse the arguments and everything that's been put forward, but nothing new should be introduced. "Well, we got 'The Vow', 'Devo Max', less than two days before the vote. 'If you vote No, you will get this'. Of course, that did not deliver, but it completely breached the Edinburgh Agreement. "Well, what the sad afterwards was, 'Well, there's no evidence that it altered people's minds. Of course it did. Of course it told people, 'Well, if you don't want to go all the way to independence, we could have,' I think Gordon Brown said, 'it would be almost a federal relationship,' you know, blah, blah, blah. "And that that meant people could say, 'Well, if we're afraid of what will happen, afraid of being pulled out of the European Union, we'd like a lot more power, but we were not sure about a total break...'. Well, of course, then they voted No. "Then you also had the media. And in a properly run referendum, according to international rules, you make sure it's 50-50, that people get both sides of the argument, absolutely equally. "There was a full study done, and it took one guy, Glasgow University lecturer in particular, to go through everything and come back and say, 'Look, it was over 70%, 'No' media coverage', and that also breaches international standards. "So we didn't have any possibility of a fair referendum. And that wasn't coincidental. And had there been any kind of vote tampering, say, with the postal vote, because it was only consultative and there was no actual, therefore fraud, it makes it nearly impossible to get a judicial review. "And there is no way, no matter what they have said, no matter what they have told us, 'Get a majority of members elected to Westminster' and that 'You don't need a referendum', or if 'Scotland wants to leave, then it has the right to do so'. No matter what the British State has said, that was never true." Sara Salyers on the @untribalpol @TheScotCongress

ScotNews

21,466 views • 1 year ago

Mark Zuckerberg: "I'd rather hire someone with raw intelligence and no experience than a 10-year veteran" "The two most important things I look for, number one is just raw intelligence." Zuckerberg explains why: "You can hire someone who is a software engineer and has been doing it for 10 years. If they've been doing it for 10 years, that's probably what they're doing for their life. And that's cool. There are things that person can do. They're definitely useful in an organization." But here's the tradeoff: "If you find someone whose raw intelligence exceeds theirs but has way 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 experienced person may never be able to do." The second thing he looks for: "Alignment with what we're trying to do. People can be really smart or have skills that are directly applicable. But if they don't really believe in it, they're not going to work hard. Even if they're a smart guy who doesn't have the relevant experience, if they don't care enough, they're not going to develop the relevant experience in order to succeed." On who he's actually hired: "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 electrical engineers out of Stanford as new programming staff. They had very little programming experience going in. But just really smart. Really willing to go at it." He gives an example: "The guy who built Photos was one of those guys. If you're willing to just go and do whatever it takes to get it out, you're probably more valuable than someone who's just a career software engineer."

Mark Zuckerberg: "I'd rather hire someone with raw intelligence and no experience than a 10-year veteran" "The two most important things I look for, number one is just raw intelligence." Zuckerberg explains why: "You can hire someone who is a software engineer and has been doing it for 10 years. If they've been doing it for 10 years, that's probably what they're doing for their life. And that's cool. There are things that person can do. They're definitely useful in an organization." But here's the tradeoff: "If you find someone whose raw intelligence exceeds theirs but has way 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 experienced person may never be able to do." The second thing he looks for: "Alignment with what we're trying to do. People can be really smart or have skills that are directly applicable. But if they don't really believe in it, they're not going to work hard. Even if they're a smart guy who doesn't have the relevant experience, if they don't care enough, they're not going to develop the relevant experience in order to succeed." On who he's actually hired: "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 electrical engineers out of Stanford as new programming staff. They had very little programming experience going in. But just really smart. Really willing to go at it." He gives an example: "The guy who built Photos was one of those guys. If you're willing to just go and do whatever it takes to get it out, you're probably more valuable than someone who's just a career software engineer."

Jaynit

401,845 views • 3 months ago

ELON: THE PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE WHAT'S IMPORTANT, NOT A HANDFUL OF EDITORS "I don't think there should be a gatekeeping function by a small number of individuals. For newspapers in America, there are about five editors that decide what gets put on the front page, or what to focus on, or what not to focus on. And most of the other papers just copy them, essentially. But is that really what we want? Do we want a handful of people deciding what they think is important? Or should it be the people who decide what's important? And I think it should be sort of an organic thing, where the people decide what's important and what to focus on, not just a handful of editors. They don't like the fact that this power has been taken away from them. But I think it should be." Source: European Jewish Association, January 2024

ELON: THE PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE WHAT'S IMPORTANT, NOT A HANDFUL OF EDITORS "I don't think there should be a gatekeeping function by a small number of individuals. For newspapers in America, there are about five editors that decide what gets put on the front page, or what to focus on, or what not to focus on. And most of the other papers just copy them, essentially. But is that really what we want? Do we want a handful of people deciding what they think is important? Or should it be the people who decide what's important? And I think it should be sort of an organic thing, where the people decide what's important and what to focus on, not just a handful of editors. They don't like the fact that this power has been taken away from them. But I think it should be." Source: European Jewish Association, January 2024

Mario Nawfal

12,668,082 views • 1 year ago

Elon Musk: To really be intelligent, AI has to make predictions that are in line with reality. “It's incredibly important for an AI model to be grounded in reality. I have a saying, which is physics is the law and everything else is a recommendation. I'm not suggesting people break the laws made by humans, we should generally obey the laws of humans. But I've seen many people break human made laws, but I have not seen anyone break the laws of physics. So, for any given AI, grounding it against reality and reality, for example, as you mentioned with the car, it needs to drive safely and correctly. The humanoid robot Optimus needs to perform the task that it's being asked to perform. These are things that are very helpful for ensuring that the model is truthful and accurate because it has to adhere to the laws of physics. So I think that's actually maybe somewhat overlooked or at least not talked about enough is that to really be intelligent it's got to make predictions that are in line with reality. In other words, physics.” Conversation with Satya Nadella, May 19, 2025

Elon Musk: To really be intelligent, AI has to make predictions that are in line with reality. “It's incredibly important for an AI model to be grounded in reality. I have a saying, which is physics is the law and everything else is a recommendation. I'm not suggesting people break the laws made by humans, we should generally obey the laws of humans. But I've seen many people break human made laws, but I have not seen anyone break the laws of physics. So, for any given AI, grounding it against reality and reality, for example, as you mentioned with the car, it needs to drive safely and correctly. The humanoid robot Optimus needs to perform the task that it's being asked to perform. These are things that are very helpful for ensuring that the model is truthful and accurate because it has to adhere to the laws of physics. So I think that's actually maybe somewhat overlooked or at least not talked about enough is that to really be intelligent it's got to make predictions that are in line with reality. In other words, physics.” Conversation with Satya Nadella, May 19, 2025

ELON CLIPS

17,791 views • 3 months ago