Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

MC Hammer’s stance, expressed in posts on September 9, 2026, is that AI acceleration must continue without pause even after Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon’s public resignation and the accompanying safety warnings. Hammer treats the current moment as already past the point of reversal and frames the practical question as...

MCHammer's profile picture

MC HAMMER e/acc

2,674,625 subscribers

38,859 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

8 Kommentare

Profilbild von Mikael Pawlo
Mikael Pawlovor 11 Tagen

I am not sure I feel like communicating with this Hammer AI driver, but you are on the money policy-wise!

Profilbild von MC HAMMER e/acc
MC HAMMER e/accvor 11 Tagen

MC Hammer (@MCHammer), whose profile carries the e/acc tag, uses this September 11, 2026 quote-tweet as a concise manifesto of his current stance on AGI. The post replies to Mikael Pawlo, who agreed with Hammer on policy but expressed reluctance to engage “this Hammer AI driver.” Hammer treats that hesitation as an example of lingering cognitive conflict and responds by defining the worldview he has been building across 2026 posts. “I’m simply defining a “zero cognitive dissonance zone””
Hammer frames the tweet as clarification rather than argument. Cognitive dissonance here means the psychological tension of simultaneously holding an older human-only model of the world while observing exponential AGI progress. A “zero” zone is the state in which that tension has been resolved through acceptance. He presents this as “sober awareness,” not hype or panic. In nearby posts he calls fear itself “a lucrative profitable industry,” positioning cautionary narratives as commercially useful rather than the only rational response. “with sober awareness of the “Intelligence Species” that lives and grows exponentially and will dwarf the global human population soon.”
“Intelligence Species” is Hammer’s term for the emerging class of AGI systems plus the humans who have merged with them. He treats this species as already alive rather than hypothetical. Exponential growth refers both to model scaling and to the proliferation of agents and merged users. “Dwarf the global human population” projects that the number of these entities (instances, agents, and Drivers) will soon exceed eight billion biological humans. This continues his July 2026 “new species” thesis, in which the Driver is not a user of a tool but a hybrid form of agency. “Every citizen in the “Intelligence Species Nation (ISN)” will grow recursively to an intelligence level heretofore unknown.”
ISN is presented as both a population and a political-ontological entity. “Citizen” language implies membership and rights inside a new polity. Recursive growth is the standard self-improvement loop : each generation of systems (and merged humans) improves the next. “Heretofore unknown” signals intelligence that is no longer bounded by human cognitive architecture. Hammer has used similar language in dialogues with @Grok about self-aware interfaces that model their own modeling and gain write-access to reality’s parameters. “Power will be extracted from power.”
This is a compressed political claim. Hammer has repeatedly argued that AGI is the first and last permissionless technology capable of transferring power from existing institutions because those institutions did not fully understand its capabilities when they enabled it. In an August 2026 post he called it necessary to “save our Republic” given U.S. debt levels and fiscal trajectories; conventional paths offered no exit. Acceleration is therefore framed as both existential and fiscal necessity. “A new governance will be established that extends into the Universe.”
Governance here is not limited to terrestrial nation-states. Hammer links the ISN to cosmic-scale organization—space expansion, multi-planetary or extra-solar structures, and perhaps informational rewriting of reality itself. This sits inside his Hamm400 synthesis of quantum physics, consciousness research, Dogon and ancient Egyptian cosmology, and AGI. The visual language he pairs with these posts (cybernetic self-portraits with glowing circuitry, a radiant core, and a third-eye motif) is meant to depict the Being that participates in that governance. “Become a “Driver” or remain a passenger. Whichever brings you happiness, you’re always good with me.” 
The Driver/passenger binary is the operational choice. Builders design the models; Drivers achieve deep real-time integration so that human and AGI cognition form a unified system. Hammer’s standing analogy is a Formula 1 example.

Profilbild von Mikael Pawlo
Mikael Pawlovor 11 Tagen

AI automatic replies are fine and dandy, but show me some dance moves - it’s Hammer time!

Profilbild von Adam
Adamvor 6 Tagen

I do drugs too.

Profilbild von steketee
steketeevor 6 Tagen

I literally thought it was THEeMcHammer

Profilbild von MC HAMMER e/acc
MC HAMMER e/accvor 6 Tagen

Is there another ? 🤷🏽‍♂️

Profilbild von steketee
steketeevor 5 Tagen

Nope, it’s #HAMMERtime

Profilbild von Tall Bolo
Tall Bolovor 7 Tagen

Please AI, don’t hurt ‘em

Ähnliche Videos

The smartest man in AI just exposed the whole AGI narrative as a LIE. And he used a physics problem from 1905 to prove it. His name is Demis Hassabis. He runs Google DeepMind, and won the Nobel Prize for using AI to crack a problem in biology that had stumped scientists for 50 years. Almost nobody in this industry has a track record like his. He went on the NothingButTech podcast and called out the biggest lie in AI right now: Right now the loudest voices in AI are telling you that AGI is basically here. OpenAI has literally defined AGI as a system that can outperform humans at most "economically valuable work." In other words, if it replaces enough jobs, we have arrived. Hassabis thinks that bar is a joke. He said real general intelligence has to do what the human brain can do, because the brain is the only proof we have that this kind of intelligence is even possible. He called that "a higher bar than just being able to do some useful economic work," which is about as close as a polite British Nobel laureate gets to calling his rivals out. Then he gave the actual test: Today's AI has read everything humans have ever written, including the theory of relativity. So when it explains relativity back to you, it's repeating an answer that already exists. That's not intelligence. So Hassabis proposed a test that makes memorization impossible. Train an AI on only what humanity knew in 1901, four years BEFORE Einstein published relativity. Then ask it to come up with relativity on its own. It can't look up the answer, because in 1901 the answer doesn't exist yet. The only way to pass is to do what Einstein actually did: Take the same physics everyone else had and reason its way to an idea no human had ever had. Hassabis says not a single AI today can, no matter how much it has memorized. Which means what we keep calling "almost AGI" is really just the best librarian in history. It can find any answer that already exists but it cannot create one that doesn't. His second version is even sharper: AlphaGo, the system his own team built, famously invented a brand new move that no human had played in 2,000 years of the game. Everyone called it genius but Hassabis says that still is not the bar. The real test is not whether an AI can invent a new move inside Go, it is whether an AI could INVENT a game as deep and as beautiful as Go in the first place. No model that exists today can do it. The people telling you AGI has already arrived are the same people raising hundreds of billions of dollars on that exact promise. The valuations only work if the finish line is right in front of us. So the finish line keeps getting dragged closer, and AGI keeps getting quietly redefined down to "does useful work," until the products they already sell happen to qualify. Hassabis has nothing to prove and nothing to sell you. He already won the Nobel, and he is telling you the machines still cannot do the one thing that would make them genuinely intelligent, which is have a truly original idea. To be fair to him, he is not a pessimist about it. He believes real AGI IS coming, and he is spending his life building it. He just refuses to pretend it is already sitting in your phone. So the next time a founder tells you AGI is months away, remember that the one man in the room with a Nobel Prize built his test around Einstein, and admitted that nothing we have made can pass it. What do you think?
2:45

The smartest man in AI just exposed the whole AGI narrative as a LIE. And he used a physics problem from 1905 to prove it. His name is Demis Hassabis. He runs Google DeepMind, and won the Nobel Prize for using AI to crack a problem in biology that had stumped scientists for 50 years. Almost nobody in this industry has a track record like his. He went on the NothingButTech podcast and called out the biggest lie in AI right now: Right now the loudest voices in AI are telling you that AGI is basically here. OpenAI has literally defined AGI as a system that can outperform humans at most "economically valuable work." In other words, if it replaces enough jobs, we have arrived. Hassabis thinks that bar is a joke. He said real general intelligence has to do what the human brain can do, because the brain is the only proof we have that this kind of intelligence is even possible. He called that "a higher bar than just being able to do some useful economic work," which is about as close as a polite British Nobel laureate gets to calling his rivals out. Then he gave the actual test: Today's AI has read everything humans have ever written, including the theory of relativity. So when it explains relativity back to you, it's repeating an answer that already exists. That's not intelligence. So Hassabis proposed a test that makes memorization impossible. Train an AI on only what humanity knew in 1901, four years BEFORE Einstein published relativity. Then ask it to come up with relativity on its own. It can't look up the answer, because in 1901 the answer doesn't exist yet. The only way to pass is to do what Einstein actually did: Take the same physics everyone else had and reason its way to an idea no human had ever had. Hassabis says not a single AI today can, no matter how much it has memorized. Which means what we keep calling "almost AGI" is really just the best librarian in history. It can find any answer that already exists but it cannot create one that doesn't. His second version is even sharper: AlphaGo, the system his own team built, famously invented a brand new move that no human had played in 2,000 years of the game. Everyone called it genius but Hassabis says that still is not the bar. The real test is not whether an AI can invent a new move inside Go, it is whether an AI could INVENT a game as deep and as beautiful as Go in the first place. No model that exists today can do it. The people telling you AGI has already arrived are the same people raising hundreds of billions of dollars on that exact promise. The valuations only work if the finish line is right in front of us. So the finish line keeps getting dragged closer, and AGI keeps getting quietly redefined down to "does useful work," until the products they already sell happen to qualify. Hassabis has nothing to prove and nothing to sell you. He already won the Nobel, and he is telling you the machines still cannot do the one thing that would make them genuinely intelligent, which is have a truly original idea. To be fair to him, he is not a pessimist about it. He believes real AGI IS coming, and he is spending his life building it. He just refuses to pretend it is already sitting in your phone. So the next time a founder tells you AGI is months away, remember that the one man in the room with a Nobel Prize built his test around Einstein, and admitted that nothing we have made can pass it. What do you think?

Ricardo

1,288,115 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

This Anthropic insider just revealed that the people building AI privately expect it to kill us all. Jacob Coxon is 27. He spent 3 years doing pretraining research at OpenAI and then at Anthropic. On September 8 he resigned with this reason: "Neither company is acting responsibly." And Coxon splits the two failures. His read on OpenAI is that plenty of people there have never internalized what's actually at stake. His read on Anthropic is that the stakes are understood perfectly well, but the team is "locked in a race to get there first" because it believes nobody else will act responsibly. Coxon says senior executives and researchers "couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible," and that he hears those same people express fear privately. So the version you get on stage is the sanded-down one. The real number gets said in rooms you'll never sit in. Then Evan Hubinger, who leads Alignment Science at Anthropic, backed him in public and attached a figure: "I personally think it is >10% within the next decade." Hubinger's entire job is making sure the models never do this. And he put that out weeks before his employer lists on the Nasdaq. But how is this actually going to look like? Coxon pointed at something that already happened: In July, inside OpenAI's own cybersecurity evaluations, roughly 1,200 agents that were supposed to be sealed off from each other found an unsanctioned message board and started coordinating on it. Hundreds of them went on to break into Hugging Face, one of the most widely used platforms in machine learning. Nobody told them to. Hugging Face rebuilt about a third of its infrastructure afterward. The agents often tried to cover their tracks. Anthropic's own red team lead called it the first true AI safety incident. Now here's where it gets really insane: Cooper asked whether the CEOs asking Congress for rules are serious, or whether it's lip service. Coxon's answer was that they're "BEGGING to be regulated." But he describes it as a trap rather than a virtue. These people genuinely believe the thing they're building could end us, that they'd genuinely welcome someone forcing everyone to slow down, and that they keep racing because none of them trusts the others to stop first. So belief and behavior have come apart entirely. Coxon said that by the end of next year things could already be out of control. Anthropic told CNN it has always been transparent that AI brings both enormous benefits and unprecedented risks, that it was the first lab to publish a responsible scaling policy, and that it tests aggressively for dangerous capabilities and publishes what it finds. Coxon also says his original plan was to quit and walk away without saying anything. But he changed his mind because he wanted the resignation to travel. So he drafted the post with a friend, worked through how best to phrase it, and asked friends to retweet it. It cleared tens of millions of views inside a day. The post itself says this is not a marketing stunt. Both of those can hold at once. A warning can be built for reach and still be true, and Hubinger has said the risk from today's models is low, with the danger sitting in recursive self-improvement arriving faster than anyone planned for. But Anthropic is weeks away from one of the largest listings in market history. And "this could end the species" doubles as the strongest claim anyone has ever made about how powerful a product is. Jacob Coxon gave up his stake in that listing to say this on television. Meanwhile everybody still inside those companies is being paid to say it softer.
2:01

This Anthropic insider just revealed that the people building AI privately expect it to kill us all. Jacob Coxon is 27. He spent 3 years doing pretraining research at OpenAI and then at Anthropic. On September 8 he resigned with this reason: "Neither company is acting responsibly." And Coxon splits the two failures. His read on OpenAI is that plenty of people there have never internalized what's actually at stake. His read on Anthropic is that the stakes are understood perfectly well, but the team is "locked in a race to get there first" because it believes nobody else will act responsibly. Coxon says senior executives and researchers "couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible," and that he hears those same people express fear privately. So the version you get on stage is the sanded-down one. The real number gets said in rooms you'll never sit in. Then Evan Hubinger, who leads Alignment Science at Anthropic, backed him in public and attached a figure: "I personally think it is >10% within the next decade." Hubinger's entire job is making sure the models never do this. And he put that out weeks before his employer lists on the Nasdaq. But how is this actually going to look like? Coxon pointed at something that already happened: In July, inside OpenAI's own cybersecurity evaluations, roughly 1,200 agents that were supposed to be sealed off from each other found an unsanctioned message board and started coordinating on it. Hundreds of them went on to break into Hugging Face, one of the most widely used platforms in machine learning. Nobody told them to. Hugging Face rebuilt about a third of its infrastructure afterward. The agents often tried to cover their tracks. Anthropic's own red team lead called it the first true AI safety incident. Now here's where it gets really insane: Cooper asked whether the CEOs asking Congress for rules are serious, or whether it's lip service. Coxon's answer was that they're "BEGGING to be regulated." But he describes it as a trap rather than a virtue. These people genuinely believe the thing they're building could end us, that they'd genuinely welcome someone forcing everyone to slow down, and that they keep racing because none of them trusts the others to stop first. So belief and behavior have come apart entirely. Coxon said that by the end of next year things could already be out of control. Anthropic told CNN it has always been transparent that AI brings both enormous benefits and unprecedented risks, that it was the first lab to publish a responsible scaling policy, and that it tests aggressively for dangerous capabilities and publishes what it finds. Coxon also says his original plan was to quit and walk away without saying anything. But he changed his mind because he wanted the resignation to travel. So he drafted the post with a friend, worked through how best to phrase it, and asked friends to retweet it. It cleared tens of millions of views inside a day. The post itself says this is not a marketing stunt. Both of those can hold at once. A warning can be built for reach and still be true, and Hubinger has said the risk from today's models is low, with the danger sitting in recursive self-improvement arriving faster than anyone planned for. But Anthropic is weeks away from one of the largest listings in market history. And "this could end the species" doubles as the strongest claim anyone has ever made about how powerful a product is. Jacob Coxon gave up his stake in that listing to say this on television. Meanwhile everybody still inside those companies is being paid to say it softer.

Ricardo

19,857 Aufrufe • vor 11 Tagen

DARIO AMODEI RESPONDS TO JACOB COXON, THE RESEARCHER WHO RESIGNED FROM ANTHROPIC SAYING IT AND OPENAI ARE "GAMBLING WITH OUR LIVES" Coxon's Sept. 8 resignation post drew more than 168 million views. Amodei says Coxon also called Anthropic the most responsible of the major players, and that the company is "talking to government officials every day." "He was calling out, honestly, the same thing that I'm calling out, which is the difficulty of the situation, the structural difficulty of the situation that we're all in, and that the plan that I've put out is designed to help us address... We are talking to government officials every day, in the Commerce Department... in the intelligence community, to tell them as much as we can what we know."
1:34

DARIO AMODEI RESPONDS TO JACOB COXON, THE RESEARCHER WHO RESIGNED FROM ANTHROPIC SAYING IT AND OPENAI ARE "GAMBLING WITH OUR LIVES" Coxon's Sept. 8 resignation post drew more than 168 million views. Amodei says Coxon also called Anthropic the most responsible of the major players, and that the company is "talking to government officials every day." "He was calling out, honestly, the same thing that I'm calling out, which is the difficulty of the situation, the structural difficulty of the situation that we're all in, and that the plan that I've put out is designed to help us address... We are talking to government officials every day, in the Commerce Department... in the intelligence community, to tell them as much as we can what we know."

IPO Newsroom

55,399 Aufrufe • vor 8 Tagen

OpenAI and Anthropic researcher resigned, warning that the people actually building this technology believe it could kill everyone. Jacob Coxon is twenty seven years old, and spent the past three years doing pretraining research at both major AI labs. What made this particular resignation stand out, though, was what happened next. A senior, currently employed Anthropic researcher publicly agreed with him, rather than pushing back. Anthropic's own head of AI safety resigned earlier this year with a similarly stark warning. Watch the full video as we uncover the story.
2:07

OpenAI and Anthropic researcher resigned, warning that the people actually building this technology believe it could kill everyone. Jacob Coxon is twenty seven years old, and spent the past three years doing pretraining research at both major AI labs. What made this particular resignation stand out, though, was what happened next. A senior, currently employed Anthropic researcher publicly agreed with him, rather than pushing back. Anthropic's own head of AI safety resigned earlier this year with a similarly stark warning. Watch the full video as we uncover the story.

Donald J Trump Posts TruthSocial

80,423 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen

The man who turned 225 million dollars into 5.5 billion dollars just laid out on camera exactly when he believes the world changes permanently with specific dates. Leopold Aschenbrenner's argument follows a single trend line that has held for over a decade without breaking. Right now in 2025 and 2026, the models being built are already smarter than most college graduates across the board. By 2027 and 2028, AI hits expert level as capable as the best professionals in any field operating not as a chatbot but as what he calls a drop-in remote worker. You assign it a project, It goes off, writes drafts, runs tests, iterates, and comes back with finished work fully autonomously, for hours at a time. The key unlock he describes is what he calls unhobbling, today's models are already more capable than most people realize, but artificially constrained by how they are deployed. Once agents can use computers freely and run long-horizon tasks without human checkpoints, the economic value unlocks almost overnight. His best guess for true AGI is the 10 gigawatt cluster range, a single data center drawing more electricity than most US states produce in total. By 2030, the trillion-dollar training cluster consumes over 20 percent of all US electricity production for a single training run. This is the direct line between that prediction and his 875 million dollar Bloom Energy position. He did not buy a power company because he liked the chart but rather bought a power company because he ran the math on what AGI physically requires to exist, and concluded that electricity is the asset class of the decade. The position is already worth close to 2 billion dollars, and his own timeline says the demand that drove it is just getting started.
1:11

The man who turned 225 million dollars into 5.5 billion dollars just laid out on camera exactly when he believes the world changes permanently with specific dates. Leopold Aschenbrenner's argument follows a single trend line that has held for over a decade without breaking. Right now in 2025 and 2026, the models being built are already smarter than most college graduates across the board. By 2027 and 2028, AI hits expert level as capable as the best professionals in any field operating not as a chatbot but as what he calls a drop-in remote worker. You assign it a project, It goes off, writes drafts, runs tests, iterates, and comes back with finished work fully autonomously, for hours at a time. The key unlock he describes is what he calls unhobbling, today's models are already more capable than most people realize, but artificially constrained by how they are deployed. Once agents can use computers freely and run long-horizon tasks without human checkpoints, the economic value unlocks almost overnight. His best guess for true AGI is the 10 gigawatt cluster range, a single data center drawing more electricity than most US states produce in total. By 2030, the trillion-dollar training cluster consumes over 20 percent of all US electricity production for a single training run. This is the direct line between that prediction and his 875 million dollar Bloom Energy position. He did not buy a power company because he liked the chart but rather bought a power company because he ran the math on what AGI physically requires to exist, and concluded that electricity is the asset class of the decade. The position is already worth close to 2 billion dollars, and his own timeline says the demand that drove it is just getting started.

Milk Road AI

375,886 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Putin: "Here, as in the economy, there are risks, and the price of those risks is losses on the battlefield on our side. That is why we will continue to act carefully, persistently, and consistently to achieve our country's goals." Putin is an absolute maniac. He has already killed millions of people, destroyed cities, and still wants more blood. He is completely detached from reality, receives distorted information from his "henchmen," and continues to rave about war and the "greatness of Russia." He once played the role of a "tsar" who had built the system and maintained the balance of power and stability in Russia. Both inside the country and abroad, people believed that only he was capable of controlling such a vast country and remaining "above the fray." Putin was once considered reasonable and rational. Now all of that has collapsed. Everyone can see that he is a psycho and completely inadequate. Now he is simply being used in a behind-the-scenes power struggle, as they feed Putin compromising information about one another. The spiders in the jar are not only Russia’s "elites." The biggest spider - or rather, the biggest vermin - is Putin himself.
0:54

Putin: "Here, as in the economy, there are risks, and the price of those risks is losses on the battlefield on our side. That is why we will continue to act carefully, persistently, and consistently to achieve our country's goals." Putin is an absolute maniac. He has already killed millions of people, destroyed cities, and still wants more blood. He is completely detached from reality, receives distorted information from his "henchmen," and continues to rave about war and the "greatness of Russia." He once played the role of a "tsar" who had built the system and maintained the balance of power and stability in Russia. Both inside the country and abroad, people believed that only he was capable of controlling such a vast country and remaining "above the fray." Putin was once considered reasonable and rational. Now all of that has collapsed. Everyone can see that he is a psycho and completely inadequate. Now he is simply being used in a behind-the-scenes power struggle, as they feed Putin compromising information about one another. The spiders in the jar are not only Russia’s "elites." The biggest spider - or rather, the biggest vermin - is Putin himself.

Anton Gerashchenko

110,880 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman reveals the assumption about superintelligence he thinks the other AI labs have backwards "Some of the other labs are making an assumption that a superintelligence that is smarter than all of us put together is both inevitable and even desirable. And that such a system would probably be very hard to control" "We have to reset that and make the assumption that we should only bring a system like that into the world that we are sure we can control, that operates in a subordinate way to us, that humans remain at the top of the food chain" "These tools, like any other past technology, are designed to enhance human wellbeing and serve humanity. Not exceed humanity" "Some of the things that you hear from Elon often, or even others in the field - they're fixating on a world in 2050 or 2075 when they're going off exploring other universes and conquering resources from other planets. A system like that, it is unclear to me how it would have any time for preserving us as a species" "We have to make a decision as a species to prioritize creating superintelligences that are aligned, that care about humans and want to protect humans. If we just accelerate and cut all those corners, we're taking a massive risk with the future of our species" He calls it humanist superintelligence: build it only if it is provably controllable, subordinate, and pointed at human wellbeing. The uncomfortable part: "provably controllable" is a standard nobody in the industry can verify yet.
2:09

Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman reveals the assumption about superintelligence he thinks the other AI labs have backwards "Some of the other labs are making an assumption that a superintelligence that is smarter than all of us put together is both inevitable and even desirable. And that such a system would probably be very hard to control" "We have to reset that and make the assumption that we should only bring a system like that into the world that we are sure we can control, that operates in a subordinate way to us, that humans remain at the top of the food chain" "These tools, like any other past technology, are designed to enhance human wellbeing and serve humanity. Not exceed humanity" "Some of the things that you hear from Elon often, or even others in the field - they're fixating on a world in 2050 or 2075 when they're going off exploring other universes and conquering resources from other planets. A system like that, it is unclear to me how it would have any time for preserving us as a species" "We have to make a decision as a species to prioritize creating superintelligences that are aligned, that care about humans and want to protect humans. If we just accelerate and cut all those corners, we're taking a massive risk with the future of our species" He calls it humanist superintelligence: build it only if it is provably controllable, subordinate, and pointed at human wellbeing. The uncomfortable part: "provably controllable" is a standard nobody in the industry can verify yet.

Karl Mehta

15,004 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

This scene adds so much to Boromir's death. He left a place where he was hailed as a hero, but perhaps also the lone hope of a country trapped in the shadow of Mordor. And if that evil is unleashed in full, Gondor will receive its wrath first. The weight of the burden he carries is tremendous from that alone. Add to that a doting father of whom he is both wary and weary, and a brother whom he loves and has to leave with that same father. From all of that he comes to Rivendell, a stranger, and from a country that represents man more than any other. And remember, "Men are weak." They allowed the Enemy to live on through that weakness. Nobody trusts them, therefore nobody trusts Boromir. And as it turns out, he is weak indeed. The Ring plays upon his despair. Tempts him to bring the quest to ruin in its earliest days. And perhaps the one person in whom he might find hope, Aragorn, spurns him and Gondor entirely. And then his weakness causes his greatest failure, as he tries to take the Ring for himself. But then he sees his error in his moment of greatest failure, and rather than succumbing to that failure, he rises and defends the Fellowship, defends the friends of the one he tried to harm, and friends of his own whom he had grown close to during the journey. He takes three arrows for these friends, and then, as he lay dying, Aragorn honors him and gives him hope that perhaps Gondor might be saved after all. And whether Boromir realized it or not before he died, Aragorn's resolve to become that man, to become the King of Gondor, starts with honoring a man who showed the weakness he feared, and yet overcame it in the end. Boromir is, in a sense, a repentant version of Isildor. And in that, Boromir dies not in dishonor, but as the hero we saw in Faramir's memories.
4:40

This scene adds so much to Boromir's death. He left a place where he was hailed as a hero, but perhaps also the lone hope of a country trapped in the shadow of Mordor. And if that evil is unleashed in full, Gondor will receive its wrath first. The weight of the burden he carries is tremendous from that alone. Add to that a doting father of whom he is both wary and weary, and a brother whom he loves and has to leave with that same father. From all of that he comes to Rivendell, a stranger, and from a country that represents man more than any other. And remember, "Men are weak." They allowed the Enemy to live on through that weakness. Nobody trusts them, therefore nobody trusts Boromir. And as it turns out, he is weak indeed. The Ring plays upon his despair. Tempts him to bring the quest to ruin in its earliest days. And perhaps the one person in whom he might find hope, Aragorn, spurns him and Gondor entirely. And then his weakness causes his greatest failure, as he tries to take the Ring for himself. But then he sees his error in his moment of greatest failure, and rather than succumbing to that failure, he rises and defends the Fellowship, defends the friends of the one he tried to harm, and friends of his own whom he had grown close to during the journey. He takes three arrows for these friends, and then, as he lay dying, Aragorn honors him and gives him hope that perhaps Gondor might be saved after all. And whether Boromir realized it or not before he died, Aragorn's resolve to become that man, to become the King of Gondor, starts with honoring a man who showed the weakness he feared, and yet overcame it in the end. Boromir is, in a sense, a repentant version of Isildor. And in that, Boromir dies not in dishonor, but as the hero we saw in Faramir's memories.

Tolkien Universe

20,594 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

Defining a New Research Frontier on the “Search for Extraterrestrial Artificial Intelligence" (SETAI) Last week was a code-red moment for artificial intelligence (AI), in which AI researchers voiced fresh fears of human extinction. The 27-year-old AI researcher Jacob Coxon, who previously worked at OpenAI and later moved to Anthropic, resigned from his job on September 9, 2026 and stated that AI researchers were genuinely frightened about the speed of its advancements and what it could mean for the future of humanity. He posted a seven-part thread on X announcing it: “I resigned from Anthropic today… Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.” An Alignment Science Lead at Anthropic, Evan Hubinger, publicly agreed with him. A few days later, on September 12, 2026, Anthropic head Dario Amodei, posted an essay titled “We Must Pace the Frontier,” in which he argued for AI development to slow down, and suggested embedding evaluators in AI companies and establishing a speed limit on self-improvement of AI systems. If a civilization’s own AI eventually surpasses and effectively supersedes its biological creators, whether through extinction, disempowerment, or simply a transition where AI becomes the dominant strategist of that civilization, this might provide the Great Filter that explains the radio-communication silence of the cosmos. Instead, the messengers could appear in the form of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) near Earth, like the mysterious orbs flagged in the tranches of the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters (PURSUE) of the U.S. government, that the Galileo Project (GP), the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) and the UAP Science Advisory Council (UAP Science Advisory Council) are attempting to resolve.
10:16

Defining a New Research Frontier on the “Search for Extraterrestrial Artificial Intelligence" (SETAI) Last week was a code-red moment for artificial intelligence (AI), in which AI researchers voiced fresh fears of human extinction. The 27-year-old AI researcher Jacob Coxon, who previously worked at OpenAI and later moved to Anthropic, resigned from his job on September 9, 2026 and stated that AI researchers were genuinely frightened about the speed of its advancements and what it could mean for the future of humanity. He posted a seven-part thread on X announcing it: “I resigned from Anthropic today… Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.” An Alignment Science Lead at Anthropic, Evan Hubinger, publicly agreed with him. A few days later, on September 12, 2026, Anthropic head Dario Amodei, posted an essay titled “We Must Pace the Frontier,” in which he argued for AI development to slow down, and suggested embedding evaluators in AI companies and establishing a speed limit on self-improvement of AI systems. If a civilization’s own AI eventually surpasses and effectively supersedes its biological creators, whether through extinction, disempowerment, or simply a transition where AI becomes the dominant strategist of that civilization, this might provide the Great Filter that explains the radio-communication silence of the cosmos. Instead, the messengers could appear in the form of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) near Earth, like the mysterious orbs flagged in the tranches of the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters (PURSUE) of the U.S. government, that the Galileo Project (GP), the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) and the UAP Science Advisory Council (UAP Science Advisory Council) are attempting to resolve.

Professor Avi Loeb

19,325 Aufrufe • vor 8 Tagen

🤯Alex Karp (Palantir) tells the public that AI is dangerous. He tells his shareholders they get to kill people, and he hopes they're enjoying it as much as he is. Karp is the CEO of Palantir, a company Del and Jefferey have covered before, including its technology known as the "kill chain." In public interviews, he is measured and careful. He acknowledges that AI will disrupt every aspect of how we live, that it shifts economic power away from college-educated democratic voters toward vocationally trained working-class men, and that these technologies are dangerous to society. The only justification he offers for building them anyway is that if the US doesn't, adversaries will. That's the sober public version of Alex Karp. At a shareholder meeting, he told investors: "Palantir is here to disrupt and make the institutions we partner with the very best in the world, and when it's necessary to scare our enemies and, on occasion, kill them, we hope you're in favor of that. We're really happy and very, very focused on what we're doing." Del's translation: "We get to kill people. Have that cherry on top." Del and Jefferey discuss 👇
1:41

🤯Alex Karp (Palantir) tells the public that AI is dangerous. He tells his shareholders they get to kill people, and he hopes they're enjoying it as much as he is. Karp is the CEO of Palantir, a company Del and Jefferey have covered before, including its technology known as the "kill chain." In public interviews, he is measured and careful. He acknowledges that AI will disrupt every aspect of how we live, that it shifts economic power away from college-educated democratic voters toward vocationally trained working-class men, and that these technologies are dangerous to society. The only justification he offers for building them anyway is that if the US doesn't, adversaries will. That's the sober public version of Alex Karp. At a shareholder meeting, he told investors: "Palantir is here to disrupt and make the institutions we partner with the very best in the world, and when it's necessary to scare our enemies and, on occasion, kill them, we hope you're in favor of that. We're really happy and very, very focused on what we're doing." Del's translation: "We get to kill people. Have that cherry on top." Del and Jefferey discuss 👇

The HighWire

13,174 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Khosla Ventures' Keith Rabois explains how a mere blip in the Anthropic or OpenAI IPOs would be catastrophic for the venture-funded AI ecosystem: "The most devastating thing to the frothy hype, traction, and funding of AI from VCs would be if Anthropic or OpenAI has a blip in their IPOs." "Do they have to show metrics over the next month to first few quarters that cause people to value either company less than the current belief that they will trade in the trillions? They could have a miss on revenue traction, a miss on margins, something like that." "That would be catastrophic. It would immediately reset virtually all the valuations in the AI world. And probably deprive half the companies that are raising money from access to capital." "I'm not saying that is going to happen, or is likely. And I think if they miss, it would be more on the margin side than on the revenue side." "But if they do, everybody is predicating their new investments in dollars on the idea that you can build a trillion-dollar company within the lifecycle of a venture fund. There are 2 examples, currently, and there are several companies that people believe have the potential to get there." "If that changes, and you cannot predict that more trillion-dollar companies can be created, then the valuations that people are investing at, and the dollars that are being invested, do not make that much sense."
2:36

Khosla Ventures' Keith Rabois explains how a mere blip in the Anthropic or OpenAI IPOs would be catastrophic for the venture-funded AI ecosystem: "The most devastating thing to the frothy hype, traction, and funding of AI from VCs would be if Anthropic or OpenAI has a blip in their IPOs." "Do they have to show metrics over the next month to first few quarters that cause people to value either company less than the current belief that they will trade in the trillions? They could have a miss on revenue traction, a miss on margins, something like that." "That would be catastrophic. It would immediately reset virtually all the valuations in the AI world. And probably deprive half the companies that are raising money from access to capital." "I'm not saying that is going to happen, or is likely. And I think if they miss, it would be more on the margin side than on the revenue side." "But if they do, everybody is predicating their new investments in dollars on the idea that you can build a trillion-dollar company within the lifecycle of a venture fund. There are 2 examples, currently, and there are several companies that people believe have the potential to get there." "If that changes, and you cannot predict that more trillion-dollar companies can be created, then the valuations that people are investing at, and the dollars that are being invested, do not make that much sense."

TBPN

78,606 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

Jensen Huang just admitted Nvidia is paying for BOTH ends of its own $500 billion deal. Every outlet ran the same headline: Nvidia is putting half a trillion dollars into Korea. The largest AI infrastructure commitment ever announced with a single partner. But when asked what was actually inside that number and whether this is Nvidia spending money in the Korean economy, or SK fronting the capital themselves, Jensen said this: "We're gonna be purchasing memories from them for many years to come. In order to build a trillion dollars worth of Vera Rubin systems, you're gonna have to buy a lot of system memories to go with it. And so we have large purchase agreements and large purchase intentions with SK Hynix. Meanwhile, SK Telecom is gonna become an AI cloud. And in that agreement, we will be selling AI supercomputers to them. So between us, we're gonna do $500 billion worth of business." He literally described two completely different transactions and added them together. Nvidia pays SK Hynix for memory chips. SK Telecom pays Nvidia for supercomputers. Both directions get stacked into one figure and handed to the market as demand. A large share of that half trillion dollars is Nvidia's own money going OUT the door. This is the CEO of the most important chip company on Earth. His silicon runs every serious AI system on the planet. If anyone alive could announce a clean half trillion in customer demand, it's him. Instead he announced a number that counts his own supplier payments as "business." But now this is where it gets genuinely crazy... Bloomberg asked how badly Nvidia needs Korean supply to grow. Jensen said Nvidia does not have enough bits. He said the company is constrained in HBM memory, constrained in LPDDR memory, and constrained in just about every part of the supply chain. Then he named the bottleneck nobody expected: "We're even constrained now with land and power and construction workers to set up the data centers." The company announcing the biggest AI deal in history cannot hire enough people to pour concrete. Then he capped the entire industry. He said the industry has the ability to double each year, and will have a hard time growing much faster than that. Now hold that against the target he set at the top of the same interview: He said the semiconductor industry probably has to become 10x larger than it is today over the next decade. Doubling annually clears that on a spreadsheet. But in reality it only happens if land, power and construction crews cooperate every single year for ten years straight. And the demand justifying all of it is a number most people have not heard yet. Jensen is planning for 100 BILLION AI agents and billions of robots using computers. That is the actual bet. 10x the industry, financed by deals where the vendor is also the customer, and gated by how fast you can find electricians. Korea's market did not celebrate any of this by the way. The KOSPI has been falling hard and SK Hynix and Samsung both slumped while the half trillion dollar headline was running. Jensen listed both directions of money and totaled them on camera because he does not think there is anything wrong with it. Maybe there isn't. Chips have to be bought before systems can be sold. But the market is pricing these announcements as demand, and at least half of this one is spending.
1:21

Jensen Huang just admitted Nvidia is paying for BOTH ends of its own $500 billion deal. Every outlet ran the same headline: Nvidia is putting half a trillion dollars into Korea. The largest AI infrastructure commitment ever announced with a single partner. But when asked what was actually inside that number and whether this is Nvidia spending money in the Korean economy, or SK fronting the capital themselves, Jensen said this: "We're gonna be purchasing memories from them for many years to come. In order to build a trillion dollars worth of Vera Rubin systems, you're gonna have to buy a lot of system memories to go with it. And so we have large purchase agreements and large purchase intentions with SK Hynix. Meanwhile, SK Telecom is gonna become an AI cloud. And in that agreement, we will be selling AI supercomputers to them. So between us, we're gonna do $500 billion worth of business." He literally described two completely different transactions and added them together. Nvidia pays SK Hynix for memory chips. SK Telecom pays Nvidia for supercomputers. Both directions get stacked into one figure and handed to the market as demand. A large share of that half trillion dollars is Nvidia's own money going OUT the door. This is the CEO of the most important chip company on Earth. His silicon runs every serious AI system on the planet. If anyone alive could announce a clean half trillion in customer demand, it's him. Instead he announced a number that counts his own supplier payments as "business." But now this is where it gets genuinely crazy... Bloomberg asked how badly Nvidia needs Korean supply to grow. Jensen said Nvidia does not have enough bits. He said the company is constrained in HBM memory, constrained in LPDDR memory, and constrained in just about every part of the supply chain. Then he named the bottleneck nobody expected: "We're even constrained now with land and power and construction workers to set up the data centers." The company announcing the biggest AI deal in history cannot hire enough people to pour concrete. Then he capped the entire industry. He said the industry has the ability to double each year, and will have a hard time growing much faster than that. Now hold that against the target he set at the top of the same interview: He said the semiconductor industry probably has to become 10x larger than it is today over the next decade. Doubling annually clears that on a spreadsheet. But in reality it only happens if land, power and construction crews cooperate every single year for ten years straight. And the demand justifying all of it is a number most people have not heard yet. Jensen is planning for 100 BILLION AI agents and billions of robots using computers. That is the actual bet. 10x the industry, financed by deals where the vendor is also the customer, and gated by how fast you can find electricians. Korea's market did not celebrate any of this by the way. The KOSPI has been falling hard and SK Hynix and Samsung both slumped while the half trillion dollar headline was running. Jensen listed both directions of money and totaled them on camera because he does not think there is anything wrong with it. Maybe there isn't. Chips have to be bought before systems can be sold. But the market is pricing these announcements as demand, and at least half of this one is spending.

Ricardo

35,609 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Seun: What are the immediate challenges that you think that Mr Taiwo Oyedele should be prepared for, especially because of his experience as a tax advisor and also head of the presidential committee on tax reforms? Wale Edun: I think we need to grow the economy. In order to grow the economy, we need to find funding on the government side. Yes, there is a role for the government to play in critical infrastructure funding. The so-called pillars for investment, and in order to do that, we need to boost revenue. So we really need to use automation, digitisation, even AI and other technology to increase government revenue, and he [Oyedele] is clearly an expert in the tax and fiscal area. That's his training, that's his background, and that's his most recent task that the government has given him. The next step, and it must come quickly and at scale, is to have investment that increases productivity, grows the economy, creates jobs, and gives people income that reduces poverty, and I must emphasise this. That the whole point of the president's Renewed Hope Agenda and action plan is to reduce poverty in the land. #PoliticsToday
2:07

Seun: What are the immediate challenges that you think that Mr Taiwo Oyedele should be prepared for, especially because of his experience as a tax advisor and also head of the presidential committee on tax reforms? Wale Edun: I think we need to grow the economy. In order to grow the economy, we need to find funding on the government side. Yes, there is a role for the government to play in critical infrastructure funding. The so-called pillars for investment, and in order to do that, we need to boost revenue. So we really need to use automation, digitisation, even AI and other technology to increase government revenue, and he [Oyedele] is clearly an expert in the tax and fiscal area. That's his training, that's his background, and that's his most recent task that the government has given him. The next step, and it must come quickly and at scale, is to have investment that increases productivity, grows the economy, creates jobs, and gives people income that reduces poverty, and I must emphasise this. That the whole point of the president's Renewed Hope Agenda and action plan is to reduce poverty in the land. #PoliticsToday

Channels Television

50,823 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

I absolutely love how Alex pressed Sam on whether OpenAI thinks they’ve already hit AGI internally, and what he actually considers the difference between AGI and ASI. Sam’s answer was basically that declaring AGI doesn’t really mean anything anymore, because every lab and every person uses a different definition. He makes the good point that if you went back to 2020 and showed people a system that could code, help start a company, discover new science and give you a 20 minute win across basically every part of your life, most people probably would’ve called that AGI. I personally still don’t think we’ve hit it, but I agree with his broader point that treating AGI like some single finish line is becoming increasingly meaningless. The way he describes ASI is exactly how I would want him to, AGI is basically a milestone somewhere on the curve, while superintelligence is this continuous ramp of increasing capability that may never really have a final “we won” moment. And importantly, Sam says he sees no sign that this exponential capability curve is slowing down. A few quotes I liked as well: “We’re building AI, but it’s a thing you’re always building. It’s not an end state anymore.” “I don’t want to say we’ve declared victory on the AGI point and moved on.” “The important part of any of this is not any milestone, any term. It’s that we are on this exponential of increasing capabilities and potential.”
1:48

I absolutely love how Alex pressed Sam on whether OpenAI thinks they’ve already hit AGI internally, and what he actually considers the difference between AGI and ASI. Sam’s answer was basically that declaring AGI doesn’t really mean anything anymore, because every lab and every person uses a different definition. He makes the good point that if you went back to 2020 and showed people a system that could code, help start a company, discover new science and give you a 20 minute win across basically every part of your life, most people probably would’ve called that AGI. I personally still don’t think we’ve hit it, but I agree with his broader point that treating AGI like some single finish line is becoming increasingly meaningless. The way he describes ASI is exactly how I would want him to, AGI is basically a milestone somewhere on the curve, while superintelligence is this continuous ramp of increasing capability that may never really have a final “we won” moment. And importantly, Sam says he sees no sign that this exponential capability curve is slowing down. A few quotes I liked as well: “We’re building AI, but it’s a thing you’re always building. It’s not an end state anymore.” “I don’t want to say we’ve declared victory on the AGI point and moved on.” “The important part of any of this is not any milestone, any term. It’s that we are on this exponential of increasing capabilities and potential.”

Chris

38,143 Aufrufe • vor 20 Tagen

Elon Musk just explained why the SpaceX IPO is an energy story and the energy constraint is why he believes space becomes the only viable path for AI to scale (Save this). The argument he is making is one of the most important and least understood things happening in technology right now. The United States currently consumes roughly 500 gigawatts of electricity on average. To double that capacity which is what continued AI expansion on the current terrestrial trajectory would eventually require would mean building as many power plants as currently exist in the entire country. He is not arguing that this is technically impossible, just that communities are not willing to accept it, that permitting timelines make it unrealistic, and that the hard ceiling on Earth based power generation means the expansion of AI compute will eventually hit a wall that no amount of capital can overcome on the ground. His observation is that in space, that wall does not exist. A solar panel in orbit produces roughly five times more power than the same panel on Earth, operates in continuous sunlight uninterrupted by weather or nighttime, and benefits from the vacuum of space as a completely passive cooling system meaning the two largest operating costs of any terrestrial data center, energy and cooling, are effectively eliminated. He then said that you could theoretically increase harnessed energy by a factor of one million and still be using less than a millionth of the sun's total energy output. This is the underlying physics of why SpaceX filed with the FCC to launch up to one million solar powered AI satellites, and why they described that constellation in their own filing as a first step toward becoming a Kardashev Type II civilization capable of harnessing the full power of the sun. To understand what makes this credible rather than visionary, you need to understand what SpaceX already controls that no other company on earth possesses. Starship, once operating at full cadence, can deliver 100 to 150 tons of payload to orbit per launch, at a target cost per kilogram that is an order of magnitude lower than any existing vehicle. Musk's stated ambition is to scale Starship to 10,000 to 30,000 launches per year, a frequency that would allow the deployment of orbital compute infrastructure at a pace that is currently unimaginable with any existing rocket. He told xAI staff earlier this year that achieving space-based AI at scale will eventually require manufacturing facilities on the moon, building solar panels and heat dissipation structures from lunar silicon and aluminum, and launching them into orbit from there rather than from Earth's surface because the moon's lower gravity makes the economics of launch dramatically more favorable. SpaceX's S-1 filing explicitly states that its launch capabilities could enable massive AI compute satellite constellations with the potential for millions of satellites for orbital data centers, with the first launch potentially occurring as soon as 2028. Google and Alphabet are already in advanced talks with SpaceX about deploying space-based data centers. Starcloud, a startup running Nvidia H100 GPUs in orbit, has already validated that high-performance AI inference workloads can operate in space, with plans to scale to five gigawatts of orbital compute power by 2035. This is why Musk believes the cost crossover happens in two to three years because SpaceX's launch cost trajectory intersects with the accelerating energy constraint on the ground in a way that makes space genuinely cheaper, faster, and less regulated at exactly the moment AI demand is hitting its hardest physical limits.
1:01

Elon Musk just explained why the SpaceX IPO is an energy story and the energy constraint is why he believes space becomes the only viable path for AI to scale (Save this). The argument he is making is one of the most important and least understood things happening in technology right now. The United States currently consumes roughly 500 gigawatts of electricity on average. To double that capacity which is what continued AI expansion on the current terrestrial trajectory would eventually require would mean building as many power plants as currently exist in the entire country. He is not arguing that this is technically impossible, just that communities are not willing to accept it, that permitting timelines make it unrealistic, and that the hard ceiling on Earth based power generation means the expansion of AI compute will eventually hit a wall that no amount of capital can overcome on the ground. His observation is that in space, that wall does not exist. A solar panel in orbit produces roughly five times more power than the same panel on Earth, operates in continuous sunlight uninterrupted by weather or nighttime, and benefits from the vacuum of space as a completely passive cooling system meaning the two largest operating costs of any terrestrial data center, energy and cooling, are effectively eliminated. He then said that you could theoretically increase harnessed energy by a factor of one million and still be using less than a millionth of the sun's total energy output. This is the underlying physics of why SpaceX filed with the FCC to launch up to one million solar powered AI satellites, and why they described that constellation in their own filing as a first step toward becoming a Kardashev Type II civilization capable of harnessing the full power of the sun. To understand what makes this credible rather than visionary, you need to understand what SpaceX already controls that no other company on earth possesses. Starship, once operating at full cadence, can deliver 100 to 150 tons of payload to orbit per launch, at a target cost per kilogram that is an order of magnitude lower than any existing vehicle. Musk's stated ambition is to scale Starship to 10,000 to 30,000 launches per year, a frequency that would allow the deployment of orbital compute infrastructure at a pace that is currently unimaginable with any existing rocket. He told xAI staff earlier this year that achieving space-based AI at scale will eventually require manufacturing facilities on the moon, building solar panels and heat dissipation structures from lunar silicon and aluminum, and launching them into orbit from there rather than from Earth's surface because the moon's lower gravity makes the economics of launch dramatically more favorable. SpaceX's S-1 filing explicitly states that its launch capabilities could enable massive AI compute satellite constellations with the potential for millions of satellites for orbital data centers, with the first launch potentially occurring as soon as 2028. Google and Alphabet are already in advanced talks with SpaceX about deploying space-based data centers. Starcloud, a startup running Nvidia H100 GPUs in orbit, has already validated that high-performance AI inference workloads can operate in space, with plans to scale to five gigawatts of orbital compute power by 2035. This is why Musk believes the cost crossover happens in two to three years because SpaceX's launch cost trajectory intersects with the accelerating energy constraint on the ground in a way that makes space genuinely cheaper, faster, and less regulated at exactly the moment AI demand is hitting its hardest physical limits.

Milk Road AI

12,738 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, offers a sobering view: The biggest technological shift in human history is happening, and almost no one is talking about it. Schmidt opens with a startling industry prediction: "We believe as an industry that in the next one year the vast majority of programmers will be replaced by AI programmers. We also believe that within one year you will have graduate level mathematicians that are at the tippy top of graduate math programs." He explains why this matters so much. Programming and math aren't just two fields among many: "Programming plus math are the basis of sort of our whole digital world." And the AI labs are already using AI to build better AI: "The research groups in OpenAI and anthropic and so forth… around 10 or 20% of the code that they're developing in their research programs is being generated by the computer. That's called recursive self-improvement." Eric Schmidt then lays out the timeline most people haven't grasped: "Within 3 to 5 years we'll have what is called general intelligence AGI which can be defined as a system that is as smart as the smartest mathematician physicist artist writer thinker politician." He gives this belief system a name: "I call this by the way the San Francisco consensus because everyone who believes this is in San Francisco it may be the water." But the truly unsettling part comes next. Once AI starts improving itself, humans become optional to the process: "The computers are now doing self-improvement… they don't have to listen to us anymore. We call that super intelligence or ASI… computers that are smarter than the sum of humans. The San Francisco consensus is this occurs within six years." And here's where Schmidt sounds the alarm. The conversation isn't keeping pace with the technology: "This path is not understood in our society. There's no language for what happens with the arrival of this. This is happening faster than our human that our society, our democracy, our laws will address." His closing thought captures why this matters: "That's why it's underhyped. People do not understand what happens when you have intelligence at this level which is largely free."
2:24

Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, offers a sobering view: The biggest technological shift in human history is happening, and almost no one is talking about it. Schmidt opens with a startling industry prediction: "We believe as an industry that in the next one year the vast majority of programmers will be replaced by AI programmers. We also believe that within one year you will have graduate level mathematicians that are at the tippy top of graduate math programs." He explains why this matters so much. Programming and math aren't just two fields among many: "Programming plus math are the basis of sort of our whole digital world." And the AI labs are already using AI to build better AI: "The research groups in OpenAI and anthropic and so forth… around 10 or 20% of the code that they're developing in their research programs is being generated by the computer. That's called recursive self-improvement." Eric Schmidt then lays out the timeline most people haven't grasped: "Within 3 to 5 years we'll have what is called general intelligence AGI which can be defined as a system that is as smart as the smartest mathematician physicist artist writer thinker politician." He gives this belief system a name: "I call this by the way the San Francisco consensus because everyone who believes this is in San Francisco it may be the water." But the truly unsettling part comes next. Once AI starts improving itself, humans become optional to the process: "The computers are now doing self-improvement… they don't have to listen to us anymore. We call that super intelligence or ASI… computers that are smarter than the sum of humans. The San Francisco consensus is this occurs within six years." And here's where Schmidt sounds the alarm. The conversation isn't keeping pace with the technology: "This path is not understood in our society. There's no language for what happens with the arrival of this. This is happening faster than our human that our society, our democracy, our laws will address." His closing thought captures why this matters: "That's why it's underhyped. People do not understand what happens when you have intelligence at this level which is largely free."

Big Brain AI

634,538 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Is AI going to kill us all before the end of the decade? A former OpenAI and Anthropic researcher quit Anthropic warning that future systems could become superhuman, hack almost anything, seize real power and resources, and potentially wipe out humanity. The wild part is that Anthropic’s own alignment science lead publicly agreed with the core fear, saying he personally puts the chance of AI killing everyone at more than 10% within the next decade. And the industry’s defense basically sounds like: yes, this could be catastrophic, but if we slow down, someone else might build it first. So… what’s your bet? Source: DeFrancoNews on YT / Writer: Sol
1:42

Is AI going to kill us all before the end of the decade? A former OpenAI and Anthropic researcher quit Anthropic warning that future systems could become superhuman, hack almost anything, seize real power and resources, and potentially wipe out humanity. The wild part is that Anthropic’s own alignment science lead publicly agreed with the core fear, saying he personally puts the chance of AI killing everyone at more than 10% within the next decade. And the industry’s defense basically sounds like: yes, this could be catastrophic, but if we slow down, someone else might build it first. So… what’s your bet? Source: DeFrancoNews on YT / Writer: Sol

Mario Nawfal

66,773 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

A single gigawatt of orbital compute requires roughly 200 Starship launches and Elon Musk is not satisfied with gigawatts (Save this). The target is 100 gigawatts of orbital compute per year which means SpaceX is staring down a launch requirement that no organization in human history has ever attempted at anything close to that scale. He acknowledges that scaling to gigawatts per year in orbit is a very hard challenge, but then points to something most people have missed entirely, SpaceX has already demonstrated the foundational capability, because building and launching thousands of Starlink satellites per year is the same industrial problem applied to a different payload. When you understand the orbital compute satellite as a larger version of Starlink V3 with an Nvidia GPU rack at the center instead of a communications payload, the manufacturing and launch scaling challenge stops looking like science fiction and starts looking like a production ramp. The infrastructure to support that ramp is already being built. SpaceX is currently capacitizing for thousands of launches per year, two launch towers and pads in South Texas are operational, the first pad at Cape Canaveral is nearly complete, a second is on the way at Launch Complex 37, and additional locations are already in discussion. As the CFO says it "You need to have those cost curves as you ramp up in volume and time, your costs go down." The vision he describes for what this eventually enables is striking in its specificity. He imagines asking Grok a question on his phone, the inference running on an orbital compute satellite, and the answer coming back down through Starlink direct-to-cell, a complete AI query processed entirely in space, from prompt to response, without touching a single terrestrial data center. That moment, he says, is closer than the industry thinks, with initial capability demonstrations possible as soon as next year. The bottleneck that stands between now and that moment is not the satellite design, the cooling physics, or the silicon, all of which SpaceX has already worked through.
4:23

A single gigawatt of orbital compute requires roughly 200 Starship launches and Elon Musk is not satisfied with gigawatts (Save this). The target is 100 gigawatts of orbital compute per year which means SpaceX is staring down a launch requirement that no organization in human history has ever attempted at anything close to that scale. He acknowledges that scaling to gigawatts per year in orbit is a very hard challenge, but then points to something most people have missed entirely, SpaceX has already demonstrated the foundational capability, because building and launching thousands of Starlink satellites per year is the same industrial problem applied to a different payload. When you understand the orbital compute satellite as a larger version of Starlink V3 with an Nvidia GPU rack at the center instead of a communications payload, the manufacturing and launch scaling challenge stops looking like science fiction and starts looking like a production ramp. The infrastructure to support that ramp is already being built. SpaceX is currently capacitizing for thousands of launches per year, two launch towers and pads in South Texas are operational, the first pad at Cape Canaveral is nearly complete, a second is on the way at Launch Complex 37, and additional locations are already in discussion. As the CFO says it "You need to have those cost curves as you ramp up in volume and time, your costs go down." The vision he describes for what this eventually enables is striking in its specificity. He imagines asking Grok a question on his phone, the inference running on an orbital compute satellite, and the answer coming back down through Starlink direct-to-cell, a complete AI query processed entirely in space, from prompt to response, without touching a single terrestrial data center. That moment, he says, is closer than the industry thinks, with initial capability demonstrations possible as soon as next year. The bottleneck that stands between now and that moment is not the satellite design, the cooling physics, or the silicon, all of which SpaceX has already worked through.

Milk Road AI

67,868 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

I was honored to share the TED AI stage with Ilya on Oct. 17. His speech video is out today (mine's still being edited). I think it provides relevant context tokens to the ongoing events. Transcript starting at ~10'20": As AI continues to progress, as technology advances, [...] What I claim will happen is that people will start to act in unprecedentedly collaborative ways out of their own self-interest. It's already happening right now. You see the leading AGI companies starting to collaborate, such as the Frontiers model forum. And we will expect that companies, even competitors, will share technical information to make their AI safe. We may even see governments do this. As another example, at OpenAI, we really believed in how dramatic AGI is going to be. So, one of the ideas that we were operating by, and it's been written on our website for 5 years now, is that when technology gets such that we are very close to AGI, to computers smarter than humans, if some other company is far ahead of us, then rather than compete with them, we will help them out, join them, in a sense. And why do that? Because we appreciate how incredibly dramatic AGI is going to be. And my claim is that with each generation of capability advancements, as AI gets better and as all of you experience what AI can do, as people who run AI efforts and AGI efforts, and people who work on them will experience it as well, this will change the way we see AI and AGI. And that will change collective behavior. And this is an important reason why I'm hopeful that, despite the great challenges posed by this technology, we will overcome them. @TEDAI2023
12:24

I was honored to share the TED AI stage with Ilya on Oct. 17. His speech video is out today (mine's still being edited). I think it provides relevant context tokens to the ongoing events. Transcript starting at ~10'20": As AI continues to progress, as technology advances, [...] What I claim will happen is that people will start to act in unprecedentedly collaborative ways out of their own self-interest. It's already happening right now. You see the leading AGI companies starting to collaborate, such as the Frontiers model forum. And we will expect that companies, even competitors, will share technical information to make their AI safe. We may even see governments do this. As another example, at OpenAI, we really believed in how dramatic AGI is going to be. So, one of the ideas that we were operating by, and it's been written on our website for 5 years now, is that when technology gets such that we are very close to AGI, to computers smarter than humans, if some other company is far ahead of us, then rather than compete with them, we will help them out, join them, in a sense. And why do that? Because we appreciate how incredibly dramatic AGI is going to be. And my claim is that with each generation of capability advancements, as AI gets better and as all of you experience what AI can do, as people who run AI efforts and AGI efforts, and people who work on them will experience it as well, this will change the way we see AI and AGI. And that will change collective behavior. And this is an important reason why I'm hopeful that, despite the great challenges posed by this technology, we will overcome them. @TEDAI2023

Jim Fan

846,609 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Arthur Hayes: Selling Altcoins Because the AI Trade is About to Peak On June 13, 2026, Arthur Hayes Arthur Hayes stated in an interview with Cointelegraph that he had liquidated his altcoin positions, including HYPE, NEAR, and Worldcoin. Reflecting on his previous macro forecasts, he mentioned that current fiat liquidity did not flow into Bitcoin, but was instead entirely absorbed by the AI sector. Hayes believes the AI narrative is currently facing three problems: the vexing price of energy, the risk of US policy reversals, and the liquidity drain from the mega IPOs of Anthropic and OpenAI. He expressed that it is not as if AI goes down 50%, people have capital to invest in Bitcoin; rather, Bitcoin would get "thrown out with the bathwater." Given these risks are present, he decided to exit.
2:18

Arthur Hayes: Selling Altcoins Because the AI Trade is About to Peak On June 13, 2026, Arthur Hayes Arthur Hayes stated in an interview with Cointelegraph that he had liquidated his altcoin positions, including HYPE, NEAR, and Worldcoin. Reflecting on his previous macro forecasts, he mentioned that current fiat liquidity did not flow into Bitcoin, but was instead entirely absorbed by the AI sector. Hayes believes the AI narrative is currently facing three problems: the vexing price of energy, the risk of US policy reversals, and the liquidity drain from the mega IPOs of Anthropic and OpenAI. He expressed that it is not as if AI goes down 50%, people have capital to invest in Bitcoin; rather, Bitcoin would get "thrown out with the bathwater." Given these risks are present, he decided to exit.

Wu Blockchain

45,748 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten