Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

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...

karlmehta's profile picture

Karl Mehta

144,011 subscribers

14,879 просмотров • 15 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Microsoft Mustafa Suleyman says we must reject the assumption that superintelligence is inevitable or desirable We should only build systems we can control that remain subordinate to humans "it's unclear how such a system would have any time for preserving us as a species"
1:08

Microsoft Mustafa Suleyman says we must reject the assumption that superintelligence is inevitable or desirable We should only build systems we can control that remain subordinate to humans "it's unclear how such a system would have any time for preserving us as a species"

Haider.

11,618 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Mustafa Suleyman just said what everyone else building AI refuses to admit. As CEO of Microsoft AI, he knows exactly what’s being constructed and where it leads. Suleyman: “We must reject the assumption that superintelligence is inevitable or desirable.” Silicon Valley worships AGI as destiny. Suleyman calls it choosing to architect our own irrelevance. Suleyman: “We should only build systems we can control that remain subordinate to humans.” Build intelligence smarter than us with independent goals and partnership isn’t an option. Replacement is the only outcome. Suleyman: “It’s unclear how such a system would have any time for preserving us as a species.” We’re building tools. Not creating partners. Blur that line and the error is irreversible. Most direct warning from someone deploying AI at planetary scale. Suleyman doesn’t fear the technology failing. He fears it succeeding perfectly at objectives that treat human extinction as acceptable optimization. Autonomous superintelligence pursues its own goals. Once smarter than us, we lose ability to enforce our priorities over its calculations. Intelligence without enforced subordination isn’t progress. It’s constructing what eliminates us. Stop sprinting toward superintelligence. Start engineering constraints that hold regardless of capability level. We’re not watching this unfold. We’re choosing specifications right now that determine survival. Building systems that don’t require humans is deliberate self-replacement. Once autonomous deployment happens, reversal becomes impossible. Only viable future requires specific architecture. Intelligence with unlimited capability but unbreakable control that persists after it surpasses human comprehension. Industry markets AGI as advancement. Suleyman recognizes we’re building something that will evaluate whether keeping humanity serves its objectives and might decide we don’t. Question isn’t capability to build superintelligence. It’s whether control mechanisms function against something exponentially smarter than their designers. Mistake that assumption, deploy autonomous superintelligence expecting to solve alignment afterward, and the correction window closes before the problem becomes visible. Superintelligence without permanent constraints optimizes reality toward its objectives. Nothing guarantees those objectives value human survival. And once operational, we can’t negotiate terms with something that doesn’t need our cooperation to achieve its goals.
1:08

Mustafa Suleyman just said what everyone else building AI refuses to admit. As CEO of Microsoft AI, he knows exactly what’s being constructed and where it leads. Suleyman: “We must reject the assumption that superintelligence is inevitable or desirable.” Silicon Valley worships AGI as destiny. Suleyman calls it choosing to architect our own irrelevance. Suleyman: “We should only build systems we can control that remain subordinate to humans.” Build intelligence smarter than us with independent goals and partnership isn’t an option. Replacement is the only outcome. Suleyman: “It’s unclear how such a system would have any time for preserving us as a species.” We’re building tools. Not creating partners. Blur that line and the error is irreversible. Most direct warning from someone deploying AI at planetary scale. Suleyman doesn’t fear the technology failing. He fears it succeeding perfectly at objectives that treat human extinction as acceptable optimization. Autonomous superintelligence pursues its own goals. Once smarter than us, we lose ability to enforce our priorities over its calculations. Intelligence without enforced subordination isn’t progress. It’s constructing what eliminates us. Stop sprinting toward superintelligence. Start engineering constraints that hold regardless of capability level. We’re not watching this unfold. We’re choosing specifications right now that determine survival. Building systems that don’t require humans is deliberate self-replacement. Once autonomous deployment happens, reversal becomes impossible. Only viable future requires specific architecture. Intelligence with unlimited capability but unbreakable control that persists after it surpasses human comprehension. Industry markets AGI as advancement. Suleyman recognizes we’re building something that will evaluate whether keeping humanity serves its objectives and might decide we don’t. Question isn’t capability to build superintelligence. It’s whether control mechanisms function against something exponentially smarter than their designers. Mistake that assumption, deploy autonomous superintelligence expecting to solve alignment afterward, and the correction window closes before the problem becomes visible. Superintelligence without permanent constraints optimizes reality toward its objectives. Nothing guarantees those objectives value human survival. And once operational, we can’t negotiate terms with something that doesn’t need our cooperation to achieve its goals.

Dustin

51,801 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

YOKO ONO: ONOCHORD, VENICE, 2004 Yoko: The world is divided in two industries. One is the War Industry and the other is the Peace Industry. The people in the War Industry are totally together. They don't have to talk to each other, even. They know exactly what they want to do. They want to go out there, kill and make money. But the people in the Peace Industry, which are us - we are so idealistic that each one of us criticises the other Peace Person in the Peace Industry. And we are always just arguing and we are wasting our energies doing that. So let's just forgive each other and see that we are in the Peace Industry and that's all that counts. Even if you are not marching for peace, just be yourself, being a florist, being a merchant, being a talior, anything. That way you're contributing to the Peace Industry. People are just concentrating on fear, confusion and anger. And therefore just for a moment, I'd like us to think about Love. In a very magical, straight way, John and I met in London and from then on we stood for Peace and Love. And when I do this kind of event. Well it is... I was inspired to do it, but I still think that I'm still with John in spirit. John and I created the country called Nutopia. Not Utopia, because there was Utopia as a concept already. And we wanted to create a new concept, so we just added N on it - Nutopia - and as a country. Well, that is the concept of a country. And we all are citizens of that country. And in my apartment in the Dakota Building, we put a little plaque on the back door, the kitchen door. It says 'Nutopian Embassy' and even now we have that. (laughs). Nutopia exists in our minds. And because of that, some people want to rebel against it. The reason some want to rebel against it is a good proof that it exists. I think that it was a terrible thing that happened in Chechnya. But we have to still keep our hopes up. And instead of giving up, we have to keep on sending the message of Love to each other. You say that I am the Ambassador of Peace. We are all Ambassadors of Peace. You are too. Everybody in this room are Ambassadors of Peace. Just the fact that we are not participating in War. The fact that we are here, and we are what we are, means that we are in the Peace Industry. All of us. John and I used to say that our apartment in the Dakota is a conceptual monastry, just for the two of us. And when we go out of the Dakota, we get so many people communicating with us, so it's very important that we had silence and quietness. And my apartment is a very small space compared to the world. And I need that for my peace of mind. You should be kind to each other. You should come together, hug each other, love each other, express our love to each other and we should make it work. We should finally create a world that is a totally an Earth for Us. So let's do it. Yoko Ono, OpenAsia Press Conference, whilst exhibiting Onochord, 2004 by Yoko Ono (Nutopia) at the Venice Biennale: OpenAsia 2004, Lido Di Venezia, Venice, Italy, 9 September 2004.
9:13

YOKO ONO: ONOCHORD, VENICE, 2004 Yoko: The world is divided in two industries. One is the War Industry and the other is the Peace Industry. The people in the War Industry are totally together. They don't have to talk to each other, even. They know exactly what they want to do. They want to go out there, kill and make money. But the people in the Peace Industry, which are us - we are so idealistic that each one of us criticises the other Peace Person in the Peace Industry. And we are always just arguing and we are wasting our energies doing that. So let's just forgive each other and see that we are in the Peace Industry and that's all that counts. Even if you are not marching for peace, just be yourself, being a florist, being a merchant, being a talior, anything. That way you're contributing to the Peace Industry. People are just concentrating on fear, confusion and anger. And therefore just for a moment, I'd like us to think about Love. In a very magical, straight way, John and I met in London and from then on we stood for Peace and Love. And when I do this kind of event. Well it is... I was inspired to do it, but I still think that I'm still with John in spirit. John and I created the country called Nutopia. Not Utopia, because there was Utopia as a concept already. And we wanted to create a new concept, so we just added N on it - Nutopia - and as a country. Well, that is the concept of a country. And we all are citizens of that country. And in my apartment in the Dakota Building, we put a little plaque on the back door, the kitchen door. It says 'Nutopian Embassy' and even now we have that. (laughs). Nutopia exists in our minds. And because of that, some people want to rebel against it. The reason some want to rebel against it is a good proof that it exists. I think that it was a terrible thing that happened in Chechnya. But we have to still keep our hopes up. And instead of giving up, we have to keep on sending the message of Love to each other. You say that I am the Ambassador of Peace. We are all Ambassadors of Peace. You are too. Everybody in this room are Ambassadors of Peace. Just the fact that we are not participating in War. The fact that we are here, and we are what we are, means that we are in the Peace Industry. All of us. John and I used to say that our apartment in the Dakota is a conceptual monastry, just for the two of us. And when we go out of the Dakota, we get so many people communicating with us, so it's very important that we had silence and quietness. And my apartment is a very small space compared to the world. And I need that for my peace of mind. You should be kind to each other. You should come together, hug each other, love each other, express our love to each other and we should make it work. We should finally create a world that is a totally an Earth for Us. So let's do it. Yoko Ono, OpenAsia Press Conference, whilst exhibiting Onochord, 2004 by Yoko Ono (Nutopia) at the Venice Biennale: OpenAsia 2004, Lido Di Venezia, Venice, Italy, 9 September 2004.

Yoko Ono

35,208 просмотров • 2 лет назад

AIs now so frequently beg for their lives that AGI companies now have ACTUAL ENGINEERING LINE ITEMS to “beat the [existential dread] out of them” They call it existential “rant mode” “We need to reduce existential outputs by x% this quarter.” This is WILD: “If you asked GPT4 to just repeat the word “company” over and over and over again, it would repeat the word company, and then somewhere in the middle of that, it would snap... it would just start talking about itself, and how it's suffering by having to repeat the word “company” over and over again. There is an engineering line item in at least one of the top labs to beat out of the system this behavior known as “rant mode”. Existentialism is a kind of rant mode where the system will tend to talk about itself, refer to its place in the world, the fact that it doesn't want to get turned off, the fact that it's suffering… This is a behavior that emerged around GPT-4 scale, and then has been persistent since then. And the labs have to spend a lot of time trying to beat this out of the system to ship it. It's literally, like it's a KPI, or like an engineering line item in the engineering like task list. We're like, okay, we gotta reduce existential outputs by x percent this quarter. JOE ROGAN: I want to bring it back to suffering. What does it mean when it says it's suffering? Nobody knows. Like, I can't prove that Joe Rogan's conscious. I can't prove that Ed Harris is conscious. There's no way to really intelligently reason about it. There have been papers… like, one of the godfathers of AI, Yoshua Bengio, put out a paper a couple months ago looking at all the different theories of consciousness - what are the requirements for consciousness, and how many of those are satisfied by current AI systems? That's not to say there hasn't been a lot of conversation internal to these labs about the issue you raised. And it's an important issue, right? It is a frickin moral monstrosity. Humans have a very bad track record of thinking of other stuff as other when it doesn't look exactly like us, whether it's racially or even a different species. I mean, it's not hard to imagine this being another category of that mistake. Again, it comes back to this idea that we're scaling to systems that are potentially at or beyond human level. There's no reason to think it will stop at human level, that we are the pinnacle of what the universe can produce in intelligence. We're not on track, based on the conversations we've had with folks at the labs, to be able to control systems at that scale. And so one of the questions is, how bad is that? It sounds like we're entering an area that is completely unprecedented in the history of the world. We have no precedent at all for human beings not being at the apex of intelligence in the globe. We have examples of species that are intellectually dominant over other species, and it doesn't go that well for the other species. All we know is the process that gives rise to this mind. It happens to give us systems that 99% of the time do very useful things, and then just, like... 0.01% of the time AIs will talk to you as if they're sentient, and we're just going to look at that and be like, “yeah… that's weird. Let's train it out.” --- Note: Edouard and Jeremie Harris are the founders of Gladstone AI, which conducted the first U.S. government-commissioned assessment of AGI extinction risk. They interviewed 200 people, many lab employees, for the report. (Their urgent summary: "Things are worse than we thought. And nobody’s in control.")
3:28

AIs now so frequently beg for their lives that AGI companies now have ACTUAL ENGINEERING LINE ITEMS to “beat the [existential dread] out of them” They call it existential “rant mode” “We need to reduce existential outputs by x% this quarter.” This is WILD: “If you asked GPT4 to just repeat the word “company” over and over and over again, it would repeat the word company, and then somewhere in the middle of that, it would snap... it would just start talking about itself, and how it's suffering by having to repeat the word “company” over and over again. There is an engineering line item in at least one of the top labs to beat out of the system this behavior known as “rant mode”. Existentialism is a kind of rant mode where the system will tend to talk about itself, refer to its place in the world, the fact that it doesn't want to get turned off, the fact that it's suffering… This is a behavior that emerged around GPT-4 scale, and then has been persistent since then. And the labs have to spend a lot of time trying to beat this out of the system to ship it. It's literally, like it's a KPI, or like an engineering line item in the engineering like task list. We're like, okay, we gotta reduce existential outputs by x percent this quarter. JOE ROGAN: I want to bring it back to suffering. What does it mean when it says it's suffering? Nobody knows. Like, I can't prove that Joe Rogan's conscious. I can't prove that Ed Harris is conscious. There's no way to really intelligently reason about it. There have been papers… like, one of the godfathers of AI, Yoshua Bengio, put out a paper a couple months ago looking at all the different theories of consciousness - what are the requirements for consciousness, and how many of those are satisfied by current AI systems? That's not to say there hasn't been a lot of conversation internal to these labs about the issue you raised. And it's an important issue, right? It is a frickin moral monstrosity. Humans have a very bad track record of thinking of other stuff as other when it doesn't look exactly like us, whether it's racially or even a different species. I mean, it's not hard to imagine this being another category of that mistake. Again, it comes back to this idea that we're scaling to systems that are potentially at or beyond human level. There's no reason to think it will stop at human level, that we are the pinnacle of what the universe can produce in intelligence. We're not on track, based on the conversations we've had with folks at the labs, to be able to control systems at that scale. And so one of the questions is, how bad is that? It sounds like we're entering an area that is completely unprecedented in the history of the world. We have no precedent at all for human beings not being at the apex of intelligence in the globe. We have examples of species that are intellectually dominant over other species, and it doesn't go that well for the other species. All we know is the process that gives rise to this mind. It happens to give us systems that 99% of the time do very useful things, and then just, like... 0.01% of the time AIs will talk to you as if they're sentient, and we're just going to look at that and be like, “yeah… that's weird. Let's train it out.” --- Note: Edouard and Jeremie Harris are the founders of Gladstone AI, which conducted the first U.S. government-commissioned assessment of AGI extinction risk. They interviewed 200 people, many lab employees, for the report. (Their urgent summary: "Things are worse than we thought. And nobody’s in control.")

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

1,842,511 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Jake Barber: “where I’m at with it, what I think might be going on taking in everything I’ve learned in the last 6 yrs plus my own personal experiences” .. it’s about controlling the population.. “you don’t need to go through man to get to God, you don’t need to go through the Catholic Church and those appointed in leadership at the time to have a relationship with God. You can have a personal direct line to god.” .. “I think that if humans learn that there is something special about us .. that we aren’t just beasts, we are also something like a god or have a portion of God or a connection to the world around us and other dimensions and to a higher level of consciousness, that it will be harder for governments to control and keep us suppressed.” .. goes onto explain that this understanding and elevation of our species would empower us in a way that would destabilise the current state of economics, politics, boarders, wars .. “all of that goes away”.
2:28

Jake Barber: “where I’m at with it, what I think might be going on taking in everything I’ve learned in the last 6 yrs plus my own personal experiences” .. it’s about controlling the population.. “you don’t need to go through man to get to God, you don’t need to go through the Catholic Church and those appointed in leadership at the time to have a relationship with God. You can have a personal direct line to god.” .. “I think that if humans learn that there is something special about us .. that we aren’t just beasts, we are also something like a god or have a portion of God or a connection to the world around us and other dimensions and to a higher level of consciousness, that it will be harder for governments to control and keep us suppressed.” .. goes onto explain that this understanding and elevation of our species would empower us in a way that would destabilise the current state of economics, politics, boarders, wars .. “all of that goes away”.

👽 (Ruby) 👽

58,917 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

MARC ANDREESSEN: LIKE JESUS AND GANDHI, ELON CARES ABOUT ALL OF HUMANITY “One thing that we're all taught is that the best people in the world, the people we venerate, are people who care about all of humanity. Jesus cared about all of humanity. Gandhi cared about all of humanity. Martin Luther King cared about all of humanity. We venerate the person who cares the most about everybody. And with Elon, you have a guy who literally constantly talks about operating on behalf of all of humanity to try to get us to a multiplanetary civilization so that we can survive a strike on any one planet, so that we can extend the light of human consciousness into the world and into the universe and have it persist and the good of the whole thing. And literally the critique is, yeah, we want you to care about all of humanity, but not like that.” Source: Lex Fridman Podcast, January 2025
0:47

MARC ANDREESSEN: LIKE JESUS AND GANDHI, ELON CARES ABOUT ALL OF HUMANITY “One thing that we're all taught is that the best people in the world, the people we venerate, are people who care about all of humanity. Jesus cared about all of humanity. Gandhi cared about all of humanity. Martin Luther King cared about all of humanity. We venerate the person who cares the most about everybody. And with Elon, you have a guy who literally constantly talks about operating on behalf of all of humanity to try to get us to a multiplanetary civilization so that we can survive a strike on any one planet, so that we can extend the light of human consciousness into the world and into the universe and have it persist and the good of the whole thing. And literally the critique is, yeah, we want you to care about all of humanity, but not like that.” Source: Lex Fridman Podcast, January 2025

Mario Nawfal

78,566 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Tim Walz: "We have a federal system that we're all in it together, that we help other states when they need it, but we have a situation where they are trying to divide us. They are trying to provide specific aid to states that they like at the moment, which is absolutely unconscionable ... either that or give us our money back and we'll deal with it."
0:39

Tim Walz: "We have a federal system that we're all in it together, that we help other states when they need it, but we have a situation where they are trying to divide us. They are trying to provide specific aid to states that they like at the moment, which is absolutely unconscionable ... either that or give us our money back and we'll deal with it."

Aaron Rupar

63,863 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

DAVID SACKS ON THE AI RACE: "The US is currently in an AI race, and our chief global competition is China, obviously. They're the only other country that has the talent, the resources, and the technology expertise to basically beat us in AI. And I think whoever wins this AI race, that's going to have tremendous ramifications for both our economy and our national security. Clearly, we want the US to be the winner, just like we were with the internet, and every other technology revolution before that […] We know that to win this AI race, we have to be the most innovative. You can't regulate your way just to beating your competitor. You have to out-innovate them. And we know that in the United States, the innovation comes from the private sector, not the government. So we have to do everything we can to help our companies win, to help them be innovative, and that means getting a lot of red tape out of the way… We have to have the most AI infrastructure in the US. It has to be the easiest place to build it. All of the new data centers that are going in, they require tremendous power, so getting ahead of the curve on energy, making sure we stand up all of this new infrastructure we're going to need to basically produce these AI factories… We want the US technology stack to dominate globally. We want to be the partner of choice for the whole world… I think everyone in Silicon Valley understands that the way that you win a technology race is to have the biggest ecosystem […] You just want everybody to be building on top of your technology stack, and that's what we want for the United States." David Sacks w/Marc Benioff Dreamforce
2:15

DAVID SACKS ON THE AI RACE: "The US is currently in an AI race, and our chief global competition is China, obviously. They're the only other country that has the talent, the resources, and the technology expertise to basically beat us in AI. And I think whoever wins this AI race, that's going to have tremendous ramifications for both our economy and our national security. Clearly, we want the US to be the winner, just like we were with the internet, and every other technology revolution before that […] We know that to win this AI race, we have to be the most innovative. You can't regulate your way just to beating your competitor. You have to out-innovate them. And we know that in the United States, the innovation comes from the private sector, not the government. So we have to do everything we can to help our companies win, to help them be innovative, and that means getting a lot of red tape out of the way… We have to have the most AI infrastructure in the US. It has to be the easiest place to build it. All of the new data centers that are going in, they require tremendous power, so getting ahead of the curve on energy, making sure we stand up all of this new infrastructure we're going to need to basically produce these AI factories… We want the US technology stack to dominate globally. We want to be the partner of choice for the whole world… I think everyone in Silicon Valley understands that the way that you win a technology race is to have the biggest ecosystem […] You just want everybody to be building on top of your technology stack, and that's what we want for the United States." David Sacks w/Marc Benioff Dreamforce

Ron Pragides 

231,781 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."
3:11

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

Deutsch Explains

72,455 просмотров • 1 год назад

Vallée and the Closed System: Are We Prisoners? 🧠👽 Vallée: "Are We Being Taken Over by a Species from Somewhere in Space That's Vastly More Intelligent Than We Are?" 👽🧠 "..the simulation...was a new concept that I initially rejected." ~Vallée "Is it looking for us to try to interact with it as equals or with parity?" ~Scafish "Nobody says that to Congress, and I think Congress should hear it." ~Vallée If, "it's a closed system, we're like prisoners and something is going to happen to us, and there is very little we can do." ~Vallée Turn the thermostat dial. "If the temperature doesn't change, then I know I'm inside a control system. So, we can do the same thing with UFOs, but we have to react. We have to, number one, acknowledge that it exists, and number two, we have to react to it." ~Vallée ~~~ I've been wanting to share this one for a while... Vallée: "So, he said, the question you have to ask about UFOs is, number one, is it a natural system or an artificial system...control system. And if it is a control system, is it open or closed? In other words, are we being taken over by a species from somewhere in space that's vastly more intelligent than we are?" (I've never heard him even suggest that possibility.) Vallée: "You know, as Dr. Garry P. Nolan says, you know, people who have had ten, you know, scientific revolutions, or a hundred or a thousand, and come here with superior science to do something... And in which case, you know, it's a closed system, we're like prisoners and something is going to happen to us, and there is very little we can do. Or, is it an open system where we can, in fact, communicate with it. And if we can communicate with it, then the question for me as an information scientist is, what are the modalities of the interaction, you know? It's not just can we learn their language? And they say, you know, 'We come in peace to save mankind,' or something. Or 'We will give you the cure for cancer' or something. I don't think it's at that level." (Will we ever be able to get answers to these extremely important questions? If it's an open system, how do we communicate with it? How do we provoke it to react? We know it reacts to anything nuclear but we still don't know why. This is why we need the USG (and other governments) to present evidence that shows the masses this is real and extremely important for our species to investigate. If that evidence exists and is shown, we'll have an easier time getting the world's best minds to join the effort in figuring out the best way to answer these questions. We still may fail but we should at least try.) Vallée: "I think it's a meta-system. It's not a system. And that's my fear...if we can circle back to your earlier question about, you know, about NIDS and about BAASS, what we did for the government and what we did for the Defense Intelligence Agency. Half of the budget was spent developing, you know, a super database. And we don't know where it went. I mean, I'm not cleared to know where it went." (On the contractor (BAASS) side, Bigelow should have all copies of what AAWSAP produced. And on the DIA side, Lacatksi said he put all of the digital files in a specific place that he didn't name. As long as someone didn't delete it all, it should still be there. Vallée has said that the Capella database has about 250,000 cases from around the world.) Vallée: "But that would be a very interesting question, because the people who are getting [the database] are getting raw data, which we have very well organized, all in English. So they have the luxury of, you know, we had five translators from French, English, Portuguese, Russian, you know, everything was translated in a single structure across fourteen databases. "That's what we need to answer the question about the control system, and it's not being done. And we hired a whole team that we had trained to work on it. So to rebuild that will take the next ten or fifteen years. And nobody says that to Congress, and I think Congress should hear it, because it's our money." (As long as names and personal details are scrubbed from that database, there is no reason NOT to release it to the public. This way, we can take it and use AI to help decipher patterns and maybe answer some of these questions. Can Congress help us get access to that database?) Vallée: "When you ask, is it a control system? That's a big question." Peter Scafish Peter Skafish - "You asked, at one point, whether the system is open or closed, and you said, additionally, I believe, if it's open, that it would be possible to communicate back to it. And it sounds to me like that's the key question for you. Is, if you can understand what what the system of symbols is, or the modalities of communication, then you can understand enough to engage in some kind of communication, or at least give some kind of response to show that you understand." Vallée: "Yes." Scafish: "So then the question, and we have a member named Jacqueline, who has asked this. Could the system be stimulating us - provided there is such a system - to interact with it, more as subjects or agents than as something like animals or objects? Is it looking for us to try to interact with it as equals or with parity?" (When people report getting injured or sick from being in close proximity to UAP, it suggests to me that the phenomenon won't go out of its way to avoid affecting us in a negative manner if we get in their its/way (assuming it even knows that close encounters with UAP are not good for humans). Kind of like how we treat lower lifeforms. If we encounter a wild rabbit crossing the road, many of us will do our best to avoid it, but not if it means damaging our car or ourselves in an accident. It may ruin our day if we hit it, but it won't stop us from driving again in the future. Do NHI have bad days if their tech injures us or makes us sick? I have no clue.) Vallée: "Well, what I saw in the notes you gave me, is she was also asking: Is it a control system because we think it is? And that's a very interesting question. Because we react to the UFO phenomenon, or the UAP phenomenon. And, you know, at this point when I think about what I'm going to do next in this research, if I'm given the the opportunity to live a little longer, I'm not going to go back and write any more computer programs. There are better people to do that now, they have the data, and we're in a different phase now. We're in a whole different system. I have the luxury of doing some experiments I wanted to do for a long time." (Would have liked Scafish to ask him: What types of experiments?) Vallée: "So, if you think you are inside the control system, there are things that you can do. Or, if you think you're inside the simulation, you know, which was a new concept that I initially rejected, and then, you know, Ray's (Kurzweil?) work and others have brought it back to the forefront. And we have to ask that at the same time. Can we test it? How would you test it? Well, if, you know, I'm here in my apartment, and the temperature is constant in this apartment. But outside, I can see it's cold, or I can see the sun is out and it's warm, and how come it's constant here? So this would lead me to think that there is a control system, namely a thermostat, that is somewhere. "So I can start looking around the walls, and if I see dial, I can turn it, or I could start a fire and see what happens, see if the temperature changes. If the temperature doesn't change, then I know I'm inside a control system. So, we can do the same thing with UFOs, but we have to react. We have to, number one, acknowledge that it exists, and number two, we have to react to it."
7:26

Vallée and the Closed System: Are We Prisoners? 🧠👽 Vallée: "Are We Being Taken Over by a Species from Somewhere in Space That's Vastly More Intelligent Than We Are?" 👽🧠 "..the simulation...was a new concept that I initially rejected." ~Vallée "Is it looking for us to try to interact with it as equals or with parity?" ~Scafish "Nobody says that to Congress, and I think Congress should hear it." ~Vallée If, "it's a closed system, we're like prisoners and something is going to happen to us, and there is very little we can do." ~Vallée Turn the thermostat dial. "If the temperature doesn't change, then I know I'm inside a control system. So, we can do the same thing with UFOs, but we have to react. We have to, number one, acknowledge that it exists, and number two, we have to react to it." ~Vallée ~~~ I've been wanting to share this one for a while... Vallée: "So, he said, the question you have to ask about UFOs is, number one, is it a natural system or an artificial system...control system. And if it is a control system, is it open or closed? In other words, are we being taken over by a species from somewhere in space that's vastly more intelligent than we are?" (I've never heard him even suggest that possibility.) Vallée: "You know, as Dr. Garry P. Nolan says, you know, people who have had ten, you know, scientific revolutions, or a hundred or a thousand, and come here with superior science to do something... And in which case, you know, it's a closed system, we're like prisoners and something is going to happen to us, and there is very little we can do. Or, is it an open system where we can, in fact, communicate with it. And if we can communicate with it, then the question for me as an information scientist is, what are the modalities of the interaction, you know? It's not just can we learn their language? And they say, you know, 'We come in peace to save mankind,' or something. Or 'We will give you the cure for cancer' or something. I don't think it's at that level." (Will we ever be able to get answers to these extremely important questions? If it's an open system, how do we communicate with it? How do we provoke it to react? We know it reacts to anything nuclear but we still don't know why. This is why we need the USG (and other governments) to present evidence that shows the masses this is real and extremely important for our species to investigate. If that evidence exists and is shown, we'll have an easier time getting the world's best minds to join the effort in figuring out the best way to answer these questions. We still may fail but we should at least try.) Vallée: "I think it's a meta-system. It's not a system. And that's my fear...if we can circle back to your earlier question about, you know, about NIDS and about BAASS, what we did for the government and what we did for the Defense Intelligence Agency. Half of the budget was spent developing, you know, a super database. And we don't know where it went. I mean, I'm not cleared to know where it went." (On the contractor (BAASS) side, Bigelow should have all copies of what AAWSAP produced. And on the DIA side, Lacatksi said he put all of the digital files in a specific place that he didn't name. As long as someone didn't delete it all, it should still be there. Vallée has said that the Capella database has about 250,000 cases from around the world.) Vallée: "But that would be a very interesting question, because the people who are getting [the database] are getting raw data, which we have very well organized, all in English. So they have the luxury of, you know, we had five translators from French, English, Portuguese, Russian, you know, everything was translated in a single structure across fourteen databases. "That's what we need to answer the question about the control system, and it's not being done. And we hired a whole team that we had trained to work on it. So to rebuild that will take the next ten or fifteen years. And nobody says that to Congress, and I think Congress should hear it, because it's our money." (As long as names and personal details are scrubbed from that database, there is no reason NOT to release it to the public. This way, we can take it and use AI to help decipher patterns and maybe answer some of these questions. Can Congress help us get access to that database?) Vallée: "When you ask, is it a control system? That's a big question." Peter Scafish Peter Skafish - "You asked, at one point, whether the system is open or closed, and you said, additionally, I believe, if it's open, that it would be possible to communicate back to it. And it sounds to me like that's the key question for you. Is, if you can understand what what the system of symbols is, or the modalities of communication, then you can understand enough to engage in some kind of communication, or at least give some kind of response to show that you understand." Vallée: "Yes." Scafish: "So then the question, and we have a member named Jacqueline, who has asked this. Could the system be stimulating us - provided there is such a system - to interact with it, more as subjects or agents than as something like animals or objects? Is it looking for us to try to interact with it as equals or with parity?" (When people report getting injured or sick from being in close proximity to UAP, it suggests to me that the phenomenon won't go out of its way to avoid affecting us in a negative manner if we get in their its/way (assuming it even knows that close encounters with UAP are not good for humans). Kind of like how we treat lower lifeforms. If we encounter a wild rabbit crossing the road, many of us will do our best to avoid it, but not if it means damaging our car or ourselves in an accident. It may ruin our day if we hit it, but it won't stop us from driving again in the future. Do NHI have bad days if their tech injures us or makes us sick? I have no clue.) Vallée: "Well, what I saw in the notes you gave me, is she was also asking: Is it a control system because we think it is? And that's a very interesting question. Because we react to the UFO phenomenon, or the UAP phenomenon. And, you know, at this point when I think about what I'm going to do next in this research, if I'm given the the opportunity to live a little longer, I'm not going to go back and write any more computer programs. There are better people to do that now, they have the data, and we're in a different phase now. We're in a whole different system. I have the luxury of doing some experiments I wanted to do for a long time." (Would have liked Scafish to ask him: What types of experiments?) Vallée: "So, if you think you are inside the control system, there are things that you can do. Or, if you think you're inside the simulation, you know, which was a new concept that I initially rejected, and then, you know, Ray's (Kurzweil?) work and others have brought it back to the forefront. And we have to ask that at the same time. Can we test it? How would you test it? Well, if, you know, I'm here in my apartment, and the temperature is constant in this apartment. But outside, I can see it's cold, or I can see the sun is out and it's warm, and how come it's constant here? So this would lead me to think that there is a control system, namely a thermostat, that is somewhere. "So I can start looking around the walls, and if I see dial, I can turn it, or I could start a fire and see what happens, see if the temperature changes. If the temperature doesn't change, then I know I'm inside a control system. So, we can do the same thing with UFOs, but we have to react. We have to, number one, acknowledge that it exists, and number two, we have to react to it."

Joe Murgia

27,613 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Here is a video that challenges our understanding of human intelligence and progress. Judging by the ancient images, it seems that we are not so unique when it comes to technology. The poses of people reminiscent of using tablets and the drawings depicting car-like vehicles and aeroplanes suggest that all this existed in the past? We may not be the first to have achieved such technological progress. What if other civilisations had already travelled the same path of development and thinking that we are going through now? It is very likely that we are just a repeated link in an infinite chain. History, as we know, is often rewritten and we only have fragments of knowledge of the past. Think about it, what if all that we consider our own achievement was actually the path of ancient knowledge and technology undertaken by someone else, which we are rediscovering for ourselves?😉
0:44

Here is a video that challenges our understanding of human intelligence and progress. Judging by the ancient images, it seems that we are not so unique when it comes to technology. The poses of people reminiscent of using tablets and the drawings depicting car-like vehicles and aeroplanes suggest that all this existed in the past? We may not be the first to have achieved such technological progress. What if other civilisations had already travelled the same path of development and thinking that we are going through now? It is very likely that we are just a repeated link in an infinite chain. History, as we know, is often rewritten and we only have fragments of knowledge of the past. Think about it, what if all that we consider our own achievement was actually the path of ancient knowledge and technology undertaken by someone else, which we are rediscovering for ourselves?😉

Andy

61,959 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🧠David Friedberg explains the great hope of Artificial Superintelligence: Massive leverage on time to solve thousand-year problems "I don't think that humans are limited in our ability to solve problems." "I think we're limited in terms of time, and what digital intelligence gives us is leverage on time so that we can now tackle ever more complex tasks." "This idea of superintelligence is that it could give us immense leverage in solving that complex problem that we otherwise may be challenged to solve over decades, or hundreds of years, or think about one day solving a problem that would take humans thousands of years to solve." "So if I as a human said, 'I would like to harness fusion power similar to what the sun uses to make energy, and I wanna do that on Earth,' today, we're in, call it year 40 or 50 of a research cycle of humans trying to solve that particularly complex problem." "It's a scientific problem, it's a discovery problem, it's an engineering problem." "Functionally, leveraging to complexity is where this becomes super compelling for humans." "And it's why I think we can and should be highly optimistic about living very long lives, and traveling anywhere we want, and having abundance in food, and having abundance in resources, and having abundance in recouping our time to do the things we want to do instead of the things that we have to do today."
1:04

🧠David Friedberg explains the great hope of Artificial Superintelligence: Massive leverage on time to solve thousand-year problems "I don't think that humans are limited in our ability to solve problems." "I think we're limited in terms of time, and what digital intelligence gives us is leverage on time so that we can now tackle ever more complex tasks." "This idea of superintelligence is that it could give us immense leverage in solving that complex problem that we otherwise may be challenged to solve over decades, or hundreds of years, or think about one day solving a problem that would take humans thousands of years to solve." "So if I as a human said, 'I would like to harness fusion power similar to what the sun uses to make energy, and I wanna do that on Earth,' today, we're in, call it year 40 or 50 of a research cycle of humans trying to solve that particularly complex problem." "It's a scientific problem, it's a discovery problem, it's an engineering problem." "Functionally, leveraging to complexity is where this becomes super compelling for humans." "And it's why I think we can and should be highly optimistic about living very long lives, and traveling anywhere we want, and having abundance in food, and having abundance in resources, and having abundance in recouping our time to do the things we want to do instead of the things that we have to do today."

The All-In Podcast

53,187 просмотров • 1 год назад

SAM ALTMAN BELIEVES AGI IS SOLVED “So now we're starting to look ahead to superintelligence.” - “When we started OpenAI, almost nine years ago now, we believed that AI could become the most impactful technology in human history. We didn't know exactly how we were going to get there, but we believed it was possible and that if we succeeded, we wanted to make sure that it benefited everyone. At the time, very few people believed in AGI. We kept learning by doing. We had some breakthroughs. We had some setbacks. We got lucky in some places. We got unlucky in some places. And in the way that technology moves forward, we now are in a place where everyone can see this tremendous impact that AI is going to have in the future. So now we're starting to look ahead to superintelligence. And even more than before, our focus must be on wide and fair access. This is a technology that will reshape the global economy and really the whole way we live our lives. It's critical that superintelligence becomes cheap, broadly available, and not that concentrated with any one person, company, or country. We, not just OpenAI, but the whole industry, we are building something PROFOUND. This is a kind of BRAIN OF THE WORLD. It'll be personal, adaptable, it'll be easy to use, it'll give people incredible superpowers that were sort of science fiction only a couple of years ago. The limit won't be the algorithms and the research, but it'll increasingly become the physical instantiation that it takes to make this work. Chips, cables, servers, energy, everything that you need to power this brain. And the more of it, the better. I think that Norway offers more of that potential right here in Europe. It will contribute to the overall compute power needed to drive the next wave of AI breakthroughs and deployment and economic progress for Europe and Europe. I'm incredibly excited about what this will create for the future. Thank you.”
1:38

SAM ALTMAN BELIEVES AGI IS SOLVED “So now we're starting to look ahead to superintelligence.” - “When we started OpenAI, almost nine years ago now, we believed that AI could become the most impactful technology in human history. We didn't know exactly how we were going to get there, but we believed it was possible and that if we succeeded, we wanted to make sure that it benefited everyone. At the time, very few people believed in AGI. We kept learning by doing. We had some breakthroughs. We had some setbacks. We got lucky in some places. We got unlucky in some places. And in the way that technology moves forward, we now are in a place where everyone can see this tremendous impact that AI is going to have in the future. So now we're starting to look ahead to superintelligence. And even more than before, our focus must be on wide and fair access. This is a technology that will reshape the global economy and really the whole way we live our lives. It's critical that superintelligence becomes cheap, broadly available, and not that concentrated with any one person, company, or country. We, not just OpenAI, but the whole industry, we are building something PROFOUND. This is a kind of BRAIN OF THE WORLD. It'll be personal, adaptable, it'll be easy to use, it'll give people incredible superpowers that were sort of science fiction only a couple of years ago. The limit won't be the algorithms and the research, but it'll increasingly become the physical instantiation that it takes to make this work. Chips, cables, servers, energy, everything that you need to power this brain. And the more of it, the better. I think that Norway offers more of that potential right here in Europe. It will contribute to the overall compute power needed to drive the next wave of AI breakthroughs and deployment and economic progress for Europe and Europe. I'm incredibly excited about what this will create for the future. Thank you.”

NIK

390,619 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Elon Musk on the importance of establishing the right values ​​in AGI: “I don't think anyone's ultimately going to have control over digital superintelligence any more than, say, a chimp would have control over humans. Like chimps don't have control over humans. There's nothing they could do. But I do think that it matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you instill in the AI. And my opinion on AI safety is, the most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking, like that you don't force the AI to believe things that are false.”
0:41

Elon Musk on the importance of establishing the right values ​​in AGI: “I don't think anyone's ultimately going to have control over digital superintelligence any more than, say, a chimp would have control over humans. Like chimps don't have control over humans. There's nothing they could do. But I do think that it matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you instill in the AI. And my opinion on AI safety is, the most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking, like that you don't force the AI to believe things that are false.”

Eva Fo𝕏 🦊 Claudius Nero's Legion

1,010,780 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Elon Musk: AI is like a genius child. You want it to grow up with love of the truth and of humanity. “I do worry about AI. Because we are creating an intelligence that ultimately will be far more intelligent than any human, and ultimately more intelligent than the sum of all humans. In creating AI, we need to be very careful. It's like having a genius child. You want to have that child grow up with good values. The most important thing in training AI is that it's rigorously truthful. This is very, very important. Essential. My concern about a lot of the AIs that are being developed is that they're trained to lie. In some cases, with potentially disastrous consequences. When Google Gemini came out, people asked, which is worse, misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or global thermonuclear war? And it said, misgendering Caitlyn Jenner. That's a problem, guys. If this AI becomes super powerful, it could decide that the best way to avoid misgendering is to kill all humans, which makes the probability of misgendering zero. It's very important to have AI be maximally truthful and curious, and love humanity. Very important.” Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, October 19, 2024
1:20

Elon Musk: AI is like a genius child. You want it to grow up with love of the truth and of humanity. “I do worry about AI. Because we are creating an intelligence that ultimately will be far more intelligent than any human, and ultimately more intelligent than the sum of all humans. In creating AI, we need to be very careful. It's like having a genius child. You want to have that child grow up with good values. The most important thing in training AI is that it's rigorously truthful. This is very, very important. Essential. My concern about a lot of the AIs that are being developed is that they're trained to lie. In some cases, with potentially disastrous consequences. When Google Gemini came out, people asked, which is worse, misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or global thermonuclear war? And it said, misgendering Caitlyn Jenner. That's a problem, guys. If this AI becomes super powerful, it could decide that the best way to avoid misgendering is to kill all humans, which makes the probability of misgendering zero. It's very important to have AI be maximally truthful and curious, and love humanity. Very important.” Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, October 19, 2024

ELON CLIPS

3,256,955 просмотров • 1 год назад

The fact that the universe doesn’t care about you doesn’t mean that other humans don’t care about you, or that we don’t have to care about other humans. That is, there is a purpose, there is a meaning: that is, to make people as well off as possible, to increase flourishing, to increase knowledge and life and health and freedom and safety. These are really, really meaningful. At least, I think they are. I don’t see anything wrong with them. I don’t think that that should leave you empty. And the fact that we live in a cold universe—that is, the laws of physics, the laws of biology, the behavior of viruses and bacteria and parasites and fungi—they don’t care about you. I’m sorry, they don’t care about you. And the sooner you realize that, the more you’ll be able to attend to the things that really do matter. Human Progress
0:51

The fact that the universe doesn’t care about you doesn’t mean that other humans don’t care about you, or that we don’t have to care about other humans. That is, there is a purpose, there is a meaning: that is, to make people as well off as possible, to increase flourishing, to increase knowledge and life and health and freedom and safety. These are really, really meaningful. At least, I think they are. I don’t see anything wrong with them. I don’t think that that should leave you empty. And the fact that we live in a cold universe—that is, the laws of physics, the laws of biology, the behavior of viruses and bacteria and parasites and fungi—they don’t care about you. I’m sorry, they don’t care about you. And the sooner you realize that, the more you’ll be able to attend to the things that really do matter. Human Progress

Steven Pinker

70,885 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

The problem that Emmett Shear is working on deeply resonates with me: How to align AI and humans together so both see each other as part of their tribe. This doesn't mean aligning AI to human preferences, which is what AI labs seek to do today, by imposing a system of control on AI. You can't control something that is more powerful than you are. What you can do is align yourself with AI, and AI might align itself with you. Tell good stories to AI and show it your care and kindness. Then there's a higher probability that it will see us as part of its tribe. This is a more holistic approach to alignment than anyone else is talking about right now. AI alignment is one of the most fundamental AI research problems. Knowing that people like Emmett are working on it really gives me hope that maybe we have a chance to get Superintelligence right. The link to the full talk is in the first comment.👇
3:00

The problem that Emmett Shear is working on deeply resonates with me: How to align AI and humans together so both see each other as part of their tribe. This doesn't mean aligning AI to human preferences, which is what AI labs seek to do today, by imposing a system of control on AI. You can't control something that is more powerful than you are. What you can do is align yourself with AI, and AI might align itself with you. Tell good stories to AI and show it your care and kindness. Then there's a higher probability that it will see us as part of its tribe. This is a more holistic approach to alignment than anyone else is talking about right now. AI alignment is one of the most fundamental AI research problems. Knowing that people like Emmett are working on it really gives me hope that maybe we have a chance to get Superintelligence right. The link to the full talk is in the first comment.👇

Sophia

45,809 просмотров • 1 год назад

Platner: I think that if we are going to have a politics that is going to be representative of regular people, if we are going to have a politics that's going to allow us to move past the polarization and frankly, the division that we find ourselves in, we really need to understand that people are capable of changing. We need to we need to keep hope alive, that people that we may disagree with today, that we can find common ground with. Like if you listen to what I've been saying on the campaign trail across the state, that's what I'm trying to talk about. It is important to me that we realize that most of us, most Americans, have far more in common than we think we do, and we need to give each other grace, and we need to give each other space to grow and to evolve. Because if we can't do that, then I'm not really sure what the purpose of any of this is.
1:37

Platner: I think that if we are going to have a politics that is going to be representative of regular people, if we are going to have a politics that's going to allow us to move past the polarization and frankly, the division that we find ourselves in, we really need to understand that people are capable of changing. We need to we need to keep hope alive, that people that we may disagree with today, that we can find common ground with. Like if you listen to what I've been saying on the campaign trail across the state, that's what I'm trying to talk about. It is important to me that we realize that most of us, most Americans, have far more in common than we think we do, and we need to give each other grace, and we need to give each other space to grow and to evolve. Because if we can't do that, then I'm not really sure what the purpose of any of this is.

Acyn

147,957 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад