正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

.Naval: This whole idea that we can somehow make AI safe is nonsense, because creativity by its nature is unbounded. Any thought can lead to any other thought. You can jump through the entire search space of possibilities in your mind. And so because of that, saying, “I’m going... show more

Arjun Khemani

34,237 subscribers

191,925 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

教育健康养生科学技术

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 条评论

Arjun Khemani 的头像

Arjun Khemani1 年前

in conversation with @balajis at the Network State Conference 2024:

Zbynek Drab 的头像

Zbynek Drab1 年前

@naval “I’m going to have an AI that is somehow brilliant and independent, but yet I’m gonna constrain the way it thinks” The problem of totalitarian countries trying to do science - thought control succeeds and you get barren output (China), it fails and you get Sakharov et al.

Arjun Khemani 的头像

Arjun Khemani1 年前

@naval Hence, China imitates while the U.S. creates.

A.L.A.K 🦉 的头像

A.L.A.K 🦉1 年前

@naval Well said.

Nikhil Kumar 的头像

Nikhil Kumar1 年前

@naval Makes sense, but can't there be some disjoint sets of intelligence where the model is highly intelligent and safe? Let's take the theory of relativity by Einstein, if a "safe" AGI is achieved, and we task it to rediscover the theory of relativity from all the data available?

corpminion 的头像

corpminion1 年前

@naval At this time people think AI is the limit. That is a very narrow view. Human potential is largely untapped. Humans will surpass AI and destroy the Artificial in the Intelligence once they begin tapping into the vast secrets unlocked in their unused brain cells.

Champion 0f The Goddess 的头像

Champion 0f The Goddess1 年前

@naval I really like the content you post. You have good taste

Hadi Saeed 的头像

Hadi Saeed1 年前

@naval I think the halting problem is a great analogy here - can't have it both ways, a brilliant AI that's also predictable

DONTs 的头像

DONTs1 年前

@naval This man is really inspiring

Mason J 的头像

Mason J1 年前

@naval I worry more about keeping AI safe from bad actors / people than from AGI, or at least that should be the first practical step towards AI safety. Blockchains tech can really help in that regard.

相关视频

We asked Brad Gerstner about the future of AI and America. "The age of AI is going to be the biggest supercycle of our lifetimes." "But it's going to lead to a lot of dislocation. The world will end up in a better place, but it doesn't mean that everybody ends up in a better place." "We need our best and brightest to rethink the social contract in a way that holds this fragile experiment (that is America) together." "We can't take for granted that we can go through this magnitude of change that AI is going to bring and that nothing will break."

We asked Brad Gerstner about the future of AI and America. "The age of AI is going to be the biggest supercycle of our lifetimes." "But it's going to lead to a lot of dislocation. The world will end up in a better place, but it doesn't mean that everybody ends up in a better place." "We need our best and brightest to rethink the social contract in a way that holds this fragile experiment (that is America) together." "We can't take for granted that we can go through this magnitude of change that AI is going to bring and that nothing will break."

TBPN

37,278 次观看 • 1 年前

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

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

Patrick OShaughnessy

24,818 次观看 • 6 个月前

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

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

Deutsch Explains

72,455 次观看 • 1 年前

Only men do not want to agree to that. "I think that the United States needs to be more like China because China is the safest country I have ever been to in my entire life, and it is because of the amount of surveillance that they have. Everybody always likes to talk about how China is so scary because of their surveillance. No, that is literally why it is so safe. That is why I can travel here as a woman by myself. I've been to over 50 countries, and I can confidently say that I feel more safe as a woman because of the security that is in place in this country.”

Only men do not want to agree to that. "I think that the United States needs to be more like China because China is the safest country I have ever been to in my entire life, and it is because of the amount of surveillance that they have. Everybody always likes to talk about how China is so scary because of their surveillance. No, that is literally why it is so safe. That is why I can travel here as a woman by myself. I've been to over 50 countries, and I can confidently say that I feel more safe as a woman because of the security that is in place in this country.”

Johannes Maria

32,854 次观看 • 8 个月前

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

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

Deutsch Explains

186,329 次观看 • 1 年前

David Sacks says the biggest risk of AI was described not by James Cameron in The Terminator but by George Orwell in 1984. “I almost feel like the term ‘woke AI’ is insufficient to explain what’s going on because it somehow trivializes it.” “What we’re really talking about is 'Orwellian AI.' We’re talking about AI that lies to you, that distorts an answer, that rewrites history in real time to serve a current political agenda of the people who are in power.” “To me, this is the biggest risk of AI... It’s not The Terminator, it’s 1984.” David Sacks

David Sacks says the biggest risk of AI was described not by James Cameron in The Terminator but by George Orwell in 1984. “I almost feel like the term ‘woke AI’ is insufficient to explain what’s going on because it somehow trivializes it.” “What we’re really talking about is 'Orwellian AI.' We’re talking about AI that lies to you, that distorts an answer, that rewrites history in real time to serve a current political agenda of the people who are in power.” “To me, this is the biggest risk of AI... It’s not The Terminator, it’s 1984.” David Sacks

a16z

16,352,820 次观看 • 9 个月前

Ben Meiselas delivers an important message to those who have standing to sue over Trump's ballroom: So let me just send this message to anybody who has the standing to sue—to the law firms that are out there, to the state attorney generals: go and seek an injunction to block this construction. The argument that you should make is that Donald Trump engaged in fraud in saying that he alone was going to pay for it, and that it wasn’t going to impact in any way the existing structure. The emergency basis for your injunction is the photograph that we showed—that they just damaged the actual White House and are destroying the East Wing, which is a violation. Get a court to enjoin or block further construction until such time as there’s discovery in a transparent way. Who is funding this thing? Make the order, demand discovery, and then address the issues of the illegality—that it is a violation of Article I of the Constitution. That’s the argument you need to make. Go and make it. Do what I just said, and do it because it’s the patriotic thing to do, and it’s the right thing to do, because laws are being violated right now by Trump as a result of this destruction of the White House.

Ben Meiselas delivers an important message to those who have standing to sue over Trump's ballroom: So let me just send this message to anybody who has the standing to sue—to the law firms that are out there, to the state attorney generals: go and seek an injunction to block this construction. The argument that you should make is that Donald Trump engaged in fraud in saying that he alone was going to pay for it, and that it wasn’t going to impact in any way the existing structure. The emergency basis for your injunction is the photograph that we showed—that they just damaged the actual White House and are destroying the East Wing, which is a violation. Get a court to enjoin or block further construction until such time as there’s discovery in a transparent way. Who is funding this thing? Make the order, demand discovery, and then address the issues of the illegality—that it is a violation of Article I of the Constitution. That’s the argument you need to make. Go and make it. Do what I just said, and do it because it’s the patriotic thing to do, and it’s the right thing to do, because laws are being violated right now by Trump as a result of this destruction of the White House.

MeidasTouch

369,254 次观看 • 9 个月前

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

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

Rohan Paul

334,691 次观看 • 10 个月前

$ABCL CEO Carl Hansen explains the net negative overall value creation in biotech and how AbCellera plans to beat it: “I really think it can be beat because there’s a lot of mistakes that get made in where you allocate capital.” “If you’re a biotech and you start a company on a drug, and you go public and have a drug, and now the data is looking not that great, you just keep running that drug. … Because if you quit that drug, the company is done.” “So, because you’re so concentrated on one thing, you end up having blinders. It’s like a cult of a molecule. And even a real, practical, capital access problem that makes you continue to move things forward” ______________________________________ “Another problem is that many of the drugs that get started, get started by people who don’t understand the competitive or commercial landscape and have no intent of ever actually manufacturing it. … Because they know someone else is going to buy it. So then their framework is not ‘Am I making a drug that’s going to make a difference for people?’ The framework is ‘Can I make something that I think someone will take off my hands?’ And that happens a lot.” “There are many acquisitions where a big pharma company spends $10B, $20B, and it’s a complete bust. So really no value is generated for patients but someone was able to get a good exit on that because they anticipated what someone would want. And a lot of decision making gets done like that”. _______________________________________ “I’m not saying that we have this all solved. But what we’re trying to do is create a framework where we are able to take many bets so that we don’t fall in love with anything, or we don’t have to fall in love with anything. … And then always hold up very explicitly what we know and what we don’t know along the dimensions that matter. The dimensions that matter are - Will it work? That’s a science. - When it gets where will people care? - Is it differentiated? - Does it solve a big problem? In order to get it there, is there a path with our resources and expertise that would allow us to see it through?” “When you start to hold things up like that, you start to see where the mistakes are, where the uncertainties are, and you can be more rational in deciding ‘We’re going to run it to here because we get to flip the card and if the card goes the wrong way we’re going to kill it because we’ve got something else behind it.’” “I do think that if done right, and if you can pick the right opportunities, the success rate can be well higher than an order of magnitude better. … And there are examples of this… companies I’ve mentioned, you know, Regeneron, their success rate is at least 10x the industry in bringing programs forward and getting them approved. … So it’s… you can do it better that way”

$ABCL CEO Carl Hansen explains the net negative overall value creation in biotech and how AbCellera plans to beat it: “I really think it can be beat because there’s a lot of mistakes that get made in where you allocate capital.” “If you’re a biotech and you start a company on a drug, and you go public and have a drug, and now the data is looking not that great, you just keep running that drug. … Because if you quit that drug, the company is done.” “So, because you’re so concentrated on one thing, you end up having blinders. It’s like a cult of a molecule. And even a real, practical, capital access problem that makes you continue to move things forward” “Another problem is that many of the drugs that get started, get started by people who don’t understand the competitive or commercial landscape and have no intent of ever actually manufacturing it. … Because they know someone else is going to buy it. So then their framework is not ‘Am I making a drug that’s going to make a difference for people?’ The framework is ‘Can I make something that I think someone will take off my hands?’ And that happens a lot.” “There are many acquisitions where a big pharma company spends $10B, $20B, and it’s a complete bust. So really no value is generated for patients but someone was able to get a good exit on that because they anticipated what someone would want. And a lot of decision making gets done like that”. _ “I’m not saying that we have this all solved. But what we’re trying to do is create a framework where we are able to take many bets so that we don’t fall in love with anything, or we don’t have to fall in love with anything. … And then always hold up very explicitly what we know and what we don’t know along the dimensions that matter. The dimensions that matter are - Will it work? That’s a science. - When it gets where will people care? - Is it differentiated? - Does it solve a big problem? In order to get it there, is there a path with our resources and expertise that would allow us to see it through?” “When you start to hold things up like that, you start to see where the mistakes are, where the uncertainties are, and you can be more rational in deciding ‘We’re going to run it to here because we get to flip the card and if the card goes the wrong way we’re going to kill it because we’ve got something else behind it.’” “I do think that if done right, and if you can pick the right opportunities, the success rate can be well higher than an order of magnitude better. … And there are examples of this… companies I’ve mentioned, you know, Regeneron, their success rate is at least 10x the industry in bringing programs forward and getting them approved. … So it’s… you can do it better that way”

Jack Prescott

18,424 次观看 • 1 天前

“The idea that we’re sourcing our doctors from Pakistan is crazy. And the idea that you don’t think that’s any kind of problem feels like a pathology to me. I don’t know what it is. It’s white guilt on a crazy level.” Tim Dillon

“The idea that we’re sourcing our doctors from Pakistan is crazy. And the idea that you don’t think that’s any kind of problem feels like a pathology to me. I don’t know what it is. It’s white guilt on a crazy level.” Tim Dillon

Grace Chong, MBI

29,969 次观看 • 7 个月前

🇳🇬📍I spent a little over three weeks in Nigeria for a strictly private visit and personal pilgrimage, and I’m still struggling to put it all into words. I wrote three different articles and deleted every single one. None of them felt honest enough. None of them could truly hold the weight of what everyday life looks like for ordinary people. So maybe all I can say is this: NIGERIANS ARE RESILIENT. Not because everything is fine, but because sometimes, that’s the only way to keep going. And yet, somehow, in the middle of it all, there is life. There is laughter. There is a kind of joy that refuses to disappear. If you have the means, and if you’re lucky enough to stay untouched by insecurity, Nigeria can feel like the most vibrant, most alive place in the world. And maybe that’s the contradiction that stays with me the most.

🇳🇬📍I spent a little over three weeks in Nigeria for a strictly private visit and personal pilgrimage, and I’m still struggling to put it all into words. I wrote three different articles and deleted every single one. None of them felt honest enough. None of them could truly hold the weight of what everyday life looks like for ordinary people. So maybe all I can say is this: NIGERIANS ARE RESILIENT. Not because everything is fine, but because sometimes, that’s the only way to keep going. And yet, somehow, in the middle of it all, there is life. There is laughter. There is a kind of joy that refuses to disappear. If you have the means, and if you’re lucky enough to stay untouched by insecurity, Nigeria can feel like the most vibrant, most alive place in the world. And maybe that’s the contradiction that stays with me the most.

Káyọ̀dé Ògúndámisí 🇳🇬

50,263 次观看 • 3 个月前

David Sacks breaks down the true risk of AI David Sacks "It’s not that I think the AI is going to develop a mind of its own. I don’t think the technology is anywhere close to that. But I do think that it could be used by the government in a much more invasive and intrusive way, in the manner that the government was, the Deep State was already trying to get in bed with the social networks. There is a real risk that AI is used by future governments or the Deep State basically to surveil us, to censor us, and even potentially to brainwash us, because it is really good for that."

David Sacks breaks down the true risk of AI David Sacks "It’s not that I think the AI is going to develop a mind of its own. I don’t think the technology is anywhere close to that. But I do think that it could be used by the government in a much more invasive and intrusive way, in the manner that the government was, the Deep State was already trying to get in bed with the social networks. There is a real risk that AI is used by future governments or the Deep State basically to surveil us, to censor us, and even potentially to brainwash us, because it is really good for that."

jay plemons

102,370 次观看 • 7 个月前

You won’t regret listening to this clip today from John MacArthur about his fixed time on earth. A Death for the Glory of God — John MacArthur // September 7, 2014 It’s a proverb, and the proverb is simple, very simple proverb. You can’t lengthen the daylight. You can’t shorten the daylight, right? Nothing any friend can do can lengthen the daylight. Nothing any enemy can do can shorten the daylight. It is what it is and it is fixed by God, and so is my life. No enemy can shorten it. No friend can lengthen it. It is what it is. And in that light of life which God has ordained for me, I will not stumble. That is to say, nothing will happen to me that is outside the plan. I’m not going in the dark. I’m going in the light of God’s divine day. A day can’t finish before its ordained end. The time allotted to me to accomplish my earthly ministry is fixed. It’s fixed by God. It can’t be lengthened by any precautionary measures. You don’t have to go hide somewhere in a cave. You don’t have to avoid conflict. You don’t have to run from your enemies because you can’t lengthen your life, and you can be bold and you can step right into the face of your enemies because they can’t shorten it. I tell you, just from my own personal standpoint, I live in that confidence. I can’t do anything. Neither can anybody else to lengthen my life. I’m not afraid that somebody, some enemy can do anything to shorten my life. My day is what God has ordained it will be, and in that I go forward with confidence and boldness. Jesus knew that His hour was coming, but it hadn’t come yet, and many times He’d said, “My hour hasn’t come. My hour hasn’t come.” And He escaped all of the plots and all of the mob violence. This has great application for us I think to realize that if you’re walking in the Spirit and serving the Lord, you have your day. Being a coward and taking all kinds of precautionary steps and not being faithful isn’t going to lengthen it; and being bold in the face of enemies isn’t going to shorten it because it is what God has ordained it to be.

You won’t regret listening to this clip today from John MacArthur about his fixed time on earth. A Death for the Glory of God — John MacArthur // September 7, 2014 It’s a proverb, and the proverb is simple, very simple proverb. You can’t lengthen the daylight. You can’t shorten the daylight, right? Nothing any friend can do can lengthen the daylight. Nothing any enemy can do can shorten the daylight. It is what it is and it is fixed by God, and so is my life. No enemy can shorten it. No friend can lengthen it. It is what it is. And in that light of life which God has ordained for me, I will not stumble. That is to say, nothing will happen to me that is outside the plan. I’m not going in the dark. I’m going in the light of God’s divine day. A day can’t finish before its ordained end. The time allotted to me to accomplish my earthly ministry is fixed. It’s fixed by God. It can’t be lengthened by any precautionary measures. You don’t have to go hide somewhere in a cave. You don’t have to avoid conflict. You don’t have to run from your enemies because you can’t lengthen your life, and you can be bold and you can step right into the face of your enemies because they can’t shorten it. I tell you, just from my own personal standpoint, I live in that confidence. I can’t do anything. Neither can anybody else to lengthen my life. I’m not afraid that somebody, some enemy can do anything to shorten my life. My day is what God has ordained it will be, and in that I go forward with confidence and boldness. Jesus knew that His hour was coming, but it hadn’t come yet, and many times He’d said, “My hour hasn’t come. My hour hasn’t come.” And He escaped all of the plots and all of the mob violence. This has great application for us I think to realize that if you’re walking in the Spirit and serving the Lord, you have your day. Being a coward and taking all kinds of precautionary steps and not being faithful isn’t going to lengthen it; and being bold in the face of enemies isn’t going to shorten it because it is what God has ordained it to be.

Terri Green

49,879 次观看 • 1 年前

Bret Weintein asks "what is this all really for?" "If you look at the push towards tokenization of assets, towards central bank digital currencies—that is programmable money that can be turned off if you displease the powers that be. If you look at the creation of these massive data centers, is that really about citizen use of AI? Maybe some of it is, but is it really about creating a storehouse of information that will allow you to be controlled and locked down? That’s certainly the impression I have. We didn’t have a discussion about any of this. This is happening, and then we have to react to it because it’s all on a freight train headed down the line… and we’re always playing defense. So it’s pretty frightening stuff. And at some level, we have a moral right to object. We’re not being given the opportunity to object..."

Bret Weintein asks "what is this all really for?" "If you look at the push towards tokenization of assets, towards central bank digital currencies—that is programmable money that can be turned off if you displease the powers that be. If you look at the creation of these massive data centers, is that really about citizen use of AI? Maybe some of it is, but is it really about creating a storehouse of information that will allow you to be controlled and locked down? That’s certainly the impression I have. We didn’t have a discussion about any of this. This is happening, and then we have to react to it because it’s all on a freight train headed down the line… and we’re always playing defense. So it’s pretty frightening stuff. And at some level, we have a moral right to object. We’re not being given the opportunity to object..."

The DarkHorse Podcast

323,166 次观看 • 17 天前

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

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

Curtis Houck

825,225 次观看 • 10 个月前

DEEP THOUGHTS from Scott Adams and Naval on Singularity Theory and the nature of consciousness. Naval: I try not to go too much in the supernatural, but I'll be honest, there are times when I've prayed. (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) Scott: Can't hurt! Naval: Nobody's perfect! Yeah, exactly. Pascal's wager, right? Just in case! Scott: Yeah, I've got a version of this. I don't know if I've ever said this out loud before, but every now and then I just talk to the creators of The Simulation that are watching me -- because it might be me . . . . Naval: Yeah, exactly! No, I completely agree. Yes, if simulation hypothesis is true, then, you know, God or creator or master programmer has your best interest at heart. Scott: I say things like, you know: "Is this the plan? I mean, are you really going to do this thing?" Naval: Exactly. Exactly. No, yeah. Like, “don't take me out of the game too fast.” Like, “you need some resource if you want me to be effective, right?” Or like, “I'm not Job. Don't try me. I'll fail.” (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) “Let's not go through. Let's not take that route. Let's try a different one.” Yeah, I think everybody does that. Because at the end of the day, existence itself is an unexplained miracle! Like how did we get here? Why am I here? Why am I a monkey? Why am I three dimensional? Why am I male? Why am I talking to you right now? What does it even mean to talk, right? The whole thing is so surreal that there is an instantaneous and overarching miracle of just consciousness. Like why even be conscious? Why not just be like zombies or robots talking to each other, going through the same actions? Why even be aware? So, there's so much here that you just have to take axiomatically -- and that is spirituality. And I think your spirituality, your current religion, is a Simulation Hypothesis. It's perfectly valid, you know. Mine is probably closer to the Tao and, you know, other people's Christianity or whatever, but somehow, you have to explain this miracle of existence. And everyone has to do it in their own frame. But the rest is science, right? The rest is all -- follows the rules of science. And so, what I don't like is when like someone says: “This one, I'm correct, it's scientific, you should believe it because of these following arguments.” And then I'm like: “Okay, well, what are the implications? How do we test it?” If you want me to believe in the real world, it has to be scientific, which means it has to be testable. There's a third category that I will accept, which is direct experience, but it's only valid for you. So, if you have a direct experience of something, you can hold it, but your ability to convey it is zero, because everybody has their own experience and you can't take anybody else's experience at value. Scott: I'll give you that. I'm gonna give you that my personal experience is so bizarre that -- I mean, it's not, I don't think it's quite Elon Musk level, but I mean, you've got your own life that's kind of, doesn't match. Naval: Yeah, very surreal. Yeah. Scott: I mean, how do the three of us exist? Is this really – like, there's so many things in my life that happened, and I'm sure you have the same feeling, where you just say, how is this real? I mean, just how is this real? Naval: If you want to talk absolute truth, and nothing else, the only statement that you can make that is absolutely true is that – what’s that? Go ahead. Scott: I know where this is going. Naval: Sorry. What's yours? Scott: It's that we exist. To ask the question. That's the only thing you know. Naval: It's actually even worse than that! (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) I used to say it was I exist and then a very smart friend of mine corrected me and he said, no, awareness exists. You don't even know that you exist. Your thought, like yes, your current thought exists and you're aware of that current thought, but what is the you that is having that thought? That's the whole Buddhist question, the whole enlightenment question. Is there a persistent self-identity other than just thoughts that are referring to each other? Like when you look for yourself, you're not actually there. There's an awareness. The awareness exists, but the you separate from that awareness, does that even exist? Full transcript of podcast (excerpt begins at 54:33): Full video:

DEEP THOUGHTS from Scott Adams and Naval on Singularity Theory and the nature of consciousness. Naval: I try not to go too much in the supernatural, but I'll be honest, there are times when I've prayed. (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) Scott: Can't hurt! Naval: Nobody's perfect! Yeah, exactly. Pascal's wager, right? Just in case! Scott: Yeah, I've got a version of this. I don't know if I've ever said this out loud before, but every now and then I just talk to the creators of The Simulation that are watching me -- because it might be me . . . . Naval: Yeah, exactly! No, I completely agree. Yes, if simulation hypothesis is true, then, you know, God or creator or master programmer has your best interest at heart. Scott: I say things like, you know: "Is this the plan? I mean, are you really going to do this thing?" Naval: Exactly. Exactly. No, yeah. Like, “don't take me out of the game too fast.” Like, “you need some resource if you want me to be effective, right?” Or like, “I'm not Job. Don't try me. I'll fail.” (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) “Let's not go through. Let's not take that route. Let's try a different one.” Yeah, I think everybody does that. Because at the end of the day, existence itself is an unexplained miracle! Like how did we get here? Why am I here? Why am I a monkey? Why am I three dimensional? Why am I male? Why am I talking to you right now? What does it even mean to talk, right? The whole thing is so surreal that there is an instantaneous and overarching miracle of just consciousness. Like why even be conscious? Why not just be like zombies or robots talking to each other, going through the same actions? Why even be aware? So, there's so much here that you just have to take axiomatically -- and that is spirituality. And I think your spirituality, your current religion, is a Simulation Hypothesis. It's perfectly valid, you know. Mine is probably closer to the Tao and, you know, other people's Christianity or whatever, but somehow, you have to explain this miracle of existence. And everyone has to do it in their own frame. But the rest is science, right? The rest is all -- follows the rules of science. And so, what I don't like is when like someone says: “This one, I'm correct, it's scientific, you should believe it because of these following arguments.” And then I'm like: “Okay, well, what are the implications? How do we test it?” If you want me to believe in the real world, it has to be scientific, which means it has to be testable. There's a third category that I will accept, which is direct experience, but it's only valid for you. So, if you have a direct experience of something, you can hold it, but your ability to convey it is zero, because everybody has their own experience and you can't take anybody else's experience at value. Scott: I'll give you that. I'm gonna give you that my personal experience is so bizarre that -- I mean, it's not, I don't think it's quite Elon Musk level, but I mean, you've got your own life that's kind of, doesn't match. Naval: Yeah, very surreal. Yeah. Scott: I mean, how do the three of us exist? Is this really – like, there's so many things in my life that happened, and I'm sure you have the same feeling, where you just say, how is this real? I mean, just how is this real? Naval: If you want to talk absolute truth, and nothing else, the only statement that you can make that is absolutely true is that – what’s that? Go ahead. Scott: I know where this is going. Naval: Sorry. What's yours? Scott: It's that we exist. To ask the question. That's the only thing you know. Naval: It's actually even worse than that! (Ha, ha, ha, ha.) I used to say it was I exist and then a very smart friend of mine corrected me and he said, no, awareness exists. You don't even know that you exist. Your thought, like yes, your current thought exists and you're aware of that current thought, but what is the you that is having that thought? That's the whole Buddhist question, the whole enlightenment question. Is there a persistent self-identity other than just thoughts that are referring to each other? Like when you look for yourself, you're not actually there. There's an awareness. The awareness exists, but the you separate from that awareness, does that even exist? Full transcript of podcast (excerpt begins at 54:33): Full video:

ScottAdamsVids

104,969 次观看 • 1 年前

Boris Johnson on Ukraine: The greatest mistake we could all make now is simply to blame Washington for everything that’s going wrong in the Western response. I’m not going to hide it from you — I don’t like, I’m nauseated by the moral equivalence that is drawn by the current representatives of the White House between Ukraine and Russia. It’s ridiculous. To say that Ukraine was somehow responsible for starting this war is absolutely odious. But the first piece of advice I’d give to everybody is: try, if you possibly can, to contain your Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Boris Johnson on Ukraine: The greatest mistake we could all make now is simply to blame Washington for everything that’s going wrong in the Western response. I’m not going to hide it from you — I don’t like, I’m nauseated by the moral equivalence that is drawn by the current representatives of the White House between Ukraine and Russia. It’s ridiculous. To say that Ukraine was somehow responsible for starting this war is absolutely odious. But the first piece of advice I’d give to everybody is: try, if you possibly can, to contain your Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Clash Report

12,829 次观看 • 5 个月前

Every time I hear the debate between English identity and multiculturalism, I’m deeply confused. Multiculturalism essentially means that “Englishness” is an empty vessel in which cultures live together, that the vessel of being a country is neutral and empty of content. There’s been an elite project in Britain, America and Canada and generally in the English speaking world, to empty identity of distinctiveness and culture and into that empty vessel, pour any old random thing. Literally any old idea unexamined. And so you now have in Britain, a very small minority of radical islamists. They are tiny. Most muslims are not radical. They are tiny, and yet they can run your streets because everybody else is an empty vessel. You look at that idea and you say that’s not me, that’s not us, and you spit it out. But if you don’t know what me and us is, you can’t look at an idea and say that’s not us. One of the most precious things you could give your children is a thousand years of culture. It’s who you are and who you have been. Now I’m an Israeli Jew who firmly believes a nation can be multiracial but I’m worried about multicultural. Because culture is the single most important decider of human behavior. It’s the single most important thing to have in a cohesive country. To Westerners who have been trained by generations of elites to not know who you are because of a misunderstanding of what happened in the 20th century, because of a misunderstanding of where colonialism and WWII comes from, as thinking too much about your own culture, or thinking your culture is too good, is what caused the Holocaust, you need to step back. “Germaness” is not what caused the Holocaust - Haviv Rettig Gur nails it. Every word of this

Every time I hear the debate between English identity and multiculturalism, I’m deeply confused. Multiculturalism essentially means that “Englishness” is an empty vessel in which cultures live together, that the vessel of being a country is neutral and empty of content. There’s been an elite project in Britain, America and Canada and generally in the English speaking world, to empty identity of distinctiveness and culture and into that empty vessel, pour any old random thing. Literally any old idea unexamined. And so you now have in Britain, a very small minority of radical islamists. They are tiny. Most muslims are not radical. They are tiny, and yet they can run your streets because everybody else is an empty vessel. You look at that idea and you say that’s not me, that’s not us, and you spit it out. But if you don’t know what me and us is, you can’t look at an idea and say that’s not us. One of the most precious things you could give your children is a thousand years of culture. It’s who you are and who you have been. Now I’m an Israeli Jew who firmly believes a nation can be multiracial but I’m worried about multicultural. Because culture is the single most important decider of human behavior. It’s the single most important thing to have in a cohesive country. To Westerners who have been trained by generations of elites to not know who you are because of a misunderstanding of what happened in the 20th century, because of a misunderstanding of where colonialism and WWII comes from, as thinking too much about your own culture, or thinking your culture is too good, is what caused the Holocaust, you need to step back. “Germaness” is not what caused the Holocaust - Haviv Rettig Gur nails it. Every word of this

Melissa Chen

245,583 次观看 • 8 个月前

Asmongold says he can never represent a mainstream movement because of how he looks "I know that I'm a ghoul and anybody that sees me and sees the way that I act are going to be immediately put off by it. I am a warlock. I cannot represent anything on its face because I am a degenerate ghoul." "I can work from the shadows, but I can never represent any sort of a movement because of the way that I look. People see the way somebody like me looks and then they are immediately like, whatever this guy is for, I'm on the other side." "Is there any other creator whose appearance is negatively discussed more on social media than me? I would say the answer to that is absolutely not. It's not even close."

Asmongold says he can never represent a mainstream movement because of how he looks "I know that I'm a ghoul and anybody that sees me and sees the way that I act are going to be immediately put off by it. I am a warlock. I cannot represent anything on its face because I am a degenerate ghoul." "I can work from the shadows, but I can never represent any sort of a movement because of the way that I look. People see the way somebody like me looks and then they are immediately like, whatever this guy is for, I'm on the other side." "Is there any other creator whose appearance is negatively discussed more on social media than me? I would say the answer to that is absolutely not. It's not even close."

Asmongold Updates

107,078 次观看 • 1 个月前