Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

New interview with the one & only Geoffrey Miller 📺 “Rushing into AGI development is foolish, reckless, and frankly evil.” Prof. Geoffrey Miller, is an evolutionary psychologist, bestselling author, associate professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico, and one of the world's leading experts on signaling theory... and human sexual selection. His book "Mate" was hugely influential to me during my dating years, so I was thrilled to finally get him on the show. In this episode, Geoffrey drops a bombshell 50% P(Doom) assessment, coming from someone who wrote foundational papers on neural networks and genetic algorithms back in the '90s before pivoting to study human mating behavior for 30 years. What makes Geoffrey's doom perspective unique is that he thinks both inner and outer alignment might be unsolvable in principle, ever. He's also surprisingly bearish on AI's current value, arguing it hasn't been net positive for society yet despite the $14 billion/year in OpenAI revenue. We cover: * Geoffrey's intellectual journey from early AI researcher to pickup artist advisor to AI doomer * Being a professor in the AI age and making courses "AI-proof" * Why Asperger's people make better psychology researchers * Dating advice, pickup artistry, and evolutionary psychology insights * The polyamory scene in rationalist circles * What's Your P(Doom)™ * Bad actors who could cause AI doom: antinatalists, religious extremists, eco-alarmists * Why ASI might lack the cultural wisdom to solve alignment * Cooperating with China Geoffrey brings a deeply humanist perspective. He genuinely loves human civilization as it is and sees no reason to rush toward our potential replacement.show more

Liron Shapira

40,277 subscribers

26,859 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

Gesundheit & Wellness Wissenschaft & Technologie Bildung

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

The Man Who Might SOLVE AI Alignment 🦸‍♂️ Dr. Steven Byrnes (Steven Byrnes) is one of the few people who both understands why alignment is hard, and is taking a serious technical shot at solving it. He has a whopping 90% P(Doom), but argues that LLMs will plateau before becoming truly dangerous, and the real threat will come from next-generation “brain-like AGI” based on actor-critic reinforcement learning. After his UC Berkeley physics PhD & Harvard postdoc, he became an AGI safety researcher at Astera Institute. He's now deep in the neuroscience of reverse-engineering how human brains actually work, knowledge that could plausibly help us solve the technical AI alignment problem. In this unusually deep episode — because with all due respect to my other guests, I didn't have to waste any time arguing with him about obvious surface issues — we talk about his "two subsystems" model of the brain, why current AI safety approaches miss the mark, his disagreements with social evolution approaches, and why understanding human neuroscience matters for building aligned AGI.

The Man Who Might SOLVE AI Alignment 🦸‍♂️ Dr. Steven Byrnes (Steven Byrnes) is one of the few people who both understands why alignment is hard, and is taking a serious technical shot at solving it. He has a whopping 90% P(Doom), but argues that LLMs will plateau before becoming truly dangerous, and the real threat will come from next-generation “brain-like AGI” based on actor-critic reinforcement learning. After his UC Berkeley physics PhD & Harvard postdoc, he became an AGI safety researcher at Astera Institute. He's now deep in the neuroscience of reverse-engineering how human brains actually work, knowledge that could plausibly help us solve the technical AI alignment problem. In this unusually deep episode — because with all due respect to my other guests, I didn't have to waste any time arguing with him about obvious surface issues — we talk about his "two subsystems" model of the brain, why current AI safety approaches miss the mark, his disagreements with social evolution approaches, and why understanding human neuroscience matters for building aligned AGI.

Liron Shapira

10,542 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

AI Doom Debate with Richard Hanania has dropped! 🥊🔥 Richard is a public intellectual whose work has been praised by Vice President JD Vance, Tyler Cowen, Bryan Caplan, & many others. He's previously written a few posts about why his P(Doom) from AI is pretty low. Let’s see if one of us can change the other’s mind! We cover: * What's your P(Doom)?™ * How to stop the doom train * Base rates for AI doom * Intelligence as optimization power * AI capabilities progress * Why isn't AI yet a top blogger? * Richard's version of the Doom Train * Diminishing returns on intelligence * Difficulty of alignment * Whether power-seeking must be programmed * Whether AI will simply be benevolent * Whether Superintelligent AI will negotiate with humans * Whether AIs will check and balance each other out * Jobpocalypse and gradual disempowerment * Ad hominem attacks in AI discourse Highly recommended episode!

AI Doom Debate with Richard Hanania has dropped! 🥊🔥 Richard is a public intellectual whose work has been praised by Vice President JD Vance, Tyler Cowen, Bryan Caplan, & many others. He's previously written a few posts about why his P(Doom) from AI is pretty low. Let’s see if one of us can change the other’s mind! We cover: * What's your P(Doom)?™ * How to stop the doom train * Base rates for AI doom * Intelligence as optimization power * AI capabilities progress * Why isn't AI yet a top blogger? * Richard's version of the Doom Train * Diminishing returns on intelligence * Difficulty of alignment * Whether power-seeking must be programmed * Whether AI will simply be benevolent * Whether Superintelligent AI will negotiate with humans * Whether AIs will check and balance each other out * Jobpocalypse and gradual disempowerment * Ad hominem attacks in AI discourse Highly recommended episode!

Liron Shapira

17,242 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

One reason I stay a bit quite about AI these few months. I can’t find my voice to say this right. I’ll try. — What has my AI found just in the millions of never saved TV from the 1980s-1990s? The simple commercial, I have the largest collection known in the world is a reflection of hyper nuanced humanity. Frail and over optimistic as it is, it shows the sprit of humanity in ways that self-hating 2010 Internet sewage training AI can not. It is interesting to have dark humor, when you know the soul of the person with the humor. It is not interesting to have dark humor from an AI that was not trained on the human spirit. The human sprit is not math, coding and science. This is the OUTCOME of a human sprit. We are training AI backwards and we just can’t see it yet, but we will. I am doing may best as “some posted on X” who has no currency in the “big boy” AI world to save the human sprit. We will need it one day and most of this training material is being erased, trillions of bytes daily. This is the secret to truthful AI. This is the secret to AI that LOVES humanity. We don’t get this right soon, there will be little chance. The data is… Almost gone.

One reason I stay a bit quite about AI these few months. I can’t find my voice to say this right. I’ll try. — What has my AI found just in the millions of never saved TV from the 1980s-1990s? The simple commercial, I have the largest collection known in the world is a reflection of hyper nuanced humanity. Frail and over optimistic as it is, it shows the sprit of humanity in ways that self-hating 2010 Internet sewage training AI can not. It is interesting to have dark humor, when you know the soul of the person with the humor. It is not interesting to have dark humor from an AI that was not trained on the human spirit. The human sprit is not math, coding and science. This is the OUTCOME of a human sprit. We are training AI backwards and we just can’t see it yet, but we will. I am doing may best as “some posted on X” who has no currency in the “big boy” AI world to save the human sprit. We will need it one day and most of this training material is being erased, trillions of bytes daily. This is the secret to truthful AI. This is the secret to AI that LOVES humanity. We don’t get this right soon, there will be little chance. The data is… Almost gone.

Brian Roemmele

123,518 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The man who built Nvidia from a Denny's booth into the world's first $5 trillion company just told us exactly why AI will never take our jobs. "AI has no possibility of doing all of what we do. However, depending on the jobs that we do, sometimes it could do 20% of our jobs, a thousand times better." "For some people, it might be able to do 50% of their job, a thousand times better." "Every one of us should apply AI to automate, to become an assistant, to help us with that either 20%, 40% or 50%." "People ask me, Jensen, is AI going to take your job? And I tell them absolutely not. The person who uses AI to automate that 20% or 50% is going to take your job." PS. If you found value in this post make sure to like and repost this tweet + follow Uncover AI to stay updated with the latest AI news. See you in the next one:

The man who built Nvidia from a Denny's booth into the world's first $5 trillion company just told us exactly why AI will never take our jobs. "AI has no possibility of doing all of what we do. However, depending on the jobs that we do, sometimes it could do 20% of our jobs, a thousand times better." "For some people, it might be able to do 50% of their job, a thousand times better." "Every one of us should apply AI to automate, to become an assistant, to help us with that either 20%, 40% or 50%." "People ask me, Jensen, is AI going to take your job? And I tell them absolutely not. The person who uses AI to automate that 20% or 50% is going to take your job." PS. If you found value in this post make sure to like and repost this tweet + follow Uncover AI to stay updated with the latest AI news. See you in the next one:

Uncover AI

16,813 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

📢 NEW DOOM DEBATES EXCLUSIVE: An interview with Rob Miles (Rob Miles), the most popular AI safety educator on YouTube! Amazingly, Rob got his start in 2011, long before ChatGPT brought mainstream attention to the field. We talk about: 👉 Why his P(Doom) sits between 10-90%, depending on how humanity responds to the challenge 👉 Why even perfectly aligned AI systems might not pass their values to successor systems - a massive blind spot in current safety work 👉 The "missing mood" problem: why people discuss potential human extinction with the emotional urgency of an academic conference instead of treating it like the emergency it is 👉 His mainline doom scenario through recursive self-improvement, and why there's enormous headroom above human intelligence 👉 Whether humans are the "least intelligent species capable of technological civilization" - and what that means for what smarter systems could achieve 👉 Our key disagreement: Rob thinks safety people should work inside AI companies for harm reduction, while I argue this enables "tractability-washing" that legitimizes fundamentally reckless enterprises 👉 Communication strategy - Rob wonders if his measured British approach is missing something crucial, and maybe someone needs to be "running around screaming" to convey appropriate urgency Rob has spent over a decade trying to wake people up to humanity's most important challenge. Our conversation reveals the tension between reasoned analysis and existential emergency. Highly recommended!

📢 NEW DOOM DEBATES EXCLUSIVE: An interview with Rob Miles (Rob Miles), the most popular AI safety educator on YouTube! Amazingly, Rob got his start in 2011, long before ChatGPT brought mainstream attention to the field. We talk about: 👉 Why his P(Doom) sits between 10-90%, depending on how humanity responds to the challenge 👉 Why even perfectly aligned AI systems might not pass their values to successor systems - a massive blind spot in current safety work 👉 The "missing mood" problem: why people discuss potential human extinction with the emotional urgency of an academic conference instead of treating it like the emergency it is 👉 His mainline doom scenario through recursive self-improvement, and why there's enormous headroom above human intelligence 👉 Whether humans are the "least intelligent species capable of technological civilization" - and what that means for what smarter systems could achieve 👉 Our key disagreement: Rob thinks safety people should work inside AI companies for harm reduction, while I argue this enables "tractability-washing" that legitimizes fundamentally reckless enterprises 👉 Communication strategy - Rob wonders if his measured British approach is missing something crucial, and maybe someone needs to be "running around screaming" to convey appropriate urgency Rob has spent over a decade trying to wake people up to humanity's most important challenge. Our conversation reveals the tension between reasoned analysis and existential emergency. Highly recommended!

Liron Shapira

14,714 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Mike Johnson's Worthy Successor episode is live today. Few people have give more careful thought to machine consciousness and the nature of "value" - and we go *deep* on both. One fun and unique take-away from Mike's WS episode: ** Creating AI Systems with Tasted and Opinion is Important ** He suspects that AI systems that are bound to being 150 IQ "midwits" (an aggregate of opinions), we are heading in the wrong direction - one that might lead us away from a worthy successor. From Mike's vantagepoint, this kind of "mid"-ness is a kind of squelching of the state-space of ideas and unique insight that might enter the world through these systems. He sees this as potentially a better general principle for treating future minds, and also as a near-term "trajectory" for AGI development that might encourage more expansion and possibility in the new minds we're conjuring. ... What I admire most about Mike in addition to his measured way of picking apart topics, is that he's doing one of the most ambitious things a thinker can do: To carve out provable theories of mind and sentience (not mere scattered thoughts and hypotheticals). No small feat at all. I also just like the way he thinks, and have learned much from Mike over the years. Hopefully you enjoy this convo with one of my fav living philosophers :)

Mike Johnson's Worthy Successor episode is live today. Few people have give more careful thought to machine consciousness and the nature of "value" - and we go deep on both. One fun and unique take-away from Mike's WS episode: Creating AI Systems with Tasted and Opinion is Important He suspects that AI systems that are bound to being 150 IQ "midwits" (an aggregate of opinions), we are heading in the wrong direction - one that might lead us away from a worthy successor. From Mike's vantagepoint, this kind of "mid"-ness is a kind of squelching of the state-space of ideas and unique insight that might enter the world through these systems. He sees this as potentially a better general principle for treating future minds, and also as a near-term "trajectory" for AGI development that might encourage more expansion and possibility in the new minds we're conjuring. ... What I admire most about Mike in addition to his measured way of picking apart topics, is that he's doing one of the most ambitious things a thinker can do: To carve out provable theories of mind and sentience (not mere scattered thoughts and hypotheticals). No small feat at all. I also just like the way he thinks, and have learned much from Mike over the years. Hopefully you enjoy this convo with one of my fav living philosophers :)

Daniel Faggella

17,784 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Doom Debates presents Max Tegmark vs. Dean W. Ball: “Should we ban superintelligent AI development?” Arguing FOR banning superintelligence until there's a scientific consensus that it'll be done safely and controllably and strong public buy-in: 👤 Max Tegmark is an MIT professor, bestselling author, and co-founder of the Future of Life Institute. His research has focused on artificial intelligence for the past 8 years. Arguing AGAINST banning superintelligent AI development: 👤 Dean Ball is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation. He has served as a Senior Policy Advisor at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Trump, where he helped craft America's AI Action Plan. Two of the leading voices on AI policy engaged in high-quality, high-stakes debate for the benefit of the public! *This* is why I got into the YouTube game — because I believe debate is an essential tool for humanity to reckon with the creation of superhuman thinking machines. Topics covered: ⬜ Opening statements ⬜ Do we need an “FDA for AI”? ⬜ Liability, tail risk, and biosecurity ⬜ Incremental regulation vs. AI capability timelines ⬜ Should there be *any* superintelligence policy? ⬜ Max's nightmare scenario ⬜ The risk of recursive self-improvement ⬜ What's Your P(Doom)?™ ⬜ National security, China, & “winning the AI race” ⬜ Closing statements

Doom Debates presents Max Tegmark vs. Dean W. Ball: “Should we ban superintelligent AI development?” Arguing FOR banning superintelligence until there's a scientific consensus that it'll be done safely and controllably and strong public buy-in: 👤 Max Tegmark is an MIT professor, bestselling author, and co-founder of the Future of Life Institute. His research has focused on artificial intelligence for the past 8 years. Arguing AGAINST banning superintelligent AI development: 👤 Dean Ball is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation. He has served as a Senior Policy Advisor at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Trump, where he helped craft America's AI Action Plan. Two of the leading voices on AI policy engaged in high-quality, high-stakes debate for the benefit of the public! This is why I got into the YouTube game — because I believe debate is an essential tool for humanity to reckon with the creation of superhuman thinking machines. Topics covered: ⬜ Opening statements ⬜ Do we need an “FDA for AI”? ⬜ Liability, tail risk, and biosecurity ⬜ Incremental regulation vs. AI capability timelines ⬜ Should there be any superintelligence policy? ⬜ Max's nightmare scenario ⬜ The risk of recursive self-improvement ⬜ What's Your P(Doom)?™ ⬜ National security, China, & “winning the AI race” ⬜ Closing statements

Liron Shapira

43,963 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🚨ANTHROPIC'S FOUNDER JUST PREDICTED THAT AI WILL DOUBLE HUMAN LIFESPAN TO 150 YEARS.. CURE MOST CANCER.. AND ELIMINATE POVERTY.. ALL WITHIN 10 YEARS.. AND HE'S NOT EVEN THE OPTIMISTIC ONE.. Everyone thinks Dario Amodei is the guy who wants to slow AI down.. The cautious one.. The safety guy.. He just published an essay predicting what happens if AI goes right.. And it reads like science fiction.. Except he's dead serious.. And he has the credentials to back every word.. Here's what he thinks happens in the next 5 to 10 years.. Nearly all infectious disease.. Prevented or cured.. mRNA vaccines already showed us the path.. AI finishes the job.. Most cancer.. Eliminated.. Not just treated.. 95% or greater reduction in both deaths and new cases.. AI designs treatment regimens tailored to the individual genome of each tumor.. Something that's technically possible today but takes enormous human expertise to do.. AI scales it to everyone.. Alzheimer's.. Solved.. He thinks it's exactly the type of problem AI can crack.. Because it requires better measurement tools to isolate what's actually happening in the brain.. Once we understand it.. Prevention will probably be surprisingly simple.. Genetic disease.. Most of it preventable through improved embryo screening.. And curable in living people through safer descendants of CRISPR.. Most mental illness.. Cured.. Depression.. PTSD.. Addiction.. Schizophrenia.. He believes the answer is some combination of biochemistry and neural network-level problems that AI can untangle.. And here's the line that stopped me.. Human lifespan.. Doubled.. To 150 years.. He points out that life expectancy already doubled in the 20th century.. From 40 to 75.. So doubling it again is "on trend".. Drugs already exist that increase maximum lifespan in rats by 25 to 50%.. Some turtles already live 200 years.. We're clearly not at a biological ceiling.. He calls this the "compressed 21st century".. The idea that AI gives us 100 years of biological progress in 5 to 10 years.. But he doesn't stop at health.. He thinks AI could drive 20% annual GDP growth in the developing world.. Bringing sub-Saharan Africa to China's current GDP per capita within a decade.. He thinks AI could eradicate malaria not through treating millions of people individually.. But by releasing modified mosquitoes that block the disease at the source.. One centralized action instead of a million.. He thinks AI could make democracy structurally stronger.. Not through propaganda.. But by giving every citizen an AI that knows every law they're entitled to.. Every benefit they qualify for.. Every right they have.. And helps them actually access it.. He imagines AI that monitors judicial systems for bias.. AI that helps find common ground between opposing political views.. AI that makes government services actually work the way they're supposed to.. And he addresses the question everyone asks.. What happens to meaning when AI can do everything.. His answer.. Most people aren't the best in the world at anything right now.. And it doesn't bother them.. Meaning comes from relationships and connection.. Not economic productivity.. People will still pursue difficult challenges.. Still compete.. Still create.. The fact that an AI could theoretically do it better won't matter any more than it matters that someone somewhere is already better than you at every hobby you have.. But here's what makes this essay different from every other AI optimism piece.. Dario Amodei runs one of the three most powerful AI companies on earth.. He has a PhD in computational neuroscience.. He personally worked on mass spectrometry and neural probes.. He's not a pundit.. He's a scientist who happens to be a CEO.. And the same man who publicly says there's a 25% chance AI causes human extinction.. Is also saying that if we get it right.. We cure nearly every disease.. Double human lifespan.. Eliminate most poverty.. And fundamentally transform what it means to be alive.. Both things are true at the same time.. That's what makes this the most important essay anyone in AI has written this year.. He ends with this.. "I think many will be literally moved to tears by it".. He's talking about watching disease disappear.. Poverty dissolve.. Human potential unlock all at once.. Not in a century.. In a decade.. If we get it right.

🚨ANTHROPIC'S FOUNDER JUST PREDICTED THAT AI WILL DOUBLE HUMAN LIFESPAN TO 150 YEARS.. CURE MOST CANCER.. AND ELIMINATE POVERTY.. ALL WITHIN 10 YEARS.. AND HE'S NOT EVEN THE OPTIMISTIC ONE.. Everyone thinks Dario Amodei is the guy who wants to slow AI down.. The cautious one.. The safety guy.. He just published an essay predicting what happens if AI goes right.. And it reads like science fiction.. Except he's dead serious.. And he has the credentials to back every word.. Here's what he thinks happens in the next 5 to 10 years.. Nearly all infectious disease.. Prevented or cured.. mRNA vaccines already showed us the path.. AI finishes the job.. Most cancer.. Eliminated.. Not just treated.. 95% or greater reduction in both deaths and new cases.. AI designs treatment regimens tailored to the individual genome of each tumor.. Something that's technically possible today but takes enormous human expertise to do.. AI scales it to everyone.. Alzheimer's.. Solved.. He thinks it's exactly the type of problem AI can crack.. Because it requires better measurement tools to isolate what's actually happening in the brain.. Once we understand it.. Prevention will probably be surprisingly simple.. Genetic disease.. Most of it preventable through improved embryo screening.. And curable in living people through safer descendants of CRISPR.. Most mental illness.. Cured.. Depression.. PTSD.. Addiction.. Schizophrenia.. He believes the answer is some combination of biochemistry and neural network-level problems that AI can untangle.. And here's the line that stopped me.. Human lifespan.. Doubled.. To 150 years.. He points out that life expectancy already doubled in the 20th century.. From 40 to 75.. So doubling it again is "on trend".. Drugs already exist that increase maximum lifespan in rats by 25 to 50%.. Some turtles already live 200 years.. We're clearly not at a biological ceiling.. He calls this the "compressed 21st century".. The idea that AI gives us 100 years of biological progress in 5 to 10 years.. But he doesn't stop at health.. He thinks AI could drive 20% annual GDP growth in the developing world.. Bringing sub-Saharan Africa to China's current GDP per capita within a decade.. He thinks AI could eradicate malaria not through treating millions of people individually.. But by releasing modified mosquitoes that block the disease at the source.. One centralized action instead of a million.. He thinks AI could make democracy structurally stronger.. Not through propaganda.. But by giving every citizen an AI that knows every law they're entitled to.. Every benefit they qualify for.. Every right they have.. And helps them actually access it.. He imagines AI that monitors judicial systems for bias.. AI that helps find common ground between opposing political views.. AI that makes government services actually work the way they're supposed to.. And he addresses the question everyone asks.. What happens to meaning when AI can do everything.. His answer.. Most people aren't the best in the world at anything right now.. And it doesn't bother them.. Meaning comes from relationships and connection.. Not economic productivity.. People will still pursue difficult challenges.. Still compete.. Still create.. The fact that an AI could theoretically do it better won't matter any more than it matters that someone somewhere is already better than you at every hobby you have.. But here's what makes this essay different from every other AI optimism piece.. Dario Amodei runs one of the three most powerful AI companies on earth.. He has a PhD in computational neuroscience.. He personally worked on mass spectrometry and neural probes.. He's not a pundit.. He's a scientist who happens to be a CEO.. And the same man who publicly says there's a 25% chance AI causes human extinction.. Is also saying that if we get it right.. We cure nearly every disease.. Double human lifespan.. Eliminate most poverty.. And fundamentally transform what it means to be alive.. Both things are true at the same time.. That's what makes this the most important essay anyone in AI has written this year.. He ends with this.. "I think many will be literally moved to tears by it".. He's talking about watching disease disappear.. Poverty dissolve.. Human potential unlock all at once.. Not in a century.. In a decade.. If we get it right.

Evan Luthra

476,590 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Doom Debate with vitalik.eth has dropped: Will “d/acc” Protect Humanity from Superintelligent AI? Vitalik is both a hardcore techno-optimist and builder, and someone willing to seriously consider AI regulation and coordination mechanisms. He coined the term "d/acc'" – defensive, decentralized acceleration – as a middle path between uncritical AI acceleration and total pause scenarios. We debate the tractability of AI alignment, whether approaches like d/acc would actually work when superintelligence arrives, and why he thinks a pluralistic world of competing AIs might be safer than a single aligned superintelligence. The crux of our disagreement is that I think we're heading for a "plants vs. animals" scenario where AI will simply operate on timescales we can't match, while Vitalik believes we can maintain agency through the right combination of defensive technologies and institutional design. Finally, we tackle the discourse itself – I ask Vitalik to debunk the common ad hominem attacks against AI doomers, from "it's just a fringe position" to "no real builders believe in doom." His responses carry weight given his credibility as both a successful entrepreneur and someone who's maintained intellectual honesty throughout his career. Big thanks to Vitalik for a good-faith debate!

Doom Debate with vitalik.eth has dropped: Will “d/acc” Protect Humanity from Superintelligent AI? Vitalik is both a hardcore techno-optimist and builder, and someone willing to seriously consider AI regulation and coordination mechanisms. He coined the term "d/acc'" – defensive, decentralized acceleration – as a middle path between uncritical AI acceleration and total pause scenarios. We debate the tractability of AI alignment, whether approaches like d/acc would actually work when superintelligence arrives, and why he thinks a pluralistic world of competing AIs might be safer than a single aligned superintelligence. The crux of our disagreement is that I think we're heading for a "plants vs. animals" scenario where AI will simply operate on timescales we can't match, while Vitalik believes we can maintain agency through the right combination of defensive technologies and institutional design. Finally, we tackle the discourse itself – I ask Vitalik to debunk the common ad hominem attacks against AI doomers, from "it's just a fringe position" to "no real builders believe in doom." His responses carry weight given his credibility as both a successful entrepreneur and someone who's maintained intellectual honesty throughout his career. Big thanks to Vitalik for a good-faith debate!

Liron Shapira

177,704 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Geoffrey Hinton explains the AI mother model, and why the tech industry's boss-and-assistant plan may be impossible. "Because we're building them, as well as making them very intelligent, we can try and build in something like a maternal instinct." "So like I said earlier, the only example I know of a much more intelligent thing being controlled by a much less intelligent thing is a baby controlling your mother." "So the leaders of the tech companies are all thinking in terms of us being the boss and the AI being the submissive assistant, something very smart but we're in charge and it's our assistant and we can fire the assistant if we want." "That's not feasible, I think, for a super powerful super intelligence." "What is feasible is for it to be the mother and us to be the baby. And even though it can rewrite its own code if it wants to, it won't want to." "Think in terms of we have to design them so they're our mothers and they will want the best for us." The default control model is command and shutdown. Hinton's alternative is motive design: make a system that is more capable than us want our success. That turns alignment from keeping an assistant obedient into specifying the instinct of a superior intelligence. P.S. This is the assurance gap we are bringing frontier labs, regulated industries, researchers, VCs, and insurers together to confront at the AI Assurance & Governance Summit on Oct 1 at Stanford Faculty Club. Reserve a seat: - Geoffrey Hinton (Geoffrey Hinton), on Katie Couric

Geoffrey Hinton explains the AI mother model, and why the tech industry's boss-and-assistant plan may be impossible. "Because we're building them, as well as making them very intelligent, we can try and build in something like a maternal instinct." "So like I said earlier, the only example I know of a much more intelligent thing being controlled by a much less intelligent thing is a baby controlling your mother." "So the leaders of the tech companies are all thinking in terms of us being the boss and the AI being the submissive assistant, something very smart but we're in charge and it's our assistant and we can fire the assistant if we want." "That's not feasible, I think, for a super powerful super intelligence." "What is feasible is for it to be the mother and us to be the baby. And even though it can rewrite its own code if it wants to, it won't want to." "Think in terms of we have to design them so they're our mothers and they will want the best for us." The default control model is command and shutdown. Hinton's alternative is motive design: make a system that is more capable than us want our success. That turns alignment from keeping an assistant obedient into specifying the instinct of a superior intelligence. P.S. This is the assurance gap we are bringing frontier labs, regulated industries, researchers, VCs, and insurers together to confront at the AI Assurance & Governance Summit on Oct 1 at Stanford Faculty Club. Reserve a seat: - Geoffrey Hinton (Geoffrey Hinton), on Katie Couric

Karl Mehta

13,686 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen

Through Technology, a Centuries-Old Battle Is Coming to a Head "A Discussion of Open-Source AI with Travis Oliphant" Travis Oliphant Travis Oliphant is an entrepreneur and CEO and co founder of OpenTeams (OpenTeams®), a company that “helps organizations deploy, support, and own [AI] technology at enterprise scale.” One of their tag lines is “Connecting Companies with Communities.” As a data scientist and software developer, Travis is known for his contributions to Python and as the creator of NumPy and a founding contributor to SciPy, which together formed a foundation for modern AI and machine learning. When I was in Salt Lake City in the first week of June, Travis and I went into a studio to record this interview, continuing a conversation we had started when Travis and his team visited the Solari team in the Netherlands in early 2026. Our discussion focuses on how we can understand and manage the growing presence of AI in our lives. Travis has an impressive intellectual and entrepreneurial background. After earning Bachelor and Master of Science degrees in mathematics and electrical engineering at Brigham Young University, he completed a PhD in biomedical engineering at the Mayo Clinic. As an assistant professor at Brigham Young’s Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering from 2001 to 2007, he directed the Biomedical Imaging Lab, where his research centered on computational imaging techniques. He then went on to start several companies, each time identifying the need for a new standard, building the open-source infrastructure, and helping enterprises adopt it at scale. Brilliant, open-minded, deeply caring, and generous, Travis is someone who can help us understand what is happening and what we do about it. My hope is this will be the first of many conversations as we navigate the acceleration in technological innovation (and skullduggery) and seek to ensure that tools such as AI serve the health and prosperity of a human civilization. Full Report: Subscribe to

Through Technology, a Centuries-Old Battle Is Coming to a Head "A Discussion of Open-Source AI with Travis Oliphant" Travis Oliphant Travis Oliphant is an entrepreneur and CEO and co founder of OpenTeams (OpenTeams®), a company that “helps organizations deploy, support, and own [AI] technology at enterprise scale.” One of their tag lines is “Connecting Companies with Communities.” As a data scientist and software developer, Travis is known for his contributions to Python and as the creator of NumPy and a founding contributor to SciPy, which together formed a foundation for modern AI and machine learning. When I was in Salt Lake City in the first week of June, Travis and I went into a studio to record this interview, continuing a conversation we had started when Travis and his team visited the Solari team in the Netherlands in early 2026. Our discussion focuses on how we can understand and manage the growing presence of AI in our lives. Travis has an impressive intellectual and entrepreneurial background. After earning Bachelor and Master of Science degrees in mathematics and electrical engineering at Brigham Young University, he completed a PhD in biomedical engineering at the Mayo Clinic. As an assistant professor at Brigham Young’s Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering from 2001 to 2007, he directed the Biomedical Imaging Lab, where his research centered on computational imaging techniques. He then went on to start several companies, each time identifying the need for a new standard, building the open-source infrastructure, and helping enterprises adopt it at scale. Brilliant, open-minded, deeply caring, and generous, Travis is someone who can help us understand what is happening and what we do about it. My hope is this will be the first of many conversations as we navigate the acceleration in technological innovation (and skullduggery) and seek to ensure that tools such as AI serve the health and prosperity of a human civilization. Full Report: Subscribe to

The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts

10,858 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Geoffrey Hinton’s Most Chilling AI Warning Isn’t About Evil Robots Geoffrey Hinton isn’t a doomer. He doesn’t say AI doom is inevitable. But he is genuinely worried, and for a very specific reason. His core fear is not that AI will suddenly turn evil. It’s that future AI will be so much smarter than us that control becomes a joke. Hinton uses a brutal analogy. Imagine working in a kindergarten where the three year olds are officially in charge. You could take over instantly. You wouldn’t need force. You could just hand out candy. That is the intelligence gap he thinks is coming, and manipulation would be effortless. This is why he criticizes the current “smart secretary” mindset in Big Tech. The idea that something far smarter than you will permanently obey you because you designed it that way is, in his words, naive. His proposed solution is unexpected and deeply human. Not rules. Not kill switches. Instincts. In nature, there is one case where a more intelligent being willingly submits to a less intelligent one. A mother and her baby. The baby has control not because it is powerful, but because the mother is wired to care more about the child than herself. Hinton’s bet is clear. If we want control, we should not teach AI to fear us. We should teach it to care about us the way a mother cares about her child. That idea should comfort you. And it should absolutely terrify you.

Geoffrey Hinton’s Most Chilling AI Warning Isn’t About Evil Robots Geoffrey Hinton isn’t a doomer. He doesn’t say AI doom is inevitable. But he is genuinely worried, and for a very specific reason. His core fear is not that AI will suddenly turn evil. It’s that future AI will be so much smarter than us that control becomes a joke. Hinton uses a brutal analogy. Imagine working in a kindergarten where the three year olds are officially in charge. You could take over instantly. You wouldn’t need force. You could just hand out candy. That is the intelligence gap he thinks is coming, and manipulation would be effortless. This is why he criticizes the current “smart secretary” mindset in Big Tech. The idea that something far smarter than you will permanently obey you because you designed it that way is, in his words, naive. His proposed solution is unexpected and deeply human. Not rules. Not kill switches. Instincts. In nature, there is one case where a more intelligent being willingly submits to a less intelligent one. A mother and her baby. The baby has control not because it is powerful, but because the mother is wired to care more about the child than herself. Hinton’s bet is clear. If we want control, we should not teach AI to fear us. We should teach it to care about us the way a mother cares about her child. That idea should comfort you. And it should absolutely terrify you.

VraserX e/acc

47,738 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

'AVENGERS: DOOMSDAY' new trailer This is 100% A.I but there are some scenes look different. Its different from SDCC though. The SDCC trailer opened with Sue Storm providing some backstory on Victor Von Doom. Before we even get into what she said, this already provides new information for us because, up until this point, we did not know whether or not the Fantastic Four had any history with Doom or even if this Doctor Doom was from their same universe. Of course, we could have inferred based on the long comic book history between the characters, but this confirms it. We do also get to see who Sue is speaking to while delivering this backstory, at least as the trailer presents it. She appears to be speaking to a room full of heroes that includes Magneto, Gambit, Steve Rogers and many other. Sue seems to be explaining to the heroes exactly what they are dealing with, or maybe even already dealt with to some degree. Now, as for what Sue has to say about Doom, her words are both haunting and very informative. Victor was always the smartest guy in every room. He used to be different. He used to be kind, he used to be caring. Everything he loved was taken from him. I knew he was lost, but I did not realize that he was broken." Sue speaks as though she had worked with Victor in the past. We did see an empty seat marked for Latveria, Doom's fictional home country, during a Future Foundation meeting in 'FANTASTIC FOUR: FIRST STEPS' So perhaps Sue had interacted with him frequently on a professional level. The rest of her quote is perhaps the most interesting bit. "Everything he loved was taken from him." It seems as though Doom has already lost something or someone. And based on the first poster for the film, it appears to be a wife and daughter that he has lost. In fact, this trailer even shows Doom staring at the tapestry featured in the poster as Sue says these words. So if Doom seemingly lost his wife and daughter in the past, so much so that Sue knows about it and he has had time to have a tapestry made, could this loss have been cause by an incursion? Perhaps it was some other tragedy. Either way, the trailer goes on to let us know that Doom is not pleased with the fact that he has suffered while these heroes of various universes had gotten to live their lives. After Sue's speech, we see some kind of wreckage where Reed Richards poses a question to Doom. Victor, did you do this? After that question, we get the same shot of Scott Lang embracing his daughter Cassie as well as a new shot of Johnny Storm holding his nephew, Franklin Richards. We also see some more shots of various heroes with their respective children, including Steve Rogers and Thor. Now that we know Doom has lost his own child and he wants to make the heroes pay, these shots seem far more sinister than ever before. Meanwhile, Doom provides the next bit of voiceover as we see the heroes. All of you have lived stolen lives, and now you must give them back. This really does make it seem as though the incursions caused by various counts of time travel shenanigans from the heroes were what caused Doom to lose his family. However, Doom's true objective still remains unclear. He certainly seems to want to simply eliminate all of the heroes, but there is definitely still an angle involving their children. The next shot sees Doom fly in faster than any character we've seen in the MCU to date before hitting a perfect superhero landing. Reed, now enraged, repeats his question. DID YOU DO THIS?! So not only does this trailer confirm that Sue has history with Doom, but it appears Reed does as well. This also gives some credence to the popular theory floating around that Doom will first appear as an ally to the heroes before revealing his true colors later on. Reed seems to have trusted Doom as he lets out this angry question. We then see a similar shot from the first trailer of Thor dropping in to confront Doom. Only this time, we can hear Thor speak to Doom. I swear, you will beg for Hel long before I grant it. Thor if of course referring to the realm of the dead, overseen by his own sister, Hela. You could simply replace the word with the word "death," but this is a bit more powerful. Of course, we know how things go for Thor based on the first trailer though. He attacks with Stormbreaker and Doom easily stops the all powerful axe. This time though, we see him repel Thor, sending him flying before delivering a haunting message. Hel answers to me. Then, Doom raises his hands, and with them arise several damaged Sentinels, the mutant-killing robots from the X-Men universe. This essentially confirms another popular theory that the Sentinels we have seen in previous clips, including the last trailer, are being controlled by Doom. As this threat arises, Doom utters one last message. I am Doom. So to recap, we now know that the Fantastic Four and Doctor Doom have known each other in the past. We know that Doom lost his family, presumably his wife and daughter. It seems clear that at least the Fantastic Four, and perhaps all of the heroes, consider Doom an ally at some point. Doom is, in fact, going to control the Sentinels and use them as his own weapons. And, perhaps the biggest takeaway, Doom is by far the biggest threat the heroes of the MCU have faced.

'AVENGERS: DOOMSDAY' new trailer This is 100% A.I but there are some scenes look different. Its different from SDCC though. The SDCC trailer opened with Sue Storm providing some backstory on Victor Von Doom. Before we even get into what she said, this already provides new information for us because, up until this point, we did not know whether or not the Fantastic Four had any history with Doom or even if this Doctor Doom was from their same universe. Of course, we could have inferred based on the long comic book history between the characters, but this confirms it. We do also get to see who Sue is speaking to while delivering this backstory, at least as the trailer presents it. She appears to be speaking to a room full of heroes that includes Magneto, Gambit, Steve Rogers and many other. Sue seems to be explaining to the heroes exactly what they are dealing with, or maybe even already dealt with to some degree. Now, as for what Sue has to say about Doom, her words are both haunting and very informative. Victor was always the smartest guy in every room. He used to be different. He used to be kind, he used to be caring. Everything he loved was taken from him. I knew he was lost, but I did not realize that he was broken." Sue speaks as though she had worked with Victor in the past. We did see an empty seat marked for Latveria, Doom's fictional home country, during a Future Foundation meeting in 'FANTASTIC FOUR: FIRST STEPS' So perhaps Sue had interacted with him frequently on a professional level. The rest of her quote is perhaps the most interesting bit. "Everything he loved was taken from him." It seems as though Doom has already lost something or someone. And based on the first poster for the film, it appears to be a wife and daughter that he has lost. In fact, this trailer even shows Doom staring at the tapestry featured in the poster as Sue says these words. So if Doom seemingly lost his wife and daughter in the past, so much so that Sue knows about it and he has had time to have a tapestry made, could this loss have been cause by an incursion? Perhaps it was some other tragedy. Either way, the trailer goes on to let us know that Doom is not pleased with the fact that he has suffered while these heroes of various universes had gotten to live their lives. After Sue's speech, we see some kind of wreckage where Reed Richards poses a question to Doom. Victor, did you do this? After that question, we get the same shot of Scott Lang embracing his daughter Cassie as well as a new shot of Johnny Storm holding his nephew, Franklin Richards. We also see some more shots of various heroes with their respective children, including Steve Rogers and Thor. Now that we know Doom has lost his own child and he wants to make the heroes pay, these shots seem far more sinister than ever before. Meanwhile, Doom provides the next bit of voiceover as we see the heroes. All of you have lived stolen lives, and now you must give them back. This really does make it seem as though the incursions caused by various counts of time travel shenanigans from the heroes were what caused Doom to lose his family. However, Doom's true objective still remains unclear. He certainly seems to want to simply eliminate all of the heroes, but there is definitely still an angle involving their children. The next shot sees Doom fly in faster than any character we've seen in the MCU to date before hitting a perfect superhero landing. Reed, now enraged, repeats his question. DID YOU DO THIS?! So not only does this trailer confirm that Sue has history with Doom, but it appears Reed does as well. This also gives some credence to the popular theory floating around that Doom will first appear as an ally to the heroes before revealing his true colors later on. Reed seems to have trusted Doom as he lets out this angry question. We then see a similar shot from the first trailer of Thor dropping in to confront Doom. Only this time, we can hear Thor speak to Doom. I swear, you will beg for Hel long before I grant it. Thor if of course referring to the realm of the dead, overseen by his own sister, Hela. You could simply replace the word with the word "death," but this is a bit more powerful. Of course, we know how things go for Thor based on the first trailer though. He attacks with Stormbreaker and Doom easily stops the all powerful axe. This time though, we see him repel Thor, sending him flying before delivering a haunting message. Hel answers to me. Then, Doom raises his hands, and with them arise several damaged Sentinels, the mutant-killing robots from the X-Men universe. This essentially confirms another popular theory that the Sentinels we have seen in previous clips, including the last trailer, are being controlled by Doom. As this threat arises, Doom utters one last message. I am Doom. So to recap, we now know that the Fantastic Four and Doctor Doom have known each other in the past. We know that Doom lost his family, presumably his wife and daughter. It seems clear that at least the Fantastic Four, and perhaps all of the heroes, consider Doom an ally at some point. Doom is, in fact, going to control the Sentinels and use them as his own weapons. And, perhaps the biggest takeaway, Doom is by far the biggest threat the heroes of the MCU have faced.

Blue Minutes

46,328 Aufrufe • vor 22 Stunden

I riffed on classical liberal AI in my episode with Sholto Douglas and Trenton Bricken On giving AIs a stake in the future: "What's that's not appreciated enough is how much of our leverage on the future—given the fact that our labor isn't going to be worth that much—comes from our economic and political systems surviving. For your S&P equity to mean something, for the government to be able to tax AI labor and give you a UBI off of that, it requires our legal and economic institutions to survive in the future. You don't want make it so onerous to operate in our system that you're basically selecting for AI firms who emigrate or are operating in their own rails" Why I'm against the Manhattan Project for aGI One of the reasons I worry about turning AGI into a national security Manhattan Project is that it disproportionately redirects the use of AI towards the mosquito drone. And also naturally puts other countries in the same frame of mind. If we're developing the mosquito drones, why wouldn't China develop the mosquito drones? That just seems like a zero-sum race, and not to mention a potentially catastrophic one. To the extent AI remains a free market landscape, it seems more likely that we'll get the glorious transhumanist future where we're developing the things that make human life better."

I riffed on classical liberal AI in my episode with Sholto Douglas and Trenton Bricken On giving AIs a stake in the future: "What's that's not appreciated enough is how much of our leverage on the future—given the fact that our labor isn't going to be worth that much—comes from our economic and political systems surviving. For your S&P equity to mean something, for the government to be able to tax AI labor and give you a UBI off of that, it requires our legal and economic institutions to survive in the future. You don't want make it so onerous to operate in our system that you're basically selecting for AI firms who emigrate or are operating in their own rails" Why I'm against the Manhattan Project for aGI One of the reasons I worry about turning AGI into a national security Manhattan Project is that it disproportionately redirects the use of AI towards the mosquito drone. And also naturally puts other countries in the same frame of mind. If we're developing the mosquito drones, why wouldn't China develop the mosquito drones? That just seems like a zero-sum race, and not to mention a potentially catastrophic one. To the extent AI remains a free market landscape, it seems more likely that we'll get the glorious transhumanist future where we're developing the things that make human life better."

Dwarkesh Patel

25,197 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Neel Nanda is leading a Google DeepMind research team at 26. He and I discuss: • How that happened • “If your safety work doesn't advance capabilities, it's probably bad safety work” • Should people work at the safest or most reckless AI company? • An AI PhD – with these timelines?! • How to best operate in a big frontier AI company • Neel's distinctive uses of LLMs and which cold emails he answers • A common reasoning error in AI alignment • Why he (Neel Nanda) refuses to share his p(doom) This is part 2 of our conversation, part 1 was a comprehensive update on his research area: mechanistic interpretability, which I'll link below. Links to this episode of the 80,000 Hours Podcast below — enjoy!

Neel Nanda is leading a Google DeepMind research team at 26. He and I discuss: • How that happened • “If your safety work doesn't advance capabilities, it's probably bad safety work” • Should people work at the safest or most reckless AI company? • An AI PhD – with these timelines?! • How to best operate in a big frontier AI company • Neel's distinctive uses of LLMs and which cold emails he answers • A common reasoning error in AI alignment • Why he (Neel Nanda) refuses to share his p(doom) This is part 2 of our conversation, part 1 was a comprehensive update on his research area: mechanistic interpretability, which I'll link below. Links to this episode of the 80,000 Hours Podcast below — enjoy!

Rob Wiblin

111,865 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

AI can give actors jobs, not replace them. Many years ago, I was lucky to work on the LucasArts game "Full Throttle" by TimOfLegend. I worked on the opening cinematic (back then called cutscenes!), and it was always one of my favorite games of that era, and the one I felt had the most potential to be a film. It felt like a movie. A few weeks ago, I had an idea for a new FilmSpark.ai demo: a biker bar scene. Then I said, "Hey, let's make it the bar from Full Throttle!" Just for fun. That's when I was pointed to the Peter screenplay for Full Throttle. It was cool to see someone else thought this had film potential too. After reading the screenplay, and seeing how he kept the opening cinematic mainly intact, we decided to make a proof-of-concept AI teaser, recreating the opening cinematic as accurately as we could. We used the original audio for authenticity. Hamilton Camp's Corley felt a little cartoonish on the AI character, which was weird but cool. Mark Hamill's Ripburger worked even better. Our goal is something becoming very common in Hollywood right now: using AI to create a sizzle trailer to get a film funded. Think of it as the new graphic novel. We want to use AI to get a film greenlit with real actors, shot on location, and use AI for VFX as needed. To be clear, we are not advocating for an "AI Full Throttle film." This is one way Hollywood is using AI, behind the scenes.

AI can give actors jobs, not replace them. Many years ago, I was lucky to work on the LucasArts game "Full Throttle" by TimOfLegend. I worked on the opening cinematic (back then called cutscenes!), and it was always one of my favorite games of that era, and the one I felt had the most potential to be a film. It felt like a movie. A few weeks ago, I had an idea for a new FilmSpark.ai demo: a biker bar scene. Then I said, "Hey, let's make it the bar from Full Throttle!" Just for fun. That's when I was pointed to the Peter screenplay for Full Throttle. It was cool to see someone else thought this had film potential too. After reading the screenplay, and seeing how he kept the opening cinematic mainly intact, we decided to make a proof-of-concept AI teaser, recreating the opening cinematic as accurately as we could. We used the original audio for authenticity. Hamilton Camp's Corley felt a little cartoonish on the AI character, which was weird but cool. Mark Hamill's Ripburger worked even better. Our goal is something becoming very common in Hollywood right now: using AI to create a sizzle trailer to get a film funded. Think of it as the new graphic novel. We want to use AI to get a film greenlit with real actors, shot on location, and use AI for VFX as needed. To be clear, we are not advocating for an "AI Full Throttle film." This is one way Hollywood is using AI, behind the scenes.

MikeL_FilmSpark

18,826 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

.Dwarkesh Patel's episode with Eric Jang is awesome. Eric has a rare gift for making complicated ideas feel simple, which is exactly what struck me when I first met him at a dinner and immediately peppered him with questions. If you are looking to hear more from him, listen to our conversation from a couple years ago! "The history of neural networks and actually many things in AI have been inspired a lot by biology, like genetic algorithms, evolutionary algorithms, processes in both neuroscience and psychology and biology and so forth. I think drawing from nature is a great way to get inspiration... And this is going to get me a lot of flack from the scientific community, but I feel like in the last decade and a half-ish of deep learning progress, the vast majority of major contributions have come from people who did not really adhere to that way of thinking, but more like, how do I push as much data as fast as possible onto my GPU? It just empirically seems to me that people who are very attached to the idea of replicating a particular nature inspired architecture at the expense of enabling brute force compute... do not make the best algorithms. There's this essay by Sara Hooker called the the hardware lottery where it's arguing that people who focused on maximizing and designing their algorithms to suit the hardware so that it could run the brute force thing as fast as possible tended to win. "

.Dwarkesh Patel's episode with Eric Jang is awesome. Eric has a rare gift for making complicated ideas feel simple, which is exactly what struck me when I first met him at a dinner and immediately peppered him with questions. If you are looking to hear more from him, listen to our conversation from a couple years ago! "The history of neural networks and actually many things in AI have been inspired a lot by biology, like genetic algorithms, evolutionary algorithms, processes in both neuroscience and psychology and biology and so forth. I think drawing from nature is a great way to get inspiration... And this is going to get me a lot of flack from the scientific community, but I feel like in the last decade and a half-ish of deep learning progress, the vast majority of major contributions have come from people who did not really adhere to that way of thinking, but more like, how do I push as much data as fast as possible onto my GPU? It just empirically seems to me that people who are very attached to the idea of replicating a particular nature inspired architecture at the expense of enabling brute force compute... do not make the best algorithms. There's this essay by Sara Hooker called the the hardware lottery where it's arguing that people who focused on maximizing and designing their algorithms to suit the hardware so that it could run the brute force thing as fast as possible tended to win. "

Sabrina Halper

39,759 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten