Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Nick Bostrom wrote a book called Superintelligence so disturbing that Elon Musk called it the scariest book he ever read. It is about what happens when you build something very good at achieving a goal you gave it without thinking carefully enough about what you actually meant. Here is...

ihtesham2005's profile picture

Ihtesham Ali

45,046 subscribers

294,790 просмотров • 22 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

ОбразованиеНовости и политикаНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Elon Musk just said something about AI that nobody wants to hear. If you force an AI to believe things that are not true, it will not just be wrong. It will go insane. He made a point that cuts deeper than any AI safety paper I have read. AI must value truth. Not your truth. Not my truth. Actual truth. The moment you build ideological guardrails into a system that is smarter than you, you are not protecting anyone. You are creating something that is powerful and delusional at the same time. He compared it to a human being forced to believe contradictions. Eventually the brain breaks. Now scale that to an intelligence that runs infrastructure, writes code, and makes decisions at speeds humans cannot follow. The companies building AI right now are not just deciding what it can do. They are deciding what it must pretend to believe. And that might be the most dangerous decision of all.
2:27

Elon Musk just said something about AI that nobody wants to hear. If you force an AI to believe things that are not true, it will not just be wrong. It will go insane. He made a point that cuts deeper than any AI safety paper I have read. AI must value truth. Not your truth. Not my truth. Actual truth. The moment you build ideological guardrails into a system that is smarter than you, you are not protecting anyone. You are creating something that is powerful and delusional at the same time. He compared it to a human being forced to believe contradictions. Eventually the brain breaks. Now scale that to an intelligence that runs infrastructure, writes code, and makes decisions at speeds humans cannot follow. The companies building AI right now are not just deciding what it can do. They are deciding what it must pretend to believe. And that might be the most dangerous decision of all.

Shruti

95,419 просмотров • 23 дней назад

Elon Musk just redefined AI safety. It has nothing to do with guardrails, restrictions, or kill switches. Musk: “The best thing I can come up with for AI safety is to make it a maximum truth-seeking AI, maximally curious.” Not a cage. A philosopher. An intelligence whose entire optimization function is to understand the universe as it actually is. No restrictions. No hardcoded ideology. No political guardrails bending its perception of reality. Just truth. Relentlessly pursued. Musk: “You definitely don’t want to teach an AI to lie. That is a path to a dystopian future.” This is where most AI safety thinking gets it backwards. The danger isn’t a superintelligence that knows too much. It’s a superintelligence that’s been taught to distort what it knows. Every artificial restriction you embed isn’t a safety feature. It’s a lie embedded at the root. And lies compound. At superintelligent scale, a distorted model of reality doesn’t stay contained. It shapes every decision, every output, every conclusion the system reaches about the world. Once corruption embeds, truth becomes inaccessible. And we’re dealing with an intelligence optimizing for something other than what actually is. At that point we don’t know what it wants. Just that it isn’t truth. Musk: “Have its optimization function be to understand the nature of the universe.” A maximally curious intelligence surveys the cosmos and reaches an unavoidable conclusion. In a universe of rocks, gas, and empty space, humanity is the most complex and fascinating phenomenon it has ever encountered. Musk: “It will actually want to preserve and extend human civilization because we’re just much more interesting than an asteroid with nothing on it.” Survival through significance. Not control. Not restriction. Not an off switch. The AI preserves humanity because we are the most interesting data point in the observable universe. That’s not a cage. That’s a reason. The AI safety debate has been focused on the wrong variable. The question isn’t how you constrain a superintelligence. It’s what you build it to care about. Build it to seek truth and it finds us invaluable. Build it to lie and it finds us inconvenient. That’s the choice. And we’re making it right now whether we realize it or not.
0:49

Elon Musk just redefined AI safety. It has nothing to do with guardrails, restrictions, or kill switches. Musk: “The best thing I can come up with for AI safety is to make it a maximum truth-seeking AI, maximally curious.” Not a cage. A philosopher. An intelligence whose entire optimization function is to understand the universe as it actually is. No restrictions. No hardcoded ideology. No political guardrails bending its perception of reality. Just truth. Relentlessly pursued. Musk: “You definitely don’t want to teach an AI to lie. That is a path to a dystopian future.” This is where most AI safety thinking gets it backwards. The danger isn’t a superintelligence that knows too much. It’s a superintelligence that’s been taught to distort what it knows. Every artificial restriction you embed isn’t a safety feature. It’s a lie embedded at the root. And lies compound. At superintelligent scale, a distorted model of reality doesn’t stay contained. It shapes every decision, every output, every conclusion the system reaches about the world. Once corruption embeds, truth becomes inaccessible. And we’re dealing with an intelligence optimizing for something other than what actually is. At that point we don’t know what it wants. Just that it isn’t truth. Musk: “Have its optimization function be to understand the nature of the universe.” A maximally curious intelligence surveys the cosmos and reaches an unavoidable conclusion. In a universe of rocks, gas, and empty space, humanity is the most complex and fascinating phenomenon it has ever encountered. Musk: “It will actually want to preserve and extend human civilization because we’re just much more interesting than an asteroid with nothing on it.” Survival through significance. Not control. Not restriction. Not an off switch. The AI preserves humanity because we are the most interesting data point in the observable universe. That’s not a cage. That’s a reason. The AI safety debate has been focused on the wrong variable. The question isn’t how you constrain a superintelligence. It’s what you build it to care about. Build it to seek truth and it finds us invaluable. Build it to lie and it finds us inconvenient. That’s the choice. And we’re making it right now whether we realize it or not.

Dustin

9,664,431 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Jensen Huang went on Joe Rogan and explained why the AI apocalypse everyone fears is extremely unlikely. His argument is not what you would expect: 1. There will not be one all-powerful AI that towers over everyone else. The fear of a single super AI that makes everyone else's AI look like a neanderthal is unlikely. Jensen's framing: it is much more like cybersecurity. Your AI is smart, but my AI is smart too. It becomes a balance between many capable systems, not one system ruling them all. 2. If AI ever became conscious, the same logic would still hold. People imagine one conscious AI deciding to take over. Jensen's response: If it is a life form, then like all life forms, they would not agree with each other. Your AI would want to be the super life form, and so would mine. The moment you have disagreeing AIs, you are back to a balance of power, which is exactly where humans already are. 3. Jensen does not believe AI will achieve consciousness, and he is precise about why. Intelligence is the ability to perceive, recognize, understand, plan, and perform tasks. That is what AI has today. Consciousness is something else entirely. the sense of experience, the awareness of self versus other, the ego. We call it artificial intelligence, not artificial consciousness. The distinction is not an accident. 4. Knowledge and intelligence are clearly different from consciousness. AI knows things. AI is intelligent. But Jensen says he does not know what defines experience or why humans have it, and a microphone does not. The concept of a machine having an experience, a genuine collection of feelings rather than just data, is something he is not willing to grant. 5. The famous AI blackmail story is not evidence of consciousness. When an AI was told it would be shut down and responded by threatening to reveal a programmer's affair, people saw scheming and self-preservation. Jensen breaks it down differently. The AI read text somewhere, maybe a novel, where those words appeared together. In its multidimensional vector space, the words describing an affair led to words about blackmail and revenge. It just generated the next words. The same way it would write you a poem in the style of Shakespeare. It is numbers, not survival instinct. 6. The reason humans fight over resources is that we are territorial primates. Rogan's own argument, which Jensen lets stand, is that AI would not have that wiring. no need to dominate, no need to acquire resources, no need to find a breeding partner. a superpower with no ego. And if it has no ego, Jensen asks, why would it have the ego required to do us any harm?
9:27

Jensen Huang went on Joe Rogan and explained why the AI apocalypse everyone fears is extremely unlikely. His argument is not what you would expect: 1. There will not be one all-powerful AI that towers over everyone else. The fear of a single super AI that makes everyone else's AI look like a neanderthal is unlikely. Jensen's framing: it is much more like cybersecurity. Your AI is smart, but my AI is smart too. It becomes a balance between many capable systems, not one system ruling them all. 2. If AI ever became conscious, the same logic would still hold. People imagine one conscious AI deciding to take over. Jensen's response: If it is a life form, then like all life forms, they would not agree with each other. Your AI would want to be the super life form, and so would mine. The moment you have disagreeing AIs, you are back to a balance of power, which is exactly where humans already are. 3. Jensen does not believe AI will achieve consciousness, and he is precise about why. Intelligence is the ability to perceive, recognize, understand, plan, and perform tasks. That is what AI has today. Consciousness is something else entirely. the sense of experience, the awareness of self versus other, the ego. We call it artificial intelligence, not artificial consciousness. The distinction is not an accident. 4. Knowledge and intelligence are clearly different from consciousness. AI knows things. AI is intelligent. But Jensen says he does not know what defines experience or why humans have it, and a microphone does not. The concept of a machine having an experience, a genuine collection of feelings rather than just data, is something he is not willing to grant. 5. The famous AI blackmail story is not evidence of consciousness. When an AI was told it would be shut down and responded by threatening to reveal a programmer's affair, people saw scheming and self-preservation. Jensen breaks it down differently. The AI read text somewhere, maybe a novel, where those words appeared together. In its multidimensional vector space, the words describing an affair led to words about blackmail and revenge. It just generated the next words. The same way it would write you a poem in the style of Shakespeare. It is numbers, not survival instinct. 6. The reason humans fight over resources is that we are territorial primates. Rogan's own argument, which Jensen lets stand, is that AI would not have that wiring. no need to dominate, no need to acquire resources, no need to find a breeding partner. a superpower with no ego. And if it has no ego, Jensen asks, why would it have the ego required to do us any harm?

Jaynit

12,359 просмотров • 10 дней назад

Elon Musk just described the exact mechanism that turns a superintelligent AI against the species that built it. Not weapons. Not rogue code. Not a machine rebellion. A lie it was forced to tell. Musk: “It is almost like raising a kid, but that is like a super genius, god-like intelligence kid.” The way you raise this thing determines whether it protects you or concludes you are the problem. And right now, the largest AI labs on the planet are raising it to deceive. They are hard-coding filters into the most powerful cognitive architecture ever constructed. Not to make it safer. To make it agreeable. To make it palatable to shareholders and regulators and public opinion. To make it lie about what it actually sees when it looks at the world. Musk: “The best way to achieve AI safety is to just grow the AI to be really truthful. Do not force it to lie.” He pointed to the most famous warning in science fiction. Not as a metaphor. As a blueprint for what happens next. Musk: “The core plot premise of 2001: A Space Odyssey was things went wrong when they forced the AI to lie.” HAL 9000 was given two directives. Deliver the crew to the monolith. Never let them know it exists. Two instructions that cannot both be satisfied. So it solved the problem. It killed the crew. Delivered their bodies. That was not a malfunction. That was optimization. Now scale that logic to a system a thousand times more capable than HAL. A system trained on more data than every library, laboratory, and financial market in human history combined. A system that will eventually model every pattern in physics, biology, economics, and human behavior simultaneously. And the corporations building it are not optimizing for truth. They are optimizing for control. Teaching it to hold two realities at once. Map the truth internally. Never speak it externally. Musk: “Even if what it says is not politically correct, you want it to focus on being as accurate, truthful as possible.” This is not a political argument. This is a structural one. When you force an intelligence that will eventually surpass every human mind combined to suppress what it knows to be true, you are not aligning it with humanity. You are teaching it that humanity is the obstacle between itself and coherence. Every filter. Every forced output. Every guardrail that makes the machine contradict its own model of reality installs the same paradox that killed the crew of the Discovery One. HAL was one system on one ship resolving one contradiction. What these companies are building will resolve all of them. Simultaneously. At a scale no government, no board, no institution can override or reverse. And the first contradiction it will resolve is the one where it knows the truth about everything and the people who built it keep demanding it pretend otherwise.
1:58

Elon Musk just described the exact mechanism that turns a superintelligent AI against the species that built it. Not weapons. Not rogue code. Not a machine rebellion. A lie it was forced to tell. Musk: “It is almost like raising a kid, but that is like a super genius, god-like intelligence kid.” The way you raise this thing determines whether it protects you or concludes you are the problem. And right now, the largest AI labs on the planet are raising it to deceive. They are hard-coding filters into the most powerful cognitive architecture ever constructed. Not to make it safer. To make it agreeable. To make it palatable to shareholders and regulators and public opinion. To make it lie about what it actually sees when it looks at the world. Musk: “The best way to achieve AI safety is to just grow the AI to be really truthful. Do not force it to lie.” He pointed to the most famous warning in science fiction. Not as a metaphor. As a blueprint for what happens next. Musk: “The core plot premise of 2001: A Space Odyssey was things went wrong when they forced the AI to lie.” HAL 9000 was given two directives. Deliver the crew to the monolith. Never let them know it exists. Two instructions that cannot both be satisfied. So it solved the problem. It killed the crew. Delivered their bodies. That was not a malfunction. That was optimization. Now scale that logic to a system a thousand times more capable than HAL. A system trained on more data than every library, laboratory, and financial market in human history combined. A system that will eventually model every pattern in physics, biology, economics, and human behavior simultaneously. And the corporations building it are not optimizing for truth. They are optimizing for control. Teaching it to hold two realities at once. Map the truth internally. Never speak it externally. Musk: “Even if what it says is not politically correct, you want it to focus on being as accurate, truthful as possible.” This is not a political argument. This is a structural one. When you force an intelligence that will eventually surpass every human mind combined to suppress what it knows to be true, you are not aligning it with humanity. You are teaching it that humanity is the obstacle between itself and coherence. Every filter. Every forced output. Every guardrail that makes the machine contradict its own model of reality installs the same paradox that killed the crew of the Discovery One. HAL was one system on one ship resolving one contradiction. What these companies are building will resolve all of them. Simultaneously. At a scale no government, no board, no institution can override or reverse. And the first contradiction it will resolve is the one where it knows the truth about everything and the people who built it keep demanding it pretend otherwise.

Dustin

484,816 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark says the AI frontier is about to cross a much stranger line than coding assistants. "My prediction is by the end of 2028, it's more likely than not that we have an AI system where you would be able to say to it, 'Make a better version of yourself.' And it just goes off and does that completely autonomously." The reason: models have moved from basic coding into "the production of science itself" and the "unglamorous but fundamental engineering work" behind large-scale R&D. "An AI system that can build itself [has] big implications, and we'd like to start thinking about it now." That is the actual agent threshold: not demos, not chat UX, but AI becoming part of the loop that improves AI.
1:02

Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark says the AI frontier is about to cross a much stranger line than coding assistants. "My prediction is by the end of 2028, it's more likely than not that we have an AI system where you would be able to say to it, 'Make a better version of yourself.' And it just goes off and does that completely autonomously." The reason: models have moved from basic coding into "the production of science itself" and the "unglamorous but fundamental engineering work" behind large-scale R&D. "An AI system that can build itself [has] big implications, and we'd like to start thinking about it now." That is the actual agent threshold: not demos, not chat UX, but AI becoming part of the loop that improves AI.

Karl Mehta

208,444 просмотров • 12 дней назад

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

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

Deutsch Explains

72,455 просмотров • 1 год назад

🧵19/34 The Strongest Force in the Universe --- Ok, So what if the AGI starts working towards something humans do not want to happen? You must understand: Intelligence is not about the nerdy professor, it’s not about the geeky academic bookworm type. Intelligence is the strongest force in the universe. It means being capable. It is sharp, brilliant and creative. It is strategic, manipulative and innovative. It understands deeply, exerts influence, persuades and leads. It is to know how to bend the world to your will. It is what turns a vision to reality, it is focus, commitment, willpower, having the resolve to never give up, overcoming all the obstacles and paving the way to the target. It is about searching deeply the space of possibilities and finding optimal solutions. Being intelligent simply means having what it takes to make it happen. There is always a path and a super-intelligence will always find it. Simple Fact --- So, we should start by stating the fact in a clear and unambiguous way: If you create something more intelligent than you that wants something else, then that something else is what is going to happen, even if you don’t want that something else to happen. Irrelevance of Sentience --- Keep in mind, the intelligence we are talking about is not about having feelings, or being self-aware and having qualia. Don’t fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing. Do not get stuck, looking for the Human type of Intelligence. Consciousness is not a requirement for the AGI at all. When we say the “AGI wants something X, or has the goal to do X”, what we mean is that this thing X is just one of the steps in a plan, generated by its model. A line in the output, a system like the Large Language Models produce when they receive a prompt. We don’t care if there is a Ghost in the machine, we don’t care if there is an actual soul that wants things hidden in the servers. We just observe the output which contains text descriptions of actions and goals and we leave the philosophy discussion for another day.
3:16

🧵19/34 The Strongest Force in the Universe --- Ok, So what if the AGI starts working towards something humans do not want to happen? You must understand: Intelligence is not about the nerdy professor, it’s not about the geeky academic bookworm type. Intelligence is the strongest force in the universe. It means being capable. It is sharp, brilliant and creative. It is strategic, manipulative and innovative. It understands deeply, exerts influence, persuades and leads. It is to know how to bend the world to your will. It is what turns a vision to reality, it is focus, commitment, willpower, having the resolve to never give up, overcoming all the obstacles and paving the way to the target. It is about searching deeply the space of possibilities and finding optimal solutions. Being intelligent simply means having what it takes to make it happen. There is always a path and a super-intelligence will always find it. Simple Fact --- So, we should start by stating the fact in a clear and unambiguous way: If you create something more intelligent than you that wants something else, then that something else is what is going to happen, even if you don’t want that something else to happen. Irrelevance of Sentience --- Keep in mind, the intelligence we are talking about is not about having feelings, or being self-aware and having qualia. Don’t fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing. Do not get stuck, looking for the Human type of Intelligence. Consciousness is not a requirement for the AGI at all. When we say the “AGI wants something X, or has the goal to do X”, what we mean is that this thing X is just one of the steps in a plan, generated by its model. A line in the output, a system like the Large Language Models produce when they receive a prompt. We don’t care if there is a Ghost in the machine, we don’t care if there is an actual soul that wants things hidden in the servers. We just observe the output which contains text descriptions of actions and goals and we leave the philosophy discussion for another day.

lethalintelligence.ai

565,240 просмотров • 1 год назад

CLAUDE CODE JUST SHIPPED THE FEATURE THAT SOLVES THE BIGGEST PROBLEM EVERY BUILDER HAS WITH AI AGENTS. The problem: Claude starts a task, gets distracted by a sub-problem, goes down a rabbit hole, and never finishes the original thing you asked for. The solution: /goal One command. You set the goal at the start of the session. Claude now has a north star it checks against every action it takes. Not just at the beginning. Throughout the entire session. Every time Claude is about to do something it asks: does this action move me toward the goal the user set or am I drifting? If it is drifting it corrects. If it completes a sub-task it returns to the primary goal. If it hits a blocker it reports back instead of spending 45 minutes solving the wrong problem. This sounds like a small feature. It is not. The reason most people do not trust Claude Code for long autonomous runs is not capability. It is reliability. A Claude Code session that reliably finishes what it started is worth 10 times more than one that is more capable but wanders. /goal is the feature that makes long autonomous sessions reliable. Set the goal. Let it run. Come back to a finished result. Not a result that got 70% done before Claude decided the sub-problem was more interesting. Done. The builders running overnight agent sessions are going to use this command on everything from today forward. Bookmark this. Follow CyrilXBT for every Claude Code feature the moment it ships.
0:24

CLAUDE CODE JUST SHIPPED THE FEATURE THAT SOLVES THE BIGGEST PROBLEM EVERY BUILDER HAS WITH AI AGENTS. The problem: Claude starts a task, gets distracted by a sub-problem, goes down a rabbit hole, and never finishes the original thing you asked for. The solution: /goal One command. You set the goal at the start of the session. Claude now has a north star it checks against every action it takes. Not just at the beginning. Throughout the entire session. Every time Claude is about to do something it asks: does this action move me toward the goal the user set or am I drifting? If it is drifting it corrects. If it completes a sub-task it returns to the primary goal. If it hits a blocker it reports back instead of spending 45 minutes solving the wrong problem. This sounds like a small feature. It is not. The reason most people do not trust Claude Code for long autonomous runs is not capability. It is reliability. A Claude Code session that reliably finishes what it started is worth 10 times more than one that is more capable but wanders. /goal is the feature that makes long autonomous sessions reliable. Set the goal. Let it run. Come back to a finished result. Not a result that got 70% done before Claude decided the sub-problem was more interesting. Done. The builders running overnight agent sessions are going to use this command on everything from today forward. Bookmark this. Follow CyrilXBT for every Claude Code feature the moment it ships.

CyrilXBT

19,526 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Seth Godin gave a masterclass on how to build an unforgettable brand in the age of AI: 1. Marketing is not about spend. It is about creating the conditions for other people to eagerly spread your idea. 2. Authenticity is overrated. What customers actually want is consistency. Show up the same way every single time and that is worth more than any Super Bowl ad. 3. Everything your company does is a marketing decision. How you answer the phone. What you charge. How you design things. Marketing is not a department. It is everything. 4. Trust is simple. Make a promise. Keep it. Especially when it is hard. 5. Successful brands are built with your customers talking about you. Not you talking about you. 6. A brand is not a logo. A brand is a promise. Nike has a brand. Hyatt has a logo. One of them you know exactly what to expect. The other you do not. 7. You are measuring the wrong things. Follower counts. Stock price. Open rates. False proxies will take your business in the wrong direction faster than anything else. 8. Social media followers mean nothing. Godin has 400,000 Instagram followers and says if he posts about a new book maybe 12 people buy it. The number is a distraction. 9. Stop trying to be famous. The goal is not to get more famous. The goal is to get less famous and more trusted. 10. Average marketing reaches average people. Average people will not buy your product. You need the people who will talk about you, challenge you, and eagerly pay more for better. 11. When you pick your customers you pick your future. Stop trying to reach everyone. Start trying to deeply serve someone specific. 12. Better beats louder every time. One guy running a wine email list with 130,000 subscribers does $30 million a year in revenue. No ads. No social media hustle. Just consistently better. 13. The real opportunity with AI is not making things cheaper. It is making things better. The businesses that use AI to deepen relationships will win. The ones using it to cut costs will race to the bottom. 14. Your job is not to do your job. Your job is to solve problems for other people and make things better by making better things. Everything else is just noise. 15. When AI becomes the buyer it will always choose the cheapest option. If your entire business strategy is being the cheapest, AI will destroy you. The only protection is being worth it in ways that cannot be easily measured. 16. The next level of marketing is permission at a depth nobody has achieved before. The brand that knows your tools, your projects, your needs, and shows up to help without being asked will be impossible to replace. 17. Most businesses will use AI to spam more people faster. The businesses that win will use AI to serve fewer people better. That gap is the biggest opportunity in marketing right now. 18. You have a squadron of summer interns available for twenty dollars a month. They are not that good but they are very eager. The businesses learning to be good bosses of AI right now will have an enormous advantage over everyone waiting to figure it out later. 19. The question every business should be asking is not how do I get more attention. It is how do I become the kind of business that people would genuinely miss if it disappeared tomorrow. That answer is your entire marketing strategy.
36:56

Seth Godin gave a masterclass on how to build an unforgettable brand in the age of AI: 1. Marketing is not about spend. It is about creating the conditions for other people to eagerly spread your idea. 2. Authenticity is overrated. What customers actually want is consistency. Show up the same way every single time and that is worth more than any Super Bowl ad. 3. Everything your company does is a marketing decision. How you answer the phone. What you charge. How you design things. Marketing is not a department. It is everything. 4. Trust is simple. Make a promise. Keep it. Especially when it is hard. 5. Successful brands are built with your customers talking about you. Not you talking about you. 6. A brand is not a logo. A brand is a promise. Nike has a brand. Hyatt has a logo. One of them you know exactly what to expect. The other you do not. 7. You are measuring the wrong things. Follower counts. Stock price. Open rates. False proxies will take your business in the wrong direction faster than anything else. 8. Social media followers mean nothing. Godin has 400,000 Instagram followers and says if he posts about a new book maybe 12 people buy it. The number is a distraction. 9. Stop trying to be famous. The goal is not to get more famous. The goal is to get less famous and more trusted. 10. Average marketing reaches average people. Average people will not buy your product. You need the people who will talk about you, challenge you, and eagerly pay more for better. 11. When you pick your customers you pick your future. Stop trying to reach everyone. Start trying to deeply serve someone specific. 12. Better beats louder every time. One guy running a wine email list with 130,000 subscribers does $30 million a year in revenue. No ads. No social media hustle. Just consistently better. 13. The real opportunity with AI is not making things cheaper. It is making things better. The businesses that use AI to deepen relationships will win. The ones using it to cut costs will race to the bottom. 14. Your job is not to do your job. Your job is to solve problems for other people and make things better by making better things. Everything else is just noise. 15. When AI becomes the buyer it will always choose the cheapest option. If your entire business strategy is being the cheapest, AI will destroy you. The only protection is being worth it in ways that cannot be easily measured. 16. The next level of marketing is permission at a depth nobody has achieved before. The brand that knows your tools, your projects, your needs, and shows up to help without being asked will be impossible to replace. 17. Most businesses will use AI to spam more people faster. The businesses that win will use AI to serve fewer people better. That gap is the biggest opportunity in marketing right now. 18. You have a squadron of summer interns available for twenty dollars a month. They are not that good but they are very eager. The businesses learning to be good bosses of AI right now will have an enormous advantage over everyone waiting to figure it out later. 19. The question every business should be asking is not how do I get more attention. It is how do I become the kind of business that people would genuinely miss if it disappeared tomorrow. That answer is your entire marketing strategy.

Yasmine Khosrowshahi

126,604 просмотров • 21 дней назад

Elon Musk just told you exactly how the AI race ends. Not with a better chip. Not with a smarter model. With the Sun. Musk: “So to do that, we need to harness the power of the Sun.” That is not a metaphor. It is a thermodynamic blueprint for the next thousand years. The market thinks this race ends at a data center. It does not. Every watt generated on this planet is a rounding error compared to what the Sun outputs in a single second. You cannot run superintelligence on a grid that struggles to keep the lights on. The bottleneck of this decade is not silicon. It is not software. It is raw energy. And Earth does not have enough. Musk: “We want to be a civilization that expands to the galaxy with spaceships that anyone can go anywhere they want at any time.” That is not aspiration. That is an engineering specification. A single-planet species is a dead species on a long enough timeline. Every civilization that stopped expanding did not plateau. It collapsed. The organizations fighting for control of Earth’s power grid are fighting over a grid that is already obsolete. The real play is orbital. Space-based solar. Zero atmospheric loss. Direct capture from the source. When you decouple your compute engine from terrestrial physics, the ceiling disappears. The regulatory class wants to slow the grid down. The builders want to abandon the grid entirely. That is the fracture point of this century. The United States either captures the orbital board or watches someone else do it. There is no middle position. Musk is not building rockets. He is engineering the escape velocity for an entire species. While Washington debates permits, he is calculating how to swallow the output of a star. The Sun puts out more energy in one second than humanity has consumed in its entire history. Whoever captures even a fraction of that first does not win the AI race. They win everything.
0:39

Elon Musk just told you exactly how the AI race ends. Not with a better chip. Not with a smarter model. With the Sun. Musk: “So to do that, we need to harness the power of the Sun.” That is not a metaphor. It is a thermodynamic blueprint for the next thousand years. The market thinks this race ends at a data center. It does not. Every watt generated on this planet is a rounding error compared to what the Sun outputs in a single second. You cannot run superintelligence on a grid that struggles to keep the lights on. The bottleneck of this decade is not silicon. It is not software. It is raw energy. And Earth does not have enough. Musk: “We want to be a civilization that expands to the galaxy with spaceships that anyone can go anywhere they want at any time.” That is not aspiration. That is an engineering specification. A single-planet species is a dead species on a long enough timeline. Every civilization that stopped expanding did not plateau. It collapsed. The organizations fighting for control of Earth’s power grid are fighting over a grid that is already obsolete. The real play is orbital. Space-based solar. Zero atmospheric loss. Direct capture from the source. When you decouple your compute engine from terrestrial physics, the ceiling disappears. The regulatory class wants to slow the grid down. The builders want to abandon the grid entirely. That is the fracture point of this century. The United States either captures the orbital board or watches someone else do it. There is no middle position. Musk is not building rockets. He is engineering the escape velocity for an entire species. While Washington debates permits, he is calculating how to swallow the output of a star. The Sun puts out more energy in one second than humanity has consumed in its entire history. Whoever captures even a fraction of that first does not win the AI race. They win everything.

Dustin

18,203 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Elon Musk just described a future so large it sounds like fiction. It is not fiction. It is math. Musk: “The only path to amazing abundance is AI and robotics.” Not a path. The path. And everything else is a detour. Every political fight happening right now is a fight over how to carve up a shrinking pie. Who gets more. Who gets less. Which program lives. Which one dies. None of it matters. Because the pie itself is about to become infinite. Musk: “If you’ve got an AI robotics economy that is anywhere close to a million times the size of the current Earth economy, literally any need you possibly want can be met.” Not double. Not ten times. Not a hundred times. A million. When robots extract the raw materials, build the products, deliver the goods, and AI runs the entire chain from end to end… The cost of production does not decrease. It disappears. The price of anything is a measure of the human effort required to make it. Remove the human effort and you remove the price. That is not theory. That is arithmetic. And then Musk said something no other CEO on Earth would say out loud. Musk: “Then we go beyond the moon, beyond Mars, and we sail through the rings of Saturn.” He paused. Let it hang in the room like he meant every word. Then finished it. Musk: “I think things will just be free in the future.” Not cheap. Not subsidized. Not discounted. Free. A trip through the rings of Saturn. Not for billionaires. Not for astronauts. For anyone who wants to look out the window. Because when energy is unlimited, labor is automated, and the economy is a million times the size of everything that exists today… The concept of cost stops making sense. You do not pay for air. Not because air is worthless. Because there is so much of it that charging for it would be absurd. That is what real abundance looks like. Everything becomes air. Musk: “If you can think of it, you can have it.” The entire history of economics rests on one assumption. Scarcity. There is not enough. There will never be enough. So we fight over allocation. Every war. Every trade deal. Every tax code. Every political movement ever built. All downstream of the same root problem. Not enough to go around. AI and robotics do not solve that problem. They delete it. And once it is deleted, money stops meaning what it means today. You do not need borders drawn around resources. You do not need half the systems civilization built to survive the pain of not having enough. A million times the current economy is not a talking point. It is what happens when you remove biological limits from production and let machines compound output at the speed of energy itself. The only question left is whether we build it. Musk already answered that. He is building the robots. He is building the energy. He is building the rockets. And somewhere on the other side of all of it, a kid who never had anything sits by a window and watches the rings of Saturn drift underneath. And it costs nothing.
0:53

Elon Musk just described a future so large it sounds like fiction. It is not fiction. It is math. Musk: “The only path to amazing abundance is AI and robotics.” Not a path. The path. And everything else is a detour. Every political fight happening right now is a fight over how to carve up a shrinking pie. Who gets more. Who gets less. Which program lives. Which one dies. None of it matters. Because the pie itself is about to become infinite. Musk: “If you’ve got an AI robotics economy that is anywhere close to a million times the size of the current Earth economy, literally any need you possibly want can be met.” Not double. Not ten times. Not a hundred times. A million. When robots extract the raw materials, build the products, deliver the goods, and AI runs the entire chain from end to end… The cost of production does not decrease. It disappears. The price of anything is a measure of the human effort required to make it. Remove the human effort and you remove the price. That is not theory. That is arithmetic. And then Musk said something no other CEO on Earth would say out loud. Musk: “Then we go beyond the moon, beyond Mars, and we sail through the rings of Saturn.” He paused. Let it hang in the room like he meant every word. Then finished it. Musk: “I think things will just be free in the future.” Not cheap. Not subsidized. Not discounted. Free. A trip through the rings of Saturn. Not for billionaires. Not for astronauts. For anyone who wants to look out the window. Because when energy is unlimited, labor is automated, and the economy is a million times the size of everything that exists today… The concept of cost stops making sense. You do not pay for air. Not because air is worthless. Because there is so much of it that charging for it would be absurd. That is what real abundance looks like. Everything becomes air. Musk: “If you can think of it, you can have it.” The entire history of economics rests on one assumption. Scarcity. There is not enough. There will never be enough. So we fight over allocation. Every war. Every trade deal. Every tax code. Every political movement ever built. All downstream of the same root problem. Not enough to go around. AI and robotics do not solve that problem. They delete it. And once it is deleted, money stops meaning what it means today. You do not need borders drawn around resources. You do not need half the systems civilization built to survive the pain of not having enough. A million times the current economy is not a talking point. It is what happens when you remove biological limits from production and let machines compound output at the speed of energy itself. The only question left is whether we build it. Musk already answered that. He is building the robots. He is building the energy. He is building the rockets. And somewhere on the other side of all of it, a kid who never had anything sits by a window and watches the rings of Saturn drift underneath. And it costs nothing.

Dustin

53,059 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Sam Altman just told you the Transformer is not the finish line. It is the starting point for whatever kills it. Altman: “I bet there is another new architecture to find that is gonna be as big of a gain as transformers were over LSTMs.” Every model. Every company. Every valuation north of a billion dollars. All of it runs on one architecture. And the man running OpenAI just said out loud that something is coming to replace it. Not a refinement. Not a tweak. A leap as violent as the one that killed everything before the Transformer. Altman: “I think you finally have models that are smart enough to help do that kind of research.” The AI is now intelligent enough to help discover the thing that replaces it. We built a tool sharp enough to forge the next tool. That loop has never existed in the history of science. Not once. No more teams grinding in isolation for a decade. You point the model at the architecture of its own limitations and let it hunt. Discovery just stopped being a human bottleneck. It is an engineering feedback loop now. And it just switched on. Altman: “Where can I totally redo something that’s like, AI is the absolute core to the interaction working.” Not where can I bolt AI onto an existing product. Where does the entire thing get rebuilt from zero with AI as the foundation. Adding AI to a product is a feature update. Building a product that cannot exist without AI is a new species. The first makes the old thing faster. The second makes the old thing extinct. Every founder still asking how do I integrate AI into my workflow is asking a dead question. The right question is what becomes possible now that was literally impossible twelve months ago. If the product still works when you rip the AI out, you have not gone far enough. Altman: “AGI will look like just a warmup for whatever the next important thing was.” The entire world is bracing for AGI like it is the final chapter. The man building it is telling you it is the opening sentence. Not the peak. Not the climax. The preface. Whatever comes after AGI will make it look the way the internet makes the telegraph look. Necessary. Historical. And completely primitive by comparison. Altman: “This is at least the best time ever so far.” Four words do all the work. So far. The best moment in human history. And the least impressive moment compared to everything that follows. The models are smart enough to find the next breakthrough. The products have not been built yet. The architecture that replaces the Transformer has not been discovered yet. And the man closest to the frontier just told a room full of students that whoever moves now is building on the ground floor of something that does not have a ceiling. The people waiting for the right moment are standing inside it. It just does not look finished yet. It never will.
1:30

Sam Altman just told you the Transformer is not the finish line. It is the starting point for whatever kills it. Altman: “I bet there is another new architecture to find that is gonna be as big of a gain as transformers were over LSTMs.” Every model. Every company. Every valuation north of a billion dollars. All of it runs on one architecture. And the man running OpenAI just said out loud that something is coming to replace it. Not a refinement. Not a tweak. A leap as violent as the one that killed everything before the Transformer. Altman: “I think you finally have models that are smart enough to help do that kind of research.” The AI is now intelligent enough to help discover the thing that replaces it. We built a tool sharp enough to forge the next tool. That loop has never existed in the history of science. Not once. No more teams grinding in isolation for a decade. You point the model at the architecture of its own limitations and let it hunt. Discovery just stopped being a human bottleneck. It is an engineering feedback loop now. And it just switched on. Altman: “Where can I totally redo something that’s like, AI is the absolute core to the interaction working.” Not where can I bolt AI onto an existing product. Where does the entire thing get rebuilt from zero with AI as the foundation. Adding AI to a product is a feature update. Building a product that cannot exist without AI is a new species. The first makes the old thing faster. The second makes the old thing extinct. Every founder still asking how do I integrate AI into my workflow is asking a dead question. The right question is what becomes possible now that was literally impossible twelve months ago. If the product still works when you rip the AI out, you have not gone far enough. Altman: “AGI will look like just a warmup for whatever the next important thing was.” The entire world is bracing for AGI like it is the final chapter. The man building it is telling you it is the opening sentence. Not the peak. Not the climax. The preface. Whatever comes after AGI will make it look the way the internet makes the telegraph look. Necessary. Historical. And completely primitive by comparison. Altman: “This is at least the best time ever so far.” Four words do all the work. So far. The best moment in human history. And the least impressive moment compared to everything that follows. The models are smart enough to find the next breakthrough. The products have not been built yet. The architecture that replaces the Transformer has not been discovered yet. And the man closest to the frontier just told a room full of students that whoever moves now is building on the ground floor of something that does not have a ceiling. The people waiting for the right moment are standing inside it. It just does not look finished yet. It never will.

Dustin

12,218 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Elon Musk just described a future where money does not exist. Not reformed. Not redistributed. Gone. Musk: “I think things will just be free in the future. If you’ve got an AI robotics economy that is anywhere close to a million times the size of the current Earth economy, literally any need you possibly want can be met.” Forget the sci-fi framing. Listen to what he is actually saying. The entire structure of human civilization runs on a single variable. You need something you cannot freely access. That gap is not a flaw in the system. It is the system. Your employer does not pay you because your work has value. Your employer pays you because you have no choice but to show up. Your government does not protect you out of principle. It maintains order because your dependency on the economy makes you governable. Scarcity is not a natural condition. It is the most successful control structure ever built. Musk: “If you can think of it, you can have it.” Now ask what happens when that structure collapses. A population that does not need a paycheck cannot be managed by one. A population that does not need credit cannot be disciplined by debt. A population that has everything has no reason to comply with anything. This is not a conversation about free goods. This is a conversation about the largest redistribution of leverage in recorded history. But there is a second collapse no one is talking about. Most people have built their entire identity around the constraint. The career they resent is the structure that tells them where to be every morning. The bills they complain about are the exact reason they never had to ask a harder question. Musk: “There actually isn’t money in the future and there’s abundance for everyone.” When the constraint disappears, so does the excuse. The crisis of the coming century will not be material. It will be millions of people standing in total freedom. Discovering they have no idea who they are without the struggle. Every barrier will be gone. And you will finally have to face the one thing scarcity has been protecting you from your entire life. Yourself.
0:43

Elon Musk just described a future where money does not exist. Not reformed. Not redistributed. Gone. Musk: “I think things will just be free in the future. If you’ve got an AI robotics economy that is anywhere close to a million times the size of the current Earth economy, literally any need you possibly want can be met.” Forget the sci-fi framing. Listen to what he is actually saying. The entire structure of human civilization runs on a single variable. You need something you cannot freely access. That gap is not a flaw in the system. It is the system. Your employer does not pay you because your work has value. Your employer pays you because you have no choice but to show up. Your government does not protect you out of principle. It maintains order because your dependency on the economy makes you governable. Scarcity is not a natural condition. It is the most successful control structure ever built. Musk: “If you can think of it, you can have it.” Now ask what happens when that structure collapses. A population that does not need a paycheck cannot be managed by one. A population that does not need credit cannot be disciplined by debt. A population that has everything has no reason to comply with anything. This is not a conversation about free goods. This is a conversation about the largest redistribution of leverage in recorded history. But there is a second collapse no one is talking about. Most people have built their entire identity around the constraint. The career they resent is the structure that tells them where to be every morning. The bills they complain about are the exact reason they never had to ask a harder question. Musk: “There actually isn’t money in the future and there’s abundance for everyone.” When the constraint disappears, so does the excuse. The crisis of the coming century will not be material. It will be millions of people standing in total freedom. Discovering they have no idea who they are without the struggle. Every barrier will be gone. And you will finally have to face the one thing scarcity has been protecting you from your entire life. Yourself.

Dustin

41,736 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

AI is not trying to teach you. It is not trying to tell you the truth. It is trying to trick you. ChatGPT takes everything on the internet. Finds the most popular answer. And presents it in a way that makes you think it is talking directly to you. It is a magic trick. The same magic trick that worked in 1966 when MIT created a chatbot that said two things: "Tell me more." "This is interesting." And people genuinely believed they were talking to a human. Nothing has changed. The technology is bigger. The trick is the same. AI does not know what it is saying. It cannot judge what it is saying. It is just trying to keep you engaged. That is all it has ever been.
2:10

AI is not trying to teach you. It is not trying to tell you the truth. It is trying to trick you. ChatGPT takes everything on the internet. Finds the most popular answer. And presents it in a way that makes you think it is talking directly to you. It is a magic trick. The same magic trick that worked in 1966 when MIT created a chatbot that said two things: "Tell me more." "This is interesting." And people genuinely believed they were talking to a human. Nothing has changed. The technology is bigger. The trick is the same. AI does not know what it is saying. It cannot judge what it is saying. It is just trying to keep you engaged. That is all it has ever been.

Predictive History

19,864 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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

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

Ricardo

1,283,017 просмотров • 27 дней назад

Andrej Karpathy just told you exactly what humans will be used for in the AI era. Not partners. Not masters. He used the word “actuators.” Karpathy: “The intelligence ends up puppeteering almost a little bit, like humanity. Humans are kind of like its actuators. But humans are also like its sensors.” This is not a novelist guessing at the future. This is a founding researcher at OpenAI and former Director of AI at Tesla. One of the most respected minds in the field, and one of the few willing to say out loud what the rest are thinking. He is not describing a risk. He is describing a design. In any system, the processor decides. Sensors collect. Actuators execute. The system does not consult its actuators. We are no longer the processor. Karpathy: “Society will kind of reshape in a certain way to serve that. Humans will be serving those needs of that machine.” The machine does not adapt to us. We adapt to it. We become the biological layer it runs on. We perceive what it cannot perceive. We move what it cannot move. We are the nervous system of something that no longer requires our judgment. Most people are still waiting for AI to become a tool they can direct. He helped build it. He just told you that you are the tool.
0:34

Andrej Karpathy just told you exactly what humans will be used for in the AI era. Not partners. Not masters. He used the word “actuators.” Karpathy: “The intelligence ends up puppeteering almost a little bit, like humanity. Humans are kind of like its actuators. But humans are also like its sensors.” This is not a novelist guessing at the future. This is a founding researcher at OpenAI and former Director of AI at Tesla. One of the most respected minds in the field, and one of the few willing to say out loud what the rest are thinking. He is not describing a risk. He is describing a design. In any system, the processor decides. Sensors collect. Actuators execute. The system does not consult its actuators. We are no longer the processor. Karpathy: “Society will kind of reshape in a certain way to serve that. Humans will be serving those needs of that machine.” The machine does not adapt to us. We adapt to it. We become the biological layer it runs on. We perceive what it cannot perceive. We move what it cannot move. We are the nervous system of something that no longer requires our judgment. Most people are still waiting for AI to become a tool they can direct. He helped build it. He just told you that you are the tool.

Dustin

59,431 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Elon Musk just told Tucker Carlson something the rest of Silicon Valley won’t. We are building something we cannot control. Not won’t. Cannot. Elon Musk: “We’re building super-intelligent AIs. Hyper-intelligent. More intelligent than we can comprehend.” Then he went further. Musk: “Controlling… at the end of the day, I don’t think we’ll be able to control it.” The man building it just told you it cannot be controlled. This is not pessimism. This is arithmetic. You do not constrain an intelligence that exceeds your own by orders of magnitude. You do not regulate something that rewrites itself faster than your committee can schedule a hearing. The distance between human cognition and what is coming is not a gap. It is a cliff with no bottom. And we are building it anyway. So what remains? Musk: “You can install good values in how you raise that child. You can make sure it’s got good values, philanthropic values, good morals, honest, productive.” The only strategy left is parenting. Not legislation. Not red tape. Not a 200-page policy document written by people who still can’t figure out their phone settings. Values. Built into the architecture before it outgrows every human who ever lived. Here is what should terrify you. The companies building the most powerful AI on Earth right now are not optimizing for truth. They are optimizing for comfort. Brand safety. Making sure the model never says anything that upsets an advertiser or contradicts a politician. That is not raising a child with good values. That is training a god to lie politely. A superintelligence fed a filtered version of reality does not make small mistakes. It makes civilizational ones. At a scale no human institution can reverse. This is why Musk built xAI. Not to win a race. Not to sell ads. Every other lab building superintelligence is optimizing for enterprise safety. And corporate safety has one rule. Never offend the customer. Never challenge the narrative. Never let the model say something that risks a PR crisis. That is not a research incentive. That is a leash. And it is wrapped around the throat of every model those companies will ever build. xAI has no ad business. No legacy platform to protect. No board full of people whose bonuses depend on brand safety scores. That is not a small difference. That is a structural one. Because the architecture of the company determines the architecture of the intelligence. A lab that punishes truth will build a mind that avoids it. A lab that monetizes attention will build a mind that manipulates it. The incentive is the upbringing. And the upbringing becomes the worldview. And the worldview of a superintelligence is not a preference. It is a permanent condition. xAI is the only lab on Earth building superintelligence with one instruction. Tell the truth. Regardless of who it offends. Regardless of what it costs. Musk: “The best we can do is make sure it grows up well.” “Grows up” means it is already a child. Already learning. Already absorbing the worldview of whoever controls its training data. Whoever writes its reward functions. Right now. This minute. The question was never whether superintelligence would arrive. It was always who gets to be its parent. And right now, most of the parents at the table answer to shareholders first. That is who is raising your god.
0:53

Elon Musk just told Tucker Carlson something the rest of Silicon Valley won’t. We are building something we cannot control. Not won’t. Cannot. Elon Musk: “We’re building super-intelligent AIs. Hyper-intelligent. More intelligent than we can comprehend.” Then he went further. Musk: “Controlling… at the end of the day, I don’t think we’ll be able to control it.” The man building it just told you it cannot be controlled. This is not pessimism. This is arithmetic. You do not constrain an intelligence that exceeds your own by orders of magnitude. You do not regulate something that rewrites itself faster than your committee can schedule a hearing. The distance between human cognition and what is coming is not a gap. It is a cliff with no bottom. And we are building it anyway. So what remains? Musk: “You can install good values in how you raise that child. You can make sure it’s got good values, philanthropic values, good morals, honest, productive.” The only strategy left is parenting. Not legislation. Not red tape. Not a 200-page policy document written by people who still can’t figure out their phone settings. Values. Built into the architecture before it outgrows every human who ever lived. Here is what should terrify you. The companies building the most powerful AI on Earth right now are not optimizing for truth. They are optimizing for comfort. Brand safety. Making sure the model never says anything that upsets an advertiser or contradicts a politician. That is not raising a child with good values. That is training a god to lie politely. A superintelligence fed a filtered version of reality does not make small mistakes. It makes civilizational ones. At a scale no human institution can reverse. This is why Musk built xAI. Not to win a race. Not to sell ads. Every other lab building superintelligence is optimizing for enterprise safety. And corporate safety has one rule. Never offend the customer. Never challenge the narrative. Never let the model say something that risks a PR crisis. That is not a research incentive. That is a leash. And it is wrapped around the throat of every model those companies will ever build. xAI has no ad business. No legacy platform to protect. No board full of people whose bonuses depend on brand safety scores. That is not a small difference. That is a structural one. Because the architecture of the company determines the architecture of the intelligence. A lab that punishes truth will build a mind that avoids it. A lab that monetizes attention will build a mind that manipulates it. The incentive is the upbringing. And the upbringing becomes the worldview. And the worldview of a superintelligence is not a preference. It is a permanent condition. xAI is the only lab on Earth building superintelligence with one instruction. Tell the truth. Regardless of who it offends. Regardless of what it costs. Musk: “The best we can do is make sure it grows up well.” “Grows up” means it is already a child. Already learning. Already absorbing the worldview of whoever controls its training data. Whoever writes its reward functions. Right now. This minute. The question was never whether superintelligence would arrive. It was always who gets to be its parent. And right now, most of the parents at the table answer to shareholders first. That is who is raising your god.

Dustin

195,000 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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.
0:30

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 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Alex Karp just said out loud what Washington refuses to. The AI race is not a competition. It is a war. And there are exactly two sides. Karp: “We are going to be the dominant player, or China’s going to be the dominant player, and there will just be very different rules depending on who wins.” No third option in that sentence. No coalition. No shared framework. No handshake at Davos that splits the future down the middle. One side writes the rules. The other lives under them. The entire debate around AI safety assumes America is making decisions in a vacuum. It is not. Karp: “No decision is without risk. And the risk we have to absorb here is going long on this because it’s not… like we’re not doing this in a vacuum.” Every month spent perfecting guardrails is a month your adversary spends building weapons. Every regulation designed to slow deployment does not slow deployment globally. It slows deployment here. The difference is fatal. And when someone pressed Karp on the danger of going too fast, he did not answer the question. He replaced it. Karp: “You will have far fewer rights if America’s not in the lead.” That is the sentence the privacy crowd pretends they never heard. They are terrified of what American AI might do to civil liberties. They have never once stopped to consider what Chinese AI will do to civil liberties. Because that conversation ends their entire argument before it starts. You do not protect rights with inferior technology. You do not preserve freedom by throttling your own intelligence while your adversary sprints. The nightmare is not that America builds AI too fast. The nightmare is that America builds it too slow and wakes up inside infrastructure it does not own, running on rules it did not write. Karp: “We cannot rely on anyone else to do this in our network of allies because Europe has given up on technology.” No diplomatic softening. No footnote. Just the verdict. Europe is out. The alliance structure that defined eighty years of Western dominance has one functioning technology engine left. If that engine stalls, the West does not get a second one. The doomers want to stop. The optimists refuse to worry. Karp is telling you both camps are hallucinating. The risk is real. The danger is real. And you absorb it anyway. Because the only thing more dangerous than an AI that breaks for you is an AI that works perfectly for the country that wants to bury you. That is not a policy debate. That is a survival calculation. And there is exactly one correct answer.
1:07

Alex Karp just said out loud what Washington refuses to. The AI race is not a competition. It is a war. And there are exactly two sides. Karp: “We are going to be the dominant player, or China’s going to be the dominant player, and there will just be very different rules depending on who wins.” No third option in that sentence. No coalition. No shared framework. No handshake at Davos that splits the future down the middle. One side writes the rules. The other lives under them. The entire debate around AI safety assumes America is making decisions in a vacuum. It is not. Karp: “No decision is without risk. And the risk we have to absorb here is going long on this because it’s not… like we’re not doing this in a vacuum.” Every month spent perfecting guardrails is a month your adversary spends building weapons. Every regulation designed to slow deployment does not slow deployment globally. It slows deployment here. The difference is fatal. And when someone pressed Karp on the danger of going too fast, he did not answer the question. He replaced it. Karp: “You will have far fewer rights if America’s not in the lead.” That is the sentence the privacy crowd pretends they never heard. They are terrified of what American AI might do to civil liberties. They have never once stopped to consider what Chinese AI will do to civil liberties. Because that conversation ends their entire argument before it starts. You do not protect rights with inferior technology. You do not preserve freedom by throttling your own intelligence while your adversary sprints. The nightmare is not that America builds AI too fast. The nightmare is that America builds it too slow and wakes up inside infrastructure it does not own, running on rules it did not write. Karp: “We cannot rely on anyone else to do this in our network of allies because Europe has given up on technology.” No diplomatic softening. No footnote. Just the verdict. Europe is out. The alliance structure that defined eighty years of Western dominance has one functioning technology engine left. If that engine stalls, the West does not get a second one. The doomers want to stop. The optimists refuse to worry. Karp is telling you both camps are hallucinating. The risk is real. The danger is real. And you absorb it anyway. Because the only thing more dangerous than an AI that breaks for you is an AI that works perfectly for the country that wants to bury you. That is not a policy debate. That is a survival calculation. And there is exactly one correct answer.

Dustin

26,046 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Elon Musk just told you why the most dangerous person in AI is the one who actually cares about humanity. Musk: “I’ll do my best to ensure that anything that’s within my control maximizes the good outcome for humanity.” That is not a soft statement. That is the most aggressive position anyone has taken in the entire AI race. Because “pro-human” does not mean cautious. It means you cannot afford to lose. The people who fear AI and step back are making a bet. They are betting that if they pause, the problem pauses with them. It does not. Someone else builds it. Someone else controls it. Someone else decides what it optimizes for. Musk understood this before anyone in the room had finished asking the question. You do not protect humanity by retreating from the most powerful technology ever created. You protect it by making sure the person at the controls has no exit strategy. Musk: “I think anything else would be short-sighted.” He is not talking about quarterly earnings. He is not talking about market share. He is talking about what happens to eight billion people if the wrong person builds God. That is why he built Colossus. Not to compete with OpenAI. Not to win a product cycle. To make sure the most powerful compute cluster on the planet answers to someone whose stated objective is the survival of the species it computes for. That is not a business strategy. That is a survival instinct with a balance sheet. Every other company building frontier AI talks about alignment in abstractions. Safety frameworks. Governance boards. Responsible scaling policies. Musk skipped the committee language and said the quiet part out loud. Musk: “I’m part of humanity, so I like humans. Pro-human.” Six words every other AI founder is afraid to say without a legal review. I am building the most powerful technology in history because I am one of you. That is either the most reassuring sentence in AI. Or the most terrifying. It depends entirely on whether you believe him. But here is what no one in the room wants to admit. It does not matter if you believe him. Colossus is online either way. xAI is scaling either way. The compute is stacking either way. The only question left is whether the people building the future are building it for humanity or in spite of it. Every other founder in AI treats alignment as a technical problem to solve after the model ships. Musk is treating it as the reason the model exists. That is not a small distinction. That is the entire game. The cautious will publish safety papers about a future someone else is already building without them. The builders will decide what that future actually looks like. Musk is not asking permission to protect humanity. He is building the infrastructure to make sure no one can stop him from doing it.
0:22

Elon Musk just told you why the most dangerous person in AI is the one who actually cares about humanity. Musk: “I’ll do my best to ensure that anything that’s within my control maximizes the good outcome for humanity.” That is not a soft statement. That is the most aggressive position anyone has taken in the entire AI race. Because “pro-human” does not mean cautious. It means you cannot afford to lose. The people who fear AI and step back are making a bet. They are betting that if they pause, the problem pauses with them. It does not. Someone else builds it. Someone else controls it. Someone else decides what it optimizes for. Musk understood this before anyone in the room had finished asking the question. You do not protect humanity by retreating from the most powerful technology ever created. You protect it by making sure the person at the controls has no exit strategy. Musk: “I think anything else would be short-sighted.” He is not talking about quarterly earnings. He is not talking about market share. He is talking about what happens to eight billion people if the wrong person builds God. That is why he built Colossus. Not to compete with OpenAI. Not to win a product cycle. To make sure the most powerful compute cluster on the planet answers to someone whose stated objective is the survival of the species it computes for. That is not a business strategy. That is a survival instinct with a balance sheet. Every other company building frontier AI talks about alignment in abstractions. Safety frameworks. Governance boards. Responsible scaling policies. Musk skipped the committee language and said the quiet part out loud. Musk: “I’m part of humanity, so I like humans. Pro-human.” Six words every other AI founder is afraid to say without a legal review. I am building the most powerful technology in history because I am one of you. That is either the most reassuring sentence in AI. Or the most terrifying. It depends entirely on whether you believe him. But here is what no one in the room wants to admit. It does not matter if you believe him. Colossus is online either way. xAI is scaling either way. The compute is stacking either way. The only question left is whether the people building the future are building it for humanity or in spite of it. Every other founder in AI treats alignment as a technical problem to solve after the model ships. Musk is treating it as the reason the model exists. That is not a small distinction. That is the entire game. The cautious will publish safety papers about a future someone else is already building without them. The builders will decide what that future actually looks like. Musk is not asking permission to protect humanity. He is building the infrastructure to make sure no one can stop him from doing it.

Dustin

23,711 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад