正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

No, PM Is Not a GAN. Stop! Jürgen Schmidhuber's Predictability Minimization (1992) and Ian Goodfellow's GANs (2014) both use adversarial objectives. So does every zero-sum game since von Neumann. That's where the similarity ends. Goodfellow's generator never sees real data. It maps noise to samples and learns the data... distribution purely through the discriminator's gradients. That's the whole trick. That's the invention. Schmidhuber's PM does the opposite - both players sit on top of the same real data, competing to learn independent features. It's representation learning. Nothing is generated. No noise is mapped anywhere. No distribution is learned. Calling PM a GAN because both use minimax is like calling chess a war because both have strategy. PM was a smart idea about feature independence. GANs were a breakthrough in implicit generative modeling. These are not the same insight, and retroactively collapsing the distance between them doesn't honor prior work - it misrepresents both.show more

Arjun Jain | Fast Code AI

4,449 subscribers

20,756 次观看 • 3 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

教育新闻政治科学技术

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

quants don't predict markets. they stopped trying years ago retail is still asking "where is price going?" - quants switched to a different question entirely "given the current state, what's the probability distribution of outcomes" that's not a semantics game. it changes the math entirely stochastic processes model how a system evolves probabilistically - not picking a direction, mapping where each path leads and how likely it is ornstein-uhlenbeck does this for mean reversion: drift rate back to equilibrium, variance around that path same price data everybody has. different equation math is a century old, free in every applied probability textbook Bookmark and learn this before it gone you've been drawing trend lines while they ran probability distributions on same numbers it was never about data it was the question you were taught to ask

quants don't predict markets. they stopped trying years ago retail is still asking "where is price going?" - quants switched to a different question entirely "given the current state, what's the probability distribution of outcomes" that's not a semantics game. it changes the math entirely stochastic processes model how a system evolves probabilistically - not picking a direction, mapping where each path leads and how likely it is ornstein-uhlenbeck does this for mean reversion: drift rate back to equilibrium, variance around that path same price data everybody has. different equation math is a century old, free in every applied probability textbook Bookmark and learn this before it gone you've been drawing trend lines while they ran probability distributions on same numbers it was never about data it was the question you were taught to ask

Livsun

13,315 次观看 • 1 个月前

How does GPT-5 become GPT-6? Everything on the internet was already trained on a year, year and a half ago. New data is being added but it's marginal and a lot of it is AI slop. There is interesting private data (like JP Morgan's data) but nobody is opening that up. You don't go from GPT-5 to GPT-6 in isolation because that's not how learning works. Every learning that has ever occurred comes from having information to learn. You can't learn no information. cc Ground Zero / pod with Curtis from Handshake AI.

How does GPT-5 become GPT-6? Everything on the internet was already trained on a year, year and a half ago. New data is being added but it's marginal and a lot of it is AI slop. There is interesting private data (like JP Morgan's data) but nobody is opening that up. You don't go from GPT-5 to GPT-6 in isolation because that's not how learning works. Every learning that has ever occurred comes from having information to learn. You can't learn no information. cc Ground Zero / pod with Curtis from Handshake AI.

himanshu

10,684 次观看 • 2 个月前

This is what it means to be on the charts for 20 years. For a trader, experience is not a detail, it is the real key to success. We are not talking about indicators, magic setups or current trends, but about eye, market memory and the ability to recognise the same dynamics that repeat themselves in different forms. This video found online explains it perfectly: it makes you understand how, over time, you stop reacting to candlesticks and start reading the market's intentions. You know when there is noise, when there is distribution, when they are just looking for liquidity... and above all, you know when to do nothing. That's where the real advantage lies. The rest is just haste, ego and overtrading. Experience does not accelerate the market. It accelerates you.

This is what it means to be on the charts for 20 years. For a trader, experience is not a detail, it is the real key to success. We are not talking about indicators, magic setups or current trends, but about eye, market memory and the ability to recognise the same dynamics that repeat themselves in different forms. This video found online explains it perfectly: it makes you understand how, over time, you stop reacting to candlesticks and start reading the market's intentions. You know when there is noise, when there is distribution, when they are just looking for liquidity... and above all, you know when to do nothing. That's where the real advantage lies. The rest is just haste, ego and overtrading. Experience does not accelerate the market. It accelerates you.

EliZ

61,654 次观看 • 7 个月前

🚨THE ONE REAL CONCERN NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT AI data centers are being forced into communities under the banner of “progress.” But one issue alone is enough for the people to protest: TONAL NOISE. That constant industrial hum. The low frequency vibration. The mechanical drone from fans, cooling systems, transformers, and generators running day and night. This is not “background noise.” This invades homes. It disrupts sleep. It agitates the nervous system. It destroys peace, property value, farm animal reproductive systems, and quality of life. There is a reason militaries have used sound and tonal noise as psychological torture. Now imagine that same kind of relentless noise embedded permanently in your community, serving Big Tech, AI, surveillance, and data harvesting. No tax incentive is worth that. No corporate promise is worth that. No county commission has the moral right to trade away the peace and health of the people for an AI data center deal. Tonal noise alone is enough. The people have every right to protest before the hum becomes permanent. Byron Donalds and Jay Collins are PRO AI DATA CENTERS. The ONLY Candidate standing up and saying HELL NO to these massive community impact projects is Paul Renner. Renner is a HARD PASS on AI Data Centers. Listen...here's why

🚨THE ONE REAL CONCERN NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT AI data centers are being forced into communities under the banner of “progress.” But one issue alone is enough for the people to protest: TONAL NOISE. That constant industrial hum. The low frequency vibration. The mechanical drone from fans, cooling systems, transformers, and generators running day and night. This is not “background noise.” This invades homes. It disrupts sleep. It agitates the nervous system. It destroys peace, property value, farm animal reproductive systems, and quality of life. There is a reason militaries have used sound and tonal noise as psychological torture. Now imagine that same kind of relentless noise embedded permanently in your community, serving Big Tech, AI, surveillance, and data harvesting. No tax incentive is worth that. No corporate promise is worth that. No county commission has the moral right to trade away the peace and health of the people for an AI data center deal. Tonal noise alone is enough. The people have every right to protest before the hum becomes permanent. Byron Donalds and Jay Collins are PRO AI DATA CENTERS. The ONLY Candidate standing up and saying HELL NO to these massive community impact projects is Paul Renner. Renner is a HARD PASS on AI Data Centers. Listen...here's why

Ann Vandersteel™️

12,340 次观看 • 1 个月前

Rogin: This is the most unpopular war in American history by far, and for good reason. And the way that these things work is that the longer that it goes on, the popularity goes down, not up over time. And that is a calamity for the Republican party. But that's not what's important right now. What's important is that it's a calamity for the United States of America, for our national security, for our alliances abroad, for putting our troops in danger with no clear strategy of what achieves a victory and how to get them out of there. And how does this end? And without any of those answers, everybody can see that the administration is flailing about. And the way we know they have no strategy because the strategy changes every single day with various justifications that don't make any sense when compared to one another. And that's where we are. And that's a pretty sad state of affairs. And yes, that's going to be terrible for Republicans in November, but that's really not the most worst thing about it. And Donald Trump doesn't seem to care about that anyway.

Rogin: This is the most unpopular war in American history by far, and for good reason. And the way that these things work is that the longer that it goes on, the popularity goes down, not up over time. And that is a calamity for the Republican party. But that's not what's important right now. What's important is that it's a calamity for the United States of America, for our national security, for our alliances abroad, for putting our troops in danger with no clear strategy of what achieves a victory and how to get them out of there. And how does this end? And without any of those answers, everybody can see that the administration is flailing about. And the way we know they have no strategy because the strategy changes every single day with various justifications that don't make any sense when compared to one another. And that's where we are. And that's a pretty sad state of affairs. And yes, that's going to be terrible for Republicans in November, but that's really not the most worst thing about it. And Donald Trump doesn't seem to care about that anyway.

Acyn

49,764 次观看 • 2 个月前

🚨HOW I BACKTEST TRADING STRATEGIES USING CLAUDE CODE > Most traders backtest the wrong way > They fit a strategy to historical data > See +300% and think they found the holy grail > Go live - blow up > That's curve fitting, the classic trap > The right way is walk-forward analysis > Train on one chunk of data, test on another > Slide the window, repeat > If the strategy survives on data it's never seen - that's a signal > If it doesn't - trash it, no regrets > The entire process runs through > Claude Code in one conversation > Not a single line of code written by hand > Trading here: > The same method used by quant funds The difference between a trader and an artist is a walk-forward test

🚨HOW I BACKTEST TRADING STRATEGIES USING CLAUDE CODE > Most traders backtest the wrong way > They fit a strategy to historical data > See +300% and think they found the holy grail > Go live - blow up > That's curve fitting, the classic trap > The right way is walk-forward analysis > Train on one chunk of data, test on another > Slide the window, repeat > If the strategy survives on data it's never seen - that's a signal > If it doesn't - trash it, no regrets > The entire process runs through > Claude Code in one conversation > Not a single line of code written by hand > Trading here: > The same method used by quant funds The difference between a trader and an artist is a walk-forward test

zostaff

62,570 次观看 • 3 个月前

IN 1986 MIT FILMED THE LECTURE WHERE CODE STOPPED BEING CODE AND BECAME DATA 43 minutes from Gerald Sussman, in the most legendary intro programming course ever recorded. -> The idea that lands: to a program, your code is just data it can read and rewrite. He builds a program that does real calculus -- not by crunching numbers, but by reading the math as a list and transforming it piece by piece. Then he shows the trick hiding under all of it: in this language, code and data are the same material. Forty years later that is exactly what an AI coding agent is -- a program that reads your code as data, rewrites it, and hands it back. Sussman drew the whole idea on a blackboard in 1986. Writing code was never the deepest skill -- understanding that code itself is data a program can manipulate is. This is where you learn it. Most people think AI writing code is brand new. The ones who watch this saw the blueprint 40 years ago. Bookmark & Watch it. This one's a legend ↓

slash1s

22,107 次观看 • 1 个月前

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Jump Trading pays quants $650K to pull one real signal out of market noise. I wrote the textbook on that exact math and taught it for free." this free MIT lecture is the math the whole "quant edge" is built on, and almost nobody selling you a course will name it. the man teaching it wrote the signal-processing textbook every engineer on earth learned from, and he put the lectures online for nothing. here is the idea. a price chart is a signal buried in noise. most of what you see is random static, and hidden inside is a faint, repeating pattern with real mathematics for pulling it out. that is not a metaphor. jim simons was a codebreaker who did exactly this to enemy transmissions, then pointed the same math at the market and made a hundred billion dollars. none of it is new. oppenheim taught this in 1987, the math is older, and every lecture is free. same story i told in the article above. the edge was never a secret formula. it was knowing a market is a noisy signal, and having the tools to read it. here is what the gurus skip. the math to separate signal from noise is free and everyone has it. the edge is cleaner data than the next desk, and the discipline to trust a faint signal across thousands of trades instead of chasing the static. the filter is free. the patience to use it is not.

Alan Oppenheim, MIT professor: "Jump Trading pays quants $650K to pull one real signal out of market noise. I wrote the textbook on that exact math and taught it for free." this free MIT lecture is the math the whole "quant edge" is built on, and almost nobody selling you a course will name it. the man teaching it wrote the signal-processing textbook every engineer on earth learned from, and he put the lectures online for nothing. here is the idea. a price chart is a signal buried in noise. most of what you see is random static, and hidden inside is a faint, repeating pattern with real mathematics for pulling it out. that is not a metaphor. jim simons was a codebreaker who did exactly this to enemy transmissions, then pointed the same math at the market and made a hundred billion dollars. none of it is new. oppenheim taught this in 1987, the math is older, and every lecture is free. same story i told in the article above. the edge was never a secret formula. it was knowing a market is a noisy signal, and having the tools to read it. here is what the gurus skip. the math to separate signal from noise is free and everyone has it. the edge is cleaner data than the next desk, and the discipline to trust a faint signal across thousands of trades instead of chasing the static. the filter is free. the patience to use it is not.

Rossst.03

269,381 次观看 • 21 天前

🚨 Jensen Huang says everyone panicked about the AI data when MOST training data was never REAL to begin with. Ilya Sutskever told the industry pre-training was over. "Ilya said, 'We're out of data,' or something like that. 'Pre-training is over,' or something like that," Huang says. "The industry panicked, you know, that this is the end of AI." "And of course, of course that's obviously not true. We're gonna keep on scaling the amount of data that we have to train with." "A lot of that data is probably gonna be synthetic." That's where the panic came from — synthetic data sounds like cheating. "Most of the data that we are training, that we teach each other with, inform each other with, is synthetic." "It's synthetic because it didn't come out of nature." "You created it. I'm consuming it. I modify it, augment it, I regenerate it, somebody else consumes it." The textbook in your hand is synthetic. The post you're reading is synthetic. The lecture you took is synthetic. Nature didn't make any of it. Humans did. AI just learned to do the same thing — faster. "Training is now limited by compute," Huang says. "Data is now limited by compute." The data wall wasn't a wall. It was a mirror. If you're new here, follow @AiEvolutio for the latest on ChatGPT, Claude, and the AI tools shaping how we work and create. — Jensen Huang ( NVIDIA ), NVIDIA CEO, on Lex Fridman's ( Lex Fridman ) podcast

🚨 Jensen Huang says everyone panicked about the AI data when MOST training data was never REAL to begin with. Ilya Sutskever told the industry pre-training was over. "Ilya said, 'We're out of data,' or something like that. 'Pre-training is over,' or something like that," Huang says. "The industry panicked, you know, that this is the end of AI." "And of course, of course that's obviously not true. We're gonna keep on scaling the amount of data that we have to train with." "A lot of that data is probably gonna be synthetic." That's where the panic came from — synthetic data sounds like cheating. "Most of the data that we are training, that we teach each other with, inform each other with, is synthetic." "It's synthetic because it didn't come out of nature." "You created it. I'm consuming it. I modify it, augment it, I regenerate it, somebody else consumes it." The textbook in your hand is synthetic. The post you're reading is synthetic. The lecture you took is synthetic. Nature didn't make any of it. Humans did. AI just learned to do the same thing — faster. "Training is now limited by compute," Huang says. "Data is now limited by compute." The data wall wasn't a wall. It was a mirror. If you're new here, follow @AiEvolutio for the latest on ChatGPT, Claude, and the AI tools shaping how we work and create. — Jensen Huang ( NVIDIA ), NVIDIA CEO, on Lex Fridman's ( Lex Fridman ) podcast

AI Evolution

15,565 次观看 • 1 个月前

Marvin Minsky, MIT professor and father of AI: "The best trader on Wall Street is no longer human. I spent fifty years proving the mind is just a machine built from smaller machines, and once that's true, nothing stops a machine from being the house. it already is." this free lecture holds the entire "AI edge" the funds and the gurus sell, and the man teaching it founded the field itself and put his whole MIT course online for free. at the board it's simple. Minsky's idea is that there is no magic in thinking. a mind is a huge pile of small, mindless parts, each doing something simple, and intelligence is just what happens when enough of them work together. a trading machine is the same trick: thousands of simple rules stacked until an edge appears. that's the whole "AI", minus the mystery. Minsky taught this at MIT and published "The Society of Mind" in 1986. the course has been free ever since. same point as my casino piece above: the house wins with many small mindless advantages stacked, not with one born genius. the ideas are free and every AI lab and every fund already has them. what they cannot sell you is the data and the compute to actually build the machine. that is the real moat now, and no lecture can hand it to you.

Marvin Minsky, MIT professor and father of AI: "The best trader on Wall Street is no longer human. I spent fifty years proving the mind is just a machine built from smaller machines, and once that's true, nothing stops a machine from being the house. it already is." this free lecture holds the entire "AI edge" the funds and the gurus sell, and the man teaching it founded the field itself and put his whole MIT course online for free. at the board it's simple. Minsky's idea is that there is no magic in thinking. a mind is a huge pile of small, mindless parts, each doing something simple, and intelligence is just what happens when enough of them work together. a trading machine is the same trick: thousands of simple rules stacked until an edge appears. that's the whole "AI", minus the mystery. Minsky taught this at MIT and published "The Society of Mind" in 1986. the course has been free ever since. same point as my casino piece above: the house wins with many small mindless advantages stacked, not with one born genius. the ideas are free and every AI lab and every fund already has them. what they cannot sell you is the data and the compute to actually build the machine. that is the real moat now, and no lecture can hand it to you.

Voltex

27,976 次观看 • 8 天前

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says “both sides are going to have to make concessions” to reach a peace deal and end the war in Ukraine, telling Margaret Brennan: “If there aren't concessions, if one side gets everything they want, that's called surrender. That's called the end of the war through surrender. And that's not what we're close to doing, because neither side here is on the verge of surrender or anything close to it.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says “both sides are going to have to make concessions” to reach a peace deal and end the war in Ukraine, telling Margaret Brennan: “If there aren't concessions, if one side gets everything they want, that's called surrender. That's called the end of the war through surrender. And that's not what we're close to doing, because neither side here is on the verge of surrender or anything close to it.”

Face The Nation

27,673 次观看 • 11 个月前

NASA DID NOT TRUST ONE SENSOR that is why Apollo landed. radar was noisy. gyros drifted. the computer had to guess where the spacecraft really was while every instrument lied a little. that same problem now sits on quant desks. not “where is the spacecraft?” but: what is the real relationship between these two assets right now? most retail traders freeze that relationship into one number. run regression get beta trade the spread pretend the ratio stays alive it does not. the market keeps moving. the hedge ratio drifts. your “market neutral” position quietly becomes directional. a Kalman filter estimates a hidden state from noisy measurements. it does not blindly trust the last tick. it does not blindly trust the old model. it blends both. every tick becomes: > predict the current state > observe the noisy price > measure the surprise > decide how much to trust it > update the estimate that trust-weight is the whole trick. if the old estimate is shaky and the new data is clean, the filter moves fast. if the old estimate is strong and the tick is noisy, it barely moves. that is why a static beta is a dead photograph. a Kalman hedge ratio is a live estimate. the same math that helped NASA fuse noisy signals now helps quants keep a pairs trade from lying to them.

NASA DID NOT TRUST ONE SENSOR that is why Apollo landed. radar was noisy. gyros drifted. the computer had to guess where the spacecraft really was while every instrument lied a little. that same problem now sits on quant desks. not “where is the spacecraft?” but: what is the real relationship between these two assets right now? most retail traders freeze that relationship into one number. run regression get beta trade the spread pretend the ratio stays alive it does not. the market keeps moving. the hedge ratio drifts. your “market neutral” position quietly becomes directional. a Kalman filter estimates a hidden state from noisy measurements. it does not blindly trust the last tick. it does not blindly trust the old model. it blends both. every tick becomes: > predict the current state > observe the noisy price > measure the surprise > decide how much to trust it > update the estimate that trust-weight is the whole trick. if the old estimate is shaky and the new data is clean, the filter moves fast. if the old estimate is strong and the tick is noisy, it barely moves. that is why a static beta is a dead photograph. a Kalman hedge ratio is a live estimate. the same math that helped NASA fuse noisy signals now helps quants keep a pairs trade from lying to them.

Myttle

20,673 次观看 • 1 个月前

$65K IS NOISE THE REAL ENTRY IS AT $67K Not shorting here this move is just the beginning of the FVG pullback Biggest short of my life is mapped and waiting: Entry: $67K Take Profit: $57K / $52K Stop Loss: $75K Limit orders are set now it's just patience I've called every major top and bottom for 15 years, including the $16K bottom and the $126K top both publicly, both before they happened The next call will be even more important I'll post it here publicly like I always do Turn notifications on if you're not following yet, you'll understand why that was a mistake later

$65K IS NOISE THE REAL ENTRY IS AT $67K Not shorting here this move is just the beginning of the FVG pullback Biggest short of my life is mapped and waiting: Entry: $67K Take Profit: $57K / $52K Stop Loss: $75K Limit orders are set now it's just patience I've called every major top and bottom for 15 years, including the $16K bottom and the $126K top both publicly, both before they happened The next call will be even more important I'll post it here publicly like I always do Turn notifications on if you're not following yet, you'll understand why that was a mistake later

philarekt

20,201 次观看 • 11 天前

So here’s the deal, THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT DATA IS COMPROMISED. Actors without security clearance have been given access to scrape your data. Elon Musk now controls your data and it represents the same level of control exerted by the Chinese government’s social credit system. Musk is now able to profile every name on the treasury data systems. There is no way to sugar coat the fact that your data is no longer secure. It can now be used to target you and not for your benefit, be sure of that. Democrats and advocacy groups can take all the legal action they like, THE DATA IS COMPROMISED and you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. This data can now be used to literally social engineer services to target any perceived enemy of ‘the state’. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but then sit back have a think if any of what I am suggesting is not possible. I analyse big data for a living and I have no solution to this problem and neither does any Democrat telling you it can be fixed.

𝔗𝔯𝔲𝔱𝔥 𝔐𝔞𝔱𝔱𝔢𝔯𝔰

16,366 次观看 • 1 年前

Both these people say they were coming up with a cure for cancer Both have the data to prove it Both had their funding pulled Left) This Is Dr. Zach Bush. He Explains How Pharmaceutical Companies Stop Life Saving Cancer Cures With ‘Blocking Patents’ So They Can Continue To Profit From The Treatments ‌ He came out with a breakthrough treatment, he has the data to prove it. The pharmaceutical companies blocked it. ‌ “I made some breakthroughs in chemotherapy in 2008. I was so excited. I was like, ran down the hall to my buddies in the world and it's like, look at what just happened. Like this is freaking crazy. It's a vitamin A compound and look what the frickin' is happening to these cancer cells. ‌ — That is something called a blocking patent, making sure that this thing doesn't come to light” Right) Harvard researcher Joan Brugge says her work has the potential to prevent breast cancer, but she was notified last spring that her federal funding was terminated.

Both these people say they were coming up with a cure for cancer Both have the data to prove it Both had their funding pulled Left) This Is Dr. Zach Bush. He Explains How Pharmaceutical Companies Stop Life Saving Cancer Cures With ‘Blocking Patents’ So They Can Continue To Profit From The Treatments ‌ He came out with a breakthrough treatment, he has the data to prove it. The pharmaceutical companies blocked it. ‌ “I made some breakthroughs in chemotherapy in 2008. I was so excited. I was like, ran down the hall to my buddies in the world and it's like, look at what just happened. Like this is freaking crazy. It's a vitamin A compound and look what the frickin' is happening to these cancer cells. ‌ — That is something called a blocking patent, making sure that this thing doesn't come to light” Right) Harvard researcher Joan Brugge says her work has the potential to prevent breast cancer, but she was notified last spring that her federal funding was terminated.

Wall Street Apes

116,476 次观看 • 8 个月前

Rick Rubin on being addicted to the miracle of creation: “I like the moment of revelation. So we're working on something and it's just okay. It's boring. I'd rather not be there. That's how it feels. But then something happens and it's like magic. Something appears. It's not like we made it. Something comes up in the process. It's conjured in the process. It’s like a miracle and that's the thing that's addictive. That feeling when it's like it's not good, it's not good, it's not good, it's not good. We try something and it doesn't work. Try something else and it doesn't work. But then all of the sudden what we're listening to is really cool. That's the [addictive] feeling, that moment of discovery where it goes from nothing to something really good. And then the whole rest of the process after that is protecting that because it's super delicate. When it happens it's like this miracle happened and this magic thing happened and now we have to protect it through the rest of the process to not ruin it. It's scary because you don't want it to end. You don't want it to stop because we know if it stops, we can't control it. We can't do it again. It's not like that. It's this moment in time where something magical happens. So we spend a lot of time waiting and I can't say that's fun. Waiting is not fun.”

Rick Rubin on being addicted to the miracle of creation: “I like the moment of revelation. So we're working on something and it's just okay. It's boring. I'd rather not be there. That's how it feels. But then something happens and it's like magic. Something appears. It's not like we made it. Something comes up in the process. It's conjured in the process. It’s like a miracle and that's the thing that's addictive. That feeling when it's like it's not good, it's not good, it's not good, it's not good. We try something and it doesn't work. Try something else and it doesn't work. But then all of the sudden what we're listening to is really cool. That's the [addictive] feeling, that moment of discovery where it goes from nothing to something really good. And then the whole rest of the process after that is protecting that because it's super delicate. When it happens it's like this miracle happened and this magic thing happened and now we have to protect it through the rest of the process to not ruin it. It's scary because you don't want it to end. You don't want it to stop because we know if it stops, we can't control it. We can't do it again. It's not like that. It's this moment in time where something magical happens. So we spend a lot of time waiting and I can't say that's fun. Waiting is not fun.”

David Senra

12,759 次观看 • 2 个月前

Charlie Sheen and Bill Maher say the real evil of drugs is that they stop working Bill: “The real evil of drugs is that they don't work as well over time, both in the day and in the long run. When you were shitty to people, you weren't mad at them. You were mad at the drug for not working as it was earlier in the day, earlier in the week, month, and year” Charlie: “It's a resentment like no other”

Charlie Sheen and Bill Maher say the real evil of drugs is that they stop working Bill: “The real evil of drugs is that they don't work as well over time, both in the day and in the long run. When you were shitty to people, you weren't mad at them. You were mad at the drug for not working as it was earlier in the day, earlier in the week, month, and year” Charlie: “It's a resentment like no other”

dank

213,599 次观看 • 1 个月前

Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, on why AI is both a bubble and a revolution at the same time: His answer refuses the binary, laying out why both things can be true at once: "I mean, clearly, it's clearly both, right? It's clearly a bubble and at the same time, it's very interesting and I think it will change society and I think it will change how most skilled jobs get done." But he pushes back on the maximalist framing: "At the same time, I don't think it's as revolutionary as people make it out to be." When asked about artists being angry that AI models were trained on their work without consent, Linus is blunt: "That's reality. Deal with it. That genie is out of the bottle. You're not getting it back. And you're not getting it back whether you are a photographer who's out of work… or you're a programmer that has to learn to deal with a new reality." On programming specifically, he's more optimistic, though he has a sharp caveat about vibe coding: "I really think that AI will be a tool and it will make people more productive. I think that vibe coding is great for getting into programming. I think it's going to be a horrible thing to maintain." His conclusion is that programmers aren't going anywhere: "You still want to have the people who know how to maintain the end result." Linus separates the technology from the noise around it: "I'm a huge believer in AI. I'm not a huge believer in the whole things going on around AI. I find the marketing and the market to be sick and twisted and there is going to be a crash and it's not… it's going to be ugly."

Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, on why AI is both a bubble and a revolution at the same time: His answer refuses the binary, laying out why both things can be true at once: "I mean, clearly, it's clearly both, right? It's clearly a bubble and at the same time, it's very interesting and I think it will change society and I think it will change how most skilled jobs get done." But he pushes back on the maximalist framing: "At the same time, I don't think it's as revolutionary as people make it out to be." When asked about artists being angry that AI models were trained on their work without consent, Linus is blunt: "That's reality. Deal with it. That genie is out of the bottle. You're not getting it back. And you're not getting it back whether you are a photographer who's out of work… or you're a programmer that has to learn to deal with a new reality." On programming specifically, he's more optimistic, though he has a sharp caveat about vibe coding: "I really think that AI will be a tool and it will make people more productive. I think that vibe coding is great for getting into programming. I think it's going to be a horrible thing to maintain." His conclusion is that programmers aren't going anywhere: "You still want to have the people who know how to maintain the end result." Linus separates the technology from the noise around it: "I'm a huge believer in AI. I'm not a huge believer in the whole things going on around AI. I find the marketing and the market to be sick and twisted and there is going to be a crash and it's not… it's going to be ugly."

Big Brain AI

52,726 次观看 • 2 个月前