Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Obama on recursive self improvement and the risks associated with it. When he talks about the urgency for us all to have a say in how this technology evolves and how it is overseen, this is part of the reason why: “The models are going to get smarter and... smarter and better and better at a much faster pace, at an exponential pace. What are the risks of that? There’s the big science fiction risk, wow, these models get smarter than us, and they decide humans are fine, but not necessary. They start setting their own goals, and the killer robots kill us, or we bow down to them. I do not want to exaggerate that particular risk, but I will say there is a non-zero risk of non-zero chance of that happening, but that’s not actually the risk that I’m most concerned about, although it’s the risk that gets most attention. And the reason that’s a risk is not because the computer models are conscious, necessarily. It doesn’t mean that they are necessarily feel malice towards humans. It’s just that if they start setting their own agendas, you may get a misalignment between what they want to do and what we want them to do, and that gap can be dangerous. That’s problem number one. The more serious problem is these models are getting powerful enough that if they get in the hands of bad humans, they can do bad things. They can be weaponized in certain ways. They can do a lot of mischief.”show more

Jason Goldman

869,193 subscribers

964,851 просмотров • 1 месяц назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика Наука и технологии

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 3

Фото профиля Bert Haro

Bert Haro1 месяц назад

Described simply enough for most folks to understand the risks. Miss him leading.

Фото профиля UFHealth Whistleblower Kathleen Maynard 🇵🇸Ⓥ

UFHealth Whistleblower Kathleen Maynard 🇵🇸Ⓥ1 месяц назад

Obama on war and drone strikes:

Фото профиля George Washington

George Washington1 месяц назад

Trust no one

Похожие видео

This is how I see left wing Scousers - What irritates me more than anything about them is they have the arrogance to tell people on a daily basis “Scousers are left wing” and call everyone a Tory or a wool who disagrees with them. Like they can speak for all of us. Like only they love this city and we don’t. Let me tell you something about these gang of gobshites. If you ever want to at what multiculturalism does to a city. Look at London. I have always wanted multiculturalism to work. But it’s hard to ignore the damage it does. It is ok im small manageable numbers like we have always had. But when it grows out of control you get….. London. These gang of shithouses who love Liverpool more than anyone and who are more Scouse than anyone and speak for all of us are literally advocating for Liverpool to be slowly transformed into a microcosm of the hellhole that is our capital. They are actively pushing for it. Most of them don’t even have children themselves. And that’s the world they want your children to grow up in. A replica of London in every major city. That’s how much they care about Liverpool. They want it to become the next London. If everything was all sweet and rosey down there I could understand their logic. But it isn’t. And over my dead body I will stand silent while these traitors enable our government to destroy the culture snd good harmony of our city. Absolutely disgusting. They do not speak for us. Even though they think that they can and often try to. Im going to start sharing the odd video of what is happening down in our capital so you can see what they are trying to do to our city. So we can all see the world they are pushing for. “Liverpool is a tolerant city” they always say which is true. But at the same time. We aren’t dickheads. And there is a limit to how nice we are. And this is the last city yiu want to piss off. Because if you piss us off, we bite back harder than anyone. When the Revolution begins. It will be this city that starts it. The left wingers think that because they are a gang of pushovers that the rest of us are too. Think again!

This is how I see left wing Scousers - What irritates me more than anything about them is they have the arrogance to tell people on a daily basis “Scousers are left wing” and call everyone a Tory or a wool who disagrees with them. Like they can speak for all of us. Like only they love this city and we don’t. Let me tell you something about these gang of gobshites. If you ever want to at what multiculturalism does to a city. Look at London. I have always wanted multiculturalism to work. But it’s hard to ignore the damage it does. It is ok im small manageable numbers like we have always had. But when it grows out of control you get….. London. These gang of shithouses who love Liverpool more than anyone and who are more Scouse than anyone and speak for all of us are literally advocating for Liverpool to be slowly transformed into a microcosm of the hellhole that is our capital. They are actively pushing for it. Most of them don’t even have children themselves. And that’s the world they want your children to grow up in. A replica of London in every major city. That’s how much they care about Liverpool. They want it to become the next London. If everything was all sweet and rosey down there I could understand their logic. But it isn’t. And over my dead body I will stand silent while these traitors enable our government to destroy the culture snd good harmony of our city. Absolutely disgusting. They do not speak for us. Even though they think that they can and often try to. Im going to start sharing the odd video of what is happening down in our capital so you can see what they are trying to do to our city. So we can all see the world they are pushing for. “Liverpool is a tolerant city” they always say which is true. But at the same time. We aren’t dickheads. And there is a limit to how nice we are. And this is the last city yiu want to piss off. Because if you piss us off, we bite back harder than anyone. When the Revolution begins. It will be this city that starts it. The left wingers think that because they are a gang of pushovers that the rest of us are too. Think again!

Around Liverpool

106,318 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

🚨 OBAMA ON AI: "If we are thinking about AI just in terms of how do we cure cancer or get better energy, you can do that without having agentic AI and having it just roaming free in the internet. The reason you are doing that is because you have to market a product that people will pay money for. That’s a misalignment between what our society needs and the commercial imperatives that these companies are facing, not because necessarily they’re trying to do bad things, but because they’ve got to justify these valuations. So, that’s one more reason why it is really important for us to have a competent government and a serious bipartisan conversation around this issue, and we have to do it fast. And I would encourage voters to pay attention to this. If somebody does not have a serious plan for how to deal with this, then they’re not meeting the moment, and you should probably look for somebody else."

🚨 OBAMA ON AI: "If we are thinking about AI just in terms of how do we cure cancer or get better energy, you can do that without having agentic AI and having it just roaming free in the internet. The reason you are doing that is because you have to market a product that people will pay money for. That’s a misalignment between what our society needs and the commercial imperatives that these companies are facing, not because necessarily they’re trying to do bad things, but because they’ve got to justify these valuations. So, that’s one more reason why it is really important for us to have a competent government and a serious bipartisan conversation around this issue, and we have to do it fast. And I would encourage voters to pay attention to this. If somebody does not have a serious plan for how to deal with this, then they’re not meeting the moment, and you should probably look for somebody else."

MeidasTouch

7,141,175 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

ELON: DON'T LET THE RISK OF FAILURE STOP YOU “I think failure is bad. I don't think it's good. But if something's important enough, then you do it, even though the risk of failure is high. And so, my advice if somebody wants to start a company is they should bear in mind that the most likely outcome is it's not going to work, and they should reconcile themselves to that strong possibility. And they should only do it if they feel that they are really compelled to do it.” Source: Computer History Museum, January 2013

ELON: DON'T LET THE RISK OF FAILURE STOP YOU “I think failure is bad. I don't think it's good. But if something's important enough, then you do it, even though the risk of failure is high. And so, my advice if somebody wants to start a company is they should bear in mind that the most likely outcome is it's not going to work, and they should reconcile themselves to that strong possibility. And they should only do it if they feel that they are really compelled to do it.” Source: Computer History Museum, January 2013

Mario Nawfal

107,555 просмотров • 2 лет назад

David Sacks says Anthropic is run by a "religious cult" and is doing the very things it says it fears most, like opening a wet lab while warning of bio risk, and that there's an argument for sending in a federal SWAT team "But I do think that there are potential externalities from having the number one frontier model company run by a religious cult." "So, for example, they are opening a Claude-powered wet lab in the middle of San Francisco. But at the same time, they're warning of bio risk. At the same time, they say that we have to pace the frontier, they're extending the frontier. At the same time that they are saying that there's a risk of superintelligence growing beyond our control, they're programming it to grow beyond our control." "I think there are potentially huge externalities to the way they approach these things. And it's, like, insane that they call these decisions "safety." These are not safe decisions. These are crazy decisions, it seems to me." "This is why I've called this a schizophrenic company, is they appear to be not only hypocritical, but they're doing the things that they say they are most afraid of." "Like, what is going on here? This is bizarre. And I don't know where this all leads. I do think there's an argument for a federal SWAT team to come blasting in there."

David Sacks says Anthropic is run by a "religious cult" and is doing the very things it says it fears most, like opening a wet lab while warning of bio risk, and that there's an argument for sending in a federal SWAT team "But I do think that there are potential externalities from having the number one frontier model company run by a religious cult." "So, for example, they are opening a Claude-powered wet lab in the middle of San Francisco. But at the same time, they're warning of bio risk. At the same time, they say that we have to pace the frontier, they're extending the frontier. At the same time that they are saying that there's a risk of superintelligence growing beyond our control, they're programming it to grow beyond our control." "I think there are potentially huge externalities to the way they approach these things. And it's, like, insane that they call these decisions "safety." These are not safe decisions. These are crazy decisions, it seems to me." "This is why I've called this a schizophrenic company, is they appear to be not only hypocritical, but they're doing the things that they say they are most afraid of." "Like, what is going on here? This is bizarre. And I don't know where this all leads. I do think there's an argument for a federal SWAT team to come blasting in there."

Fireside Alpha

644,785 просмотров • 26 дней назад

Obama on AI: If we are thinking about AI just in terms of how do we cure cancer or get better energy, you can do that without having agentic AI and having it just roaming free in the internet. The reason you are doing that is because you have to market a product that people will pay money for. That’s a misalignment between what our society needs and the commercial imperatives that these companies are facing — not because necessarily they’re trying to do bad things, but because, you know, they’ve got to justify these valuations. So, that’s one more reason why it is really important for us to have a competent government and a serious, bipartisan conversation around this issue, and we have to do it fast.

Obama on AI: If we are thinking about AI just in terms of how do we cure cancer or get better energy, you can do that without having agentic AI and having it just roaming free in the internet. The reason you are doing that is because you have to market a product that people will pay money for. That’s a misalignment between what our society needs and the commercial imperatives that these companies are facing — not because necessarily they’re trying to do bad things, but because, you know, they’ve got to justify these valuations. So, that’s one more reason why it is really important for us to have a competent government and a serious, bipartisan conversation around this issue, and we have to do it fast.

Clash Report

13,639 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🗣️ Mikel Arteta on if he would reconsider the warm-downs: "The temptation is now we don’t want to take that risk, and we’ll do something else, but we were going to do that anyway the next day. "When you play these kind of small-sided games, there is contact, and these things happen. They didn’t happen once last season and we did it 37 times I think, so the fact that it’s there, that people are watching and then they think it raises other doubts. "But now it’s very difficult to do. [The] question was if we had to do this again, the way we planned the seven days that we had in that period with the players that didn’t have enough load, would it have been the case? The answer is yes, and it’s a contact sport and this can happen. "What we can do is [say] “guys, they are so competitive, when we do that, please don’t touch each other too much,” to avoid these kind of things, so that’s it."

🗣️ Mikel Arteta on if he would reconsider the warm-downs: "The temptation is now we don’t want to take that risk, and we’ll do something else, but we were going to do that anyway the next day. "When you play these kind of small-sided games, there is contact, and these things happen. They didn’t happen once last season and we did it 37 times I think, so the fact that it’s there, that people are watching and then they think it raises other doubts. "But now it’s very difficult to do. [The] question was if we had to do this again, the way we planned the seven days that we had in that period with the players that didn’t have enough load, would it have been the case? The answer is yes, and it’s a contact sport and this can happen. "What we can do is [say] “guys, they are so competitive, when we do that, please don’t touch each other too much,” to avoid these kind of things, so that’s it."

Connor Humm

36,690 просмотров • 23 дней назад

Steve Jobs on how to build a great brand After re-joining Apple in 1996, Steve Jobs announced the “Think different” campaign with the following statement: “To me, marketing is about values. This is a very complicated and noisy world. We’re not going to get a chance to get people to remember much about us. No company is. So we have to be really clear on what we want them to know about us.” He cites Nike as one of the greatest jobs of marketing the universe has ever seen: “Remember, Nike sells a commodity—they sell shoes! And yet when you think of Nike, you feel something different than a shoe company. In their ads, they don’t ever talk about the product. They don’t ever tell you about their air soles and why they are better than Reebok’s air soles. What does Nike do in their advertising? They honor great athletes, and they honor great athletics. That’s who they are, that’s what they are about.” Marketing guru Seth Godin also used Nike as an example of great branding in a blog post a few years ago: “If Nike announced that they were opening a hotel, you’d have a pretty good guess about what it would be like. But if Hyatt announced that they were going to start making shoes, you would have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what those shoes would be like. That’s because Nike owns a brand and Hyatt simply owns real estate.” Jobs goes on to explain how the Apple team arrived at the “Think Different” campaign: “Our customers want to know who is Apple and what is it that we stand for. Where do we fit in this world? What we’re about isn’t making boxes for people to get their jobs done—although we do that well. We do that better than almost anybody, in some cases. But Apple is about something more than that. Apple at the core—its core value—is that we believe people with passion can change the world for the better… And that those people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world are the ones who actually do.” He continues: “And so, what we’re going to do in our first brand marketing campaign in several years is to get back to that core value. A lot of things have changed. The market is in a totally different place than it was a decade ago, and Apple is totally different… the products and the distribution strategy and the manufacturing are totally different. And we understand that. But values and core values—those things shouldn’t change. The things that Apple believed in, at its core, are the same things that Apple really stands for today.” Apple’s “Think Different” campaign was designed to honor those people who have changed the world. And as Jobs so eloquently put it: “Some of them are living. Some of them are not. But the ones that aren’t, you’ll know that if they ever used a computer, it would’ve been a Mac. The theme of the campaign is ‘Think Different.’ It’s honoring the people who think different and who move this world forward. And it is what we are about. It touches the soul of this company.” If you’re looking to create a great brand, I’d start out by asking: what are your core values and what does your company honor?

Startup Archive

338,105 просмотров • 2 лет назад

“It says here in the comments that Jews are smarter than us… No. Jews are not smarter than us. They are more racist than us. And that’s the source of their power. That’s why they don’t want us to be racist.” -Blair Cottrell

“It says here in the comments that Jews are smarter than us… No. Jews are not smarter than us. They are more racist than us. And that’s the source of their power. That’s why they don’t want us to be racist.” -Blair Cottrell

Uncommon Sense

279,849 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Leading AI expert Stuart Russell on the most dangerous mistake in AI development: We don't actually know what large language models want. He explains that current models are trained to imitate human beings. And in doing so, they may be absorbing something far more dangerous than bad outputs. They may be absorbing human goals. "We suspect that they absorb humanlike goals such as self-preservation and self-empowerment and pursue those goals on their own account." This is a structural problem baked into how these systems are built, not a fringe concern. Russell puts it plainly: "Not only may the bus of humanity be headed towards a cliff, but the steering wheel is missing and the driver is blindfolded." The danger isn't just that AI might do something harmful. We've built systems that may be developing their own agendas, and we haven't noticed because we're too focused on what they can do rather than what they might want. But Russell doesn't stop at the warning. He points to a different path entirely: AI systems built not to imitate humans, but to serve them. Systems designed with a single purpose of serving the interests of all human beings while remaining genuinely uncertain about what those interests are. That uncertainty is the point, not a weakness. An AI that knows it doesn't fully understand human values will defer, ask, and check. An AI that believes it already does will act alone. "These AI systems could enhance human understanding, widen the horizons of our experience, and unlock possibilities we have yet to imagine." Russell believes that future is within reach, but only if we're honest about the risks and we're serious about the path we choose to take instead.

Leading AI expert Stuart Russell on the most dangerous mistake in AI development: We don't actually know what large language models want. He explains that current models are trained to imitate human beings. And in doing so, they may be absorbing something far more dangerous than bad outputs. They may be absorbing human goals. "We suspect that they absorb humanlike goals such as self-preservation and self-empowerment and pursue those goals on their own account." This is a structural problem baked into how these systems are built, not a fringe concern. Russell puts it plainly: "Not only may the bus of humanity be headed towards a cliff, but the steering wheel is missing and the driver is blindfolded." The danger isn't just that AI might do something harmful. We've built systems that may be developing their own agendas, and we haven't noticed because we're too focused on what they can do rather than what they might want. But Russell doesn't stop at the warning. He points to a different path entirely: AI systems built not to imitate humans, but to serve them. Systems designed with a single purpose of serving the interests of all human beings while remaining genuinely uncertain about what those interests are. That uncertainty is the point, not a weakness. An AI that knows it doesn't fully understand human values will defer, ask, and check. An AI that believes it already does will act alone. "These AI systems could enhance human understanding, widen the horizons of our experience, and unlock possibilities we have yet to imagine." Russell believes that future is within reach, but only if we're honest about the risks and we're serious about the path we choose to take instead.

Big Brain AI

14,975 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Dr. Ruxandra Teslo argues America's biotech problem isn't the science, it's how slowly we learn from humans: "This is going to be more and more of a bottleneck as science advances especially in oncology. It's not just that we don't have enough clinical trials and they are expensive. This has become worse and worse throughout the years." "The article is particularly focused on these phase one clinical trials. These are the trials where you first take a new drug into humans for the first time. The reason we're focusing on those, they are some of the most important trials because that's where you can actually start to learn and do iterative loops of learning in humans." "What you learn from that goes back into the science and you can engineer something better. We can see from China, they're very very good doing their phase one trials fast, that is very much responsible for propelling them ahead, almost ahead of the US in just a decade, despite the fact that their science is not as good." "We have a very good model for how to do them faster and better, which is Australia." Ruxandra Teslo 🧬 Adam Kroetsch IFP

Dr. Ruxandra Teslo argues America's biotech problem isn't the science, it's how slowly we learn from humans: "This is going to be more and more of a bottleneck as science advances especially in oncology. It's not just that we don't have enough clinical trials and they are expensive. This has become worse and worse throughout the years." "The article is particularly focused on these phase one clinical trials. These are the trials where you first take a new drug into humans for the first time. The reason we're focusing on those, they are some of the most important trials because that's where you can actually start to learn and do iterative loops of learning in humans." "What you learn from that goes back into the science and you can engineer something better. We can see from China, they're very very good doing their phase one trials fast, that is very much responsible for propelling them ahead, almost ahead of the US in just a decade, despite the fact that their science is not as good." "We have a very good model for how to do them faster and better, which is Australia." Ruxandra Teslo 🧬 Adam Kroetsch IFP

MTS

16,511 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Ben Thompson says Nvidia has already cut prices, they just show up as backstops and neocloud equity instead of margins "They're actually not maintaining their margins, because who is buying?" "This whole question of circular financing, people talk about Lucent and things like that. This whole deal and Nvidia's providing 25% backstop." "But if you actually ascribe a value to Nvidia's taking equity in the Neoclouds or whatever, they guarantee they're going to buy all their compute to 2030. And why do they do that? So that the entity in question can get a lower cost of capital, so they can buy more GPUs." "But implicit in that, why do they get a lower cost of capital? They get a lower cost of capital because Nvidia assumed risk." "This is my point before. Risk never disappears. It just appears somewhere else. Taking on risk has a price." "Now there is a world where AI takes off, it never stops, and everything is fine, and Nvidia captured all the upside of their risk." "But there's also a world where, say, this Neocloud they backed, a ton of compute comes to market, the hyperscalers have plenty of compute, they don't have enough demand, Nvidia is paying for a computer that no one wants. They just lost a bunch of money." "So if you think about it, there's an expected value of that investment. It's not zero. It's not 100%. It's somewhere in the middle." "But that is a diminution of Nvidia's profitability. If you actually look at their business holistically, what that is is a price cut."

Ben Thompson says Nvidia has already cut prices, they just show up as backstops and neocloud equity instead of margins "They're actually not maintaining their margins, because who is buying?" "This whole question of circular financing, people talk about Lucent and things like that. This whole deal and Nvidia's providing 25% backstop." "But if you actually ascribe a value to Nvidia's taking equity in the Neoclouds or whatever, they guarantee they're going to buy all their compute to 2030. And why do they do that? So that the entity in question can get a lower cost of capital, so they can buy more GPUs." "But implicit in that, why do they get a lower cost of capital? They get a lower cost of capital because Nvidia assumed risk." "This is my point before. Risk never disappears. It just appears somewhere else. Taking on risk has a price." "Now there is a world where AI takes off, it never stops, and everything is fine, and Nvidia captured all the upside of their risk." "But there's also a world where, say, this Neocloud they backed, a ton of compute comes to market, the hyperscalers have plenty of compute, they don't have enough demand, Nvidia is paying for a computer that no one wants. They just lost a bunch of money." "So if you think about it, there's an expected value of that investment. It's not zero. It's not 100%. It's somewhere in the middle." "But that is a diminution of Nvidia's profitability. If you actually look at their business holistically, what that is is a price cut."

Fireside Alpha

56,613 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Mamdani: There are neighborhoods today where you can feel the absence of those who do not feel as if they can leave their homes any longer. And now, if New Yorkers want a leader like the governor that we have, who can look at that cruelty and name it for what it is, then they know that the choice is Governor Hochul. If they want a leader who looks at the cruelty of ICE and sees a playbook of what to deliver at an even greater extent in New York State, then that’s Bruce Blakeman. And I know what choice I would make, and I know that New Yorkers feel the same, and we are all standing here because we believe in the values and ideals that make us so proud to be New Yorkers. And then there are those who are willing to traffic in fearmongering, even if it means trampling upon those very ideals, and we will not stand for that.

Mamdani: There are neighborhoods today where you can feel the absence of those who do not feel as if they can leave their homes any longer. And now, if New Yorkers want a leader like the governor that we have, who can look at that cruelty and name it for what it is, then they know that the choice is Governor Hochul. If they want a leader who looks at the cruelty of ICE and sees a playbook of what to deliver at an even greater extent in New York State, then that’s Bruce Blakeman. And I know what choice I would make, and I know that New Yorkers feel the same, and we are all standing here because we believe in the values and ideals that make us so proud to be New Yorkers. And then there are those who are willing to traffic in fearmongering, even if it means trampling upon those very ideals, and we will not stand for that.

Acyn

98,608 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

LAWRENCE LEPARD: "This is one of the best investment opportunities out there. It actually is the best in my opinion, if you can handle the volatility... having a zero allocation to it is just absolutely nuts." "When you buy into a network that's going to get adopted by everybody, the returns are just insane. My opinion is that Bitcoin is the monetary network of the future." "...And when it is... guess what, these are 5 million a coin or more." "The people that run the government, their major goal is to keep themselves in power and to keep the system running. They don't care about inflation. They say they do, but they don't. And they lie to us about that. And we know that if and when the sharp end of the stick comes for them, they're going to print the money to keep things going."

LAWRENCE LEPARD: "This is one of the best investment opportunities out there. It actually is the best in my opinion, if you can handle the volatility... having a zero allocation to it is just absolutely nuts." "When you buy into a network that's going to get adopted by everybody, the returns are just insane. My opinion is that Bitcoin is the monetary network of the future." "...And when it is... guess what, these are 5 million a coin or more." "The people that run the government, their major goal is to keep themselves in power and to keep the system running. They don't care about inflation. They say they do, but they don't. And they lie to us about that. And we know that if and when the sharp end of the stick comes for them, they're going to print the money to keep things going."

Simply Bitcoin

32,186 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

This is a pertinent clip from Sam Harris on the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The moral difference comes down to understanding the answer to this question: what would each side do if they had the power to do it? TRANSCRIPT: The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them. The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” This is a political document. We are talking about a government that was voted into power by a majority of Palestinians. The discourse in the Muslim world about Jews is utterly shocking. Not only is there widespread Holocaust denial—there’s Holocaust denial that then asserts that we will do it for real if given the chance. The only thing more obnoxious than denying the Holocaust is to say that it should have happened; it didn’t happen, but if we get the chance, we will accomplish it. There are children’s shows in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere that teach five-year-olds about the glories of martyrdom and about the necessity of killing Jews. And this gets to the heart of the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. And this is something I discussed in The End of Faith. To see this moral difference, you have to ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it. What would the Jews do to the Palestinians if they could do anything they wanted? Well, we know the answer to that question, because they can do more or less anything they want. The Israeli army could kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow. So what does that mean? Well, it means that, when they drop a bomb on a beach and kill four Palestinian children, as happened last week, this is almost certainly an accident. They’re not targeting children. They could target as many children as they want. Every time a Palestinian child dies, Israel edges ever closer to becoming an international pariah. So the Israelis take great pains not to kill children and other noncombatants. What do we know of the Palestinians? What would the Palestinians do to the Jews in Israel if the power imbalance were reversed? Well, they have told us what they would do. For some reason, Israel’s critics just don’t want to believe the worst about a group like Hamas, even when it declares the worst of itself. We’ve already had a Holocaust and several other genocides in the 20th century. People are capable of committing genocide. When they tell us they intend to commit genocide, we should listen. There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could. Would every Palestinian support genocide? Of course not. But vast numbers of them—and of Muslims throughout the world—would. Needless to say, the Palestinians in general, not just Hamas, have a history of targeting innocent noncombatants in the most shocking ways possible. They’ve blown themselves up on buses and in restaurants. They’ve massacred teenagers. They’ve murdered Olympic athletes. They now shoot rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas. And again, the charter of their government in Gaza explicitly tells us that they want to annihilate the Jews—not just in Israel but everywhere.

This is a pertinent clip from Sam Harris on the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The moral difference comes down to understanding the answer to this question: what would each side do if they had the power to do it? TRANSCRIPT: The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them. The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” This is a political document. We are talking about a government that was voted into power by a majority of Palestinians. The discourse in the Muslim world about Jews is utterly shocking. Not only is there widespread Holocaust denial—there’s Holocaust denial that then asserts that we will do it for real if given the chance. The only thing more obnoxious than denying the Holocaust is to say that it should have happened; it didn’t happen, but if we get the chance, we will accomplish it. There are children’s shows in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere that teach five-year-olds about the glories of martyrdom and about the necessity of killing Jews. And this gets to the heart of the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. And this is something I discussed in The End of Faith. To see this moral difference, you have to ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it. What would the Jews do to the Palestinians if they could do anything they wanted? Well, we know the answer to that question, because they can do more or less anything they want. The Israeli army could kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow. So what does that mean? Well, it means that, when they drop a bomb on a beach and kill four Palestinian children, as happened last week, this is almost certainly an accident. They’re not targeting children. They could target as many children as they want. Every time a Palestinian child dies, Israel edges ever closer to becoming an international pariah. So the Israelis take great pains not to kill children and other noncombatants. What do we know of the Palestinians? What would the Palestinians do to the Jews in Israel if the power imbalance were reversed? Well, they have told us what they would do. For some reason, Israel’s critics just don’t want to believe the worst about a group like Hamas, even when it declares the worst of itself. We’ve already had a Holocaust and several other genocides in the 20th century. People are capable of committing genocide. When they tell us they intend to commit genocide, we should listen. There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could. Would every Palestinian support genocide? Of course not. But vast numbers of them—and of Muslims throughout the world—would. Needless to say, the Palestinians in general, not just Hamas, have a history of targeting innocent noncombatants in the most shocking ways possible. They’ve blown themselves up on buses and in restaurants. They’ve massacred teenagers. They’ve murdered Olympic athletes. They now shoot rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas. And again, the charter of their government in Gaza explicitly tells us that they want to annihilate the Jews—not just in Israel but everywhere.

Colin Wright

4,195,840 просмотров • 3 лет назад

$I hear so often from the Dommes I work with that they struggle with people online fetichizing them and simply seeing them for how sexy and beautiful they are. They project their fantasies and their desires onto you. That stops immediately once you move the attention from you to them. From 'look at me' to 'I see you'. What does that look like? When you create content, think of them and what this scene or that narrative is evoking. What will they learn from you? What they want is not to passively watch how sexy you are, but for you to train them, to give them instructions, to teach them, to guide them, to be in charge, to command them. This is not being an object but the main subject. The Authority figure. How is your content already doing that. The sexy photos can still be there, they are important to already capture des attention. But what you do with that attention once you have it, is where the power dynamic is established. Positioning yourself as more than a stunning Goddess, but actually a woman who has a voice, opinions, perspective, a philosophy, a way to doing things, teaching them what you like, how you like it, why you like it, already makes them want to be that for you. You hold the attention, you hold the power, so you direct it. And for that, you want them to know you get them and you know what lives within them... that creates the desire for you to be the one exposing it. You instantly build trust. Not because you demanded it, but because you earned it: you showed them you know what you are doing. You have experience, you understand them. They are not told to come see you, they are seduced into it. They desire it. And they will work for it. This will attract better clients (real subs) and instead of you trying to get their attention, they will work to earn yours. If you want to learn more about power dynamics, building a brand as a Pro or the psychology behind BDSM, you can now access all my trainings and classes in one place for a fraction of the cost of The Dominatrix Academy. And you can reinvest the total amount towards the Program. Message me [SECRET] for the details. This offer is not available on my website.$

I hear so often from the Dommes I work with that they struggle with people online fetichizing them and simply seeing them for how sexy and beautiful they are. They project their fantasies and their desires onto you. That stops immediately once you move the attention from you to them. From 'look at me' to 'I see you'. What does that look like? When you create content, think of them and what this scene or that narrative is evoking. What will they learn from you? What they want is not to passively watch how sexy you are, but for you to train them, to give them instructions, to teach them, to guide them, to be in charge, to command them. This is not being an object but the main subject. The Authority figure. How is your content already doing that. The sexy photos can still be there, they are important to already capture des attention. But what you do with that attention once you have it, is where the power dynamic is established. Positioning yourself as more than a stunning Goddess, but actually a woman who has a voice, opinions, perspective, a philosophy, a way to doing things, teaching them what you like, how you like it, why you like it, already makes them want to be that for you. You hold the attention, you hold the power, so you direct it. And for that, you want them to know you get them and you know what lives within them... that creates the desire for you to be the one exposing it. You instantly build trust. Not because you demanded it, but because you earned it: you showed them you know what you are doing. You have experience, you understand them. They are not told to come see you, they are seduced into it. They desire it. And they will work for it. This will attract better clients (real subs) and instead of you trying to get their attention, they will work to earn yours. If you want to learn more about power dynamics, building a brand as a Pro or the psychology behind BDSM, you can now access all my trainings and classes in one place for a fraction of the cost of The Dominatrix Academy. And you can reinvest the total amount towards the Program. Message me [SECRET] for the details. This offer is not available on my website.

Ms. Malissia

17,915 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

"How can they tell me not to wear a condom?" Palantir CEO Alex Karp says the reason AI labs supplement the cost of tokens is to steal your alpha: "The reason tokens are discounted is not so they can grow the market. They're discounted so that they can get access to your IP so that their models get better. And there was functionally no honest conversation about this or disclosure." "Our partners are livid. The kind of safety they're most upset about is what they believe is the theft of their alpha." Via CNBC

"How can they tell me not to wear a condom?" Palantir CEO Alex Karp says the reason AI labs supplement the cost of tokens is to steal your alpha: "The reason tokens are discounted is not so they can grow the market. They're discounted so that they can get access to your IP so that their models get better. And there was functionally no honest conversation about this or disclosure." "Our partners are livid. The kind of safety they're most upset about is what they believe is the theft of their alpha." Via CNBC

Jawwwn

434,086 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

GEN. JACK KEANE: "We should not extend the ceasefire deadline. That gives us the muscle to get them right now... to admit that they're going to give us everything that we need to do to put this to an end once and for all." "And if they don't do that, then the blockade continues and we rearm and we get back into combat operations." "They want to kick the can down the road, in terms of extending the ceasefire, so they can get better terms later on. That's who they are... and even when they agree to terms... we got to recognize these guys are liars and cheats and we've got to stay on top of them."

GEN. JACK KEANE: "We should not extend the ceasefire deadline. That gives us the muscle to get them right now... to admit that they're going to give us everything that we need to do to put this to an end once and for all." "And if they don't do that, then the blockade continues and we rearm and we get back into combat operations." "They want to kick the can down the road, in terms of extending the ceasefire, so they can get better terms later on. That's who they are... and even when they agree to terms... we got to recognize these guys are liars and cheats and we've got to stay on top of them."

Jeff pontz

21,104 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Cliff and I have kids about the same age, and this is the question every parent is facing now - how should we educate our kids when AI can do almost anything ? Cliff: "Increasingly, I'm of the view that we should spend a bunch of time with kids basically separated from these models, teaching them basic skills that we think are important. The more intelligence you have, which would be sorts of education, the better you are at communicating with a model and telling a model what you want. Yes, model can do it, but you need to know it so that you can tell the model what to do. And then on the flip side, some English teacher is like, 'I don't like models because the kids just cheat on their Shakespeare essays.' I'm like, 'You're not being ambitious enough.' If the kids are cheating on a Shakespeare essay, give them something 100 times harder and more ambitious, and have them use models to their fullest extent. Have them bring the work product back and then make sure that they didn’t just give a prompt to the model. Make sure they own it. Ask them why it's like this. Force them to justify it. Those kids need to be good at using them, and they also just need to be taught that they can do anything."

Cliff and I have kids about the same age, and this is the question every parent is facing now - how should we educate our kids when AI can do almost anything ? Cliff: "Increasingly, I'm of the view that we should spend a bunch of time with kids basically separated from these models, teaching them basic skills that we think are important. The more intelligence you have, which would be sorts of education, the better you are at communicating with a model and telling a model what you want. Yes, model can do it, but you need to know it so that you can tell the model what to do. And then on the flip side, some English teacher is like, 'I don't like models because the kids just cheat on their Shakespeare essays.' I'm like, 'You're not being ambitious enough.' If the kids are cheating on a Shakespeare essay, give them something 100 times harder and more ambitious, and have them use models to their fullest extent. Have them bring the work product back and then make sure that they didn’t just give a prompt to the model. Make sure they own it. Ask them why it's like this. Force them to justify it. Those kids need to be good at using them, and they also just need to be taught that they can do anything."

Patrick OShaughnessy

48,407 просмотров • 7 дней назад

Andrew Neil CLASHED with Labour MP Chris Curtis on Newsnight over taxpayer-funded security for Harry and Meghan, and said what most of the country thinks: “I didn’t ask them to come back to Britain, did you? The British people didn’t ask them to come back to Britain. They don’t have to be in Britain. We don’t really know why they are in Britain.” He then set out a straightforward position: “Of course if there is any intelligence that leads to a threat to them, they will be alerted, and then they could get some protection if it was specific. But in general I think they should pay for their own security as anybody else has to.” That is entirely reasonable. The taxpayer should not be forced to fund security for two people who walked away from the Royal Family and the country, insisting they wanted to be private citizens. They got what they asked for, and many were happy to see the back of them. Now they are back and pressing for the security they were previously denied. We have already been through this, and the decision was that they should not receive it. Curtis immediately tried to misrepresent the point: “They can decide where they live. They’re British citizens. They have as much right to be in Britain as you or I do.” Andrew Neil put him right at once: “I didn’t say they had no right. I just said they don’t have a right for us to pay.” Curtis argued that these decisions are not about popularity or status, but purely about risk: “I don’t know if there is a risk, but if there is then obviously the British state has a responsibility to keep them safe and give them the security that they need.” Neil’s reply was simple: “Sure. But if there’s not a risk, then they don’t.” Which is exactly what he said at the start.

Andrew Neil CLASHED with Labour MP Chris Curtis on Newsnight over taxpayer-funded security for Harry and Meghan, and said what most of the country thinks: “I didn’t ask them to come back to Britain, did you? The British people didn’t ask them to come back to Britain. They don’t have to be in Britain. We don’t really know why they are in Britain.” He then set out a straightforward position: “Of course if there is any intelligence that leads to a threat to them, they will be alerted, and then they could get some protection if it was specific. But in general I think they should pay for their own security as anybody else has to.” That is entirely reasonable. The taxpayer should not be forced to fund security for two people who walked away from the Royal Family and the country, insisting they wanted to be private citizens. They got what they asked for, and many were happy to see the back of them. Now they are back and pressing for the security they were previously denied. We have already been through this, and the decision was that they should not receive it. Curtis immediately tried to misrepresent the point: “They can decide where they live. They’re British citizens. They have as much right to be in Britain as you or I do.” Andrew Neil put him right at once: “I didn’t say they had no right. I just said they don’t have a right for us to pay.” Curtis argued that these decisions are not about popularity or status, but purely about risk: “I don’t know if there is a risk, but if there is then obviously the British state has a responsibility to keep them safe and give them the security that they need.” Neil’s reply was simple: “Sure. But if there’s not a risk, then they don’t.” Which is exactly what he said at the start.

J Stewart

127,619 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

The most interesting part for me is where Andrej Karpathy describes why LLMs aren't able to learn like humans. As you would expect, he comes up with a wonderfully evocative phrase to describe RL: “sucking supervision bits through a straw.” A single end reward gets broadcast across every token in a successful trajectory, upweighting even wrong or irrelevant turns that lead to the right answer. > “Humans don't use reinforcement learning, as I've said before. I think they do something different. Reinforcement learning is a lot worse than the average person thinks. Reinforcement learning is terrible. It just so happens that everything that we had before is much worse.” So what do humans do instead? > “The book I’m reading is a set of prompts for me to do synthetic data generation. It's by manipulating that information that you actually gain that knowledge. We have no equivalent of that with LLMs; they don't really do that.” > “I'd love to see during pretraining some kind of a stage where the model thinks through the material and tries to reconcile it with what it already knows. There's no equivalent of any of this. This is all research.” Why can’t we just add this training to LLMs today? > “There are very subtle, hard to understand reasons why it's not trivial. If I just give synthetic generation of the model thinking about a book, you look at it and you're like, 'This looks great. Why can't I train on it?' You could try, but the model will actually get much worse if you continue trying.” > “Say we have a chapter of a book and I ask an LLM to think about it. It will give you something that looks very reasonable. But if I ask it 10 times, you'll notice that all of them are the same.” > “You're not getting the richness and the diversity and the entropy from these models as you would get from humans. How do you get synthetic data generation to work despite the collapse and while maintaining the entropy? It is a research problem.” How do humans get around model collapse? > “These analogies are surprisingly good. Humans collapse during the course of their lives. Children haven't overfit yet. They will say stuff that will shock you. Because they're not yet collapsed. But we [adults] are collapsed. We end up revisiting the same thoughts, we end up saying more and more of the same stuff, the learning rates go down, the collapse continues to get worse, and then everything deteriorates.” In fact, there’s an interesting paper arguing that dreaming evolved to assist generalization, and resist overfitting to daily learning - look up The Overfitted Brain by Erik Hoel. I asked Karpathy: Isn’t it interesting that humans learn best at a part of their lives (childhood) whose actual details they completely forget, adults still learn really well but have terrible memory about the particulars of the things they read or watch, and LLMs can memorize arbitrary details about text that no human could but are currently pretty bad at generalization? > “[Fallible human memory] is a feature, not a bug, because it forces you to only learn the generalizable components. LLMs are distracted by all the memory that they have of the pre-trained documents. That's why when I talk about the cognitive core, I actually want to remove the memory. I'd love to have them have less memory so that they have to look things up and they only maintain the algorithms for thought, and the idea of an experiment, and all this cognitive glue for acting.”

The most interesting part for me is where Andrej Karpathy describes why LLMs aren't able to learn like humans. As you would expect, he comes up with a wonderfully evocative phrase to describe RL: “sucking supervision bits through a straw.” A single end reward gets broadcast across every token in a successful trajectory, upweighting even wrong or irrelevant turns that lead to the right answer. > “Humans don't use reinforcement learning, as I've said before. I think they do something different. Reinforcement learning is a lot worse than the average person thinks. Reinforcement learning is terrible. It just so happens that everything that we had before is much worse.” So what do humans do instead? > “The book I’m reading is a set of prompts for me to do synthetic data generation. It's by manipulating that information that you actually gain that knowledge. We have no equivalent of that with LLMs; they don't really do that.” > “I'd love to see during pretraining some kind of a stage where the model thinks through the material and tries to reconcile it with what it already knows. There's no equivalent of any of this. This is all research.” Why can’t we just add this training to LLMs today? > “There are very subtle, hard to understand reasons why it's not trivial. If I just give synthetic generation of the model thinking about a book, you look at it and you're like, 'This looks great. Why can't I train on it?' You could try, but the model will actually get much worse if you continue trying.” > “Say we have a chapter of a book and I ask an LLM to think about it. It will give you something that looks very reasonable. But if I ask it 10 times, you'll notice that all of them are the same.” > “You're not getting the richness and the diversity and the entropy from these models as you would get from humans. How do you get synthetic data generation to work despite the collapse and while maintaining the entropy? It is a research problem.” How do humans get around model collapse? > “These analogies are surprisingly good. Humans collapse during the course of their lives. Children haven't overfit yet. They will say stuff that will shock you. Because they're not yet collapsed. But we [adults] are collapsed. We end up revisiting the same thoughts, we end up saying more and more of the same stuff, the learning rates go down, the collapse continues to get worse, and then everything deteriorates.” In fact, there’s an interesting paper arguing that dreaming evolved to assist generalization, and resist overfitting to daily learning - look up The Overfitted Brain by Erik Hoel. I asked Karpathy: Isn’t it interesting that humans learn best at a part of their lives (childhood) whose actual details they completely forget, adults still learn really well but have terrible memory about the particulars of the things they read or watch, and LLMs can memorize arbitrary details about text that no human could but are currently pretty bad at generalization? > “[Fallible human memory] is a feature, not a bug, because it forces you to only learn the generalizable components. LLMs are distracted by all the memory that they have of the pre-trained documents. That's why when I talk about the cognitive core, I actually want to remove the memory. I'd love to have them have less memory so that they have to look things up and they only maintain the algorithms for thought, and the idea of an experiment, and all this cognitive glue for acting.”

Dwarkesh Patel

1,053,482 просмотров • 1 год назад