Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

ONE OF THE MINDS BEHIND JAVA GAVE A LECTURE WHERE HE BANNED HIMSELF FROM USING ANY BIG WORD UNTIL HE DEFINED IT FIRST AND IN DOING SO QUIETLY EXPLAINED HOW EVERY GREAT SYSTEM GETS BUILT A talk from Guy Steele -- co-author of the Java spec and a designer...

358,660 views • 3 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

a professor with a dozen tumors in his liver came to the university of virginia the day after chemotherapy and spent 75 minutes explaining how not to waste your own life. randy pausch called it a lecture on time management. he had three to six months of good health left, and three months and twelve days of it were already gone. students would ask whether the program was worth the money. pausch said the right question was a different one: is it worth two years of your life that you are never getting back? a deadline has a date and a person who will notice you missed it. importance has neither a date nor that person. so the urgent goes first in the queue, and then the next urgent thing goes first, even when it is worth nothing. pausch said to work on what is important while it still has no date. that is how the years disappear. hundreds of sensible, well argued hours spent on whatever asked more loudly. why am i doing this? what is my goal? what happens if i don't do it? the best moment, he said, is when you cross something off and find that nobody has come to take you to jail. every unnecessary task you delete hands back a piece of your life. five interruptions can destroy a whole hour. he also kept a time journal and filled it in as the day went. like a financial budget, the journal showed where the time had actually gone. the goal was never to become an uber-worker. it was to work efficiently enough to leave at five and go home to the people he loved. he died eight months later, at 47. he ended the lecture with one sentence: “time is all we have. and we may find one day you have less than you think.” the lecture is free. all 75 minutes are in the video below. what will you change in the next 30 days?

Lima

16,547 views • 1 month ago

Marvin Minsky, MIT professor and father of artificial intelligence: "Anthropic pays engineers $900K to build multi-agent AI systems. The blueprint is 40 years old, from an MIT professor who proved intelligence is just a swarm of dumb specialists." the thread above shows you how to turn one AI into a team of specialized agents, each with its own job and memory, all managed by a boss. brilliant. it is also marvin minsky's 1986 theory of how your own mind works. minsky's whole idea was that intelligence is not one smart thing. it is a society of tiny, mindless agents, each doing a single dumb job, none of them intelligent alone. put enough of them together under a few managers and intelligence emerges. that is not a metaphor for the claude trick. it is the claude trick. so when you spin up specialized sub-agents and delegate, you are not inventing a new hack. you are rebuilding the architecture minsky described forty years ago, the same one your brain has run your entire life. he co-founded the field, taught it at MIT, and left it all in this free lecture. same story i keep telling: the "new" AI trick is usually an old idea in a new wrapper. here is the part the thread skips, and minsky knew it. a society of agents is only as good as how you organize it. one dumb specialist is useless. a thousand, badly managed, is chaos. the edge was never spawning the agents. it is the orchestration, knowing which specialist to call, when, and how to combine their answers. the tool is free. the judgment is the whole game.

Rossst.03

148,991 views • 2 months ago

Eric Schmidt on what he calls "the San Francisco consensus": "There's a group of people that I work with. They're all in San Francisco and they've all basically convinced themselves that in the next two to four year, the average is three years the entire world will change." He's careful to flag the catch in that word "consensus": "It's true that it's a consensus, but it's not necessarily true that the consensus is true." So why do these people believe it? Eric walks through the reasoning. First came language-to-language models. "ChatGPT is the best one, they did a great job," he says, with everyone else catching up. Then came two additions: reasoning, and memory inside these systems. Put those together and you get what he calls the agentic revolution: "The agentic revolution… can be understood as language in, memory and language, language out." To make it concrete, he uses a deliberately mundane example. Say he wants to build a house in California. One agent finds the lot. Another works out the rules. Another designs the building. Another selects the contractor. And, at least in America, another agent sues the contractor when the house doesn't work. The point of such a "stupid example," as he puts it, is exactly that it's ordinary: "I just gave you a workflow example that's true of every business, every government and every group human activity." That's why he thinks the consensus carries weight: "When you understand that the agentic revolution and the reasoning revolution together really changed the way we operate as humans, then you understand why the San Francisco consensus is so powerful." On the reasoning side, he points to models that work a problem forward and backward: "It will blow your mind away, especially when you ask it a question that you have no idea what the question is about and you watch it reason." And he cites the numbers he's seeing: "Google now has a math model that is at the 90 percentile of math graduate students." More broadly, he claims, "we now have systems now that are 90% of all of the graduate school skills. You know, math, physics, and so forth." When something can do that, he argues, "it will happen at a big scale." This is where the consensus reaches its sharpest point: recursive self-improvement. "There's a moment when what is called recursive self-improvement, the system begins to learn on itself, where it goes forward at a rate that is impossible for us to understand. It becomes combinatorial in a way that we as humans do not understand." His verdict on all of it is two-sided: "This is both incredibly exciting and also very worrisome."

High Signal AI

31,085 views • 3 months ago