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。

Palantir CEO Alex Karp explains how to make yourself valuable when LLMs make general knowledge cheap: He starts from the premise that AI has already changed what knowledge is worth. "The thing about the commodity nature of LLM is it commodifies general knowledge." If a model can hand anyone... broad, general information, that information no longer sets you apart. Karp says this matters most for one kind of person: the classically smart generalist. He uses Yale as his example, and he says he picks it because it's strong. "I like to pick on people who are strong. It's a very strong school." He still recommends the top schools: "There's a couple schools you should go to if you get into. Yale's one, Stanford's one. There's some schools you maybe should go to otherwise go to the cheapest school and come to [Palantir] or just come here." His point is that the degree alone doesn't protect you. General intelligence without specific knowledge does not hold up well: "If you are the kind of person that would have gone to Yale would have ear kind of classically high IQ um and you have generalized knowledge but it's not specific you're effed." So how do you become valuable? Karp's answer is to build deep, specific domain knowledge, the kind of practical ability that general knowledge can't stand in for. He gives concrete examples: "How do I actually bend the metal of the hull on a ship?" "How do I actually write a script that allows me to target terrorists..." "How do I put the cement in a factory with such precision that you can build a factory like it was built in Taiwan in America?" He also describes someone with only a high school diploma who can diagnose what's going wrong in a complicated device that would otherwise need a Japanese engineer to fix. Then he names the category plainly: "How do I do anything with deep specific particularly voca what's considered vocational training?" Karp says these are the people who will be rewarded: "Those people are going to make a a lot more money simply because you can turn it any way you want, but at the end of the day, within a relative rapid amount of time, you will get paid downstream of the value."show more

Big Brain AI

17,458 subscribers

114,056 次观看 • 8 天前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治教育科学技术

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

7 条评论

Big Brain AI 的头像

Big Brain AI8 天前

Full video from @axios:

Pushkal Gupta 的头像

Pushkal Gupta8 天前

I think Karp is describing the knowledge version of the Missing Regulariser. LLMs make general knowledge cheap, so knowing more of the same general things becomes less valuable. What becomes valuable is variance: the weird, specific knowledge that comes from actually doing something in the world. Knowing what a ship is becomes cheap. Knowing how to bend its hull is different. If AI makes general knowledge abundant, specific experience becomes the regulariser.

Matt 的头像

Matt8 天前

Keep glorifying these tech nerds and elevating them to the status of superior beings. Well done.

The Lundy Project 的头像

The Lundy Project8 天前

@busines_corner Utter bullshit. Generalised human knowledge and understanding, developed by being human and lived, will become incredibly valuable. Those stuck behind computers will become commoditised by AI.

Burton E. Orion 的头像

Burton E. Orion8 天前

If it can fix his hair, then ASI will have arrived.

Thomas Rocha 的头像

Thomas Rocha8 天前

What does Palantir sell? It turns scattered knowledge into a shared picture so people can make decisions together. Karp’s own business depends on common understanding and discernment. LLMs may make facts cheap. They make the ability to judge and communicate those facts more valuable.

Jeremy King 的头像

Jeremy King8 天前

*it steals knowledge, art, and everything else creative from those who wrote, created, or filmed it

相关视频

.Scott Wu to Joe Lonsdale on why Cognition uses AI in job interviews: "One or two years ago, people had this mentality of 'How do we make sure people aren't using AI while we're interviewing them?' And I think that has totally flipped. Honestly, I think that was wrong... If you're asking the question of like, how do we evaluate people on exactly the thing that AI can already do, that seems kind of the wrong. Our interview process has always been... you can use as much AI as you want to use. We're going to give you a few hours. Just build your whole own product surface. A lot of these are projects that, frankly, is like, if you were trying to do this by hand, you would not be able to get done in a few hours. So you kind of have to use AI for this. But in reality, what we actually want to test is, in addition to how familiar you are with these tools, what we actually want to test is, what do you think is the right thing to build? Or how do you make these product decisions? How do you make these trade-offs? How do you decide or collect information about what you should be doing?"

.Scott Wu to Joe Lonsdale on why Cognition uses AI in job interviews: "One or two years ago, people had this mentality of 'How do we make sure people aren't using AI while we're interviewing them?' And I think that has totally flipped. Honestly, I think that was wrong... If you're asking the question of like, how do we evaluate people on exactly the thing that AI can already do, that seems kind of the wrong. Our interview process has always been... you can use as much AI as you want to use. We're going to give you a few hours. Just build your whole own product surface. A lot of these are projects that, frankly, is like, if you were trying to do this by hand, you would not be able to get done in a few hours. So you kind of have to use AI for this. But in reality, what we actually want to test is, in addition to how familiar you are with these tools, what we actually want to test is, what do you think is the right thing to build? Or how do you make these product decisions? How do you make these trade-offs? How do you decide or collect information about what you should be doing?"

American Optimist

13,182 次观看 • 6 个月前

.Second Lady Usha Vance responds to a student's question about how to be the best Second Lady: "I think they key thing, for anyone who is in this kind of role, is to try to just continue to be yourself. You have to do the best job that you can. And there are some responsibilities that come with it...you don't always choose what you are doing...But the most important thing is to remember the kind of person that you were before it, and the kind of person you want to be. If you can do that all the way through, then you can have a lot of fun — and maybe be helpful. You don't want to just start thinking of yourself as the Second Lady, because then you're probably not that fun a person anymore."

.Second Lady Usha Vance responds to a student's question about how to be the best Second Lady: "I think they key thing, for anyone who is in this kind of role, is to try to just continue to be yourself. You have to do the best job that you can. And there are some responsibilities that come with it...you don't always choose what you are doing...But the most important thing is to remember the kind of person that you were before it, and the kind of person you want to be. If you can do that all the way through, then you can have a lot of fun — and maybe be helpful. You don't want to just start thinking of yourself as the Second Lady, because then you're probably not that fun a person anymore."

Mary Margaret Olohan

1,111,670 次观看 • 1 年前

Google co-founder Larry Page on why aiming bigger is often easier than playing it safe: He shares a philosophy he picked up early on that shaped how he thinks about ambition and goal-setting: "I went to a leadership seminar once in Michigan where I came from and they have this great slogan which is have a healthy disregard for the impossible." He explains what that actually means in practice: "You should set really stretched goals that you're not sure you can achieve but are sort of reasonable. You don't want completely outlandish goals." Then he shares the counterintuitive insight that took him by surprise when he was building Google: "One thing that I didn't quite realize when I was starting Google is that it's often easier to have aggressive goals." Most people assume the opposite. They pick smaller, safer targets because they seem more attainable. But Larry argues that approach actually works against you: "A lot of times people pick very specific things they want to do because they think they'll be easier to attain. And what happens if you're being more specific, smaller markets, that kind of thing, you also get less resources." The real question isn't how much you need to get started. It's whether your idea holds up: "The question is, can you make a really good case for what you're doing? Does it make sense? Do you have a really big advantage?" He gives a concrete example: "If you're building robots that are 10 times less complicated than your competitors, that's probably a good business, right? And maybe it takes a lot of money to get started up, maybe it's easier than doing something simpler." Larry's closing point reframes the entire premise: "It's okay to solve a hard problem. That's why you get paid if you're a company."

Google co-founder Larry Page on why aiming bigger is often easier than playing it safe: He shares a philosophy he picked up early on that shaped how he thinks about ambition and goal-setting: "I went to a leadership seminar once in Michigan where I came from and they have this great slogan which is have a healthy disregard for the impossible." He explains what that actually means in practice: "You should set really stretched goals that you're not sure you can achieve but are sort of reasonable. You don't want completely outlandish goals." Then he shares the counterintuitive insight that took him by surprise when he was building Google: "One thing that I didn't quite realize when I was starting Google is that it's often easier to have aggressive goals." Most people assume the opposite. They pick smaller, safer targets because they seem more attainable. But Larry argues that approach actually works against you: "A lot of times people pick very specific things they want to do because they think they'll be easier to attain. And what happens if you're being more specific, smaller markets, that kind of thing, you also get less resources." The real question isn't how much you need to get started. It's whether your idea holds up: "The question is, can you make a really good case for what you're doing? Does it make sense? Do you have a really big advantage?" He gives a concrete example: "If you're building robots that are 10 times less complicated than your competitors, that's probably a good business, right? And maybe it takes a lot of money to get started up, maybe it's easier than doing something simpler." Larry's closing point reframes the entire premise: "It's okay to solve a hard problem. That's why you get paid if you're a company."

Big Brain Business

11,961 次观看 • 4 个月前

Palantir CEO Alex Karp says people think we’re in an AI bubble because a lot of AI just doesn’t work: “If you just buy LLMs off the shelf and try to do any of this, it won’t work.” “It’s not precise enough. You can’t do underwriting. You can’t do these things that are regulated.” “People have tried things that just can never work. You buy a LLM, put it on your stack, and wonder why it’s not working.” “What you’re going to see, especially in America, is people trying to do something like Ontology by hand.” “Once you build a software layer to orchestrate and manage the LLMs in a language your enterprise understands, you actually can create value.” “There’s a lot of discussion on if we’re in an AI bubble. What is the meaning of this bubble? If anything, we’re just in a lag. There’s a lot of AI, some of it works.” “Go back to the battlefield context: everybody in the world assumed this would not work. But now it does work. Now the question is, ‘How can I get it to work for my country?’” “Palantir barely has a sales force. In fact, it seems to be getting smaller and smaller every time I go see them.”

Palantir CEO Alex Karp says people think we’re in an AI bubble because a lot of AI just doesn’t work: “If you just buy LLMs off the shelf and try to do any of this, it won’t work.” “It’s not precise enough. You can’t do underwriting. You can’t do these things that are regulated.” “People have tried things that just can never work. You buy a LLM, put it on your stack, and wonder why it’s not working.” “What you’re going to see, especially in America, is people trying to do something like Ontology by hand.” “Once you build a software layer to orchestrate and manage the LLMs in a language your enterprise understands, you actually can create value.” “There’s a lot of discussion on if we’re in an AI bubble. What is the meaning of this bubble? If anything, we’re just in a lag. There’s a lot of AI, some of it works.” “Go back to the battlefield context: everybody in the world assumed this would not work. But now it does work. Now the question is, ‘How can I get it to work for my country?’” “Palantir barely has a sales force. In fact, it seems to be getting smaller and smaller every time I go see them.”

Jawwwn

695,900 次观看 • 8 个月前

Jordan Peterson: "If you can't fix your room, you can't fix your life" "Why should you even bother improving yourself? The answer is something like: so you don't suffer anymore stupidly than you have to. And maybe so others don't have to either. It's not some casual self-help doctrine. If you don't organize yourself properly, you'll pay for it. In a big way. And so will the people around you." Peterson continues: "You can say, 'Well, I don't care about that.' But that's actually not true, you do care about it. Because if you're in pain, you will care about it. It's very rare that you can find someone in excruciating pain who would say, 'Well, it would be no better if I was out of this.' Pain brings the idea that it would be better if it didn't exist along with it. It's incontrovertible." On how to start: "Look around for something that bothers you and see if you can fix it. You can do this in a room. Sit in your bedroom and think: 'If I wanted to spend ten minutes making this room better, what would I have to do?' You have to ask yourself that, it's a genuine question. And things will pop out. There's a stack of papers bugging you. Some rubbish behind your computer monitor you haven't attended to for six months. Cables tangled up." He explains why this matters: "If you were coming to see me for psychotherapy, the easiest thing would be to get you to organize your room. You think, is that psychotherapy? It depends on how you conceive the limits of your being. Start where you can start. If something announces itself as in need of repair that you could repair, fix it. Fix a hundred things like that, your life will be a lot different." On fixing what you repeat every day: "People tend to think of their daily routines as trivial. You get up, brush your teeth, have breakfast. Those probably constitute 50% of your life. People think, they're mundane, I don't need to pay attention to them. No, that's exactly wrong. The things you do every day are the most important things you do. Hands down. Just do the arithmetic." On staying within your competence: "Sometimes you don't know how to fix something. Imagine you're walking down the street and there's a guy who's alcoholic and schizophrenic and has been homeless for ten years. That's a problem. It would be good if you could fix it, but you haven't got a clue. You walk around that and go find something you could fix. Just because something announces itself as in need of repair doesn't mean it's you, right then and there, who should repair it. You have to have some humility. You don't walk up to a helicopter that isn't working and just start tinkering away." Peterson shares the key insight: "As soon as you give your mind a genuine aim, it'll reconfigure the world in keeping with that aim. That's actually how you see to begin with. You've all seen the video where you watch basketballs being tossed back and forth, and while you're doing that, a gorilla walks into the middle of the video and you don't see it. If you thought about that experiment for five years, that would be about the right amount of time to spend thinking about it." He explains what it reveals: "What it shows you is that you see what you aim at. If you can get one thing through your head, that would be a good one. You see what you aim at. One inference you might draw from that is: be careful what you aim at. What you aim at determines the way the world manifests itself to you. So if the world is manifesting itself in a very negative way, one thing to ask is: are you aiming at the right thing?"

Jordan Peterson: "If you can't fix your room, you can't fix your life" "Why should you even bother improving yourself? The answer is something like: so you don't suffer anymore stupidly than you have to. And maybe so others don't have to either. It's not some casual self-help doctrine. If you don't organize yourself properly, you'll pay for it. In a big way. And so will the people around you." Peterson continues: "You can say, 'Well, I don't care about that.' But that's actually not true, you do care about it. Because if you're in pain, you will care about it. It's very rare that you can find someone in excruciating pain who would say, 'Well, it would be no better if I was out of this.' Pain brings the idea that it would be better if it didn't exist along with it. It's incontrovertible." On how to start: "Look around for something that bothers you and see if you can fix it. You can do this in a room. Sit in your bedroom and think: 'If I wanted to spend ten minutes making this room better, what would I have to do?' You have to ask yourself that, it's a genuine question. And things will pop out. There's a stack of papers bugging you. Some rubbish behind your computer monitor you haven't attended to for six months. Cables tangled up." He explains why this matters: "If you were coming to see me for psychotherapy, the easiest thing would be to get you to organize your room. You think, is that psychotherapy? It depends on how you conceive the limits of your being. Start where you can start. If something announces itself as in need of repair that you could repair, fix it. Fix a hundred things like that, your life will be a lot different." On fixing what you repeat every day: "People tend to think of their daily routines as trivial. You get up, brush your teeth, have breakfast. Those probably constitute 50% of your life. People think, they're mundane, I don't need to pay attention to them. No, that's exactly wrong. The things you do every day are the most important things you do. Hands down. Just do the arithmetic." On staying within your competence: "Sometimes you don't know how to fix something. Imagine you're walking down the street and there's a guy who's alcoholic and schizophrenic and has been homeless for ten years. That's a problem. It would be good if you could fix it, but you haven't got a clue. You walk around that and go find something you could fix. Just because something announces itself as in need of repair doesn't mean it's you, right then and there, who should repair it. You have to have some humility. You don't walk up to a helicopter that isn't working and just start tinkering away." Peterson shares the key insight: "As soon as you give your mind a genuine aim, it'll reconfigure the world in keeping with that aim. That's actually how you see to begin with. You've all seen the video where you watch basketballs being tossed back and forth, and while you're doing that, a gorilla walks into the middle of the video and you don't see it. If you thought about that experiment for five years, that would be about the right amount of time to spend thinking about it." He explains what it reveals: "What it shows you is that you see what you aim at. If you can get one thing through your head, that would be a good one. You see what you aim at. One inference you might draw from that is: be careful what you aim at. What you aim at determines the way the world manifests itself to you. So if the world is manifesting itself in a very negative way, one thing to ask is: are you aiming at the right thing?"

Jaynit

68,915 次观看 • 5 个月前

HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. to those in a depression: "Instead of asking how you can make yourself happy, ask and pray how you can be useful to someone else today" "You have to renew the spiritual awakening every day, and the way that you do that is being useful to another person. I tell people who are unhappy with their lives, who lost a boyfriend or a girlfriend, who are in a depression, I say (that) one of the best ways to deal with that is to wake up in the morning and instead of saying, 'What can I do to make myself happy? What can I do to make myself more loved? What can I do to get my boyfriend back?' I say, 'When you get up in the morning... you have to ask one question and say one prayer: Please make me useful to another human being today.'" RFK Jr. concluded, saying, "I would encourage you all to think broadly about what our mission is, because... it's not just (about) prevention on the border, that's important. It's not just making sure that every addict when... they're willing to ask for help that there's a rehab ready for them to go to, and that is critically important. But there are bigger issues: How do we restore our families? How do we restore that commitment to community?"

HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. to those in a depression: "Instead of asking how you can make yourself happy, ask and pray how you can be useful to someone else today" "You have to renew the spiritual awakening every day, and the way that you do that is being useful to another person. I tell people who are unhappy with their lives, who lost a boyfriend or a girlfriend, who are in a depression, I say (that) one of the best ways to deal with that is to wake up in the morning and instead of saying, 'What can I do to make myself happy? What can I do to make myself more loved? What can I do to get my boyfriend back?' I say, 'When you get up in the morning... you have to ask one question and say one prayer: Please make me useful to another human being today.'" RFK Jr. concluded, saying, "I would encourage you all to think broadly about what our mission is, because... it's not just (about) prevention on the border, that's important. It's not just making sure that every addict when... they're willing to ask for help that there's a rehab ready for them to go to, and that is critically important. But there are bigger issues: How do we restore our families? How do we restore that commitment to community?"

Christian Movick

126,332 次观看 • 1 年前

Garry Nolan says there are more groups doing what skywatcher is doing right now “we know how to call them” “Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently.” Source -Sol Foundation 🔗 in comments Garry -“The, the information's out there, we, you know, it's already pretty well understood. I mean, look, there's been enough whistleblower types where the information of how to do this has leaked out. You know, we know how to call them. Whether you believe in psionics or not, it seems to be part of the process. So we know how to call them. The question is not can you video them? Skywatcher has already shown that you can video them and there'll be more of that kind of stuff, I think coming in the future, you know, so Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently. So that's citizen science. I mean, I think the answer is you don't wait for the government to do it, for you. Don't wait for daddy or mommy to tell you what's going on. You just do it yourself. Because as long as you're not going out there with, with guns or energy, weapons, trying to pull something down and, you know, get yourself in a bad situation, there's no reason people can't do it themselves and organize. So, you know, that's, that I think is the threat in a way that one needs to use against the governmental authorities who think that they hold all the, all the, all the marbles at this point, they don't anymore because the people who've been in the program, like Jake and others who've, you know, made that statement publicly, have basically made their knowledge and ability public. So do it.”

Garry Nolan says there are more groups doing what skywatcher is doing right now “we know how to call them” “Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently.” Source -Sol Foundation 🔗 in comments Garry -“The, the information's out there, we, you know, it's already pretty well understood. I mean, look, there's been enough whistleblower types where the information of how to do this has leaked out. You know, we know how to call them. Whether you believe in psionics or not, it seems to be part of the process. So we know how to call them. The question is not can you video them? Skywatcher has already shown that you can video them and there'll be more of that kind of stuff, I think coming in the future, you know, so Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently. So that's citizen science. I mean, I think the answer is you don't wait for the government to do it, for you. Don't wait for daddy or mommy to tell you what's going on. You just do it yourself. Because as long as you're not going out there with, with guns or energy, weapons, trying to pull something down and, you know, get yourself in a bad situation, there's no reason people can't do it themselves and organize. So, you know, that's, that I think is the threat in a way that one needs to use against the governmental authorities who think that they hold all the, all the, all the marbles at this point, they don't anymore because the people who've been in the program, like Jake and others who've, you know, made that statement publicly, have basically made their knowledge and ability public. So do it.”

neandrewthal

74,654 次观看 • 1 年前

jihoon answering teumes’ worries at dawn live 👤: I really wanted to receive a psychiatric (treatment) but I don’t have the courage to do it. Should I go? I think I’m going to have a hard time accepting that I am falling apart. 🐶: but I recommend going to the psychiatrist, whether if it’s receiving a psychological counselling or a psychiatric examination, it’s good to receive a treatment for it. Everyone, going to the psychiatrist doesn’t make you weird. If you caught a cold, you go to the internal medicine department, If your joints or bones hurts, you go to the orthopaedics. It’s just a cold that come to the mind. It’s not that going to the psychiatrist makes me a weird person, no it’s not that. It’s just that I’m exhausted for a while, it’s just a hospital. There’s more people going there more than you think, if you go to hospital, the queuing are the longest. Nowadays, it’s the same as the past too but there’s no one who doesn't have a hard time. In this hard world, although there are people who look at the hard times in a good way, & there are also people who don’t look at it in a good way… but since it’s a world where we lived together, there's nothing we can do about it, right? But those kind of, “ah I went to the psychiatrist & I collapsed” I don’t think you have think of that. It’s just, “I am having a hard time these days so I’m just going to get help for it” just think of it as if you caught a cold. I hope you don’t think of this deeply. Of course you can go. If your stomach hurt, you can go to the internal medicine, if your head hurts, you can go to the Otolaryngology. It’s just that your heart is having a hard time for a while. This is not something to be ashamed of, you don’t need to read the air with the people around you for this. Always cheer up, even if you collapse, let's practice the strength that can make you rise again slowly, treasure makers. You can do it, everyone, I know you can do it.

jihoon answering teumes’ worries at dawn live 👤: I really wanted to receive a psychiatric (treatment) but I don’t have the courage to do it. Should I go? I think I’m going to have a hard time accepting that I am falling apart. 🐶: but I recommend going to the psychiatrist, whether if it’s receiving a psychological counselling or a psychiatric examination, it’s good to receive a treatment for it. Everyone, going to the psychiatrist doesn’t make you weird. If you caught a cold, you go to the internal medicine department, If your joints or bones hurts, you go to the orthopaedics. It’s just a cold that come to the mind. It’s not that going to the psychiatrist makes me a weird person, no it’s not that. It’s just that I’m exhausted for a while, it’s just a hospital. There’s more people going there more than you think, if you go to hospital, the queuing are the longest. Nowadays, it’s the same as the past too but there’s no one who doesn't have a hard time. In this hard world, although there are people who look at the hard times in a good way, & there are also people who don’t look at it in a good way… but since it’s a world where we lived together, there's nothing we can do about it, right? But those kind of, “ah I went to the psychiatrist & I collapsed” I don’t think you have think of that. It’s just, “I am having a hard time these days so I’m just going to get help for it” just think of it as if you caught a cold. I hope you don’t think of this deeply. Of course you can go. If your stomach hurt, you can go to the internal medicine, if your head hurts, you can go to the Otolaryngology. It’s just that your heart is having a hard time for a while. This is not something to be ashamed of, you don’t need to read the air with the people around you for this. Always cheer up, even if you collapse, let's practice the strength that can make you rise again slowly, treasure makers. You can do it, everyone, I know you can do it.

ain

376,990 次观看 • 2 年前

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

Deutsch Explains

116,352 次观看 • 1 年前

Naval Ravikant’s checklist for starting a company “The most important thing is there are no formulas. At the end of the day, you have to do what you love, and you have to do it even though people tell you it’ll never work. But that being said, if there was a formula [for starting a company], I would put it something like this.” Naval started seven companies before AngelList and this is the checklist he recommends running through before starting a startup: 1. Pick a great cofounder. This is most important: “You can do a company on your own, but it’s like you can raise a child on your own, but you probably shouldn’t. You need someone who’s going to be there with you.” This has it’s own checklist. Your cofounder should be: a. Very high intelligence (”hopefully they make you feel dumb, or they’re not smart enough”) b. Very high energy (”They should be extremely hardworking. A founder is someone who never has to be motivated. You should not have to be telling them to do their job.”) c. Very high integrity. (”a smart, hardworking crook who’s going to cheat you is the worst kind of person to be paired up with.”) 2. Pick a very large market. “Notice I don’t talk about the idea. I think ideas are almost irrelevant… The more important thing is that you pick a large space that you’re knowledgeable and passionate about. And then you will figure out what the right thing to do within that space is.” You want to be able to say to investors: “This is a space where there’s a huge market. I’m really knowledgeable and passionate about it. Here’s the great person that I have doing it with me. And here’s the minimum viable product that we have built. That will show that we can test in the marketplace… You iterate until you get to product/market fit… And then you go and you raise money from people you trust. And you use that money to scale.”

Naval Ravikant’s checklist for starting a company “The most important thing is there are no formulas. At the end of the day, you have to do what you love, and you have to do it even though people tell you it’ll never work. But that being said, if there was a formula [for starting a company], I would put it something like this.” Naval started seven companies before AngelList and this is the checklist he recommends running through before starting a startup: 1. Pick a great cofounder. This is most important: “You can do a company on your own, but it’s like you can raise a child on your own, but you probably shouldn’t. You need someone who’s going to be there with you.” This has it’s own checklist. Your cofounder should be: a. Very high intelligence (”hopefully they make you feel dumb, or they’re not smart enough”) b. Very high energy (”They should be extremely hardworking. A founder is someone who never has to be motivated. You should not have to be telling them to do their job.”) c. Very high integrity. (”a smart, hardworking crook who’s going to cheat you is the worst kind of person to be paired up with.”) 2. Pick a very large market. “Notice I don’t talk about the idea. I think ideas are almost irrelevant… The more important thing is that you pick a large space that you’re knowledgeable and passionate about. And then you will figure out what the right thing to do within that space is.” You want to be able to say to investors: “This is a space where there’s a huge market. I’m really knowledgeable and passionate about it. Here’s the great person that I have doing it with me. And here’s the minimum viable product that we have built. That will show that we can test in the marketplace… You iterate until you get to product/market fit… And then you go and you raise money from people you trust. And you use that money to scale.”

Startup Archive

36,050 次观看 • 1 年前

Chris Camillo reveals the only way out for a regular person to build generational wealth. If you are a regular person with a regular job, the only crack you have at this is coming to terms with the fact that you can be a great investor. You can just do it on the side and have fun with it. You do not have to work with technicals. You do not need to be a pedigreed Wharton grad. You do not even have to understand finance at all, especially in the day of AI. All you have to do is figure out how to observe the world around you. You just connect the dots of change to companies that are either benefiting or being harmed by the change you see happening. Most of that seeing is simply watching videos on TikTok and reading comments. If that is not a fun way to make money, I do not know what is.

Chris Camillo reveals the only way out for a regular person to build generational wealth. If you are a regular person with a regular job, the only crack you have at this is coming to terms with the fact that you can be a great investor. You can just do it on the side and have fun with it. You do not have to work with technicals. You do not need to be a pedigreed Wharton grad. You do not even have to understand finance at all, especially in the day of AI. All you have to do is figure out how to observe the world around you. You just connect the dots of change to companies that are either benefiting or being harmed by the change you see happening. Most of that seeing is simply watching videos on TikTok and reading comments. If that is not a fun way to make money, I do not know what is.

Umar

116,212 次观看 • 3 个月前

“To the young people, once again, this country expects a lot from you. And when I say the country, I mean you. You are, in fact, waiting for yourselves. You are the future you are looking toward. But it comes back to the process I was talking about, the mindset, the spirit, and everything else I mentioned, education and health. You must have knowledge, and you must have good health. Because if you are not healthy, what use is knowledge? What good is knowing anything if you do not have the health to make use of it? You must have both. And it is entirely possible to have both, if you make the choice to pursue both. It cannot be one without the other. It is like raising a child, or planting a tree. You plant the seed, and as it grows, you continue giving it what it needs in order to thrive. It is the same with people. You need knowledge, and you should do everything possible to acquire it. But not simply to possess it. You must be able to use that knowledge to achieve the goals you have set for yourselves.” President Kagame, Chairman of the RPF | RPF Bureau Politique.

“To the young people, once again, this country expects a lot from you. And when I say the country, I mean you. You are, in fact, waiting for yourselves. You are the future you are looking toward. But it comes back to the process I was talking about, the mindset, the spirit, and everything else I mentioned, education and health. You must have knowledge, and you must have good health. Because if you are not healthy, what use is knowledge? What good is knowing anything if you do not have the health to make use of it? You must have both. And it is entirely possible to have both, if you make the choice to pursue both. It cannot be one without the other. It is like raising a child, or planting a tree. You plant the seed, and as it grows, you continue giving it what it needs in order to thrive. It is the same with people. You need knowledge, and you should do everything possible to acquire it. But not simply to possess it. You must be able to use that knowledge to achieve the goals you have set for yourselves.” President Kagame, Chairman of the RPF | RPF Bureau Politique.

Presidency | Rwanda

35,547 次观看 • 2 个月前

🚨NEW: Joe Rogan: "How crazy is it that Biden deported 1.49 million while letting in 20?" "Like, what do you think they were doing!?" "I know there was also efforts to move people to specific states so that you can get a larger number for the census so you get more congressional seats." "This is a dark thing that people don't want to admit because they're a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat." "I had a conversation with my parents about it and they're like, 'No!' I'm like, 'Yes! It's about congressional seats. It's like, the census counts illegals!'" "And not only that, they're trying to make it so that those people can vote!" "And if you can make it so that those people can vote, then all of the sudden you ship these people to a place, you give them EBT cards, you get them on food stamps, you give them Medicaid money — they have money." "And now, who are you going to vote for? You're going to vote for the people who got you money!" Daily Caller

🚨NEW: Joe Rogan: "How crazy is it that Biden deported 1.49 million while letting in 20?" "Like, what do you think they were doing!?" "I know there was also efforts to move people to specific states so that you can get a larger number for the census so you get more congressional seats." "This is a dark thing that people don't want to admit because they're a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat." "I had a conversation with my parents about it and they're like, 'No!' I'm like, 'Yes! It's about congressional seats. It's like, the census counts illegals!'" "And not only that, they're trying to make it so that those people can vote!" "And if you can make it so that those people can vote, then all of the sudden you ship these people to a place, you give them EBT cards, you get them on food stamps, you give them Medicaid money — they have money." "And now, who are you going to vote for? You're going to vote for the people who got you money!" Daily Caller

Jason Cohen 🇺🇸

259,092 次观看 • 1 年前

"I cannot surround people with things that are underperforming the quality of engineering we want to do." "The most fundamental design error that you can possibly make is create a falseness in a product that make people predictably do the wrong thing. So I make a big deal out of these kind of things. I cannot surround people with things that are underperforming the quality of engineering we want to do. And that's down to the detail of the doors in the office. From the inside perspective, you have to sweat all the details. The way you do anything is how you do everything." —tobi lutke

"I cannot surround people with things that are underperforming the quality of engineering we want to do." "The most fundamental design error that you can possibly make is create a falseness in a product that make people predictably do the wrong thing. So I make a big deal out of these kind of things. I cannot surround people with things that are underperforming the quality of engineering we want to do. And that's down to the detail of the doors in the office. From the inside perspective, you have to sweat all the details. The way you do anything is how you do everything." —tobi lutke

David Senra

78,527 次观看 • 8 个月前

CJ Carr says that if you play great at Notre Dame you're going to be paid — a lot. "It's a different place, you have to be a different kind of person to go to ND. The more you perform the more you're gonna get paid." He mentions how much you can be paid in South Bend 3x 👀

CJ Carr says that if you play great at Notre Dame you're going to be paid — a lot. "It's a different place, you have to be a different kind of person to go to ND. The more you perform the more you're gonna get paid." He mentions how much you can be paid in South Bend 3x 👀

CathVSConf☘️

43,689 次观看 • 5 个月前

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

Deutsch Explains

143,949 次观看 • 2 年前

Naval Ravikant: "The only true test of intelligence is if you get what you want out of life" "There are two parts to that. One is getting what you want, so you know how to get it. The second is wanting the right things, knowing what to want in the first place. I could want to be a 6'8" basketball player and I'm not going to get that. That's wanting something you can't get. But there's also wanting something that's a booby prize, prizes that are just not worth having, or that create their own problems." Naval explains how people end up in places they never meant to be: "If you're not careful, you can end up in a place in life not only that you don't want to be, but one you didn't even mean to get to. Usually people end up there because they're going on autopilot with societal expectations. Or out of guilt. Or out of mimetic desire, our desires are picked up from other people. Go to law school, go to med school, go to business school. Or it might be what your parents expect. Guilt is just society's voice speaking in your head so you'll be a good little monkey." He shares a problem most people have: "We run on these four-year cycles. You join a startup, you vest over four years. College is four years. High school is four years. You go to law school, that's a 5-year cycle. You become a lawyer, that's a 40-year cycle. These are very long cycles. But the amount of time we spend deciding what to do and who to do it with? Very short. We spend one month deciding on a job where we're going to be for 10 years." Naval's rule: "If you're making a four-year decision, spend a year thinking it through. Really thinking it through. 25% of the time." He explains the Secretary Theorem: "It turns out the optimal time to search is about a third. By a third of the way through, you've seen enough to know what the bar is. Then anybody who meets or exceeds that bar is good enough. But here's the key: it's not time-based. It's iteration-based. You need to take opportunities quickly and bail out quickly. If you look at failed relationships, the biggest regret is usually staying after you knew it was over." Naval reframes the 10,000 hour rule: "Malcolm Gladwell popularized 10,000 hours to mastery. I'd say it's actually 10,000 iterations to mastery. Iteration is not repetition. Repetition is doing the same thing over and over. Iteration is modifying it with learning and doing another version. That's error correction. If you get 10,000 error corrections in anything, you will be an expert." On pessimism vs. optimism: "You want to be skeptical about specific things, every specific opportunity is probably a fail. But you want to be optimistic in the general. Something in here is going to work out. If something fails, it was a learning experience. It was an iteration. As long as you learned something, it's a win. You don't want to jump into the first thing. But once you find the match, you have to be willing to go all in. Move your chips to the center of the table." He concludes: "Most people are stuck in this gray bit. 'I'm half in, but I don't really know.' That doesn't work. It's a barbell strategy, black or white. Explore quickly, cut losses fast. Then when you find the right thing, compound into it."

Naval Ravikant: "The only true test of intelligence is if you get what you want out of life" "There are two parts to that. One is getting what you want, so you know how to get it. The second is wanting the right things, knowing what to want in the first place. I could want to be a 6'8" basketball player and I'm not going to get that. That's wanting something you can't get. But there's also wanting something that's a booby prize, prizes that are just not worth having, or that create their own problems." Naval explains how people end up in places they never meant to be: "If you're not careful, you can end up in a place in life not only that you don't want to be, but one you didn't even mean to get to. Usually people end up there because they're going on autopilot with societal expectations. Or out of guilt. Or out of mimetic desire, our desires are picked up from other people. Go to law school, go to med school, go to business school. Or it might be what your parents expect. Guilt is just society's voice speaking in your head so you'll be a good little monkey." He shares a problem most people have: "We run on these four-year cycles. You join a startup, you vest over four years. College is four years. High school is four years. You go to law school, that's a 5-year cycle. You become a lawyer, that's a 40-year cycle. These are very long cycles. But the amount of time we spend deciding what to do and who to do it with? Very short. We spend one month deciding on a job where we're going to be for 10 years." Naval's rule: "If you're making a four-year decision, spend a year thinking it through. Really thinking it through. 25% of the time." He explains the Secretary Theorem: "It turns out the optimal time to search is about a third. By a third of the way through, you've seen enough to know what the bar is. Then anybody who meets or exceeds that bar is good enough. But here's the key: it's not time-based. It's iteration-based. You need to take opportunities quickly and bail out quickly. If you look at failed relationships, the biggest regret is usually staying after you knew it was over." Naval reframes the 10,000 hour rule: "Malcolm Gladwell popularized 10,000 hours to mastery. I'd say it's actually 10,000 iterations to mastery. Iteration is not repetition. Repetition is doing the same thing over and over. Iteration is modifying it with learning and doing another version. That's error correction. If you get 10,000 error corrections in anything, you will be an expert." On pessimism vs. optimism: "You want to be skeptical about specific things, every specific opportunity is probably a fail. But you want to be optimistic in the general. Something in here is going to work out. If something fails, it was a learning experience. It was an iteration. As long as you learned something, it's a win. You don't want to jump into the first thing. But once you find the match, you have to be willing to go all in. Move your chips to the center of the table." He concludes: "Most people are stuck in this gray bit. 'I'm half in, but I don't really know.' That doesn't work. It's a barbell strategy, black or white. Explore quickly, cut losses fast. Then when you find the right thing, compound into it."

Jaynit

74,537 次观看 • 6 个月前

"Research is the most important thing. ... You got to research who it's going to hurt and why it's going to hurt them, and then you make a decision on how you go about it. You can still go about it and do it in a way that group of people appreciate it. If you can do it in a way the people who it would normally offend, appreciates it then you've done it correctly. I defend comedy over everything." - Ryan Davis

"Research is the most important thing. ... You got to research who it's going to hurt and why it's going to hurt them, and then you make a decision on how you go about it. You can still go about it and do it in a way that group of people appreciate it. If you can do it in a way the people who it would normally offend, appreciates it then you've done it correctly. I defend comedy over everything." - Ryan Davis

Club Shay Shay

88,797 次观看 • 8 个月前

Elon Musk on local AI in Tesla Optimus: “Well, we think we can put a lot of intelligence locally in the robot and it certainly needs to be enough intelligence that if the robot gets disconnected, like if it's a bad cellular signal or there isn't Wi-Fi, you know, Optimus can't just get stuck. It needs to have enough local intelligence that it can still do useful things, even if it loses the connection, kind of like the car. The car does not need any cellular or Wi-Fi connection to be able to drive safely. Now, I guess you can think of like Optimus needs kind of a manager to tell it what to do, broadly speaking, like if otherwise it's going to keep doing the same thing it did before. so you know i think you need kind of a an orchestration ai which uh you know grok would be good for orchestration um and and then for you know for optimist's voice you know having um a low latency intelligent voice ai grok is actually very good for that so if you when I talk to Optimus and have kind of a you know, a Grok level conversation you kind of need to connect to a Grok level AI for that. But I would expect the amount of interaction apart from like the voice stuff and asking complicated questions of the robot that necessarily needs a large AI model to answer the Gronk would probably have about as much interaction with Optimus as a manager would have with the people on their team. “

Elon Musk on local AI in Tesla Optimus: “Well, we think we can put a lot of intelligence locally in the robot and it certainly needs to be enough intelligence that if the robot gets disconnected, like if it's a bad cellular signal or there isn't Wi-Fi, you know, Optimus can't just get stuck. It needs to have enough local intelligence that it can still do useful things, even if it loses the connection, kind of like the car. The car does not need any cellular or Wi-Fi connection to be able to drive safely. Now, I guess you can think of like Optimus needs kind of a manager to tell it what to do, broadly speaking, like if otherwise it's going to keep doing the same thing it did before. so you know i think you need kind of a an orchestration ai which uh you know grok would be good for orchestration um and and then for you know for optimist's voice you know having um a low latency intelligent voice ai grok is actually very good for that so if you when I talk to Optimus and have kind of a you know, a Grok level conversation you kind of need to connect to a Grok level AI for that. But I would expect the amount of interaction apart from like the voice stuff and asking complicated questions of the robot that necessarily needs a large AI model to answer the Gronk would probably have about as much interaction with Optimus as a manager would have with the people on their team. “

Brian Roemmele

26,740 次观看 • 5 个月前