Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Palantir CEO Alex Karp on value creation and avoiding “parasitic software”: “We drive our whole business based on a set of beliefs that are: American superiority.” “If you believe your client is noble—like, I believe our US government clients are not only noble, but they're no more noble than...

sourceryy's profile picture

sourcery

12,116 subscribers

51,464 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & PoliticsScience & TechnologyFinance
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

President Trump had very strong words for Spain today at the NATO Summit. "I think Spain is terrible what they're doing. No, I do. They're the only country that wont pay the full amount, they want to stay at 2%. I think it's terrible. And you know, they're doing very well. The economy is doing very well. And that economy could be blown right out of the water if something bad happened. Are you from Spain? Congratulations. You are the only country that is not paying." "We'll make it up. You know what we're going to do? We're negotiating with Spain on a trade deal and we're going to make them pay twice as much."
1:00

President Trump had very strong words for Spain today at the NATO Summit. "I think Spain is terrible what they're doing. No, I do. They're the only country that wont pay the full amount, they want to stay at 2%. I think it's terrible. And you know, they're doing very well. The economy is doing very well. And that economy could be blown right out of the water if something bad happened. Are you from Spain? Congratulations. You are the only country that is not paying." "We'll make it up. You know what we're going to do? We're negotiating with Spain on a trade deal and we're going to make them pay twice as much."

Thomas Hern

28,721 views • 1 year ago

$PLTR THIS IS WHY ALEX KARP IS ALEX MF KARP. “The typical way you are taught to build a software company is your customer thinks they are getting laid but they’re actually getting f’ed. We used to internally say that Palantir is actually in the mutually pleasuring business.” Couple points of analysis here… 1. He’s right. Completely 1000% correct. Traditional software companies build software they can sell, not software that is meant to provide value, which is why they can never achieve a Rule of 40 well beyond 40 or why so much of their revenue is spent on sales & marketing. Building something that works is much, much harder. 2. One thing I’ve noticed about Karp, which quite frankly was the reason I invested years ago, is his willingness to take risks with his rhetoric. Most CEOs self-censor themselves, are afraid to be charismatic, and keep it very cookie-cutter. In today’s world, AUTHENTICITY is the only thing that works to break through the noise. Karp making a bit of a vulgar joke not only lightened the mood and got peoples’ attention — the joke, as all good jokes, was rooted in truth! The ability to attach effective charisma, charm, and excitement towards delivering that message is what matters. People will say that these types of communication tactics are inconsequential— I’d say Palantir’s multiple disagrees. People invest in someone who can get them to believe in their vision. They also want to invest in someone who says what they believe in…when it comes to politics, how Karp feels about analysts that wrote of the business in 2022, or the software industrial complex — he is going to tell you what he actually feels. People want to invest in someone that genuinely cares about their mission & isn’t going to hide behind their truth when they communicate publicly. In a world of full of grifting, BS, and manipulation…Alex Karp is the authentic CEO that the public markets need which is part of the reason why people care about his company.
0:43

$PLTR THIS IS WHY ALEX KARP IS ALEX MF KARP. “The typical way you are taught to build a software company is your customer thinks they are getting laid but they’re actually getting f’ed. We used to internally say that Palantir is actually in the mutually pleasuring business.” Couple points of analysis here… 1. He’s right. Completely 1000% correct. Traditional software companies build software they can sell, not software that is meant to provide value, which is why they can never achieve a Rule of 40 well beyond 40 or why so much of their revenue is spent on sales & marketing. Building something that works is much, much harder. 2. One thing I’ve noticed about Karp, which quite frankly was the reason I invested years ago, is his willingness to take risks with his rhetoric. Most CEOs self-censor themselves, are afraid to be charismatic, and keep it very cookie-cutter. In today’s world, AUTHENTICITY is the only thing that works to break through the noise. Karp making a bit of a vulgar joke not only lightened the mood and got peoples’ attention — the joke, as all good jokes, was rooted in truth! The ability to attach effective charisma, charm, and excitement towards delivering that message is what matters. People will say that these types of communication tactics are inconsequential— I’d say Palantir’s multiple disagrees. People invest in someone who can get them to believe in their vision. They also want to invest in someone who says what they believe in…when it comes to politics, how Karp feels about analysts that wrote of the business in 2022, or the software industrial complex — he is going to tell you what he actually feels. People want to invest in someone that genuinely cares about their mission & isn’t going to hide behind their truth when they communicate publicly. In a world of full of grifting, BS, and manipulation…Alex Karp is the authentic CEO that the public markets need which is part of the reason why people care about his company.

amit

317,423 views • 1 year ago

"[Anat Shankur Osorio] was on the show & she, I believe, was the one behind the insight that Bernie very much adopted that says: 'Just say it out loud. They are trying to divide us up. They think that you are stupid.' "Imagine if you turned on the TV & there was someone saying: 'they think you're so dumb -- you are so dumb for real -- to think that you're gonna give up your Medicaid because of some immigrants somewhere. They think you're that stupid, are you?' "But the Democrats do seem to believe that the public is that stupid such that they won't even put the argument to them or say openly what the Republicans are doing."
1:58

"[Anat Shankur Osorio] was on the show & she, I believe, was the one behind the insight that Bernie very much adopted that says: 'Just say it out loud. They are trying to divide us up. They think that you are stupid.' "Imagine if you turned on the TV & there was someone saying: 'they think you're so dumb -- you are so dumb for real -- to think that you're gonna give up your Medicaid because of some immigrants somewhere. They think you're that stupid, are you?' "But the Democrats do seem to believe that the public is that stupid such that they won't even put the argument to them or say openly what the Republicans are doing."

Briahna Joy Gray

17,514 views • 9 months ago

[Q]: India says they're not aware that they promised to stop buying Russian oil. [President Trump]: Then they're going to just keep paying a lot of tariffs. No, I spoke with Prime Minister Modi of India and he said he's not going to be doing the Russian oil thing. [Q]: But why would India say that they're not going to do that? [President Trump]: I don't know, but if they want to say that, then they'll just continue to make massive tariffs. And they don't want to do that.
0:37

[Q]: India says they're not aware that they promised to stop buying Russian oil. [President Trump]: Then they're going to just keep paying a lot of tariffs. No, I spoke with Prime Minister Modi of India and he said he's not going to be doing the Russian oil thing. [Q]: But why would India say that they're not going to do that? [President Trump]: I don't know, but if they want to say that, then they'll just continue to make massive tariffs. And they don't want to do that.

Anton Gerashchenko

1,066,105 views • 8 months ago

🚨CFO Blaise Ingoglia says local governments are LYING when they say they will need to cut first responders when property taxes go away! “If you hear a local government official or an elected official say that if they have to cut their budget, that we are going to lose fire and police, you direct them to me, because I will prove to them that they have more than enough money to cut the budget, offer property tax relief, but yet also protect their first responders. And if a local government says that you are going to have longer wait times, we are not going to be able to hire enough police or deputies, what they are basically saying is that the last thing that they are thinking about is law enforcement, if that is the first thing that they are looking to cut. When you build the budget, the first rule of government is to protect its citizens.”
1:23

🚨CFO Blaise Ingoglia says local governments are LYING when they say they will need to cut first responders when property taxes go away! “If you hear a local government official or an elected official say that if they have to cut their budget, that we are going to lose fire and police, you direct them to me, because I will prove to them that they have more than enough money to cut the budget, offer property tax relief, but yet also protect their first responders. And if a local government says that you are going to have longer wait times, we are not going to be able to hire enough police or deputies, what they are basically saying is that the last thing that they are thinking about is law enforcement, if that is the first thing that they are looking to cut. When you build the budget, the first rule of government is to protect its citizens.”

Chris Nelson 🏝️🇺🇸

50,388 views • 5 months ago

$PLTR CEO Alex Karp was asked if Department of Government Efficiency would be BAD for Palantir 😏🇺🇸🔮 “Palantir is very pro DOGE. I am pro DOGE. I believe it’s going to be great for America and I’m supportive of it. READ INTO THAT WHAT YOU WILL. 👀 “We’re very focused on what will make the West superior… even if it were bad for Palantir, I’d be in favor of it. “If you want to reform an institution, what is the first thing you’re gonna do?… you’re going to buy the best software and implement it. Who are you going to buy from? 🔮 Via FOX Business
2:42

$PLTR CEO Alex Karp was asked if Department of Government Efficiency would be BAD for Palantir 😏🇺🇸🔮 “Palantir is very pro DOGE. I am pro DOGE. I believe it’s going to be great for America and I’m supportive of it. READ INTO THAT WHAT YOU WILL. 👀 “We’re very focused on what will make the West superior… even if it were bad for Palantir, I’d be in favor of it. “If you want to reform an institution, what is the first thing you’re gonna do?… you’re going to buy the best software and implement it. Who are you going to buy from? 🔮 Via FOX Business

Jawwwn

59,397 views • 1 year ago

In Trump's world, India has refused Russian oil - You said that Indian Prime Minister Modi told you on the phone that his country would stop buying Russian oil. But in India, they said they know nothing about this. - Well, then they will just have to keep paying high tariffs if they really said that. But I don't believe they said that. I spoke with Modi, and he said he is not going to participate in the 'oil story' with Russia. - But then why does India claim it is not going to do that? - I don't know. But if they want to say that, then they will have to keep paying huge tariffs. And they don't want that. - SK
0:36

In Trump's world, India has refused Russian oil - You said that Indian Prime Minister Modi told you on the phone that his country would stop buying Russian oil. But in India, they said they know nothing about this. - Well, then they will just have to keep paying high tariffs if they really said that. But I don't believe they said that. I spoke with Modi, and he said he is not going to participate in the 'oil story' with Russia. - But then why does India claim it is not going to do that? - I don't know. But if they want to say that, then they will have to keep paying huge tariffs. And they don't want that. - SK

Zlatti71

26,130 views • 8 months ago

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.
0:51

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

15,105 views • 2 months ago

Rich Roll on why waiting to "feel like it" is a trap: "You can't think your way into the mood that you seek or the state of mind that you aspire to inhabit. Action is the only thing that can trigger that change." Rich uses running as the perfect illustration of this principle. Imagine you wake up in the morning and you're supposed to do a run because you're training for a race. You don't feel like it. So what do most of us do? "We all resort to that state where we think, 'Well, I don't want to do it right now. I'll just wait until I feel like doing it and then I'll do it then.'" But here's the problem with that logic: "If you're waiting until you feel like doing something, chances are you're probably never going to get to it." The mood you're hoping will arrive on its own? It's not coming. Not without action first. "To take the action despite how you feel about it is the thing that catalyzes the state change." You don't run because you feel motivated. You feel motivated because you ran. He points to what every runner knows from experience: "When they finish the run, they're always glad that they did it. They don't generally regret it. And then they feel better." Notice the sequence. The good feeling comes after the action, not before it. The state change is the reward for showing up, not the prerequisite. And this isn't just about running. As Rich puts it: "That example is applicable to all areas of life." The workout you're avoiding. The conversation you're delaying. The project you're putting off until you're "in the right headspace." You're waiting for a feeling that only exists on the other side of doing the thing.
0:59

Rich Roll on why waiting to "feel like it" is a trap: "You can't think your way into the mood that you seek or the state of mind that you aspire to inhabit. Action is the only thing that can trigger that change." Rich uses running as the perfect illustration of this principle. Imagine you wake up in the morning and you're supposed to do a run because you're training for a race. You don't feel like it. So what do most of us do? "We all resort to that state where we think, 'Well, I don't want to do it right now. I'll just wait until I feel like doing it and then I'll do it then.'" But here's the problem with that logic: "If you're waiting until you feel like doing something, chances are you're probably never going to get to it." The mood you're hoping will arrive on its own? It's not coming. Not without action first. "To take the action despite how you feel about it is the thing that catalyzes the state change." You don't run because you feel motivated. You feel motivated because you ran. He points to what every runner knows from experience: "When they finish the run, they're always glad that they did it. They don't generally regret it. And then they feel better." Notice the sequence. The good feeling comes after the action, not before it. The state change is the reward for showing up, not the prerequisite. And this isn't just about running. As Rich puts it: "That example is applicable to all areas of life." The workout you're avoiding. The conversation you're delaying. The project you're putting off until you're "in the right headspace." You're waiting for a feeling that only exists on the other side of doing the thing.

Kevin Tanaka

10,256 views • 2 months ago

Donald Trump, "I'm not happy with the European Union, and we're going to win that financial battle" "Absolutely put tariffs on European cars.. They have millions of cars coming in.. And they don't accept our cars.. We make great cars" "They don't have our farm products, we have the greatest farmers in the world" "Things are going to change.. This is not going to be a tough battle" "We'll be doing reciprocal tariffs, whatever they charge us we will charge them" "I don't know why people get upset about that because there's nothing more fair than that"
1:13

Donald Trump, "I'm not happy with the European Union, and we're going to win that financial battle" "Absolutely put tariffs on European cars.. They have millions of cars coming in.. And they don't accept our cars.. We make great cars" "They don't have our farm products, we have the greatest farmers in the world" "Things are going to change.. This is not going to be a tough battle" "We'll be doing reciprocal tariffs, whatever they charge us we will charge them" "I don't know why people get upset about that because there's nothing more fair than that"

Farrukh

2,130,901 views • 1 year ago

What started as a standard White House announcement quickly turned into one of the most revealing Oval Office moments of the year. Trump was there to declare that Washington, D.C. will host the 2027 NFL Draft. But when reporters started firing off questions, the real fireworks began. First up: immigration. A reporter asked Trump about a new program offering undocumented immigrants $1,000 to self-deport. His answer was blunt—and surprisingly layered. “Yeah, we have millions of people that have come into this country illegally through an administration that didn't know what they were doing. They didn't have a clue. And now we find out officially they didn't, because the president was incompetent. But I could have told you that before.” He explained the idea behind the plan: offer people money to leave—and if they take the offer and prove to be hard-working, they might be allowed back in the right way. “But what we thought we'd do is to self-deport where we're going to pay each one a certain amount of money, and we're going to get him a beautiful flight back to where they came from. And they have a period of time.” “And if they make it, we're going to work with them so that maybe someday, with a little work, they can come back in if they're good people, if they're the kind of people that we want in our company, industrious people that could love our country. And if they're not, they won't. But it will give them a path to becoming, you know, to coming back into the country.” He made it clear that there would be no second chances for those who ignore the opportunity. “So we're going to have, self-deportation, where they deport themselves out of our country, and we'll work with them, and we're going to try. And if if we think they're good, they have, you know, the people we want in our country, they're going to come back into our country. We'll give them a little easier route. But if they don't work and if we take them out after the date, then, they're never coming back.”
1:59

What started as a standard White House announcement quickly turned into one of the most revealing Oval Office moments of the year. Trump was there to declare that Washington, D.C. will host the 2027 NFL Draft. But when reporters started firing off questions, the real fireworks began. First up: immigration. A reporter asked Trump about a new program offering undocumented immigrants $1,000 to self-deport. His answer was blunt—and surprisingly layered. “Yeah, we have millions of people that have come into this country illegally through an administration that didn't know what they were doing. They didn't have a clue. And now we find out officially they didn't, because the president was incompetent. But I could have told you that before.” He explained the idea behind the plan: offer people money to leave—and if they take the offer and prove to be hard-working, they might be allowed back in the right way. “But what we thought we'd do is to self-deport where we're going to pay each one a certain amount of money, and we're going to get him a beautiful flight back to where they came from. And they have a period of time.” “And if they make it, we're going to work with them so that maybe someday, with a little work, they can come back in if they're good people, if they're the kind of people that we want in our company, industrious people that could love our country. And if they're not, they won't. But it will give them a path to becoming, you know, to coming back into the country.” He made it clear that there would be no second chances for those who ignore the opportunity. “So we're going to have, self-deportation, where they deport themselves out of our country, and we'll work with them, and we're going to try. And if if we think they're good, they have, you know, the people we want in our country, they're going to come back into our country. We'll give them a little easier route. But if they don't work and if we take them out after the date, then, they're never coming back.”

Vigilant Fox 🦊

351,051 views • 1 year ago

🚨 JUST IN: Gov. Ron DeSantis CONFIRMS property taxes must be abolished in Florida this November because Floridians will not be SLAVES to the government LFG! Needs 60% of the vote, then major relief is here! "Some people just believe that government has first dibs on your property and your income, and it's like, OK, you exist to satisfy government, and then you get the crumbs that are left over?!" "I think it's the other way around!" 🔥 "I think you work hard, you save, you invest, you acquire property, because you're doing what our founding fathers establish this country to do." "You're pursuing happiness, you're realizing your ambitions, and in part of that, if there's taxes to support government that will help you do that, then that's one thing, even though we don't like paying, we understand there's a small need for it." "But ultimately, government is supposed to exist to be able to ensure that that dream is ALIVE."
0:48

🚨 JUST IN: Gov. Ron DeSantis CONFIRMS property taxes must be abolished in Florida this November because Floridians will not be SLAVES to the government LFG! Needs 60% of the vote, then major relief is here! "Some people just believe that government has first dibs on your property and your income, and it's like, OK, you exist to satisfy government, and then you get the crumbs that are left over?!" "I think it's the other way around!" 🔥 "I think you work hard, you save, you invest, you acquire property, because you're doing what our founding fathers establish this country to do." "You're pursuing happiness, you're realizing your ambitions, and in part of that, if there's taxes to support government that will help you do that, then that's one thing, even though we don't like paying, we understand there's a small need for it." "But ultimately, government is supposed to exist to be able to ensure that that dream is ALIVE."

Eric Daugherty

26,296 views • 20 days ago

Box CEO Aaron Levie's defense of software over vibe-coded, n-of-1 internal tools: "If you're Ford, and you're doing your supply chain on an ERP system, you want that to work the exact same way every single time." "The billions of transactions going through that ERP system, you cannot take for granted. So the idea that you're going to go vibe-code that is not possible, or at least not likely." "The other point is: your company has a fixed amount of IT resources. And you have to decide what you're going to spend your time on as an organization." "Do you want to spend time on rebuilding something that the market can supply you, that's seen best practices thousands of times? Or do you want to go and build that out with your n-of-1 experience?" "Or do you want to spend your limited, scarce resources on building software, and building experiences, that will make you more money, and that will actually be used by your customers?" "I think on the margin the average enterprise is going to spend their time and energy on the latter." "I'm 100% bullish on vibe-coding, 100% bullish that we're going to have 100x more software. But that still doesn't cross the threshold where I would want to go build our own CRM system."
1:37

Box CEO Aaron Levie's defense of software over vibe-coded, n-of-1 internal tools: "If you're Ford, and you're doing your supply chain on an ERP system, you want that to work the exact same way every single time." "The billions of transactions going through that ERP system, you cannot take for granted. So the idea that you're going to go vibe-code that is not possible, or at least not likely." "The other point is: your company has a fixed amount of IT resources. And you have to decide what you're going to spend your time on as an organization." "Do you want to spend time on rebuilding something that the market can supply you, that's seen best practices thousands of times? Or do you want to go and build that out with your n-of-1 experience?" "Or do you want to spend your limited, scarce resources on building software, and building experiences, that will make you more money, and that will actually be used by your customers?" "I think on the margin the average enterprise is going to spend their time and energy on the latter." "I'm 100% bullish on vibe-coding, 100% bullish that we're going to have 100x more software. But that still doesn't cross the threshold where I would want to go build our own CRM system."

TBPN

34,529 views • 4 months ago

Box CEO Aaron Levie's defense of software over vibe-coded, n-of-1 internal tools: "If you're Ford, and you're doing your supply chain on an ERP system, you want that to work the exact same way every single time." "The billions of transactions going through that ERP system, you cannot take for granted. So the idea that you're going to go vibe-code that is not possible, or at least not likely." "The other point is: your company has a fixed amount of IT resources. And you have to decide what you're going to spend your time on as an organization." "Do you want to spend time on rebuilding something that the market can supply you, that's seen best practices thousands of times? Or do you want to go and build that out with your n-of-1 experience?" "Or do you want to spend your limited, scarce resources on building software, and building experiences, that will make you more money, and that will actually be used by your customers?" "I think on the margin the average enterprise is going to spend their time and energy on the latter." "I'm 100% bullish on vibe-coding, 100% bullish that we're going to have 100x more software. But that still doesn't cross the threshold where I would want to go build our own CRM system."
1:37

Box CEO Aaron Levie's defense of software over vibe-coded, n-of-1 internal tools: "If you're Ford, and you're doing your supply chain on an ERP system, you want that to work the exact same way every single time." "The billions of transactions going through that ERP system, you cannot take for granted. So the idea that you're going to go vibe-code that is not possible, or at least not likely." "The other point is: your company has a fixed amount of IT resources. And you have to decide what you're going to spend your time on as an organization." "Do you want to spend time on rebuilding something that the market can supply you, that's seen best practices thousands of times? Or do you want to go and build that out with your n-of-1 experience?" "Or do you want to spend your limited, scarce resources on building software, and building experiences, that will make you more money, and that will actually be used by your customers?" "I think on the margin the average enterprise is going to spend their time and energy on the latter." "I'm 100% bullish on vibe-coding, 100% bullish that we're going to have 100x more software. But that still doesn't cross the threshold where I would want to go build our own CRM system."

TBPN

383,762 views • 5 months ago

.Mollie to Republicans dealing with the legacy media — understand your opponent for who they really are: “If you understand that you're not just having a debate with an opponent, but your most hostile and most rabid opponent; if you understand that they are propaganda and then you go into it, I think that's one thing." "If you're just treating them like you still have this 1960s view of what the media are, that's when you're going to get in trouble." A-men.
0:38

.Mollie to Republicans dealing with the legacy media — understand your opponent for who they really are: “If you understand that you're not just having a debate with an opponent, but your most hostile and most rabid opponent; if you understand that they are propaganda and then you go into it, I think that's one thing." "If you're just treating them like you still have this 1960s view of what the media are, that's when you're going to get in trouble." A-men.

Western Lensman

151,393 views • 2 months ago

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: "Am I surprised Democrats are playing politics in the midst of war? No, but they do know better." "I think the American people know that the President and our armed forces are doing what needs to be done." "My hope, my prayer, is as the Vice President and our negotiation team goes to Pakistan, is that they draw that line and say: 'That's what we need you to agree to.' We hold them to that deal in the months and years ahead. We're prepared to strike and strike hard if they break the deal."
1:53

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: "Am I surprised Democrats are playing politics in the midst of war? No, but they do know better." "I think the American people know that the President and our armed forces are doing what needs to be done." "My hope, my prayer, is as the Vice President and our negotiation team goes to Pakistan, is that they draw that line and say: 'That's what we need you to agree to.' We hold them to that deal in the months and years ahead. We're prepared to strike and strike hard if they break the deal."

FOX & Friends

86,226 views • 3 months ago

“You're not entitled to get what you want. I love you. You're entitled to earn what you're willing to go work for. And that's true in our families, in our parenting, in our marriage, in our companies, in society. If we want it, go earn it. If that's positivity, have positivity. I think and I am a positive person. I am jacked. I am excited. Obviously, you can feel my energy through technology here, I hope. Frankly, think positive people just need to get a lot stronger. I really do. I mean, I don't want to call them weak because people hear that differently but it kind of is. Look, if you want that positivity to stick, you’ve got to get tougher. Not sacrifice your love and your care and your empathy, but you got to get tough. And then we have to figure out how to love the people who are cynical because I don't think there's a ton of bad people in the world and I don't think there's a ton of bad people on teams. But I do think there are people who've been burned out. I do think there are people who have been through things in their lives. They've been through things in their company. They're experiencing stuff somewhere else. For whatever reason, they just kind of got run down and cynical and negative, or whatever. Or they're just wired a little different than we are. And I don't to hate on those people. I want to win those people. They don't have to be like me. They don't have to have my energy. But I want those people on my team. I want to love those people. And if eventually they choose that they don't believe in the same things that I believe in, I want to make it really clear and obvious that they don't want to be on this team because we're not about that. You know what I'm saying? I want it to be very easy, obvious, that, ‘Hey I should not be on this team. Because this team is full of very positive people who have great energy and talk to people, not about them.’ And we solve problems. We don't complain. We don't get defensive. We're real. I recognize I'm imperfect and I'm vulnerable to show you that about me. I want to be on that kind of a team. And if there's somebody who doesn’t believe in that stuff, I want to make it really easy for them to say, ‘Look, I don't want to be on this team. I don't wanna live like you guys live. I don't want do what you guys do.’ And then I really hope that that person leaves us and goes and joins our competitor.”
1:58

“You're not entitled to get what you want. I love you. You're entitled to earn what you're willing to go work for. And that's true in our families, in our parenting, in our marriage, in our companies, in society. If we want it, go earn it. If that's positivity, have positivity. I think and I am a positive person. I am jacked. I am excited. Obviously, you can feel my energy through technology here, I hope. Frankly, think positive people just need to get a lot stronger. I really do. I mean, I don't want to call them weak because people hear that differently but it kind of is. Look, if you want that positivity to stick, you’ve got to get tougher. Not sacrifice your love and your care and your empathy, but you got to get tough. And then we have to figure out how to love the people who are cynical because I don't think there's a ton of bad people in the world and I don't think there's a ton of bad people on teams. But I do think there are people who've been burned out. I do think there are people who have been through things in their lives. They've been through things in their company. They're experiencing stuff somewhere else. For whatever reason, they just kind of got run down and cynical and negative, or whatever. Or they're just wired a little different than we are. And I don't to hate on those people. I want to win those people. They don't have to be like me. They don't have to have my energy. But I want those people on my team. I want to love those people. And if eventually they choose that they don't believe in the same things that I believe in, I want to make it really clear and obvious that they don't want to be on this team because we're not about that. You know what I'm saying? I want it to be very easy, obvious, that, ‘Hey I should not be on this team. Because this team is full of very positive people who have great energy and talk to people, not about them.’ And we solve problems. We don't complain. We don't get defensive. We're real. I recognize I'm imperfect and I'm vulnerable to show you that about me. I want to be on that kind of a team. And if there's somebody who doesn’t believe in that stuff, I want to make it really easy for them to say, ‘Look, I don't want to be on this team. I don't wanna live like you guys live. I don't want do what you guys do.’ And then I really hope that that person leaves us and goes and joins our competitor.”

Brian Kight

38,031 views • 1 year ago

.Rob Miles is spitting fire: “People are starting from a prior in which ‘[AIs] are safe until you give me an airtight case for why they're dangerous.’ This framing is exhausting. You explain one of the 10,000 ways that AIs could be dangerous, then they explain why they don't think that specific thing would happen. Then you have to change tack, and then they say, 'your story keeps changing'... "If you're building an AGI, it's like building a Saturn V rocket [but with every human on it]. It's a complex, difficult engineering task, and you're going to try and make it aligned, which means it's going to deliver people to the moon and home again. People ask “why assume they won't just land on the Moon and return home safely?" And I'm like, because you don't know what you're doing! If you try to send people to the moon and you don't know what you're doing, your astronauts will die. [Unlike the telephone, or electricity, where you can assume it’s probably going to work out okay] I contend that ASI is more like the moon rocket. "The moon is small compared with the rest of the sky, so you don't get to the moon by default - you hit some part of the sky that isn't the moon. So, show me the plan by which you predict to specifically hit the moon." And then people say, “how do you predict that [AIs] will want bad things?” There's more bad things than good things! It's not actually a complicated argument... I'm not going to predict specifically where it off into random space your astronauts are going, but you're not going to hit the moon unless you have a really good, technically clear plan for how you do it. And if you ask these people for their plan, they don't have one. What's Yann Lecun’s plan?” "I think that if you're building an enormously powerful technology and you have a lot of uncertainty about what's going to happen, this is bad. Like, this is default unsafe. If you've got something that's going to do enormously influential things in the world, and you don't know what enormously influential things it's going to do, this thing is unsafe until you can convince me that it's safe." HOST: “That’s a good way of thinking about it - with some technologies you can assume that the default will be good or at least neutral, or that the capacity of a person to use this in a very bad way is bounded somehow. There's just only so many people you could electrocute one by one."
5:30

.Rob Miles is spitting fire: “People are starting from a prior in which ‘[AIs] are safe until you give me an airtight case for why they're dangerous.’ This framing is exhausting. You explain one of the 10,000 ways that AIs could be dangerous, then they explain why they don't think that specific thing would happen. Then you have to change tack, and then they say, 'your story keeps changing'... "If you're building an AGI, it's like building a Saturn V rocket [but with every human on it]. It's a complex, difficult engineering task, and you're going to try and make it aligned, which means it's going to deliver people to the moon and home again. People ask “why assume they won't just land on the Moon and return home safely?" And I'm like, because you don't know what you're doing! If you try to send people to the moon and you don't know what you're doing, your astronauts will die. [Unlike the telephone, or electricity, where you can assume it’s probably going to work out okay] I contend that ASI is more like the moon rocket. "The moon is small compared with the rest of the sky, so you don't get to the moon by default - you hit some part of the sky that isn't the moon. So, show me the plan by which you predict to specifically hit the moon." And then people say, “how do you predict that [AIs] will want bad things?” There's more bad things than good things! It's not actually a complicated argument... I'm not going to predict specifically where it off into random space your astronauts are going, but you're not going to hit the moon unless you have a really good, technically clear plan for how you do it. And if you ask these people for their plan, they don't have one. What's Yann Lecun’s plan?” "I think that if you're building an enormously powerful technology and you have a lot of uncertainty about what's going to happen, this is bad. Like, this is default unsafe. If you've got something that's going to do enormously influential things in the world, and you don't know what enormously influential things it's going to do, this thing is unsafe until you can convince me that it's safe." HOST: “That’s a good way of thinking about it - with some technologies you can assume that the default will be good or at least neutral, or that the capacity of a person to use this in a very bad way is bounded somehow. There's just only so many people you could electrocute one by one."

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

77,350 views • 3 years ago

PM Frederiksen: we have to recognize, we have to understand, we have to learn that Russia will not change and they are not interested in peace, unfortunately. Can you imagine? I mean, it's like minus 25 degrees and then you attack the energy system. I mean, it's so crazy that only Russians would do such a thing. But this is how Russia is and it will not change. And I think our problem in Ukraine is still that there are still red lines when it comes to the weapons they can use to win this war. And you cannot win a war with the one hand tied on your back. We need to give them weapons so they can strike into Russia. We have had this discussion for several years. We are still discussing it. I mean, for the last three years on this conference, I have said, why are we not providing them the air defense that they need? And everybody is doing like this. They still lack air defense. You cannot protect a country without air defense. We know exactly what we need to deliver, including, of course, membership of NATO, because if they were a NATO member now, we would be in a completely different situation now. So, we know what to do. But first of all, we have to recognize, we have to understand, we have to learn that Russia will not change and they are not interested in peace, unfortunately.
1:36

PM Frederiksen: we have to recognize, we have to understand, we have to learn that Russia will not change and they are not interested in peace, unfortunately. Can you imagine? I mean, it's like minus 25 degrees and then you attack the energy system. I mean, it's so crazy that only Russians would do such a thing. But this is how Russia is and it will not change. And I think our problem in Ukraine is still that there are still red lines when it comes to the weapons they can use to win this war. And you cannot win a war with the one hand tied on your back. We need to give them weapons so they can strike into Russia. We have had this discussion for several years. We are still discussing it. I mean, for the last three years on this conference, I have said, why are we not providing them the air defense that they need? And everybody is doing like this. They still lack air defense. You cannot protect a country without air defense. We know exactly what we need to deliver, including, of course, membership of NATO, because if they were a NATO member now, we would be in a completely different situation now. So, we know what to do. But first of all, we have to recognize, we have to understand, we have to learn that Russia will not change and they are not interested in peace, unfortunately.

Anton Gerashchenko

105,935 views • 5 months ago

#WATCH | Mumbai, Maharashtra: On the Jevons paradox and software demand expansion, Neelkanth Mishra, Executive Director Designate of the World Bank, says, “…If you think about what the major cost of a software firm is, it is people. So, if the writing of software is getting automated, those firms will be the first to make adjustments. But on the whole, it seems that the Jevons paradox—which dictates that as the cost of writing software falls, the amount of software written goes up—is actually playing out. If an XYZ company, which is a product company, was spending, say, $100 million on writing software and can now do it for $70 million, they might need to lay off some people; that is their business priority. But if the amount of software written goes up three to four times, the number of software engineers in the ecosystem will not change… This panic and paranoia about massive job losses is something that I think is, at this stage, unfounded.”
2:48

#WATCH | Mumbai, Maharashtra: On the Jevons paradox and software demand expansion, Neelkanth Mishra, Executive Director Designate of the World Bank, says, “…If you think about what the major cost of a software firm is, it is people. So, if the writing of software is getting automated, those firms will be the first to make adjustments. But on the whole, it seems that the Jevons paradox—which dictates that as the cost of writing software falls, the amount of software written goes up—is actually playing out. If an XYZ company, which is a product company, was spending, say, $100 million on writing software and can now do it for $70 million, they might need to lay off some people; that is their business priority. But if the amount of software written goes up three to four times, the number of software engineers in the ecosystem will not change… This panic and paranoia about massive job losses is something that I think is, at this stage, unfounded.”

ANI

114,594 views • 12 days ago