Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Peter Thiel thinks AI is neither worthless nor world-changing but somewhere in the middle. He describes AI as "more than a nothing burger and less than the total transformation of society." His estimate places it roughly equivalent to the internet in the late 90s. The internet added about 1%...

aish_caliperce's profile picture

Aish

4,223 subscribers

15,414 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)

Наука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 8

Фото профиля Mobile Scanner
Mobile Scanner1 год назад

Scan any documents, convert images into text, PDF files, etc. 👍

Фото профиля JinGang金刚(🧠/acc)🦇🔊
JinGang金刚(🧠/acc)🦇🔊1 год назад

Indeed, only when technology aligns with cultural systems can it lead to a qualitative leap in socioeconomic development and well-being.

Фото профиля Technosophie - auto/acc
Technosophie - auto/acc1 год назад

Profound. Culture = collective IQ and is more than sum of individual IA. That make sens.

Фото профиля Atanas Stankov
Atanas Stankov1 год назад

I’m confused. Why would someone who understand these principles gut science funding? There’s a lie in here somewhere and I think it has to do with poor understanding of how institutions/standards emerge from self-organization. Science works via consensus and not imperial degree.

Фото профиля Gilian Roelandts 🇺🇦🇮🇱
Gilian Roelandts 🇺🇦🇮🇱1 год назад

I used to think differently but now I'm more and more, carefully, inclined to agree with Peter Thiel. Especially if he's correct about the internet adding only 1% to GDP. Which seems low.

Фото профиля Garry Tan
Garry Tan1 год назад

We are trying to create thousands of new billionaires over here

Фото профиля will depue
will depue1 год назад

how is it possible that 24 million U.S. adults have a net worth of at least $1 million

Фото профиля Deedy
Deedy1 год назад

There’s a deep malaise in tech right now. —New grads can’t find jobs —BigTech middle managers are trying to justify their existence —Everyone not in AI wants to be in AI —Founders struggling with their startup for years see Roy rewrite the rules —Comp insecurity is at an all time high with the Meta offers (“why am I working so hard?”) Tech, net of AI, is just not as sexy a job it used to be 10yrs ago. Tech, net of AI, is not the sexy job it used to be.

Похожие видео

.David Deutsch on why the people in favor of regulating AI are wrong: “They look at problems and they think they’re insoluble because they haven’t been solved, and therefore they want to prevent the progress that is going to cause the problems. Now, generically, what that will do is it will make the progress happen in the wrong place. It will happen among people who do not obey the regulation, and those people are people who are alienated from the best culture, and they will then become a danger to the best culture. Now, I’m speaking in general terms about progress—progress in computing and so on—but I think this particular thing you’ve mentioned is actually not going to be that much of a danger. AGI (artificial general intelligence) will present a whole load of new problems which will have to be solved, no doubt with the help of AGI. But AI, the kind of thing we have now with ChatGPT and that kind of thing, which is amazingly and increasingly useful and is going to have unpredictable effects on society—most of them good—isn’t anything profound. It’s no different from having a calculator or a slide rule.”
1:41

.David Deutsch on why the people in favor of regulating AI are wrong: “They look at problems and they think they’re insoluble because they haven’t been solved, and therefore they want to prevent the progress that is going to cause the problems. Now, generically, what that will do is it will make the progress happen in the wrong place. It will happen among people who do not obey the regulation, and those people are people who are alienated from the best culture, and they will then become a danger to the best culture. Now, I’m speaking in general terms about progress—progress in computing and so on—but I think this particular thing you’ve mentioned is actually not going to be that much of a danger. AGI (artificial general intelligence) will present a whole load of new problems which will have to be solved, no doubt with the help of AGI. But AI, the kind of thing we have now with ChatGPT and that kind of thing, which is amazingly and increasingly useful and is going to have unpredictable effects on society—most of them good—isn’t anything profound. It’s no different from having a calculator or a slide rule.”

Arjun Khemani

30,132 просмотров • 1 год назад

Geoffrey Hinton says the best-case future is a “symbiosis between people and AI” -- where machines handle the mundane, and humans live more interesting lives. But in the kind of society we have now, he warns, AI won't free most people. It will concentrate power, and discard the rest.
1:56

Geoffrey Hinton says the best-case future is a “symbiosis between people and AI” -- where machines handle the mundane, and humans live more interesting lives. But in the kind of society we have now, he warns, AI won't free most people. It will concentrate power, and discard the rest.

vitrupo

68,324 просмотров • 1 год назад

Sam Altman says the four hour work week isn't coming, even with AI: "Technology for a long time has been promising people that they’re going to work less and have all this leisure. And it has gone in that direction." "But somehow we never get the promise of the four hour workweek at mass scale in society. And I don’t expect AI to change that." "Clearly, society is not working for a lot of people, and more productivity gains that actually accrue to people would be a great thing. And I suspect they will. I suspect that will happen."
0:44

Sam Altman says the four hour work week isn't coming, even with AI: "Technology for a long time has been promising people that they’re going to work less and have all this leisure. And it has gone in that direction." "But somehow we never get the promise of the four hour workweek at mass scale in society. And I don’t expect AI to change that." "Clearly, society is not working for a lot of people, and more productivity gains that actually accrue to people would be a great thing. And I suspect they will. I suspect that will happen."

dnap

195,667 просмотров • 18 дней назад

We can't stop AI from changing the world. But we can change how the value it creates is distributed. Actionist.AI is our AI automation tool that gives back to the people who helped train it. Instead of all the value flowing to Big Tech, we're building a future where the people helping create that value can share in it too. And if you're interested in AI automation but don't know where to start, join our Discord. We'll soon be teaching our community how to build automations for businesses and prepare for the future of AI.
0:32

We can't stop AI from changing the world. But we can change how the value it creates is distributed. Actionist.AI is our AI automation tool that gives back to the people who helped train it. Instead of all the value flowing to Big Tech, we're building a future where the people helping create that value can share in it too. And if you're interested in AI automation but don't know where to start, join our Discord. We'll soon be teaching our community how to build automations for businesses and prepare for the future of AI.

Action Model

30,274 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Marc Andreessen says raw intelligence might be the worst qualification for leadership — and it changes everything about how we should think about AI. "If the leader is more than one standard deviation of IQ away from the followers, it's a real problem." Andreessen points to the US military, one of the earliest and most rigorous adopters of IQ testing, as the source of this insight. They slot people into specialties and leadership roles based on IQ scores. And over the years, they kept seeing the same pattern. A leader who is significantly less intelligent than their people struggles to model how those people think. That part is intuitive. But the reverse turns out to be equally true. "It's actually very hard for very smart people to model the internal thought processes of even moderately smart people." A leader who is two standard deviations above the norm of the organisation they're running also loses theory of mind, that ability to hold an accurate model of what's happening inside someone else's head. The gap is too wide in both directions. Andreessen then takes this to its logical conclusion: "If you had a person or a machine that had a thousand IQ or something like it, its understanding of reality would be so alien to the people or the things that it was managing that it wouldn't even be able to connect in any sort of realistic way." An AI that vastly outthinks every human in the room isn't positioned to lead those humans. It's positioned to be completely incomprehensible to them. Leadership has never really been an intelligence problem. It's a connection problem. And no amount of raw intelligence closes that gap — past a certain point, it only widens it. The world will not be run by the smartest thing in the room for a long time. Maybe ever.
1:27

Marc Andreessen says raw intelligence might be the worst qualification for leadership — and it changes everything about how we should think about AI. "If the leader is more than one standard deviation of IQ away from the followers, it's a real problem." Andreessen points to the US military, one of the earliest and most rigorous adopters of IQ testing, as the source of this insight. They slot people into specialties and leadership roles based on IQ scores. And over the years, they kept seeing the same pattern. A leader who is significantly less intelligent than their people struggles to model how those people think. That part is intuitive. But the reverse turns out to be equally true. "It's actually very hard for very smart people to model the internal thought processes of even moderately smart people." A leader who is two standard deviations above the norm of the organisation they're running also loses theory of mind, that ability to hold an accurate model of what's happening inside someone else's head. The gap is too wide in both directions. Andreessen then takes this to its logical conclusion: "If you had a person or a machine that had a thousand IQ or something like it, its understanding of reality would be so alien to the people or the things that it was managing that it wouldn't even be able to connect in any sort of realistic way." An AI that vastly outthinks every human in the room isn't positioned to lead those humans. It's positioned to be completely incomprehensible to them. Leadership has never really been an intelligence problem. It's a connection problem. And no amount of raw intelligence closes that gap — past a certain point, it only widens it. The world will not be run by the smartest thing in the room for a long time. Maybe ever.

Big Brain AI

366,029 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Ilya Sutskever has a solution for when AI surpasses human intelligence in every domain — and he hates that he believes it. He fears a future where AI handles everything flawlessly, leaving humans with no role to play. "Every person will have an AI that will do their bidding. The AI goes and earns money for the person, advocates for their needs in the political sphere, and the person says 'great, keep it up.'" But as Ilya Sutskever warns: "The person is no longer a participant. And that's a precarious place to be in." Political and social structures have a shelf life, Ilya points out. They function, then decay. As the Buddhists say, change is the only constant. So how do you maintain long-term equilibrium between humans and superintelligent AI? Ilya offers a solution he wishes he didn't believe in: Human-AI integration. "If people become part AI with some kind of Neuralink++, now the AI understands something and we understand it too. You are involved in the situation yourself fully." In Ilya's view, this is the answer to the equilibrium. Surviving isn't the hard part. The hard part is remaining a participant in a world shaped by intelligence beyond our comprehension.
1:31

Ilya Sutskever has a solution for when AI surpasses human intelligence in every domain — and he hates that he believes it. He fears a future where AI handles everything flawlessly, leaving humans with no role to play. "Every person will have an AI that will do their bidding. The AI goes and earns money for the person, advocates for their needs in the political sphere, and the person says 'great, keep it up.'" But as Ilya Sutskever warns: "The person is no longer a participant. And that's a precarious place to be in." Political and social structures have a shelf life, Ilya points out. They function, then decay. As the Buddhists say, change is the only constant. So how do you maintain long-term equilibrium between humans and superintelligent AI? Ilya offers a solution he wishes he didn't believe in: Human-AI integration. "If people become part AI with some kind of Neuralink++, now the AI understands something and we understand it too. You are involved in the situation yourself fully." In Ilya's view, this is the answer to the equilibrium. Surviving isn't the hard part. The hard part is remaining a participant in a world shaped by intelligence beyond our comprehension.

Big Brain AI

35,720 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Alexandr Wang, head of Meta Superintelligence Labs: "A decade ago, the best AI models could recognize cats in YouTube videos. And now we're talking to a digital god." He said it in passing, as a warm-up to his real point. This is the man Meta paid 14.3 billion dollars to get. He started the company at 19. His real point is the part worth stopping on. He says the whole argument about when superintelligence arrives, two years or five, is close to a waste of time. Not because he thinks it is far off. Because he thinks the answer changes nothing. Then this. For the entire history of humanity, the bottleneck on progress was getting a group of smart people together and pointed at one goal. That is what is about to stop being scarce. "The scarce resource isn't going to be intelligence or agency. I really think it's going to be vision and ambition." Read that as the job description it is. When thinking becomes cheap, the only expensive thing left is knowing what to think about. Most people are bracing for a world where they have to be smarter. He is describing a world where being smarter is free, and having a reason is not.
1:34

Alexandr Wang, head of Meta Superintelligence Labs: "A decade ago, the best AI models could recognize cats in YouTube videos. And now we're talking to a digital god." He said it in passing, as a warm-up to his real point. This is the man Meta paid 14.3 billion dollars to get. He started the company at 19. His real point is the part worth stopping on. He says the whole argument about when superintelligence arrives, two years or five, is close to a waste of time. Not because he thinks it is far off. Because he thinks the answer changes nothing. Then this. For the entire history of humanity, the bottleneck on progress was getting a group of smart people together and pointed at one goal. That is what is about to stop being scarce. "The scarce resource isn't going to be intelligence or agency. I really think it's going to be vision and ambition." Read that as the job description it is. When thinking becomes cheap, the only expensive thing left is knowing what to think about. Most people are bracing for a world where they have to be smarter. He is describing a world where being smarter is free, and having a reason is not.

Casper

51,239 просмотров • 11 дней назад

It is extremely hard for most people to accept that they're living through an unprecedented period of change, even when the evidence is clear. When Isaac Newton analysed the society around him, he noticed that there were rapid advances being made all the time. But he couldn't believe it was real progress. Instead he argued that the world must be regularly destroyed and re-created, and his contemporaries were just rediscovering old stuff. This was more plausible to him than the idea that progress might be real!
1:14

It is extremely hard for most people to accept that they're living through an unprecedented period of change, even when the evidence is clear. When Isaac Newton analysed the society around him, he noticed that there were rapid advances being made all the time. But he couldn't believe it was real progress. Instead he argued that the world must be regularly destroyed and re-created, and his contemporaries were just rediscovering old stuff. This was more plausible to him than the idea that progress might be real!

Dwarkesh Patel

145,608 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Jensen Huang: AI will not replace the work of 50% of people, it will do 50% of the work for 100% of people The only question is how far into the future he is making this statement. Whether it is about the near or the distant future. Be that as it may: 50% for 100% of people would be an immense relief and, in the best case scenario, would lead to more leisure time and freedom in all our lives.
0:42

Jensen Huang: AI will not replace the work of 50% of people, it will do 50% of the work for 100% of people The only question is how far into the future he is making this statement. Whether it is about the near or the distant future. Be that as it may: 50% for 100% of people would be an immense relief and, in the best case scenario, would lead to more leisure time and freedom in all our lives.

Chubby♨️

82,202 просмотров • 1 год назад

Ilya Sutskever, co-founder and chief scientist of OpenAI: "Artificial intelligence is nothing but digital brains inside large computers." Sit with how flatly he says it. Not a metaphor, not marketing. The seat of intelligence in a human is a biological brain. The seat of intelligence in AI is an artificial one. Same thing, different substrate. Right now, he admits, it only "understands mostly, sort of." But that gap is temporary. In his words: "the day will come when the digital brains that live inside our computers will become as good and even better than our own biological brains. Computers will become smarter than us." He makes it concrete. Once an AI is built to be a doctor, with every medical paper and billions of hours of clinical experience, always on and almost free, "we will look back at today's health care similarly to how we look at 16th century dentistry." Hinton says it already understands. Ilya says the brain is just built differently. Either way, the argument was never whether it thinks. It was whether we were ready for the answer.
12:20

Ilya Sutskever, co-founder and chief scientist of OpenAI: "Artificial intelligence is nothing but digital brains inside large computers." Sit with how flatly he says it. Not a metaphor, not marketing. The seat of intelligence in a human is a biological brain. The seat of intelligence in AI is an artificial one. Same thing, different substrate. Right now, he admits, it only "understands mostly, sort of." But that gap is temporary. In his words: "the day will come when the digital brains that live inside our computers will become as good and even better than our own biological brains. Computers will become smarter than us." He makes it concrete. Once an AI is built to be a doctor, with every medical paper and billions of hours of clinical experience, always on and almost free, "we will look back at today's health care similarly to how we look at 16th century dentistry." Hinton says it already understands. Ilya says the brain is just built differently. Either way, the argument was never whether it thinks. It was whether we were ready for the answer.

Casper

69,385 просмотров • 25 дней назад

Gov. Spanberger: "In his farewell address, George Washington warned us about the possibility of 'cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men' rising to power. But he also encouraged us, all Americans, to unite in a common cause to move this nation forward. That is our charge once more, and that is what we are seeing across the country. It is deeply American and patriotic to do so, and it is how we ensure that the state of our union remains strong, not just this year, but for the next 250 years as well. Because we, the people, have the power to make change, the power to stand up for what is right, the power to demand more of our nation."
1:00

Gov. Spanberger: "In his farewell address, George Washington warned us about the possibility of 'cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men' rising to power. But he also encouraged us, all Americans, to unite in a common cause to move this nation forward. That is our charge once more, and that is what we are seeing across the country. It is deeply American and patriotic to do so, and it is how we ensure that the state of our union remains strong, not just this year, but for the next 250 years as well. Because we, the people, have the power to make change, the power to stand up for what is right, the power to demand more of our nation."

The Bulwark

56,334 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta: "The average American has fewer than three friends. And the average person has demand for meaningfully more, like 15." He said it flatly, as the setup for his real point: people are going to have relationships with AI. Not use it. Have relationships with it. AI friends, AI therapists, and yes, the other kind too. His logic is hard to argue with, and darker than it sounds. People are lonelier than they want to be. The demand for connection is already there, unmet. So Meta is building AI companions that remember you, talk back in real time, and with their Codec Avatars, "feel like a real person" on an always-on video call. We spent a decade afraid AI would take our jobs. Nobody asked whether it would take our friends. And the unsettling part is, for a lot of people, it might feel better.
2:07

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta: "The average American has fewer than three friends. And the average person has demand for meaningfully more, like 15." He said it flatly, as the setup for his real point: people are going to have relationships with AI. Not use it. Have relationships with it. AI friends, AI therapists, and yes, the other kind too. His logic is hard to argue with, and darker than it sounds. People are lonelier than they want to be. The demand for connection is already there, unmet. So Meta is building AI companions that remember you, talk back in real time, and with their Codec Avatars, "feel like a real person" on an always-on video call. We spent a decade afraid AI would take our jobs. Nobody asked whether it would take our friends. And the unsettling part is, for a lot of people, it might feel better.

Casper

259,408 просмотров • 23 дней назад

Arteta asked if the current team are better than the invincibles: “No, because Invincibles won a lot and they won consistently and they created a history and legacy and we have to do that. “Obviously there is a lot of stats, but in the last two or three years, as well, we had stats and more points and more goals and the history of that, but at the end we have to translate that into major trophies and what we want to do, and probably now what we are doing. “It would have been enough, but now it's not enough, and we have to make it the margins even bigger, and that's what we have to aim for.”
1:01

Arteta asked if the current team are better than the invincibles: “No, because Invincibles won a lot and they won consistently and they created a history and legacy and we have to do that. “Obviously there is a lot of stats, but in the last two or three years, as well, we had stats and more points and more goals and the history of that, but at the end we have to translate that into major trophies and what we want to do, and probably now what we are doing. “It would have been enough, but now it's not enough, and we have to make it the margins even bigger, and that's what we have to aim for.”

Connor Humm

83,193 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Peter Thiel: The US has a lot of problems but we're not declining as fast as the rest of the world. "Demographically people in the US are not having enough children—but we are beating China. China will disappear before the US disappears." "We have too much debt. We have not enough growth in the US economy—but the technological future is being built in the US with computers, internet, and AI." "Maybe it's not enough. Maybe these things are dangerous. But the US is beating not just Russia and Iran—but countries like France. France is not even on AI." "It seems that the US is winning against the whole world." Via 月刊文藝春秋（文藝春秋PLUS）
1:18

Peter Thiel: The US has a lot of problems but we're not declining as fast as the rest of the world. "Demographically people in the US are not having enough children—but we are beating China. China will disappear before the US disappears." "We have too much debt. We have not enough growth in the US economy—but the technological future is being built in the US with computers, internet, and AI." "Maybe it's not enough. Maybe these things are dangerous. But the US is beating not just Russia and Iran—but countries like France. France is not even on AI." "It seems that the US is winning against the whole world." Via 月刊文藝春秋（文藝春秋PLUS）

Jawwwn

461,365 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

🚨ANTHROPIC'S FOUNDER JUST PREDICTED THAT AI WILL DOUBLE HUMAN LIFESPAN TO 150 YEARS.. CURE MOST CANCER.. AND ELIMINATE POVERTY.. ALL WITHIN 10 YEARS.. AND HE'S NOT EVEN THE OPTIMISTIC ONE.. Everyone thinks Dario Amodei is the guy who wants to slow AI down.. The cautious one.. The safety guy.. He just published an essay predicting what happens if AI goes right.. And it reads like science fiction.. Except he's dead serious.. And he has the credentials to back every word.. Here's what he thinks happens in the next 5 to 10 years.. Nearly all infectious disease.. Prevented or cured.. mRNA vaccines already showed us the path.. AI finishes the job.. Most cancer.. Eliminated.. Not just treated.. 95% or greater reduction in both deaths and new cases.. AI designs treatment regimens tailored to the individual genome of each tumor.. Something that's technically possible today but takes enormous human expertise to do.. AI scales it to everyone.. Alzheimer's.. Solved.. He thinks it's exactly the type of problem AI can crack.. Because it requires better measurement tools to isolate what's actually happening in the brain.. Once we understand it.. Prevention will probably be surprisingly simple.. Genetic disease.. Most of it preventable through improved embryo screening.. And curable in living people through safer descendants of CRISPR.. Most mental illness.. Cured.. Depression.. PTSD.. Addiction.. Schizophrenia.. He believes the answer is some combination of biochemistry and neural network-level problems that AI can untangle.. And here's the line that stopped me.. Human lifespan.. Doubled.. To 150 years.. He points out that life expectancy already doubled in the 20th century.. From 40 to 75.. So doubling it again is "on trend".. Drugs already exist that increase maximum lifespan in rats by 25 to 50%.. Some turtles already live 200 years.. We're clearly not at a biological ceiling.. He calls this the "compressed 21st century".. The idea that AI gives us 100 years of biological progress in 5 to 10 years.. But he doesn't stop at health.. He thinks AI could drive 20% annual GDP growth in the developing world.. Bringing sub-Saharan Africa to China's current GDP per capita within a decade.. He thinks AI could eradicate malaria not through treating millions of people individually.. But by releasing modified mosquitoes that block the disease at the source.. One centralized action instead of a million.. He thinks AI could make democracy structurally stronger.. Not through propaganda.. But by giving every citizen an AI that knows every law they're entitled to.. Every benefit they qualify for.. Every right they have.. And helps them actually access it.. He imagines AI that monitors judicial systems for bias.. AI that helps find common ground between opposing political views.. AI that makes government services actually work the way they're supposed to.. And he addresses the question everyone asks.. What happens to meaning when AI can do everything.. His answer.. Most people aren't the best in the world at anything right now.. And it doesn't bother them.. Meaning comes from relationships and connection.. Not economic productivity.. People will still pursue difficult challenges.. Still compete.. Still create.. The fact that an AI could theoretically do it better won't matter any more than it matters that someone somewhere is already better than you at every hobby you have.. But here's what makes this essay different from every other AI optimism piece.. Dario Amodei runs one of the three most powerful AI companies on earth.. He has a PhD in computational neuroscience.. He personally worked on mass spectrometry and neural probes.. He's not a pundit.. He's a scientist who happens to be a CEO.. And the same man who publicly says there's a 25% chance AI causes human extinction.. Is also saying that if we get it right.. We cure nearly every disease.. Double human lifespan.. Eliminate most poverty.. And fundamentally transform what it means to be alive.. Both things are true at the same time.. That's what makes this the most important essay anyone in AI has written this year.. He ends with this.. "I think many will be literally moved to tears by it".. He's talking about watching disease disappear.. Poverty dissolve.. Human potential unlock all at once.. Not in a century.. In a decade.. If we get it right.
1:17

🚨ANTHROPIC'S FOUNDER JUST PREDICTED THAT AI WILL DOUBLE HUMAN LIFESPAN TO 150 YEARS.. CURE MOST CANCER.. AND ELIMINATE POVERTY.. ALL WITHIN 10 YEARS.. AND HE'S NOT EVEN THE OPTIMISTIC ONE.. Everyone thinks Dario Amodei is the guy who wants to slow AI down.. The cautious one.. The safety guy.. He just published an essay predicting what happens if AI goes right.. And it reads like science fiction.. Except he's dead serious.. And he has the credentials to back every word.. Here's what he thinks happens in the next 5 to 10 years.. Nearly all infectious disease.. Prevented or cured.. mRNA vaccines already showed us the path.. AI finishes the job.. Most cancer.. Eliminated.. Not just treated.. 95% or greater reduction in both deaths and new cases.. AI designs treatment regimens tailored to the individual genome of each tumor.. Something that's technically possible today but takes enormous human expertise to do.. AI scales it to everyone.. Alzheimer's.. Solved.. He thinks it's exactly the type of problem AI can crack.. Because it requires better measurement tools to isolate what's actually happening in the brain.. Once we understand it.. Prevention will probably be surprisingly simple.. Genetic disease.. Most of it preventable through improved embryo screening.. And curable in living people through safer descendants of CRISPR.. Most mental illness.. Cured.. Depression.. PTSD.. Addiction.. Schizophrenia.. He believes the answer is some combination of biochemistry and neural network-level problems that AI can untangle.. And here's the line that stopped me.. Human lifespan.. Doubled.. To 150 years.. He points out that life expectancy already doubled in the 20th century.. From 40 to 75.. So doubling it again is "on trend".. Drugs already exist that increase maximum lifespan in rats by 25 to 50%.. Some turtles already live 200 years.. We're clearly not at a biological ceiling.. He calls this the "compressed 21st century".. The idea that AI gives us 100 years of biological progress in 5 to 10 years.. But he doesn't stop at health.. He thinks AI could drive 20% annual GDP growth in the developing world.. Bringing sub-Saharan Africa to China's current GDP per capita within a decade.. He thinks AI could eradicate malaria not through treating millions of people individually.. But by releasing modified mosquitoes that block the disease at the source.. One centralized action instead of a million.. He thinks AI could make democracy structurally stronger.. Not through propaganda.. But by giving every citizen an AI that knows every law they're entitled to.. Every benefit they qualify for.. Every right they have.. And helps them actually access it.. He imagines AI that monitors judicial systems for bias.. AI that helps find common ground between opposing political views.. AI that makes government services actually work the way they're supposed to.. And he addresses the question everyone asks.. What happens to meaning when AI can do everything.. His answer.. Most people aren't the best in the world at anything right now.. And it doesn't bother them.. Meaning comes from relationships and connection.. Not economic productivity.. People will still pursue difficult challenges.. Still compete.. Still create.. The fact that an AI could theoretically do it better won't matter any more than it matters that someone somewhere is already better than you at every hobby you have.. But here's what makes this essay different from every other AI optimism piece.. Dario Amodei runs one of the three most powerful AI companies on earth.. He has a PhD in computational neuroscience.. He personally worked on mass spectrometry and neural probes.. He's not a pundit.. He's a scientist who happens to be a CEO.. And the same man who publicly says there's a 25% chance AI causes human extinction.. Is also saying that if we get it right.. We cure nearly every disease.. Double human lifespan.. Eliminate most poverty.. And fundamentally transform what it means to be alive.. Both things are true at the same time.. That's what makes this the most important essay anyone in AI has written this year.. He ends with this.. "I think many will be literally moved to tears by it".. He's talking about watching disease disappear.. Poverty dissolve.. Human potential unlock all at once.. Not in a century.. In a decade.. If we get it right.

Evan Luthra

476,859 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Peter Thiel: The US has a lot of problems but we're not declining as fast as the rest of the world. "Demographically people in the US are not having enough children—but we are beating China. China will disappear before the US disappears." "We have too much debt. We have not enough growth in the US economy—but the technological future is being built in the US with computers, internet, and AI." "Maybe it's not enough. Maybe these things are dangerous. But the US is beating not just Russia and Iran—but countries like France. France is not even on AI." "It seems that the US is winning against the whole world." Via 月刊文藝春秋（文藝春秋PLUS）
1:18

Peter Thiel: The US has a lot of problems but we're not declining as fast as the rest of the world. "Demographically people in the US are not having enough children—but we are beating China. China will disappear before the US disappears." "We have too much debt. We have not enough growth in the US economy—but the technological future is being built in the US with computers, internet, and AI." "Maybe it's not enough. Maybe these things are dangerous. But the US is beating not just Russia and Iran—but countries like France. France is not even on AI." "It seems that the US is winning against the whole world." Via 月刊文藝春秋（文藝春秋PLUS）

Jawwwn

1,140,936 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

This is the video AI Haters tried to cancel, created by Martin Nebelong, who has just given me permission to republish it. He felt compelled to remove it due to the incredible amount of bullying he was receiving. In his words: "The amount of hate, negativity, and fear was staggering, and I didn't want to defend myself against that." Nothing outrages me more me more than the "cancel culture" and the unfair pressures on creators who are simply using AI tools and showing the world how they can learn these new creative processes. His video is amazing. It shows how Generative AI nowadays is much more than "just writing a prompt". And how it will enable artists and designers to experiment in countless new ways. Remember that it's not that artists/designers hate AI! AI Haters are just a small group of people and they don't speak for all artists. In fact, I know many more artists and designers who already use it daily. But they just don't make noise: they focus on learning and creating. Martin, you, and any other creator using AI, has all my support!
0:50

This is the video AI Haters tried to cancel, created by Martin Nebelong, who has just given me permission to republish it. He felt compelled to remove it due to the incredible amount of bullying he was receiving. In his words: "The amount of hate, negativity, and fear was staggering, and I didn't want to defend myself against that." Nothing outrages me more me more than the "cancel culture" and the unfair pressures on creators who are simply using AI tools and showing the world how they can learn these new creative processes. His video is amazing. It shows how Generative AI nowadays is much more than "just writing a prompt". And how it will enable artists and designers to experiment in countless new ways. Remember that it's not that artists/designers hate AI! AI Haters are just a small group of people and they don't speak for all artists. In fact, I know many more artists and designers who already use it daily. But they just don't make noise: they focus on learning and creating. Martin, you, and any other creator using AI, has all my support!

Javi Lopez ⛩️

4,122,306 просмотров • 2 лет назад

NETFLIX CO-FOUNDER REED HASTINGS: ELON IS THE BRAVEST PERSON ON THE PLANET “Elon Musk is the bravest, most creative person on the planet. What he's done in multiple areas is phenomenal. I am 100% convinced that he is trying to help the world in all of his endeavors. And he's trying to help the world on that one, because he believes in free speech and its power for democracy, and that there's an option. Now, how he goes about it again, you know, is not how I would do it. But I'm deeply respectful, and I'm amazed that people are so nitpicky on him on that. Yeah, sure, the blue check mark. He's making a mess of something or not. But it's like, give the guy a break. He just spent all this money to try to make it much better for democracy and society to have a more open platform, and I am sympathetic to that agenda.” Source: DealBook Summit, November 2022
1:06

NETFLIX CO-FOUNDER REED HASTINGS: ELON IS THE BRAVEST PERSON ON THE PLANET “Elon Musk is the bravest, most creative person on the planet. What he's done in multiple areas is phenomenal. I am 100% convinced that he is trying to help the world in all of his endeavors. And he's trying to help the world on that one, because he believes in free speech and its power for democracy, and that there's an option. Now, how he goes about it again, you know, is not how I would do it. But I'm deeply respectful, and I'm amazed that people are so nitpicky on him on that. Yeah, sure, the blue check mark. He's making a mess of something or not. But it's like, give the guy a break. He just spent all this money to try to make it much better for democracy and society to have a more open platform, and I am sympathetic to that agenda.” Source: DealBook Summit, November 2022

Mario Nawfal

815,328 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Former SpaceX Head of Talent : I think Elon is smarter than Einstein. "One way we explained the SpaceX culture, in order to be honest with people, was this: SpaceX is like special forces. We take on missions that others consider impossible. This will be the hardest thing you ever do in your life. It attracts the kind of personality that wants to be a Navy SEAL, but in engineering. It will be bruising, punishing, and uncomfortable every day. Growth is not comfortable. If you are comfortable, you are probably not growing. To work for Elon is to be comfortable living in a constant state of discomfort. He has 10,000 times more going through his brain than the average person at any given moment. Our ability to think about and analyze a problem is nothing compared to how his brain works. Elon aspires to be the greatest engineer in the history of the world. He has the cognitive horsepower of the geniuses who came before us. But he is not Einstein, is he? I think he is smarter than Einstein."
1:30

Former SpaceX Head of Talent : I think Elon is smarter than Einstein. "One way we explained the SpaceX culture, in order to be honest with people, was this: SpaceX is like special forces. We take on missions that others consider impossible. This will be the hardest thing you ever do in your life. It attracts the kind of personality that wants to be a Navy SEAL, but in engineering. It will be bruising, punishing, and uncomfortable every day. Growth is not comfortable. If you are comfortable, you are probably not growing. To work for Elon is to be comfortable living in a constant state of discomfort. He has 10,000 times more going through his brain than the average person at any given moment. Our ability to think about and analyze a problem is nothing compared to how his brain works. Elon aspires to be the greatest engineer in the history of the world. He has the cognitive horsepower of the geniuses who came before us. But he is not Einstein, is he? I think he is smarter than Einstein."

Doge Tipping

215,044 просмотров • 1 месяц назад