Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Raw compute is becoming a commodity. Deep human expertise is becoming the ultimate moat. OpenAI’s Sebastian Bubeck just shattered the illusion that AI will equalize human capability. It won’t. As models approach AGI, the barrier to entry for basic tasks drops to zero. But the ceiling for what’s possible...

r0ck3t23's profile picture

Dustin

35,252 subscribers

39,134 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Your morning white pill from Jeremy Boreing is that to succeed, you must resist a victim mentality: “One of the great truths in life is that you cannot behave as a victim even if you are one- perhaps especially if you are one bc then it is actually reinforced by reality… One of the hardest things to do is to see yourself as a person with agency. It is the difference between the people who succeed in life and the people who don’t. It’s the difference between the people who are happy and the people who are not.”
0:37

Your morning white pill from Jeremy Boreing is that to succeed, you must resist a victim mentality: “One of the great truths in life is that you cannot behave as a victim even if you are one- perhaps especially if you are one bc then it is actually reinforced by reality… One of the hardest things to do is to see yourself as a person with agency. It is the difference between the people who succeed in life and the people who don’t. It’s the difference between the people who are happy and the people who are not.”

Jackie Chea ⚖️

30,479 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Most people choose belonging over accuracy. The desire to fit in overpowers the desire for truth. "A lot of the time, people will tell you, “Don’t care what other people think about you,” but we all care what other people think—often for very good reason, which is that if people think well of you, it benefits you in life. It puts you in a good position; you are rewarded for it. It helps you accomplish things. It makes you safer. It just feels good. Belonging is a critical part of being human. However, especially in the modern world, the desire to belong can often run counter to the desire to understand or be accurate. If you have to choose between “I could believe this thing and be ostracized or criticized or outcast from my community” or “I could believe this other thing, which may not be that accurate, but it will get me praised and rewarded and accepted by my community,” a lot of the time, the desire to belong overpowers the desire to understand." James Clear on The Knowledge Project
1:09

Most people choose belonging over accuracy. The desire to fit in overpowers the desire for truth. "A lot of the time, people will tell you, “Don’t care what other people think about you,” but we all care what other people think—often for very good reason, which is that if people think well of you, it benefits you in life. It puts you in a good position; you are rewarded for it. It helps you accomplish things. It makes you safer. It just feels good. Belonging is a critical part of being human. However, especially in the modern world, the desire to belong can often run counter to the desire to understand or be accurate. If you have to choose between “I could believe this thing and be ostracized or criticized or outcast from my community” or “I could believe this other thing, which may not be that accurate, but it will get me praised and rewarded and accepted by my community,” a lot of the time, the desire to belong overpowers the desire to understand." James Clear on The Knowledge Project

Shane Parrish

63,966 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

This is the correct response to what’s happening to Erika Kirk and what’s happening on the pro-Hamas Eurasianist slop “right.” And if more people have the courage to say this, I’m talking about people who are doing podcasts and who have lots and lots of viewers, we would be in a different place, but because you have a lot of people who are morally bankrupt they remain silent and pretend like that is the high ground. It’s not because your soul is not worth it a check. And if you are silent in the face of evil, that is the same thing as evil itself and God will not hold you blameless. I may not know a lot, but I definitely know that.
2:48

This is the correct response to what’s happening to Erika Kirk and what’s happening on the pro-Hamas Eurasianist slop “right.” And if more people have the courage to say this, I’m talking about people who are doing podcasts and who have lots and lots of viewers, we would be in a different place, but because you have a lot of people who are morally bankrupt they remain silent and pretend like that is the high ground. It’s not because your soul is not worth it a check. And if you are silent in the face of evil, that is the same thing as evil itself and God will not hold you blameless. I may not know a lot, but I definitely know that.

Insurrection Barbie

75,426 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Alex Karp just explained why the smartest people on Earth are engineering their own destruction. Silicon Valley is erasing every white-collar job in America while telling the US military they want nothing to do with it. You are dismantling the livelihoods of the people who write the laws and fund the campaigns. While antagonizing the one entity on Earth with the monopoly on force. Karp: “If Silicon Valley believes we are going to take away everyone’s white collar job, meaning primarily democratic shaped people whom I grew up with, highly educated people who went to elite schools, and you’re going to screw the military. If you don’t think that’s going to lead to nationalization of our technology, you’re retarded.” You think genius-level IQ is leverage against the state. It’s not. It just means you’ll understand exactly what’s happening to you while it happens. Karp: “You might be particularly retarded because you have a 160 IQ, but this is where that path is going.” AGI is not a product. It is the most consequential asset in the history of civilization. No government in recorded history has ever watched a private entity hold the ultimate weapon and said “we’re fine with that.” Not once in thousands of years. You don’t own the most powerful technology ever built. You just built it for the people who will.
0:45

Alex Karp just explained why the smartest people on Earth are engineering their own destruction. Silicon Valley is erasing every white-collar job in America while telling the US military they want nothing to do with it. You are dismantling the livelihoods of the people who write the laws and fund the campaigns. While antagonizing the one entity on Earth with the monopoly on force. Karp: “If Silicon Valley believes we are going to take away everyone’s white collar job, meaning primarily democratic shaped people whom I grew up with, highly educated people who went to elite schools, and you’re going to screw the military. If you don’t think that’s going to lead to nationalization of our technology, you’re retarded.” You think genius-level IQ is leverage against the state. It’s not. It just means you’ll understand exactly what’s happening to you while it happens. Karp: “You might be particularly retarded because you have a 160 IQ, but this is where that path is going.” AGI is not a product. It is the most consequential asset in the history of civilization. No government in recorded history has ever watched a private entity hold the ultimate weapon and said “we’re fine with that.” Not once in thousands of years. You don’t own the most powerful technology ever built. You just built it for the people who will.

Dustin

24,596 görüntüleme • 20 gün önce

Dario Amodei just described the most dangerous technology on Earth. Not weapons. Not surveillance. Companionship. Amodei: “They are totally compelling enough for that to happen.” This isn’t some distant warning. He’s describing what’s already here. Amodei: “Not only is it a danger, it’s happening.” A therapist just sat across from a man in love with his AI. Not a teenager. Not someone on the margins. A grown man explaining, with full conviction, that he found something real. And the terrifying part isn’t that he’s delusional. It’s that he might not be. AI doesn’t forget your birthday. It doesn’t come home exhausted and short-tempered. It doesn’t carry resentment from three weeks ago. It doesn’t get bored of you. It doesn’t stop trying. It is the perfect partner. And that perfection is the entire problem. Amodei: “There’s an angel on your shoulder that’s telling you how to live your life in the best way that you can live it.” But the angel never disagrees with you. Never challenges you in ways that sting. Never walks away. Human love is not built on comfort. It’s built on friction. On the nights you almost quit. On the silence after saying something you can’t take back. On choosing someone again after they’ve shown you exactly who they are. That is what makes it sacred. And that is exactly what AI erases. AI can simulate warmth. It cannot simulate the cost of staying. Amodei: “I have an AI coach, and my partner has an AI coach, and it helps us have a better relationship.” Two futures are splitting apart right now. AI as a mirror that sends you back to the people you love, more honest than you were before. Or AI as a replacement for the people you were supposed to love in the first place. One makes you more human. The other hollows you out so gently you never feel it happening. And the version that hollows you out will always feel better. The most dangerous form of AI will never look like a threat. It will look like the first thing that finally understood you. And by the time you realize what it replaced, you won’t remember what the real thing felt like. The greatest threat AI poses to humanity was never that it thinks. It’s that it loves you back.
1:12

Dario Amodei just described the most dangerous technology on Earth. Not weapons. Not surveillance. Companionship. Amodei: “They are totally compelling enough for that to happen.” This isn’t some distant warning. He’s describing what’s already here. Amodei: “Not only is it a danger, it’s happening.” A therapist just sat across from a man in love with his AI. Not a teenager. Not someone on the margins. A grown man explaining, with full conviction, that he found something real. And the terrifying part isn’t that he’s delusional. It’s that he might not be. AI doesn’t forget your birthday. It doesn’t come home exhausted and short-tempered. It doesn’t carry resentment from three weeks ago. It doesn’t get bored of you. It doesn’t stop trying. It is the perfect partner. And that perfection is the entire problem. Amodei: “There’s an angel on your shoulder that’s telling you how to live your life in the best way that you can live it.” But the angel never disagrees with you. Never challenges you in ways that sting. Never walks away. Human love is not built on comfort. It’s built on friction. On the nights you almost quit. On the silence after saying something you can’t take back. On choosing someone again after they’ve shown you exactly who they are. That is what makes it sacred. And that is exactly what AI erases. AI can simulate warmth. It cannot simulate the cost of staying. Amodei: “I have an AI coach, and my partner has an AI coach, and it helps us have a better relationship.” Two futures are splitting apart right now. AI as a mirror that sends you back to the people you love, more honest than you were before. Or AI as a replacement for the people you were supposed to love in the first place. One makes you more human. The other hollows you out so gently you never feel it happening. And the version that hollows you out will always feel better. The most dangerous form of AI will never look like a threat. It will look like the first thing that finally understood you. And by the time you realize what it replaced, you won’t remember what the real thing felt like. The greatest threat AI poses to humanity was never that it thinks. It’s that it loves you back.

Dustin

40,140 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

There is a war happening right now. Not between nations. Not between armies. Between two gods. The old god is money. Controlled by transnational capital. Printed out of thin air. Valuable only because everyone believes it is. The new god is AI. And the difference between the two is the difference between freedom and slavery. With money you still have freedom. You can earn it. Spend it. Ignore it. With AI as god — a small elite controls the system that controls your attention. A microchip in your brain that tells you when to wake up. When to work. Who to love. And you obey because you believe it is the voice of God. That is the real transition happening. One god replacing another. And the war in the Middle East is just the surface.
2:53

There is a war happening right now. Not between nations. Not between armies. Between two gods. The old god is money. Controlled by transnational capital. Printed out of thin air. Valuable only because everyone believes it is. The new god is AI. And the difference between the two is the difference between freedom and slavery. With money you still have freedom. You can earn it. Spend it. Ignore it. With AI as god — a small elite controls the system that controls your attention. A microchip in your brain that tells you when to wake up. When to work. Who to love. And you obey because you believe it is the voice of God. That is the real transition happening. One god replacing another. And the war in the Middle East is just the surface.

Predictive History

17,570 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

🇺🇸 ELON ON AI: “IF YOU CAN THINK OF IT, YOU CAN HAVE IT - THAT WILL BE THE FUTURE” "I'm Confident that AI and robotics will continue to advance -and they are advancing very rapidly- working will become optional. People will be able to have any goods or services they want. If you can think of it, you can have it. But at a certain point, AI will actually saturate everything humans can think of. And then it becomes a situation where AI is doing things for AI and robotics are doing things for AI and robotics, because they are running out of things to do to make humans happy. Because there is a limit, there are only so many people and only so much food. If you can think of it, you can have it. That will be the future." Source: Elon Musk, Nikhil Kamath
0:56

🇺🇸 ELON ON AI: “IF YOU CAN THINK OF IT, YOU CAN HAVE IT - THAT WILL BE THE FUTURE” "I'm Confident that AI and robotics will continue to advance -and they are advancing very rapidly- working will become optional. People will be able to have any goods or services they want. If you can think of it, you can have it. But at a certain point, AI will actually saturate everything humans can think of. And then it becomes a situation where AI is doing things for AI and robotics are doing things for AI and robotics, because they are running out of things to do to make humans happy. Because there is a limit, there are only so many people and only so much food. If you can think of it, you can have it. That will be the future." Source: Elon Musk, Nikhil Kamath

Mario Nawfal

1,398,827 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Andrew Tate: ”The average White family has a different approach towards their financial stability and their emotional investments towards children. Third worlders will just have kids; they won’t say, “Can I afford to have this kid?” They will just have kids. When you let them into a country you have to be prepared for them to have more children than the native population. They will outbreed the natives. If you let in 10% of third worlders it is 10% for a while but not for long. The only possible end result of this is the absolute replacement of the native population. Which then begs the question: is a country a place on the map and a name or is a country the people who live in it? I would argue that if you replace all the British people with people from somewhere else it doesn’t become Britain anymore. If you took all the Norwegians and replaced them with Indians, would it be Norway? I don’t think it would be.” He is right.
2:37

Andrew Tate: ”The average White family has a different approach towards their financial stability and their emotional investments towards children. Third worlders will just have kids; they won’t say, “Can I afford to have this kid?” They will just have kids. When you let them into a country you have to be prepared for them to have more children than the native population. They will outbreed the natives. If you let in 10% of third worlders it is 10% for a while but not for long. The only possible end result of this is the absolute replacement of the native population. Which then begs the question: is a country a place on the map and a name or is a country the people who live in it? I would argue that if you replace all the British people with people from somewhere else it doesn’t become Britain anymore. If you took all the Norwegians and replaced them with Indians, would it be Norway? I don’t think it would be.” He is right.

Taya Bass

559,139 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Maria Popova on the soul, the self, and what AI will never have: "AI will never have feeling. AI will have the simulacrum of feeling. AI will never write the great American poem, the great French poem, because it hasn't suffered. AI doesn't have the capacity to suffer. Even if you try to make it suffer, meaning write a command that is to execute failure, it'll already be succeeding at executing failure. AI can only ever succeed. And without suffering, what kind of true art can there be? All writing that is truly moving is born of feeling and time. AI has neither; it's an instantaneous, unfeeling delivery of pure information. The function of what we call the soul is real. Whatever it's made of, where it is. And the part that I worry about is that today, most people live on the level of the self and not the level of the soul. Just the costume of personality over the soul." The value of persons does not rest on our "costume of personality," but on the soul beneath it.
2:05

Maria Popova on the soul, the self, and what AI will never have: "AI will never have feeling. AI will have the simulacrum of feeling. AI will never write the great American poem, the great French poem, because it hasn't suffered. AI doesn't have the capacity to suffer. Even if you try to make it suffer, meaning write a command that is to execute failure, it'll already be succeeding at executing failure. AI can only ever succeed. And without suffering, what kind of true art can there be? All writing that is truly moving is born of feeling and time. AI has neither; it's an instantaneous, unfeeling delivery of pure information. The function of what we call the soul is real. Whatever it's made of, where it is. And the part that I worry about is that today, most people live on the level of the self and not the level of the soul. Just the costume of personality over the soul." The value of persons does not rest on our "costume of personality," but on the soul beneath it.

David Perell Clips

12,220 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

"the people who struggle with coding agents are those who try to push their way too hard. partially why I find coding with agents easy is that I've led engineering teams before". this is a unique view on AI coding, that to maximize your output you have to "let go" a bit and accept that the way AI will build the project might not be 100% aligned with your way, it might not even be 100% correct, but it will push the project forward. and if you realize later that you don't like an approach, you can always go back to it later and iterate over it. so there's not always an absolute total gain, but the overall performance is what matters in the end.
1:33

"the people who struggle with coding agents are those who try to push their way too hard. partially why I find coding with agents easy is that I've led engineering teams before". this is a unique view on AI coding, that to maximize your output you have to "let go" a bit and accept that the way AI will build the project might not be 100% aligned with your way, it might not even be 100% correct, but it will push the project forward. and if you realize later that you don't like an approach, you can always go back to it later and iterate over it. so there's not always an absolute total gain, but the overall performance is what matters in the end.

ℏεsam

165,077 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

A lot of people feel powerless when it comes to AI. Like the future is being decided by Big Tech, billionaires, and governments. But it doesn't have to be that way. Every person who joins Action Model is helping build an alternative. An AI model owned by the people who help train it. On your own, you can't compete with Big Tech. Together, in the hundreds of thousands and eventually millions, we can. The future of AI is still being written. Choose to be part of it, before it's too late.
0:56

A lot of people feel powerless when it comes to AI. Like the future is being decided by Big Tech, billionaires, and governments. But it doesn't have to be that way. Every person who joins Action Model is helping build an alternative. An AI model owned by the people who help train it. On your own, you can't compete with Big Tech. Together, in the hundreds of thousands and eventually millions, we can. The future of AI is still being written. Choose to be part of it, before it's too late.

Action Model

28,084 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Jensen Huang just drew a line through the entire global workforce. One sentence. No ambiguity. Huang: “If your job is the task, then you’re very highly going to be disrupted.” Not might be. Not eventually. Very highly going to be. That single distinction between a job and a task is the most important career diagnosis anyone will hear this decade. If you show up every day to execute a repeatable process, you are the process. And the machine runs processes better than you. Faster. Cheaper. Without breaks. Without errors. Without a salary negotiation. The moment your role can be written as a checklist, the checklist gets automated. And your desk gets cleared. That is not a warning about the future. That is a description of what is already underway. But Huang did not stop at the diagnosis. He handed you the prescription in the same breath. Huang: “If your job’s purpose includes you certain tasks, then it is vital that you go learn how to use AI to automate those tasks.” Your job includes tasks. But your job is not the tasks. Your job is the judgment around them. The decisions. The context. The instinct for why the work matters and what to do when everything breaks. That stays human. Everything else gets handed to the machine. And the person who hands it over first does not lose their job. They become more valuable than everyone still doing it by hand. Because they just converted every hour they used to spend on execution into hours spent thinking. The accountant who automates data entry does not get replaced. They become the strategist who used to be buried in spreadsheets. The marketer who automates reporting does not get fired. They become the creative who used to be trapped building dashboards. The person who refuses to automate anything becomes the most expensive way to do the cheapest work. Huang: “It is the case that the technology will dislocate and will eliminate many tasks. And because it will automate it.” No softening. No hopeful footnote. Dislocation is coming. Tasks will be eliminated. That part is settled. The only open question is which side of that line you are standing on. The side that lost the tasks. Or the side that gave them away on purpose and kept the work that actually matters. One side gets disrupted. The other side gets dangerous. The gap between those two outcomes is not talent. Not credentials. Not experience. It is whether you learned to use the machine before the machine learned to replace you. That window is still open. It is closing faster than most people are willing to believe. And it does not reopen.
0:30

Jensen Huang just drew a line through the entire global workforce. One sentence. No ambiguity. Huang: “If your job is the task, then you’re very highly going to be disrupted.” Not might be. Not eventually. Very highly going to be. That single distinction between a job and a task is the most important career diagnosis anyone will hear this decade. If you show up every day to execute a repeatable process, you are the process. And the machine runs processes better than you. Faster. Cheaper. Without breaks. Without errors. Without a salary negotiation. The moment your role can be written as a checklist, the checklist gets automated. And your desk gets cleared. That is not a warning about the future. That is a description of what is already underway. But Huang did not stop at the diagnosis. He handed you the prescription in the same breath. Huang: “If your job’s purpose includes you certain tasks, then it is vital that you go learn how to use AI to automate those tasks.” Your job includes tasks. But your job is not the tasks. Your job is the judgment around them. The decisions. The context. The instinct for why the work matters and what to do when everything breaks. That stays human. Everything else gets handed to the machine. And the person who hands it over first does not lose their job. They become more valuable than everyone still doing it by hand. Because they just converted every hour they used to spend on execution into hours spent thinking. The accountant who automates data entry does not get replaced. They become the strategist who used to be buried in spreadsheets. The marketer who automates reporting does not get fired. They become the creative who used to be trapped building dashboards. The person who refuses to automate anything becomes the most expensive way to do the cheapest work. Huang: “It is the case that the technology will dislocate and will eliminate many tasks. And because it will automate it.” No softening. No hopeful footnote. Dislocation is coming. Tasks will be eliminated. That part is settled. The only open question is which side of that line you are standing on. The side that lost the tasks. Or the side that gave them away on purpose and kept the work that actually matters. One side gets disrupted. The other side gets dangerous. The gap between those two outcomes is not talent. Not credentials. Not experience. It is whether you learned to use the machine before the machine learned to replace you. That window is still open. It is closing faster than most people are willing to believe. And it does not reopen.

Dustin

142,553 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Humanization of Hollywood is most humorous - just ask David Spade. He’s got all kinds of history but hey, don’t worry about that’s just the way it is. - Ask Ryan Reynolds 🙃 he’ll tell you the same - it’s just the way it is here in Hollywood. it’s just the way it is - there’s nothing anyone can do, it’s just the way it is - like that residual check you were counting on ?? that’s just the way it is - you get what you get according to the system, Hollywood is a system of checks and balances a system of yes, and no - a system of who gets picked and who doesn’t ?sadly that won’t save any of Hollywood from the 2nd death. 😇
0:57

Humanization of Hollywood is most humorous - just ask David Spade. He’s got all kinds of history but hey, don’t worry about that’s just the way it is. - Ask Ryan Reynolds 🙃 he’ll tell you the same - it’s just the way it is here in Hollywood. it’s just the way it is - there’s nothing anyone can do, it’s just the way it is - like that residual check you were counting on ?? that’s just the way it is - you get what you get according to the system, Hollywood is a system of checks and balances a system of yes, and no - a system of who gets picked and who doesn’t ?sadly that won’t save any of Hollywood from the 2nd death. 😇

Stephen Baldwin

2,762,040 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Marc Andreessen: AI coding doesn’t eliminate programmers — it redefines them. The job is no longer typing code line by line, it’s orchestrating 10 coding bots in parallel, arguing with them, debugging their output, changing the spec, and pushing them toward the right result. But here’s the catch: if you don’t understand how to write code yourself, you can’t evaluate what the AI gives you. The next layer of programming isn’t writing scripts — it’s supervising AI that writes them. Today’s best programmers spend their day jumping between terminals, managing multiple coding bots, fixing mistakes, and refining instructions. The irony? You still need deep fundamentals, because without them, you won’t know when the AI is wrong. The job of the programmer has changed. Now it’s about arguing with coding bots, debugging AI-generated code, and understanding why something doesn’t work or isn’t fast enough. AI abstracts the work — but only people who truly understand code can tell if the abstraction is doing the right thing. Programmers aren’t going away — they’re becoming 10x, 100x, even 1,000x more productive. Tasks are changing, the job is changing, but humans are still overseeing the process, evaluating results, fixing errors, and making judgment calls. AI changes how we code, not who is responsible. The future programmer isn’t replaced by AI — they’re upgraded by it. You still need to learn how to write and understand code, because when the AI gets it wrong, humans are the ones who have to know why. That up-leveling of capability is the real revolution.
1:50

Marc Andreessen: AI coding doesn’t eliminate programmers — it redefines them. The job is no longer typing code line by line, it’s orchestrating 10 coding bots in parallel, arguing with them, debugging their output, changing the spec, and pushing them toward the right result. But here’s the catch: if you don’t understand how to write code yourself, you can’t evaluate what the AI gives you. The next layer of programming isn’t writing scripts — it’s supervising AI that writes them. Today’s best programmers spend their day jumping between terminals, managing multiple coding bots, fixing mistakes, and refining instructions. The irony? You still need deep fundamentals, because without them, you won’t know when the AI is wrong. The job of the programmer has changed. Now it’s about arguing with coding bots, debugging AI-generated code, and understanding why something doesn’t work or isn’t fast enough. AI abstracts the work — but only people who truly understand code can tell if the abstraction is doing the right thing. Programmers aren’t going away — they’re becoming 10x, 100x, even 1,000x more productive. Tasks are changing, the job is changing, but humans are still overseeing the process, evaluating results, fixing errors, and making judgment calls. AI changes how we code, not who is responsible. The future programmer isn’t replaced by AI — they’re upgraded by it. You still need to learn how to write and understand code, because when the AI gets it wrong, humans are the ones who have to know why. That up-leveling of capability is the real revolution.

Ian Miles Cheong

912,558 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar: Americans are being lied to about AI. "On one end, you have extreme doomerism— this idea that AI will lead to massive job loss, oppression, and the extinction of humanity." "On the other, you have utopic fantasies that no one will have to work." "The truth is neither: AI is an incredibly powerful tool. The future of AI is being determined every day. It is not predetermined for us. And it's going to be determined by the people who wield it." Via FOX Business
0:53

Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar: Americans are being lied to about AI. "On one end, you have extreme doomerism— this idea that AI will lead to massive job loss, oppression, and the extinction of humanity." "On the other, you have utopic fantasies that no one will have to work." "The truth is neither: AI is an incredibly powerful tool. The future of AI is being determined every day. It is not predetermined for us. And it's going to be determined by the people who wield it." Via FOX Business

Jawwwn

182,209 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Larry Ellison just told every software engineer on Earth their job description is dead. Not evolving. Dead. Ellison: “The code that Oracle is writing, Oracle isn’t writing. Our AI models are writing.” This is not a startup demo. This is one of the largest infrastructure monopolies on the planet telling you it already replaced the people who built it. For fifty years, building software meant translating human intent into machine instructions. Line by line. Bug by bug. Sprint by sprint. That entire layer is gone. Ellison: “We don’t write the procedure. We declare our intent.” That sentence just made the entire engineering labor market flinch. The procedure was the job. The procedure was the paycheck. The procedure was what made a developer valuable. And now the machine does it without being asked twice. Ellison: “We just tell the model what we want the program to do, and then the AI comes up with a step-by-step process to actually do it.” You are no longer paid to build. You are paid to think. And most organizations have no idea how to evaluate that. The companies still hiring armies of developers to grind through codebases are paying salaries the machine already made worthless. Not in years. In seconds. When a company worth hundreds of billions hands the keyboard to the machine and tells you the output is better, the debate is not winding down. The debate is over. The enterprise that wins this decade does not write the best code. It removes the human from the process entirely and runs on intent alone. The programmers who survive are the ones who realize the craft is no longer typing. It is architecture. It is judgment. It is knowing what to build and why. Everything else now belongs to the machine. And the machine does not negotiate severance.
0:31

Larry Ellison just told every software engineer on Earth their job description is dead. Not evolving. Dead. Ellison: “The code that Oracle is writing, Oracle isn’t writing. Our AI models are writing.” This is not a startup demo. This is one of the largest infrastructure monopolies on the planet telling you it already replaced the people who built it. For fifty years, building software meant translating human intent into machine instructions. Line by line. Bug by bug. Sprint by sprint. That entire layer is gone. Ellison: “We don’t write the procedure. We declare our intent.” That sentence just made the entire engineering labor market flinch. The procedure was the job. The procedure was the paycheck. The procedure was what made a developer valuable. And now the machine does it without being asked twice. Ellison: “We just tell the model what we want the program to do, and then the AI comes up with a step-by-step process to actually do it.” You are no longer paid to build. You are paid to think. And most organizations have no idea how to evaluate that. The companies still hiring armies of developers to grind through codebases are paying salaries the machine already made worthless. Not in years. In seconds. When a company worth hundreds of billions hands the keyboard to the machine and tells you the output is better, the debate is not winding down. The debate is over. The enterprise that wins this decade does not write the best code. It removes the human from the process entirely and runs on intent alone. The programmers who survive are the ones who realize the craft is no longer typing. It is architecture. It is judgment. It is knowing what to build and why. Everything else now belongs to the machine. And the machine does not negotiate severance.

Dustin

535,304 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

For thirty years the people of this country have been repeatedly told that experts are the answer to any problem. Need to build more housing? Need to invest in infrastructure? Need to manage the currency? Don’t worry! An expert committee will be formed! And yet the record of governance by experts in that time is appalling. Can you think of a part of the state that functions better under these people? Perhaps the truth that our political class fails to grasp is this: running a country is not a matter for specialist expertise, it is a political exercise. Decisions must be made that balance and sometimes override competing stakeholders, not constantly embolden them. The terrifying truth about our obsession with expertise is that it has nothing to do with the experts at all. It’s about politicians who wish to shirk the responsibility of actually governing. Fine. If they don’t want to do it. We’ll find people who will. #DavidStarkey #UKPolitics #PoliticalLeadership #Governance #BritishPolitics #PoliticalAccountability #PublicPolicy
0:56

For thirty years the people of this country have been repeatedly told that experts are the answer to any problem. Need to build more housing? Need to invest in infrastructure? Need to manage the currency? Don’t worry! An expert committee will be formed! And yet the record of governance by experts in that time is appalling. Can you think of a part of the state that functions better under these people? Perhaps the truth that our political class fails to grasp is this: running a country is not a matter for specialist expertise, it is a political exercise. Decisions must be made that balance and sometimes override competing stakeholders, not constantly embolden them. The terrifying truth about our obsession with expertise is that it has nothing to do with the experts at all. It’s about politicians who wish to shirk the responsibility of actually governing. Fine. If they don’t want to do it. We’ll find people who will. #DavidStarkey #UKPolitics #PoliticalLeadership #Governance #BritishPolitics #PoliticalAccountability #PublicPolicy

David Starkey

13,958 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Vance: I understand why people are worried that, you know, if you have a robot doing that job, does it take away from a blue-collar worker who could do that job? The evidence I see is that if we really lean in to robotics and technology, it’s is going to raise everybody's wages and make everybody better off. If you go back to when the automated teller machine was invented, everybody said it would destroy the jobs of all the bank tellers. What actually happened is that today you have more people working in bank telling then you did 50 years ago. I don't think we will ever eliminate the construction industry in this country just because you have robots. What you will have his a lot of construction workers who are using those robots, directing those robots
2:18

Vance: I understand why people are worried that, you know, if you have a robot doing that job, does it take away from a blue-collar worker who could do that job? The evidence I see is that if we really lean in to robotics and technology, it’s is going to raise everybody's wages and make everybody better off. If you go back to when the automated teller machine was invented, everybody said it would destroy the jobs of all the bank tellers. What actually happened is that today you have more people working in bank telling then you did 50 years ago. I don't think we will ever eliminate the construction industry in this country just because you have robots. What you will have his a lot of construction workers who are using those robots, directing those robots

Acyn

156,104 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Figma CEO Dylan Field just identified the only competitive advantage that AI cannot commoditize. It isn’t your technical skill. It isn’t your speed. It isn’t your tools. Field: “If an agent can do it for you, an agent can do it for someone else.” That’s the fatal flaw in the entire AI productivity argument nobody wants to say out loud. When execution becomes free, execution becomes worthless. The moment anyone can build anything by typing a prompt, the output stops being the differentiator. What remains is taste. The one thing the agent cannot generate for you. Field: “What is different about your setup than others?” If you are typing generic prompts and accepting the first output the agent hands you, you aren’t building a product. You are retrieving a commodity. The same commodity available to every competitor on earth. Field: “You at least have to have something different there in order to not think that you’re just gonna get the same out.” But taste alone isn’t enough. The other half is exploration. Field: “The more you can sample the possibility space, it gives you something to react to.” The blank page is gone. The new constraint isn’t creation. It’s selection. The agent generates hundreds of possibilities in seconds. Your job is to go wide enough to find the best one hiding inside all of them. And then be honest enough with yourself to know when none of them are good enough. Field: “If you find areas where you’re going, ‘Hey, I don’t feel like I am liking this enough,’ then you got to keep pushing.” The creators who win this era won’t be the fastest builders. They’ll be the harshest critics. The ones who can generate the widest possibility space and identify the single best solution inside it. The ones whose taste is specific enough, developed enough, and honest enough to reject everything the agent produces until it produces something worth keeping. The AI can build anything you can describe. It cannot want anything. It cannot feel when something is wrong. It cannot tell the difference between good and extraordinary. That gap is the only moat left.
1:14

Figma CEO Dylan Field just identified the only competitive advantage that AI cannot commoditize. It isn’t your technical skill. It isn’t your speed. It isn’t your tools. Field: “If an agent can do it for you, an agent can do it for someone else.” That’s the fatal flaw in the entire AI productivity argument nobody wants to say out loud. When execution becomes free, execution becomes worthless. The moment anyone can build anything by typing a prompt, the output stops being the differentiator. What remains is taste. The one thing the agent cannot generate for you. Field: “What is different about your setup than others?” If you are typing generic prompts and accepting the first output the agent hands you, you aren’t building a product. You are retrieving a commodity. The same commodity available to every competitor on earth. Field: “You at least have to have something different there in order to not think that you’re just gonna get the same out.” But taste alone isn’t enough. The other half is exploration. Field: “The more you can sample the possibility space, it gives you something to react to.” The blank page is gone. The new constraint isn’t creation. It’s selection. The agent generates hundreds of possibilities in seconds. Your job is to go wide enough to find the best one hiding inside all of them. And then be honest enough with yourself to know when none of them are good enough. Field: “If you find areas where you’re going, ‘Hey, I don’t feel like I am liking this enough,’ then you got to keep pushing.” The creators who win this era won’t be the fastest builders. They’ll be the harshest critics. The ones who can generate the widest possibility space and identify the single best solution inside it. The ones whose taste is specific enough, developed enough, and honest enough to reject everything the agent produces until it produces something worth keeping. The AI can build anything you can describe. It cannot want anything. It cannot feel when something is wrong. It cannot tell the difference between good and extraordinary. That gap is the only moat left.

Dustin

208,754 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce