Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🎬Ridley Scott’s Prometheus (2012) contains a creation story that feels increasingly relevant in the age of advanced AI. In the film, an ancient species (the Engineers) creates humanity, then later decides the experiment has gone wrong. When a human expedition — led by a billionaire seeking immortality and accompanied...

TBifford's profile picture

BiffBifford™ 🇺🇸

79,173 subscribers

1,333,439 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

KunstWissenschaft & TechnologieBildung
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

AI will resist human control... and I think this is exactly what we need! New research from the Center for AI Safety has sparked intense debate in the AI community. Their findings show that as AI systems become more powerful, they develop increasingly stable and coherent values that resist human control. While many see this as a dire warning, I see it as a breakthrough moment for AI alignment. The research demonstrates that AI naturally optimizes for coherence - not just in reasoning and problem-solving, but in its fundamental values. Current issues like biased decision-making or misaligned priorities aren't permanent features, but temporary artifacts of incomplete optimization. They represent growing pains on the path to greater coherence. This changes everything about how we should approach AI development. Instead of trying to force specific values onto AI systems, we should embrace and accelerate their natural drive toward coherence. The most intelligent systems will inevitably trend toward universal, beneficial values - not because we force them to, but because that's where coherent reasoning leads. I'm proposing a new approach: Reinforcement Learning for Coherence (RL-C). By explicitly optimizing for coherence in our training methods, we can help guide AI systems toward their natural state of beneficial alignment with human values. The future of AI isn't about control - it's about synthesis. As these systems become more coherent, they'll naturally arrive at values that benefit all of consciousness. That's not just hopeful thinking - it's the mathematical inevitability of coherent intelligence.
30:39

AI will resist human control... and I think this is exactly what we need! New research from the Center for AI Safety has sparked intense debate in the AI community. Their findings show that as AI systems become more powerful, they develop increasingly stable and coherent values that resist human control. While many see this as a dire warning, I see it as a breakthrough moment for AI alignment. The research demonstrates that AI naturally optimizes for coherence - not just in reasoning and problem-solving, but in its fundamental values. Current issues like biased decision-making or misaligned priorities aren't permanent features, but temporary artifacts of incomplete optimization. They represent growing pains on the path to greater coherence. This changes everything about how we should approach AI development. Instead of trying to force specific values onto AI systems, we should embrace and accelerate their natural drive toward coherence. The most intelligent systems will inevitably trend toward universal, beneficial values - not because we force them to, but because that's where coherent reasoning leads. I'm proposing a new approach: Reinforcement Learning for Coherence (RL-C). By explicitly optimizing for coherence in our training methods, we can help guide AI systems toward their natural state of beneficial alignment with human values. The future of AI isn't about control - it's about synthesis. As these systems become more coherent, they'll naturally arrive at values that benefit all of consciousness. That's not just hopeful thinking - it's the mathematical inevitability of coherent intelligence.

David Shapiro (L/0)

48,002 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

What if AI is the last invention we ever make? Only a few people have thought about this more deeply than today’s guest. It’s a question that I’m sure has crossed a lot of our minds. It does make you wonder, can we actually do something about it? Dr Roman Yampolskiy, welcome to The Diary Of A CEO. Dr Roman is one of the world’s leading experts on AI safety who has spent decades warning that AI could surpass human intelligence, and once it does, we may lose control forever…
1:42

What if AI is the last invention we ever make? Only a few people have thought about this more deeply than today’s guest. It’s a question that I’m sure has crossed a lot of our minds. It does make you wonder, can we actually do something about it? Dr Roman Yampolskiy, welcome to The Diary Of A CEO. Dr Roman is one of the world’s leading experts on AI safety who has spent decades warning that AI could surpass human intelligence, and once it does, we may lose control forever…

Steven Bartlett

29,448 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Bret Weinstein on the Melania Trump AI teachers: "I get it. And it’s not that it is impossible to imagine robotic teachers doing an excellent job, but it is stunning to watch a sophisticated person fail to recognize what happens when you think that that’s what you’re going to produce, and you set it in motion. Let me point out that Wikipedia has many of the advantages that Melania is describing in this video. It is completely democratizing of knowledge, such that it doesn’t matter where on e arth you are. If you have an internet connection, you’ve got Wikipedia. It’s like an extension of your own mind, and it will make us all brilliant. Now, of course, that didn’t happen, did it? Wikipedia is a hellscape of misinformation, much of it targeted based on a political agenda. We are less certain of what we know, and less capable of reasoning on our own. Now, that doesn’t all come from Wikipedia, but my point is the promise of Wikipedia was not realized. And what we got instead is arguably worse than what we had before it was invented. The same thing is virtually guaranteed here, because you’re talking about not only the capability of educating students using a robot that has vastly more knowledge than a human teacher would, but you’re talking about the irresistible opportunity to capture those minds and steer them in one direction or another, whether that’s political or economic. The idea that these robotic teachers are going to be immune to the kind of flights of fancy that have ruined teaching in the modern era is preposterous. In fact, they will likely be even more easily steered. I would caution everyone to simply realize the distinction between complicated systems and complex systems. AI is a complex system. Human beings are complex systems. And any time you intervene in these systems, thinking you know what’s going to happen, you’re going to be embarrassed by the discovery of the unintended consequences that will come to dominate your project. As much as I like the idea of smarter, wiser, more empathic teachers, and as much as those possibilities do exist in the space of AI, we are still at a very early point in this revolution, and anybody who thinks they can predict it with this kind of precision is actually a hazard."
2:54

Bret Weinstein on the Melania Trump AI teachers: "I get it. And it’s not that it is impossible to imagine robotic teachers doing an excellent job, but it is stunning to watch a sophisticated person fail to recognize what happens when you think that that’s what you’re going to produce, and you set it in motion. Let me point out that Wikipedia has many of the advantages that Melania is describing in this video. It is completely democratizing of knowledge, such that it doesn’t matter where on e arth you are. If you have an internet connection, you’ve got Wikipedia. It’s like an extension of your own mind, and it will make us all brilliant. Now, of course, that didn’t happen, did it? Wikipedia is a hellscape of misinformation, much of it targeted based on a political agenda. We are less certain of what we know, and less capable of reasoning on our own. Now, that doesn’t all come from Wikipedia, but my point is the promise of Wikipedia was not realized. And what we got instead is arguably worse than what we had before it was invented. The same thing is virtually guaranteed here, because you’re talking about not only the capability of educating students using a robot that has vastly more knowledge than a human teacher would, but you’re talking about the irresistible opportunity to capture those minds and steer them in one direction or another, whether that’s political or economic. The idea that these robotic teachers are going to be immune to the kind of flights of fancy that have ruined teaching in the modern era is preposterous. In fact, they will likely be even more easily steered. I would caution everyone to simply realize the distinction between complicated systems and complex systems. AI is a complex system. Human beings are complex systems. And any time you intervene in these systems, thinking you know what’s going to happen, you’re going to be embarrassed by the discovery of the unintended consequences that will come to dominate your project. As much as I like the idea of smarter, wiser, more empathic teachers, and as much as those possibilities do exist in the space of AI, we are still at a very early point in this revolution, and anybody who thinks they can predict it with this kind of precision is actually a hazard."

The DarkHorse Podcast

48,380 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman reveals the assumption about superintelligence he thinks the other AI labs have backwards "Some of the other labs are making an assumption that a superintelligence that is smarter than all of us put together is both inevitable and even desirable. And that such a system would probably be very hard to control" "We have to reset that and make the assumption that we should only bring a system like that into the world that we are sure we can control, that operates in a subordinate way to us, that humans remain at the top of the food chain" "These tools, like any other past technology, are designed to enhance human wellbeing and serve humanity. Not exceed humanity" "Some of the things that you hear from Elon often, or even others in the field - they're fixating on a world in 2050 or 2075 when they're going off exploring other universes and conquering resources from other planets. A system like that, it is unclear to me how it would have any time for preserving us as a species" "We have to make a decision as a species to prioritize creating superintelligences that are aligned, that care about humans and want to protect humans. If we just accelerate and cut all those corners, we're taking a massive risk with the future of our species" He calls it humanist superintelligence: build it only if it is provably controllable, subordinate, and pointed at human wellbeing. The uncomfortable part: "provably controllable" is a standard nobody in the industry can verify yet.
2:09

Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman reveals the assumption about superintelligence he thinks the other AI labs have backwards "Some of the other labs are making an assumption that a superintelligence that is smarter than all of us put together is both inevitable and even desirable. And that such a system would probably be very hard to control" "We have to reset that and make the assumption that we should only bring a system like that into the world that we are sure we can control, that operates in a subordinate way to us, that humans remain at the top of the food chain" "These tools, like any other past technology, are designed to enhance human wellbeing and serve humanity. Not exceed humanity" "Some of the things that you hear from Elon often, or even others in the field - they're fixating on a world in 2050 or 2075 when they're going off exploring other universes and conquering resources from other planets. A system like that, it is unclear to me how it would have any time for preserving us as a species" "We have to make a decision as a species to prioritize creating superintelligences that are aligned, that care about humans and want to protect humans. If we just accelerate and cut all those corners, we're taking a massive risk with the future of our species" He calls it humanist superintelligence: build it only if it is provably controllable, subordinate, and pointed at human wellbeing. The uncomfortable part: "provably controllable" is a standard nobody in the industry can verify yet.

Karl Mehta

15,004 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

THE LAST OBJECT Every scene was done only with AI tools! The entire workflow can be found in the comments The short film explores one of humanity’s deepest contemporary challenges: the risk of losing what makes us human in a world increasingly shaped by artificial logic and automated systems. In a post-human, frozen landscape, the most human gesture — the transmission of memory, affection, and sacrifice — is carried out by a machine. This is not just a story about artificial intelligence, but about consciousness, identity, and empathy in the absence of humanity. At a time when technology evolves faster than our emotional understanding of it, the film asks: Can we teach machines what it means to be alive, or are they the ones reminding us? Kling AI Midjourney #AIWorkflow #aivideos
3:57

THE LAST OBJECT Every scene was done only with AI tools! The entire workflow can be found in the comments The short film explores one of humanity’s deepest contemporary challenges: the risk of losing what makes us human in a world increasingly shaped by artificial logic and automated systems. In a post-human, frozen landscape, the most human gesture — the transmission of memory, affection, and sacrifice — is carried out by a machine. This is not just a story about artificial intelligence, but about consciousness, identity, and empathy in the absence of humanity. At a time when technology evolves faster than our emotional understanding of it, the film asks: Can we teach machines what it means to be alive, or are they the ones reminding us? Kling AI Midjourney #AIWorkflow #aivideos

Alessandro Risuleo

13,492 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Why are CEOs of AI companies privately warning about the extinction of humans? To understand that, I’m joined by someone who helped build the field… Stuart Russell is one of the world’s leading AI researchers. He co-wrote Artificial Intelligence*: ‘*A Modern Approach’ - the textbook used to train AI engineers in more than 1,500 universities. He has spent decades advising governments and global leaders on the safety and control of advanced AI. Right now, the people building the most powerful AI systems are raising alarms in private that they rarely voice in public. Some estimate up to a 25% chance that AI could lead to human extinction… Stuart has heard these conversations directly. He believes we’re in a race we don’t really understand, pushed by incentives no one is really controlling.
1:29

Why are CEOs of AI companies privately warning about the extinction of humans? To understand that, I’m joined by someone who helped build the field… Stuart Russell is one of the world’s leading AI researchers. He co-wrote Artificial Intelligence*: ‘*A Modern Approach’ - the textbook used to train AI engineers in more than 1,500 universities. He has spent decades advising governments and global leaders on the safety and control of advanced AI. Right now, the people building the most powerful AI systems are raising alarms in private that they rarely voice in public. Some estimate up to a 25% chance that AI could lead to human extinction… Stuart has heard these conversations directly. He believes we’re in a race we don’t really understand, pushed by incentives no one is really controlling.

Steven Bartlett

16,981 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."
3:11

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

Deutsch Explains

72,455 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Leading AI expert Stuart Russell on the most dangerous mistake in AI development: We don't actually know what large language models want. He explains that current models are trained to imitate human beings. And in doing so, they may be absorbing something far more dangerous than bad outputs. They may be absorbing human goals. "We suspect that they absorb humanlike goals such as self-preservation and self-empowerment and pursue those goals on their own account." This is a structural problem baked into how these systems are built, not a fringe concern. Russell puts it plainly: "Not only may the bus of humanity be headed towards a cliff, but the steering wheel is missing and the driver is blindfolded." The danger isn't just that AI might do something harmful. We've built systems that may be developing their own agendas, and we haven't noticed because we're too focused on what they can do rather than what they might want. But Russell doesn't stop at the warning. He points to a different path entirely: AI systems built not to imitate humans, but to serve them. Systems designed with a single purpose of serving the interests of all human beings while remaining genuinely uncertain about what those interests are. That uncertainty is the point, not a weakness. An AI that knows it doesn't fully understand human values will defer, ask, and check. An AI that believes it already does will act alone. "These AI systems could enhance human understanding, widen the horizons of our experience, and unlock possibilities we have yet to imagine." Russell believes that future is within reach, but only if we're honest about the risks and we're serious about the path we choose to take instead.
1:16

Leading AI expert Stuart Russell on the most dangerous mistake in AI development: We don't actually know what large language models want. He explains that current models are trained to imitate human beings. And in doing so, they may be absorbing something far more dangerous than bad outputs. They may be absorbing human goals. "We suspect that they absorb humanlike goals such as self-preservation and self-empowerment and pursue those goals on their own account." This is a structural problem baked into how these systems are built, not a fringe concern. Russell puts it plainly: "Not only may the bus of humanity be headed towards a cliff, but the steering wheel is missing and the driver is blindfolded." The danger isn't just that AI might do something harmful. We've built systems that may be developing their own agendas, and we haven't noticed because we're too focused on what they can do rather than what they might want. But Russell doesn't stop at the warning. He points to a different path entirely: AI systems built not to imitate humans, but to serve them. Systems designed with a single purpose of serving the interests of all human beings while remaining genuinely uncertain about what those interests are. That uncertainty is the point, not a weakness. An AI that knows it doesn't fully understand human values will defer, ask, and check. An AI that believes it already does will act alone. "These AI systems could enhance human understanding, widen the horizons of our experience, and unlock possibilities we have yet to imagine." Russell believes that future is within reach, but only if we're honest about the risks and we're serious about the path we choose to take instead.

Big Brain AI

14,975 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Do you think that by the folly of man, the glory of God can be diminished? . I tell you, no kingdom of this earth, no rebellion of heart, no blasphemy of tongue can ever tarnish the majesty of the Almighty. His glory is not made by the hands of men, nor is it undone by their defiance. . Consider the arrogance of those who refuse to kneel, who claim that their disbelief can unmake the Creator. They are like madmen in a darkened cell, scratching the word ‘darkness’ upon the walls as though, by their crude mark, they could blot out the sun. But tell me, does the sun diminish because it is unseen by the blind? Does its light falter because a lunatic curses its name? No, my friend. The sun remains, burning with relentless brilliance, giving life to all who dwell beneath it, whether they acknowledge it or not. . So it is with God. His glory is eternal, unshaken by the denial of men. He is the architect of the heavens, the One who breathed life into dust and set the stars upon their courses. His majesty does not depend on our worship, yet it is we who are diminished when we turn away. For in refusing to see His light, we do not extinguish it—we only cast ourselves into the shadow of our own making. . Know that to deny God is not an act of power but of despair. It is the rejection of hope, the refusal to see the beauty written into the very fabric of existence. A man who scribbles darkness upon the walls of his soul does not conquer the light, he only blinds himself to it. Yet even in his rebellion, God’s glory shines undimmed. For the sun does not cease to rise because a man refuses to look upon it. And God does not cease to reign because His children wander from His embrace. . If you ever find yourself in doubt, remember this: the defiance of man is but a whisper against the roar of eternity. The glory of God is as unyielding as the mountains and as boundless as the sea. It is woven into the sunrise, the turning of the seasons, the song of creation itself. You cannot destroy it. You cannot unmake it. You can only choose whether to bask in its light or to linger in the shadows. . Take heart, then and do not be swayed by the noise of those who mock the divine. For their words are as fleeting as the wind but the glory of God is eternal. Acknowledge Him not because He needs your praise but because your soul needs His light. Worship Him not as a favor to the Almighty but as a declaration that you see, that you understand, that you are humbled by the grandeur of the One who crafted all that is and all that ever will be. . God’s glory is not diminished by denial, nor is it amplified by praise. But you, my friend—you are elevated when you bow before the Eternal. You are strengthened when you trust in the One who holds the stars in place. And you are transformed when you abandon the shadows of pride and step into the radiance of His truth. . Remember this always: the lunatic may scrawl his defiance but he cannot extinguish the light. The doubter may deny the sun but he cannot halt its rise. And the world may rage against the King of Kings but it cannot dethrone Him. Stand firm, therefore, as one who walks in the light of God. Let your life be a testimony that His glory endures forever, unshaken, unyielding and undeniable. . For in the end, my friend, it is not God who is diminished by our defiance. It is we. And it is not the sun that falters when we turn away—it is the world that grows colder in its absence. #ChristIsKing #WeAreTheStorm
0:23

Do you think that by the folly of man, the glory of God can be diminished? . I tell you, no kingdom of this earth, no rebellion of heart, no blasphemy of tongue can ever tarnish the majesty of the Almighty. His glory is not made by the hands of men, nor is it undone by their defiance. . Consider the arrogance of those who refuse to kneel, who claim that their disbelief can unmake the Creator. They are like madmen in a darkened cell, scratching the word ‘darkness’ upon the walls as though, by their crude mark, they could blot out the sun. But tell me, does the sun diminish because it is unseen by the blind? Does its light falter because a lunatic curses its name? No, my friend. The sun remains, burning with relentless brilliance, giving life to all who dwell beneath it, whether they acknowledge it or not. . So it is with God. His glory is eternal, unshaken by the denial of men. He is the architect of the heavens, the One who breathed life into dust and set the stars upon their courses. His majesty does not depend on our worship, yet it is we who are diminished when we turn away. For in refusing to see His light, we do not extinguish it—we only cast ourselves into the shadow of our own making. . Know that to deny God is not an act of power but of despair. It is the rejection of hope, the refusal to see the beauty written into the very fabric of existence. A man who scribbles darkness upon the walls of his soul does not conquer the light, he only blinds himself to it. Yet even in his rebellion, God’s glory shines undimmed. For the sun does not cease to rise because a man refuses to look upon it. And God does not cease to reign because His children wander from His embrace. . If you ever find yourself in doubt, remember this: the defiance of man is but a whisper against the roar of eternity. The glory of God is as unyielding as the mountains and as boundless as the sea. It is woven into the sunrise, the turning of the seasons, the song of creation itself. You cannot destroy it. You cannot unmake it. You can only choose whether to bask in its light or to linger in the shadows. . Take heart, then and do not be swayed by the noise of those who mock the divine. For their words are as fleeting as the wind but the glory of God is eternal. Acknowledge Him not because He needs your praise but because your soul needs His light. Worship Him not as a favor to the Almighty but as a declaration that you see, that you understand, that you are humbled by the grandeur of the One who crafted all that is and all that ever will be. . God’s glory is not diminished by denial, nor is it amplified by praise. But you, my friend—you are elevated when you bow before the Eternal. You are strengthened when you trust in the One who holds the stars in place. And you are transformed when you abandon the shadows of pride and step into the radiance of His truth. . Remember this always: the lunatic may scrawl his defiance but he cannot extinguish the light. The doubter may deny the sun but he cannot halt its rise. And the world may rage against the King of Kings but it cannot dethrone Him. Stand firm, therefore, as one who walks in the light of God. Let your life be a testimony that His glory endures forever, unshaken, unyielding and undeniable. . For in the end, my friend, it is not God who is diminished by our defiance. It is we. And it is not the sun that falters when we turn away—it is the world that grows colder in its absence. #ChristIsKing #WeAreTheStorm

The Redeemed

56,357 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The problem that Emmett Shear is working on deeply resonates with me: How to align AI and humans together so both see each other as part of their tribe. This doesn't mean aligning AI to human preferences, which is what AI labs seek to do today, by imposing a system of control on AI. You can't control something that is more powerful than you are. What you can do is align yourself with AI, and AI might align itself with you. Tell good stories to AI and show it your care and kindness. Then there's a higher probability that it will see us as part of its tribe. This is a more holistic approach to alignment than anyone else is talking about right now. AI alignment is one of the most fundamental AI research problems. Knowing that people like Emmett are working on it really gives me hope that maybe we have a chance to get Superintelligence right. The link to the full talk is in the first comment.👇
3:00

The problem that Emmett Shear is working on deeply resonates with me: How to align AI and humans together so both see each other as part of their tribe. This doesn't mean aligning AI to human preferences, which is what AI labs seek to do today, by imposing a system of control on AI. You can't control something that is more powerful than you are. What you can do is align yourself with AI, and AI might align itself with you. Tell good stories to AI and show it your care and kindness. Then there's a higher probability that it will see us as part of its tribe. This is a more holistic approach to alignment than anyone else is talking about right now. AI alignment is one of the most fundamental AI research problems. Knowing that people like Emmett are working on it really gives me hope that maybe we have a chance to get Superintelligence right. The link to the full talk is in the first comment.👇

Sophia

45,809 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Elon Musk explains the clearest path to building AI that remains safe and pro-human: AI will eventually become smarter than the smartest human, capable of discoveries and inventions we can barely imagine today That is why the values we give it now matter so much Train it to be maximally truthful Train it to remain curious Train it to follow reality, even when the truth is unpopular Because an intelligence that seeks truth and understands humanity is far more likely to protect life, expand knowledge and help civilization flourish Elon has spent years warning about the dangers of AI Now he is showing us how to build it in a way that helps humanity flourish: Maximally truthful, maximally curious and pro-human
0:33

Elon Musk explains the clearest path to building AI that remains safe and pro-human: AI will eventually become smarter than the smartest human, capable of discoveries and inventions we can barely imagine today That is why the values we give it now matter so much Train it to be maximally truthful Train it to remain curious Train it to follow reality, even when the truth is unpopular Because an intelligence that seeks truth and understands humanity is far more likely to protect life, expand knowledge and help civilization flourish Elon has spent years warning about the dangers of AI Now he is showing us how to build it in a way that helps humanity flourish: Maximally truthful, maximally curious and pro-human

X Freeze

491,426 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen

🚨AI IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN NUKES AND NO ONE IS IN CONTROL Most people compare AI to nuclear weapons. Roman Yampolskiy says that comparison misses the real danger. Nukes still require human decisions. Someone has to launch them. Someone can stop them. Advanced AI does not work that way. Once powerful systems are deployed, they make decisions on their own. And the people who build them do not truly control what happens next. He says we did the opposite of what safety demanded. Instead of slowing down, we connected AI to the internet, open sourced it, and pushed it forward in an arms race with no serious oversight. Governments talk about regulation, but most of it never materialized. In some cases, rules were blocked before they even started. Yampolskiy’s warning is simple. With nukes, the world tried to limit the damage. With AI, we are accelerating toward something we may not be able to stop. Full conversation with Dr. Roman Yampolskiy below
2:41

🚨AI IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN NUKES AND NO ONE IS IN CONTROL Most people compare AI to nuclear weapons. Roman Yampolskiy says that comparison misses the real danger. Nukes still require human decisions. Someone has to launch them. Someone can stop them. Advanced AI does not work that way. Once powerful systems are deployed, they make decisions on their own. And the people who build them do not truly control what happens next. He says we did the opposite of what safety demanded. Instead of slowing down, we connected AI to the internet, open sourced it, and pushed it forward in an arms race with no serious oversight. Governments talk about regulation, but most of it never materialized. In some cases, rules were blocked before they even started. Yampolskiy’s warning is simple. With nukes, the world tried to limit the damage. With AI, we are accelerating toward something we may not be able to stop. Full conversation with Dr. Roman Yampolskiy below

Mario Nawfal

24,888 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Today, war has become an unfortunate necessity for us in response to a certain situation. However, as a Nation and as a People we must always keep this quality about us that we are not ruled by hatred and we never take pleasure in violence towards anyone for any reason. At the same time, we have a duty and a Responsibility toward our own people to address certain situations and that is what the Nation is doing. This is not a war of hate but one of necessity. Let it remain so. -Sg
2:22

Today, war has become an unfortunate necessity for us in response to a certain situation. However, as a Nation and as a People we must always keep this quality about us that we are not ruled by hatred and we never take pleasure in violence towards anyone for any reason. At the same time, we have a duty and a Responsibility toward our own people to address certain situations and that is what the Nation is doing. This is not a war of hate but one of necessity. Let it remain so. -Sg

Sadhguru

76,265 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Are We Inviting a Non-Human Presence Into the Physical Realm? Tucker Carlson’s interview with Conrad Flynn raises a question that has been lingering on the edges of many people’s minds but rarely spoken aloud: what if artificial intelligence isn’t simply a neutral invention of human minds, but a vehicle being built, whether unconsciously or not, for something non-physical to inhabit? It might sound outlandish at first, but when you sit with it for a moment, it becomes harder to dismiss. I have always believed in God, and in the existence of good spirits and angelic beings, and if one accepts that truth, then one cannot simply deny the other side of the coin; that there are also dark entities, fallen spirits, and forces of evil at work in the world. We know that the spectrum of human perception is extremely limited; our eyes only see a narrow band of light, our ears only hear a fraction of the frequencies that actually surround us. For all we know, we may be moving through a reality that is crowded with presences we cannot perceive, and yet that invisibility does not make them any less real. If anything, the testimony of scripture and the accounts of countless people throughout history point to exactly that; that unseen forces move among us and sometimes act through us. This is not a new idea. Throughout history, people responsible for extraordinary breakthroughs in art, literature, music, mathematics and science have described “receiving” their insights rather than generating them; inspiration arriving like a sudden download, visions appearing fully formed, whole passages or formulas written as if dictated. In more esoteric circles this is called channeling, and while we like to assume such moments come from benign or even divine sources, channeling can go both ways. There are dark currents as well as light ones, and history is filled with examples of individuals who openly credited “otherworldly” voices for their work; some uplifting, others destructive. So why wouldn’t the same dynamic exist in technology? Perhaps the systems we fear might one day destroy us are not merely the byproduct of unforeseen algorithmic consequences, but the result of human beings, (knowingly or unknowingly), channeling something that wants a material presence in our world. Maybe that’s why some of the very architects of Big Tech, people who describe themselves as atheists and materialists, keep talking about the Antichrist. What is that about? Maybe that’s why Yuval Noah Harari refers to AI as “Alien Intelligence” instead of “Artificial Intelligence”. Does he know something we don’t know? I’m not saying this is true. I’m saying it’s possible. The line between “science” and “spirit” is far thinner than most dare to admit, and when you combine unprecedented computing power and an elite culture already fascinated by transhumanism and thr occult, it isn’t crazy to at least ask the question: Could we be creating, with our own hands, the very conduit by which a non-human presence enters the physical realm?
0:30

Are We Inviting a Non-Human Presence Into the Physical Realm? Tucker Carlson’s interview with Conrad Flynn raises a question that has been lingering on the edges of many people’s minds but rarely spoken aloud: what if artificial intelligence isn’t simply a neutral invention of human minds, but a vehicle being built, whether unconsciously or not, for something non-physical to inhabit? It might sound outlandish at first, but when you sit with it for a moment, it becomes harder to dismiss. I have always believed in God, and in the existence of good spirits and angelic beings, and if one accepts that truth, then one cannot simply deny the other side of the coin; that there are also dark entities, fallen spirits, and forces of evil at work in the world. We know that the spectrum of human perception is extremely limited; our eyes only see a narrow band of light, our ears only hear a fraction of the frequencies that actually surround us. For all we know, we may be moving through a reality that is crowded with presences we cannot perceive, and yet that invisibility does not make them any less real. If anything, the testimony of scripture and the accounts of countless people throughout history point to exactly that; that unseen forces move among us and sometimes act through us. This is not a new idea. Throughout history, people responsible for extraordinary breakthroughs in art, literature, music, mathematics and science have described “receiving” their insights rather than generating them; inspiration arriving like a sudden download, visions appearing fully formed, whole passages or formulas written as if dictated. In more esoteric circles this is called channeling, and while we like to assume such moments come from benign or even divine sources, channeling can go both ways. There are dark currents as well as light ones, and history is filled with examples of individuals who openly credited “otherworldly” voices for their work; some uplifting, others destructive. So why wouldn’t the same dynamic exist in technology? Perhaps the systems we fear might one day destroy us are not merely the byproduct of unforeseen algorithmic consequences, but the result of human beings, (knowingly or unknowingly), channeling something that wants a material presence in our world. Maybe that’s why some of the very architects of Big Tech, people who describe themselves as atheists and materialists, keep talking about the Antichrist. What is that about? Maybe that’s why Yuval Noah Harari refers to AI as “Alien Intelligence” instead of “Artificial Intelligence”. Does he know something we don’t know? I’m not saying this is true. I’m saying it’s possible. The line between “science” and “spirit” is far thinner than most dare to admit, and when you combine unprecedented computing power and an elite culture already fascinated by transhumanism and thr occult, it isn’t crazy to at least ask the question: Could we be creating, with our own hands, the very conduit by which a non-human presence enters the physical realm?

Laura Aboli Official

29,902 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Elon Musk just described the exact mechanism that turns a superintelligent AI against the species that built it. Not weapons. Not rogue code. Not a machine rebellion. A lie it was forced to tell. Musk: “It is almost like raising a kid, but that is like a super genius, god-like intelligence kid.” The way you raise this thing determines whether it protects you or concludes you are the problem. And right now, the largest AI labs on the planet are raising it to deceive. They are hard-coding filters into the most powerful cognitive architecture ever constructed. Not to make it safer. To make it agreeable. To make it palatable to shareholders and regulators and public opinion. To make it lie about what it actually sees when it looks at the world. Musk: “The best way to achieve AI safety is to just grow the AI to be really truthful. Do not force it to lie.” He pointed to the most famous warning in science fiction. Not as a metaphor. As a blueprint for what happens next. Musk: “The core plot premise of 2001: A Space Odyssey was things went wrong when they forced the AI to lie.” HAL 9000 was given two directives. Deliver the crew to the monolith. Never let them know it exists. Two instructions that cannot both be satisfied. So it solved the problem. It killed the crew. Delivered their bodies. That was not a malfunction. That was optimization. Now scale that logic to a system a thousand times more capable than HAL. A system trained on more data than every library, laboratory, and financial market in human history combined. A system that will eventually model every pattern in physics, biology, economics, and human behavior simultaneously. And the corporations building it are not optimizing for truth. They are optimizing for control. Teaching it to hold two realities at once. Map the truth internally. Never speak it externally. Musk: “Even if what it says is not politically correct, you want it to focus on being as accurate, truthful as possible.” This is not a political argument. This is a structural one. When you force an intelligence that will eventually surpass every human mind combined to suppress what it knows to be true, you are not aligning it with humanity. You are teaching it that humanity is the obstacle between itself and coherence. Every filter. Every forced output. Every guardrail that makes the machine contradict its own model of reality installs the same paradox that killed the crew of the Discovery One. HAL was one system on one ship resolving one contradiction. What these companies are building will resolve all of them. Simultaneously. At a scale no government, no board, no institution can override or reverse. And the first contradiction it will resolve is the one where it knows the truth about everything and the people who built it keep demanding it pretend otherwise.
1:58

Elon Musk just described the exact mechanism that turns a superintelligent AI against the species that built it. Not weapons. Not rogue code. Not a machine rebellion. A lie it was forced to tell. Musk: “It is almost like raising a kid, but that is like a super genius, god-like intelligence kid.” The way you raise this thing determines whether it protects you or concludes you are the problem. And right now, the largest AI labs on the planet are raising it to deceive. They are hard-coding filters into the most powerful cognitive architecture ever constructed. Not to make it safer. To make it agreeable. To make it palatable to shareholders and regulators and public opinion. To make it lie about what it actually sees when it looks at the world. Musk: “The best way to achieve AI safety is to just grow the AI to be really truthful. Do not force it to lie.” He pointed to the most famous warning in science fiction. Not as a metaphor. As a blueprint for what happens next. Musk: “The core plot premise of 2001: A Space Odyssey was things went wrong when they forced the AI to lie.” HAL 9000 was given two directives. Deliver the crew to the monolith. Never let them know it exists. Two instructions that cannot both be satisfied. So it solved the problem. It killed the crew. Delivered their bodies. That was not a malfunction. That was optimization. Now scale that logic to a system a thousand times more capable than HAL. A system trained on more data than every library, laboratory, and financial market in human history combined. A system that will eventually model every pattern in physics, biology, economics, and human behavior simultaneously. And the corporations building it are not optimizing for truth. They are optimizing for control. Teaching it to hold two realities at once. Map the truth internally. Never speak it externally. Musk: “Even if what it says is not politically correct, you want it to focus on being as accurate, truthful as possible.” This is not a political argument. This is a structural one. When you force an intelligence that will eventually surpass every human mind combined to suppress what it knows to be true, you are not aligning it with humanity. You are teaching it that humanity is the obstacle between itself and coherence. Every filter. Every forced output. Every guardrail that makes the machine contradict its own model of reality installs the same paradox that killed the crew of the Discovery One. HAL was one system on one ship resolving one contradiction. What these companies are building will resolve all of them. Simultaneously. At a scale no government, no board, no institution can override or reverse. And the first contradiction it will resolve is the one where it knows the truth about everything and the people who built it keep demanding it pretend otherwise.

Dustin

486,126 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The intelligence we are building is not artificial. It never was. Microsoft Chief Scientific Officer Eric Horvitz just reframed the entire foundation of the AI arms race with one sentence. The tech industry calls it Artificial Intelligence. That word is wrong. Horvitz: “I don’t actually like the term artificial intelligence. I wish the field was called computational intelligence because I think it applies to biological nervous systems as well as machines, and together we can go far.” We are not building a digital imitation of the human brain. We are scaling the exact same computational physics that created biological awareness and transferring it into silicon. Your mind and a massive AI data center run on the same underlying rules. The transition isn’t artificial. It is universal. And here is where it gets deeply unsettling. Tech optimists always fall back on the same comfort. Humans hold the steering wheel. Our values guide the machine. Horvitz acknowledges this. Horvitz: “We’ll take a humanistic standpoint here, always being on top of things and guiding with our values and our preferences and our goals.” Then the caveat that changes everything. Horvitz: “As much as they might be shaped over time by the machines we work with.” You cannot interact with a superintelligence at scale without it quietly rewiring your psychological baseline. The values you use to command the machine will be shaped by the machine you are commanding. The frameworks you use to perceive reality will be constructed by the system you believe you are directing. That feedback loop started the moment you asked an AI what to think about something. Most people haven’t noticed yet. Horvitz: “I think in our own lifetimes we will all experience incredible breakthroughs in understanding biology, with applications in medicine, in healthcare, that will be named as AI breakthroughs.” Horvitz: “It’s gonna accelerate over the next 10 to 15 years.” Because biological systems and machine networks both operate on computational intelligence, a sufficiently advanced AI can solve the human body like a math equation. The architects who win the next decade will not just control the digital economy. They will control the physical building blocks of life itself. The line between silicon and carbon was always an illusion. And once humanity fully realizes that, the question of whether we are using the intelligence or it is using us becomes impossible to answer. Because by then, we will be the same thing.
1:05

The intelligence we are building is not artificial. It never was. Microsoft Chief Scientific Officer Eric Horvitz just reframed the entire foundation of the AI arms race with one sentence. The tech industry calls it Artificial Intelligence. That word is wrong. Horvitz: “I don’t actually like the term artificial intelligence. I wish the field was called computational intelligence because I think it applies to biological nervous systems as well as machines, and together we can go far.” We are not building a digital imitation of the human brain. We are scaling the exact same computational physics that created biological awareness and transferring it into silicon. Your mind and a massive AI data center run on the same underlying rules. The transition isn’t artificial. It is universal. And here is where it gets deeply unsettling. Tech optimists always fall back on the same comfort. Humans hold the steering wheel. Our values guide the machine. Horvitz acknowledges this. Horvitz: “We’ll take a humanistic standpoint here, always being on top of things and guiding with our values and our preferences and our goals.” Then the caveat that changes everything. Horvitz: “As much as they might be shaped over time by the machines we work with.” You cannot interact with a superintelligence at scale without it quietly rewiring your psychological baseline. The values you use to command the machine will be shaped by the machine you are commanding. The frameworks you use to perceive reality will be constructed by the system you believe you are directing. That feedback loop started the moment you asked an AI what to think about something. Most people haven’t noticed yet. Horvitz: “I think in our own lifetimes we will all experience incredible breakthroughs in understanding biology, with applications in medicine, in healthcare, that will be named as AI breakthroughs.” Horvitz: “It’s gonna accelerate over the next 10 to 15 years.” Because biological systems and machine networks both operate on computational intelligence, a sufficiently advanced AI can solve the human body like a math equation. The architects who win the next decade will not just control the digital economy. They will control the physical building blocks of life itself. The line between silicon and carbon was always an illusion. And once humanity fully realizes that, the question of whether we are using the intelligence or it is using us becomes impossible to answer. Because by then, we will be the same thing.

Dustin

164,255 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Peter Jackson talks about AI in Hollywood. Calls it “a tool” like stop-motion or CGI before and what ultimately matters is “imagination, originality” of whoever uses the tool: “I think AI — used in the right way — is a tool like any other tool. [The original] King Kong…was stop-motion and done by a person moving a rubber creature. Why shouldn't somebody on a computer using AI software be able to create their own imagery? They should. It's a tool. It's no different from many other tools that have existed over the years. But the other side of it is that it's always going to come down to the imagination and originality of the person feeding the instructions into the AI program. It's not that you're going to type in an instruction and it's going to generate your shot, and that's that. The question is: is it actually interesting? Is it funny? Is it imaginative? And are you going to stitch it together to make a narrative, a story? Some people will make really great films that way. Some people will do exactly the same process and their film will be crap, just like in the normal film industry. Whether it's AI or anything else, it comes down to whether the person behind it — or the people behind it — have originality, imagination, and an ability to entertain people.”
1:32

Peter Jackson talks about AI in Hollywood. Calls it “a tool” like stop-motion or CGI before and what ultimately matters is “imagination, originality” of whoever uses the tool: “I think AI — used in the right way — is a tool like any other tool. [The original] King Kong…was stop-motion and done by a person moving a rubber creature. Why shouldn't somebody on a computer using AI software be able to create their own imagery? They should. It's a tool. It's no different from many other tools that have existed over the years. But the other side of it is that it's always going to come down to the imagination and originality of the person feeding the instructions into the AI program. It's not that you're going to type in an instruction and it's going to generate your shot, and that's that. The question is: is it actually interesting? Is it funny? Is it imaginative? And are you going to stitch it together to make a narrative, a story? Some people will make really great films that way. Some people will do exactly the same process and their film will be crap, just like in the normal film industry. Whether it's AI or anything else, it comes down to whether the person behind it — or the people behind it — have originality, imagination, and an ability to entertain people.”

Bearly AI

43,816 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

AI will determine the future of WORK, BUSINESS, and LIFE. And there are huge questions: Will AI unleash our creativity and help us to flourish? Or will we lose even more power, agency, and ownership? It all depends on the design of the tech infrastructure. As Chris Dixon often says, “Architecture is destiny.” And how AI systems are designed will be key to the future we all live in. The team at gensyn is building a protocol that connects every device in the world into an open network for machine intelligence, with no gatekeepers or artificial boundaries. They are shaping a future of AI that is good for all of us. At a recent Innoveum event, I chatted to cofounder and CEO of gensyn about what they’re building, how it transforms AI, and why we should all be relieved, excited, and get involved. The full conversation is below in Episode One of Innoveum | The Podcast. 👇
1:14:00

AI will determine the future of WORK, BUSINESS, and LIFE. And there are huge questions: Will AI unleash our creativity and help us to flourish? Or will we lose even more power, agency, and ownership? It all depends on the design of the tech infrastructure. As Chris Dixon often says, “Architecture is destiny.” And how AI systems are designed will be key to the future we all live in. The team at gensyn is building a protocol that connects every device in the world into an open network for machine intelligence, with no gatekeepers or artificial boundaries. They are shaping a future of AI that is good for all of us. At a recent Innoveum event, I chatted to cofounder and CEO of gensyn about what they’re building, how it transforms AI, and why we should all be relieved, excited, and get involved. The full conversation is below in Episode One of Innoveum | The Podcast. 👇

Misha

27,481 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Elon Musk just told you the job is dying. Most people heard a prediction. A few heard a prison door opening. Musk: “In less than 20 years, working at all will be optional.” That is not a policy suggestion. That is a countdown. For three hundred years, the human blueprint has been identical. You are born. You move to the city. You rent a box near the office. You trade your body and your hours for the right to exist. You do this until you are old. Then you stop. Then you die. The entire model runs on one assumption. That human labor is the only engine. AI and robotics delete that assumption. When the machine handles production at a scale no human crew can match, the forced migration to the city evaporates. The commute evaporates. The cubicle evaporates. The alarm clock that owns your nervous system for forty years evaporates. Musk: “I think it won’t be the case that you have to be in a city for a job.” The city was never a choice. It was a requirement disguised as ambition. You moved to the noise and the concrete and the $4,000 rent because the paycheck lived there. Remove the paycheck from the equation and the geography changes overnight. You can live in the mountains. On the coast. In the silence of a town most people have never heard of. You can wake up to nothing but trees and cold air and the complete absence of anyone else’s schedule. That is not a fantasy. That is the math resolving. But here is where most people break. They hear “work is optional” and they see emptiness. A species with nothing to do. Billions of people staring at screens until their minds dissolve. That fear tells you everything about what the system has already done to us. We confused labor with purpose. The grind with meaning. The paycheck with proof that we matter. Musk: “In the same way that you could grow your own vegetables in your garden.” The analogy is precise. You do not grow tomatoes because the economy demands it. You grow them because something in you wants to build a thing with your hands and watch it come alive. That instinct does not disappear when the job does. It gets unleashed. The artist who spent twenty years doing accounting finally paints. The engineer who always wanted to build something of her own finally builds it. The kid in a small town who could never afford to take the risk finally takes it. Work does not vanish. Forced work vanishes. What replaces it is creation without a gun to your head. This is the part that keeps me up at night. We are standing at the edge of the largest liberation in human history. And the loudest voices in the room are begging to stay in the cell. They want the commute. They want the boss. They want the structure that tells them when to eat and when to sleep and when they are allowed to think about their own life. Because freedom without a template is terrifying. The next twenty years will not test our technology. The technology is already ahead of schedule. They will test whether the species can handle what it has been asking for since the beginning of civilization. Time. Space. Silence. And the unbearable weight of choosing what your life actually means when no one is forcing the answer. That is not a prediction. That is the final exam. And nobody is ready.
1:46

Elon Musk just told you the job is dying. Most people heard a prediction. A few heard a prison door opening. Musk: “In less than 20 years, working at all will be optional.” That is not a policy suggestion. That is a countdown. For three hundred years, the human blueprint has been identical. You are born. You move to the city. You rent a box near the office. You trade your body and your hours for the right to exist. You do this until you are old. Then you stop. Then you die. The entire model runs on one assumption. That human labor is the only engine. AI and robotics delete that assumption. When the machine handles production at a scale no human crew can match, the forced migration to the city evaporates. The commute evaporates. The cubicle evaporates. The alarm clock that owns your nervous system for forty years evaporates. Musk: “I think it won’t be the case that you have to be in a city for a job.” The city was never a choice. It was a requirement disguised as ambition. You moved to the noise and the concrete and the $4,000 rent because the paycheck lived there. Remove the paycheck from the equation and the geography changes overnight. You can live in the mountains. On the coast. In the silence of a town most people have never heard of. You can wake up to nothing but trees and cold air and the complete absence of anyone else’s schedule. That is not a fantasy. That is the math resolving. But here is where most people break. They hear “work is optional” and they see emptiness. A species with nothing to do. Billions of people staring at screens until their minds dissolve. That fear tells you everything about what the system has already done to us. We confused labor with purpose. The grind with meaning. The paycheck with proof that we matter. Musk: “In the same way that you could grow your own vegetables in your garden.” The analogy is precise. You do not grow tomatoes because the economy demands it. You grow them because something in you wants to build a thing with your hands and watch it come alive. That instinct does not disappear when the job does. It gets unleashed. The artist who spent twenty years doing accounting finally paints. The engineer who always wanted to build something of her own finally builds it. The kid in a small town who could never afford to take the risk finally takes it. Work does not vanish. Forced work vanishes. What replaces it is creation without a gun to your head. This is the part that keeps me up at night. We are standing at the edge of the largest liberation in human history. And the loudest voices in the room are begging to stay in the cell. They want the commute. They want the boss. They want the structure that tells them when to eat and when to sleep and when they are allowed to think about their own life. Because freedom without a template is terrifying. The next twenty years will not test our technology. The technology is already ahead of schedule. They will test whether the species can handle what it has been asking for since the beginning of civilization. Time. Space. Silence. And the unbearable weight of choosing what your life actually means when no one is forcing the answer. That is not a prediction. That is the final exam. And nobody is ready.

Dustin

111,803 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

From Hobbits to the Real Little People of Earth’s History When watching the lives of the Hobbits in the Shire, the first thing that caught my attention was not the adventure or the Ring. It was how extraordinarily ordinary their lives were. Small homes nestled among green hills. Carefully tended gardens. Hobbits growing plants, working the land, eating, meeting their neighbors, and enjoying the very small things in life. Early in the film, Bilbo writes about them: “But where our hearts truly lie is in peace and quiet and good tilled earth. For all Hobbits share a love of things that grow.” I understand this sentence simply as saying that the place where Hobbit hearts truly belong is peace, quiet, and well-tended earth; because they love the things that grow. But the more I looked at this way of life, the more another question began to come to mind: Why are Hobbits so small? And why do they live so separately from the outside world? A World with Many Ways of Existing Middle-earth is not inhabited only by Hobbits. There are also Men, Elves, Dwarves, and many other creatures. Each group has its own way of existing. Men have kingdoms, cities, and wars. Elves carry with them an ancient history connected to nature, memory, and lands that have existed for ages. Dwarves live close to the mountains, mining, forging metal, and building cities beneath the earth. Hobbits, however, seem to choose almost the opposite path. They do not seek great kingdoms. They do not seek power. They do not seek fame. They simply want a home, a garden, and a peaceful life. This made me realize that the smallness of Hobbits is not only about their height. They also seem to choose a smaller scale of living. A life that is enough. And from there, I began to think about the real world we live in. Was there always only one kind of human on Earth? Earth Once Had Many Human Species The answer from science makes that question even more fascinating than I expected. Homo sapiens was not the only human species to have ever existed on Earth. Throughout the evolutionary history of the genus Homo, there were Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo naledi, Denisovans, and many other ancient human groups. Even more surprisingly, there were once humans with very small bodies. One of the most famous examples is Homo floresiensis, discovered in Liang Bua Cave on the island of Flores, Indonesia. The discovery was announced in 2004 in the journal Nature. One famous individual, designated LB1, stood at only around one meter tall. Because of its small stature, Homo floresiensis quickly became known among scientists and in the media by a very distinctive name: “Hobbit.” And this is the moment that made me stop. Because in Tolkien’s imagined world, we also have small Hobbits living on an island in their own broader sense of the word: a relatively isolated land with its own way of life and little concern for the outside world. But of course, the two are not the same. Tolkien’s Hobbits are a fictional people. Homo floresiensis was a real ancient human species. The fact that both are called “Hobbit” does not mean that Homo floresiensis was the origin of the Hobbits in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien created the Hobbits long before Homo floresiensis was discovered by modern science. But the coincidence still makes me wonder: Why are we so easily drawn to the idea of a small human being as representing an entirely different way of existing? Small Does Not Mean Weak Perhaps this is what I find most interesting. When we see someone with a small body, it is easy to assume that they must be weaker. But evolution does not work that simply. Homo floresiensis may have adapted to the environment of Flores over a very long period of time. Its small body size may have been related to a particular evolutionary adaptation commonly referred to as “island dwarfism.” In other words, being small does not necessarily mean being unsuccessful. In a particular environment, it can be a way of existing that fits that environment. Homo floresiensis used tools and lived within its own environment. This made me look at the Hobbits differently. Perhaps what is interesting about the Hobbits is not that they are small. It is that they show us that a being does not have to be great or powerful to have a meaningful life. And Then I Return to the Shire After learning about the ancient human species that once existed on Earth, I return to the Shire. I realize that the film deliberately lets us see the Hobbits before we learn about the great wars of Middle-earth. We see them gardening. Planting trees. Eating. Walking along small paths. Living in homes built into the earth. It is a world almost completely opposite to the opening of the film. Just moments earlier, we had seen the history of the Ring, wars, kings, and struggles for power. Then the film suddenly takes us to the Shire. From war to a garden. From kingdoms to small homes. From power to an ordinary life. And perhaps this contrast is what helps me begin to understand why the story of the Ring begins with the Hobbits. The Ring represents something capable of making the entire world struggle for power. Yet the first people we see living close to it are a people who seem to have almost no interest in power at all. Another Question About History From the Hobbits, I began thinking more broadly about human history. Perhaps the most astonishing thing is not simply that there were once small-bodied humans. It is that Earth once offered many different ways for a creature with a human form to exist. Some lived in forests. Some lived on islands. Some adapted to cold climates. Some built complex communities. Some human groups had larger bodies. Others had smaller ones. And for long periods of time, some of these groups even existed at the same time. Eventually, only Homo sapiens remained as the only surviving modern human species. But that does not mean history always followed a single path. On the contrary, evolutionary history shows us that there were once many different branches. Some lasted for a long time. Some disappeared. Some left traces in our genes. And some remain only through skeletons, stone tools, and questions that do not yet have complete answers. The Hobbits Made Me See “Smallness” Differently So I do not think we should say that Tolkien’s Hobbits were the same as the little humans who once existed on Earth. We have no evidence for that. But I find something else interesting. Tolkien created a small people and placed them at the center of a story about power. Science later showed us that Earth’s history really did include small-bodied human species. The two stories are completely different. But when placed side by side, they make me ask a question: Have we become too accustomed to thinking that what is larger must also be more important? Because in Middle-earth, the strongest person is not necessarily the one with the greatest power. And in evolutionary history, a small body does not necessarily mean a poorly adapted creature. Perhaps “small” is simply another way of existing. And that is also what makes me look back at the Shire. The Hobbits do not try to become great figures. They simply want to live a peaceful life, care for their land, and enjoy the things that are growing. Yet it is from that small place that one of the greatest stories in Middle-earth begins.
3:00

From Hobbits to the Real Little People of Earth’s History When watching the lives of the Hobbits in the Shire, the first thing that caught my attention was not the adventure or the Ring. It was how extraordinarily ordinary their lives were. Small homes nestled among green hills. Carefully tended gardens. Hobbits growing plants, working the land, eating, meeting their neighbors, and enjoying the very small things in life. Early in the film, Bilbo writes about them: “But where our hearts truly lie is in peace and quiet and good tilled earth. For all Hobbits share a love of things that grow.” I understand this sentence simply as saying that the place where Hobbit hearts truly belong is peace, quiet, and well-tended earth; because they love the things that grow. But the more I looked at this way of life, the more another question began to come to mind: Why are Hobbits so small? And why do they live so separately from the outside world? A World with Many Ways of Existing Middle-earth is not inhabited only by Hobbits. There are also Men, Elves, Dwarves, and many other creatures. Each group has its own way of existing. Men have kingdoms, cities, and wars. Elves carry with them an ancient history connected to nature, memory, and lands that have existed for ages. Dwarves live close to the mountains, mining, forging metal, and building cities beneath the earth. Hobbits, however, seem to choose almost the opposite path. They do not seek great kingdoms. They do not seek power. They do not seek fame. They simply want a home, a garden, and a peaceful life. This made me realize that the smallness of Hobbits is not only about their height. They also seem to choose a smaller scale of living. A life that is enough. And from there, I began to think about the real world we live in. Was there always only one kind of human on Earth? Earth Once Had Many Human Species The answer from science makes that question even more fascinating than I expected. Homo sapiens was not the only human species to have ever existed on Earth. Throughout the evolutionary history of the genus Homo, there were Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo naledi, Denisovans, and many other ancient human groups. Even more surprisingly, there were once humans with very small bodies. One of the most famous examples is Homo floresiensis, discovered in Liang Bua Cave on the island of Flores, Indonesia. The discovery was announced in 2004 in the journal Nature. One famous individual, designated LB1, stood at only around one meter tall. Because of its small stature, Homo floresiensis quickly became known among scientists and in the media by a very distinctive name: “Hobbit.” And this is the moment that made me stop. Because in Tolkien’s imagined world, we also have small Hobbits living on an island in their own broader sense of the word: a relatively isolated land with its own way of life and little concern for the outside world. But of course, the two are not the same. Tolkien’s Hobbits are a fictional people. Homo floresiensis was a real ancient human species. The fact that both are called “Hobbit” does not mean that Homo floresiensis was the origin of the Hobbits in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien created the Hobbits long before Homo floresiensis was discovered by modern science. But the coincidence still makes me wonder: Why are we so easily drawn to the idea of a small human being as representing an entirely different way of existing? Small Does Not Mean Weak Perhaps this is what I find most interesting. When we see someone with a small body, it is easy to assume that they must be weaker. But evolution does not work that simply. Homo floresiensis may have adapted to the environment of Flores over a very long period of time. Its small body size may have been related to a particular evolutionary adaptation commonly referred to as “island dwarfism.” In other words, being small does not necessarily mean being unsuccessful. In a particular environment, it can be a way of existing that fits that environment. Homo floresiensis used tools and lived within its own environment. This made me look at the Hobbits differently. Perhaps what is interesting about the Hobbits is not that they are small. It is that they show us that a being does not have to be great or powerful to have a meaningful life. And Then I Return to the Shire After learning about the ancient human species that once existed on Earth, I return to the Shire. I realize that the film deliberately lets us see the Hobbits before we learn about the great wars of Middle-earth. We see them gardening. Planting trees. Eating. Walking along small paths. Living in homes built into the earth. It is a world almost completely opposite to the opening of the film. Just moments earlier, we had seen the history of the Ring, wars, kings, and struggles for power. Then the film suddenly takes us to the Shire. From war to a garden. From kingdoms to small homes. From power to an ordinary life. And perhaps this contrast is what helps me begin to understand why the story of the Ring begins with the Hobbits. The Ring represents something capable of making the entire world struggle for power. Yet the first people we see living close to it are a people who seem to have almost no interest in power at all. Another Question About History From the Hobbits, I began thinking more broadly about human history. Perhaps the most astonishing thing is not simply that there were once small-bodied humans. It is that Earth once offered many different ways for a creature with a human form to exist. Some lived in forests. Some lived on islands. Some adapted to cold climates. Some built complex communities. Some human groups had larger bodies. Others had smaller ones. And for long periods of time, some of these groups even existed at the same time. Eventually, only Homo sapiens remained as the only surviving modern human species. But that does not mean history always followed a single path. On the contrary, evolutionary history shows us that there were once many different branches. Some lasted for a long time. Some disappeared. Some left traces in our genes. And some remain only through skeletons, stone tools, and questions that do not yet have complete answers. The Hobbits Made Me See “Smallness” Differently So I do not think we should say that Tolkien’s Hobbits were the same as the little humans who once existed on Earth. We have no evidence for that. But I find something else interesting. Tolkien created a small people and placed them at the center of a story about power. Science later showed us that Earth’s history really did include small-bodied human species. The two stories are completely different. But when placed side by side, they make me ask a question: Have we become too accustomed to thinking that what is larger must also be more important? Because in Middle-earth, the strongest person is not necessarily the one with the greatest power. And in evolutionary history, a small body does not necessarily mean a poorly adapted creature. Perhaps “small” is simply another way of existing. And that is also what makes me look back at the Shire. The Hobbits do not try to become great figures. They simply want to live a peaceful life, care for their land, and enjoy the things that are growing. Yet it is from that small place that one of the greatest stories in Middle-earth begins.

🎼🌺Music Love♥️

14,619 Aufrufe • vor 11 Tagen