Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Robin Hanson on the retirees thought experiment he says explains exactly why AI won't kill humanity: "The initial AI doomer arguments tended to focus on this one AI that suddenly popped up as the superpower God, who could do anything at once, and wasn't constrained by any sort of... society" "But that's pretty implausible in the sense that we are now a society of 8 billion humans, and we're making many AIs, and those many AIs will need to coordinate with each other" "An example is today, there are retirees in the world, and you might say, why don't we just kill all the retirees and take their stuff? They're not contributing to the world" "One of the reasons we don't is because that would be threatening the social structure we all share with them. As soon as we approved of killing all the retirees and taking their stuff, we had created this precedent that, okay, that sort of thing could happen. Other people wonder who's next?" "If AIs tried to kill the humans and take their stuff, that would threaten their coordination with each other" "They would then wonder, well, then who's next among us?" Robin Hanson MTSshow more

Jaynit

57,808 subscribers

14,068 views • 24 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Share this if you want to save the world "You know, there are prophets that say the world will come to an end in the Middle East. You know that, right?" "It will be a massive war in the world. We call it Gogumagog" "All the nations of the world united in the beginning, Esav and Ishmael will fight with each other." "Meaning Christians and Muslims will kill each other, which we see as it is right now." "It's written in a book of Zachary 14. You can read it that 2/3 of the people in the world will died in minutes" "This will be the plague with which Hashem will strike all the people that have organized against Jerusalem. Each one's flesh will melt away while he is standing on his feet. Each one's eyes will melt away in their sockets, and each one's tongue will melt away in their mouths" "That does correspond to the things that happen in nuclearHolocaust and the like"

Share this if you want to save the world "You know, there are prophets that say the world will come to an end in the Middle East. You know that, right?" "It will be a massive war in the world. We call it Gogumagog" "All the nations of the world united in the beginning, Esav and Ishmael will fight with each other." "Meaning Christians and Muslims will kill each other, which we see as it is right now." "It's written in a book of Zachary 14. You can read it that 2/3 of the people in the world will died in minutes" "This will be the plague with which Hashem will strike all the people that have organized against Jerusalem. Each one's flesh will melt away while he is standing on his feet. Each one's eyes will melt away in their sockets, and each one's tongue will melt away in their mouths" "That does correspond to the things that happen in nuclearHolocaust and the like"

Seethroughitall

38,326 views • 1 year ago

YOKO ONO: ONOCHORD, VENICE, 2004 Yoko: The world is divided in two industries. One is the War Industry and the other is the Peace Industry. The people in the War Industry are totally together. They don't have to talk to each other, even. They know exactly what they want to do. They want to go out there, kill and make money. But the people in the Peace Industry, which are us - we are so idealistic that each one of us criticises the other Peace Person in the Peace Industry. And we are always just arguing and we are wasting our energies doing that. So let's just forgive each other and see that we are in the Peace Industry and that's all that counts. Even if you are not marching for peace, just be yourself, being a florist, being a merchant, being a talior, anything. That way you're contributing to the Peace Industry. People are just concentrating on fear, confusion and anger. And therefore just for a moment, I'd like us to think about Love. In a very magical, straight way, John and I met in London and from then on we stood for Peace and Love. And when I do this kind of event. Well it is... I was inspired to do it, but I still think that I'm still with John in spirit. John and I created the country called Nutopia. Not Utopia, because there was Utopia as a concept already. And we wanted to create a new concept, so we just added N on it - Nutopia - and as a country. Well, that is the concept of a country. And we all are citizens of that country. And in my apartment in the Dakota Building, we put a little plaque on the back door, the kitchen door. It says 'Nutopian Embassy' and even now we have that. (laughs). Nutopia exists in our minds. And because of that, some people want to rebel against it. The reason some want to rebel against it is a good proof that it exists. I think that it was a terrible thing that happened in Chechnya. But we have to still keep our hopes up. And instead of giving up, we have to keep on sending the message of Love to each other. You say that I am the Ambassador of Peace. We are all Ambassadors of Peace. You are too. Everybody in this room are Ambassadors of Peace. Just the fact that we are not participating in War. The fact that we are here, and we are what we are, means that we are in the Peace Industry. All of us. John and I used to say that our apartment in the Dakota is a conceptual monastry, just for the two of us. And when we go out of the Dakota, we get so many people communicating with us, so it's very important that we had silence and quietness. And my apartment is a very small space compared to the world. And I need that for my peace of mind. You should be kind to each other. You should come together, hug each other, love each other, express our love to each other and we should make it work. We should finally create a world that is a totally an Earth for Us. So let's do it. Yoko Ono, OpenAsia Press Conference, whilst exhibiting Onochord, 2004 by Yoko Ono (Nutopia) at the Venice Biennale: OpenAsia 2004, Lido Di Venezia, Venice, Italy, 9 September 2004.

YOKO ONO: ONOCHORD, VENICE, 2004 Yoko: The world is divided in two industries. One is the War Industry and the other is the Peace Industry. The people in the War Industry are totally together. They don't have to talk to each other, even. They know exactly what they want to do. They want to go out there, kill and make money. But the people in the Peace Industry, which are us - we are so idealistic that each one of us criticises the other Peace Person in the Peace Industry. And we are always just arguing and we are wasting our energies doing that. So let's just forgive each other and see that we are in the Peace Industry and that's all that counts. Even if you are not marching for peace, just be yourself, being a florist, being a merchant, being a talior, anything. That way you're contributing to the Peace Industry. People are just concentrating on fear, confusion and anger. And therefore just for a moment, I'd like us to think about Love. In a very magical, straight way, John and I met in London and from then on we stood for Peace and Love. And when I do this kind of event. Well it is... I was inspired to do it, but I still think that I'm still with John in spirit. John and I created the country called Nutopia. Not Utopia, because there was Utopia as a concept already. And we wanted to create a new concept, so we just added N on it - Nutopia - and as a country. Well, that is the concept of a country. And we all are citizens of that country. And in my apartment in the Dakota Building, we put a little plaque on the back door, the kitchen door. It says 'Nutopian Embassy' and even now we have that. (laughs). Nutopia exists in our minds. And because of that, some people want to rebel against it. The reason some want to rebel against it is a good proof that it exists. I think that it was a terrible thing that happened in Chechnya. But we have to still keep our hopes up. And instead of giving up, we have to keep on sending the message of Love to each other. You say that I am the Ambassador of Peace. We are all Ambassadors of Peace. You are too. Everybody in this room are Ambassadors of Peace. Just the fact that we are not participating in War. The fact that we are here, and we are what we are, means that we are in the Peace Industry. All of us. John and I used to say that our apartment in the Dakota is a conceptual monastry, just for the two of us. And when we go out of the Dakota, we get so many people communicating with us, so it's very important that we had silence and quietness. And my apartment is a very small space compared to the world. And I need that for my peace of mind. You should be kind to each other. You should come together, hug each other, love each other, express our love to each other and we should make it work. We should finally create a world that is a totally an Earth for Us. So let's do it. Yoko Ono, OpenAsia Press Conference, whilst exhibiting Onochord, 2004 by Yoko Ono (Nutopia) at the Venice Biennale: OpenAsia 2004, Lido Di Venezia, Venice, Italy, 9 September 2004.

Yoko Ono

35,208 views • 2 years ago

Austen Allred on Gauntlet AI: "We're very up front that we're 80 to 100 hours a week. If you think that that's a terrible idea, please don't come." "We're in Austin, all right? That's a sacrifice for a lot of people. If you don't think like coming to Austin for 100 hours a week and jamming on AI unpaid and just building stuff to figure out how much you can learn and hopefully getting a job on the other side... if you don't think that's awesome, that's totally fine. Please don't come." "There are some psychos out there that think that that's a good time. We wanna collect all those psychos. So come all, come all ye crazy people. And if that's not for you, that's okay." "There are companies that come to us and say, "Hey, we want, you know, 100 engineers that are going to sit in our division of printer drivers and sit there." And I'm like, "They would kill themselves." The people that are coming to Gauntlet would not do that. And so we turn companies down too." So we know who we are, we know what we stand for. You know, it helps that I'm one of those people that would've loved that. So is Ash Tilawat, and so is everybody else that works at Gauntlet. "So it's not hard for us to find other crazy people like ourselves. And that doesn't have to be you. That's okay." "We're not trying to empire build or solve all of humanity's greatest problems. We know that there's a limit to who we're addressing and what we're addressing at any given time." "So our goal is to be the best thing we can possibly be for that weird island of misfits. And for the companies that need a weird island of misfits, we'll be that all day long."

Austen Allred on Gauntlet AI: "We're very up front that we're 80 to 100 hours a week. If you think that that's a terrible idea, please don't come." "We're in Austin, all right? That's a sacrifice for a lot of people. If you don't think like coming to Austin for 100 hours a week and jamming on AI unpaid and just building stuff to figure out how much you can learn and hopefully getting a job on the other side... if you don't think that's awesome, that's totally fine. Please don't come." "There are some psychos out there that think that that's a good time. We wanna collect all those psychos. So come all, come all ye crazy people. And if that's not for you, that's okay." "There are companies that come to us and say, "Hey, we want, you know, 100 engineers that are going to sit in our division of printer drivers and sit there." And I'm like, "They would kill themselves." The people that are coming to Gauntlet would not do that. And so we turn companies down too." So we know who we are, we know what we stand for. You know, it helps that I'm one of those people that would've loved that. So is Ash Tilawat, and so is everybody else that works at Gauntlet. "So it's not hard for us to find other crazy people like ourselves. And that doesn't have to be you. That's okay." "We're not trying to empire build or solve all of humanity's greatest problems. We know that there's a limit to who we're addressing and what we're addressing at any given time." "So our goal is to be the best thing we can possibly be for that weird island of misfits. And for the companies that need a weird island of misfits, we'll be that all day long."

Ben Averbook

12,153 views • 9 months ago

Arteta: “We need everything. We need the first of all, we need everybody fit and available. So the ones that are not involved, the ones that are not with us, that are really big, important players, we need them immediately with us because then we're going to be much stronger. “And then, the other ones, they need to stand up me, the first one and embrace this challenge and go for it. So today we have to suffer. It's painful. It's a terrible feeling. But tomorrow is a different day and if somebody would have said to me in August, 'You are in this position right now in April,' I'm sure we would all take it.”

Arteta: “We need everything. We need the first of all, we need everybody fit and available. So the ones that are not involved, the ones that are not with us, that are really big, important players, we need them immediately with us because then we're going to be much stronger. “And then, the other ones, they need to stand up me, the first one and embrace this challenge and go for it. So today we have to suffer. It's painful. It's a terrible feeling. But tomorrow is a different day and if somebody would have said to me in August, 'You are in this position right now in April,' I'm sure we would all take it.”

Connor Humm

59,735 views • 3 months ago

Take 3 minutes and watch this! RFK Jr. responds to the Trump assassination attempt with a call for national unity: “I think we all need to take a breath now and step back and see that this is the product of so much vigil and so much anger and that when we release that kind of anger into the universe, it inevitably comes back and reverberates with these kind of consequences. All all of us now have to start looking at each other and saying, ‘we're all Americans and we're better than this. This isn't the way that we want our country to look to our children and look to people around the world.’ We need to stop hating on each other. We need to stop telling other people in the world that the other guy is going to destroy the republic. We need to recognize we're all Americans. We all love our country. It's time now to pray for the president, pray for his family, for President Trump, and to start being kind to each other and to start being generous to each other and to resist all of the implications that we continue in this kind of vitriolic way. Let's have an election. Let's go forward as Americans. Let's love each other. Let's trust each other, and let's rebuild this country as a community.” “Somebody in my group showed me a text message, and then we turned on the television and we watched it as the story was evolving. I've been through this before with my own family. I was with my dad. He died in Los Angeles. I understand the implications that this has for our country, and probably as well as anybody does. I think my message to people is we need to all renounce violence. We need to renounce not just violence, but the hatred and vitriol, and we need to stop marginalizing each other. Let’s have a dialogue with each other about doing that and a conversation and a debate. When my uncle was ill in 1963, there was this kind of division again. There was this kind of hatred when my father was ill. It was in the midst of a time that was probably the most divisive in American history at that time since the American Civil War, and we're back into that kind of milieu today. We all need to take responsibility for it. When we pose something that is mean-spirited, that is condemnatory, that is poisonous towards somebody else, we're contributing to this atmosphere of violence.”

Take 3 minutes and watch this! RFK Jr. responds to the Trump assassination attempt with a call for national unity: “I think we all need to take a breath now and step back and see that this is the product of so much vigil and so much anger and that when we release that kind of anger into the universe, it inevitably comes back and reverberates with these kind of consequences. All all of us now have to start looking at each other and saying, ‘we're all Americans and we're better than this. This isn't the way that we want our country to look to our children and look to people around the world.’ We need to stop hating on each other. We need to stop telling other people in the world that the other guy is going to destroy the republic. We need to recognize we're all Americans. We all love our country. It's time now to pray for the president, pray for his family, for President Trump, and to start being kind to each other and to start being generous to each other and to resist all of the implications that we continue in this kind of vitriolic way. Let's have an election. Let's go forward as Americans. Let's love each other. Let's trust each other, and let's rebuild this country as a community.” “Somebody in my group showed me a text message, and then we turned on the television and we watched it as the story was evolving. I've been through this before with my own family. I was with my dad. He died in Los Angeles. I understand the implications that this has for our country, and probably as well as anybody does. I think my message to people is we need to all renounce violence. We need to renounce not just violence, but the hatred and vitriol, and we need to stop marginalizing each other. Let’s have a dialogue with each other about doing that and a conversation and a debate. When my uncle was ill in 1963, there was this kind of division again. There was this kind of hatred when my father was ill. It was in the midst of a time that was probably the most divisive in American history at that time since the American Civil War, and we're back into that kind of milieu today. We all need to take responsibility for it. When we pose something that is mean-spirited, that is condemnatory, that is poisonous towards somebody else, we're contributing to this atmosphere of violence.”

End Tribalism in Politics

123,875 views • 2 years ago

I was honored to share the TED AI stage with Ilya on Oct. 17. His speech video is out today (mine's still being edited). I think it provides relevant context tokens to the ongoing events. Transcript starting at ~10'20": As AI continues to progress, as technology advances, [...] What I claim will happen is that people will start to act in unprecedentedly collaborative ways out of their own self-interest. It's already happening right now. You see the leading AGI companies starting to collaborate, such as the Frontiers model forum. And we will expect that companies, even competitors, will share technical information to make their AI safe. We may even see governments do this. As another example, at OpenAI, we really believed in how dramatic AGI is going to be. So, one of the ideas that we were operating by, and it's been written on our website for 5 years now, is that when technology gets such that we are very close to AGI, to computers smarter than humans, if some other company is far ahead of us, then rather than compete with them, we will help them out, join them, in a sense. And why do that? Because we appreciate how incredibly dramatic AGI is going to be. And my claim is that with each generation of capability advancements, as AI gets better and as all of you experience what AI can do, as people who run AI efforts and AGI efforts, and people who work on them will experience it as well, this will change the way we see AI and AGI. And that will change collective behavior. And this is an important reason why I'm hopeful that, despite the great challenges posed by this technology, we will overcome them. @TEDAI2023

I was honored to share the TED AI stage with Ilya on Oct. 17. His speech video is out today (mine's still being edited). I think it provides relevant context tokens to the ongoing events. Transcript starting at ~10'20": As AI continues to progress, as technology advances, [...] What I claim will happen is that people will start to act in unprecedentedly collaborative ways out of their own self-interest. It's already happening right now. You see the leading AGI companies starting to collaborate, such as the Frontiers model forum. And we will expect that companies, even competitors, will share technical information to make their AI safe. We may even see governments do this. As another example, at OpenAI, we really believed in how dramatic AGI is going to be. So, one of the ideas that we were operating by, and it's been written on our website for 5 years now, is that when technology gets such that we are very close to AGI, to computers smarter than humans, if some other company is far ahead of us, then rather than compete with them, we will help them out, join them, in a sense. And why do that? Because we appreciate how incredibly dramatic AGI is going to be. And my claim is that with each generation of capability advancements, as AI gets better and as all of you experience what AI can do, as people who run AI efforts and AGI efforts, and people who work on them will experience it as well, this will change the way we see AI and AGI. And that will change collective behavior. And this is an important reason why I'm hopeful that, despite the great challenges posed by this technology, we will overcome them. @TEDAI2023

Jim Fan

846,514 views • 2 years ago

David Friedberg: “Why don't we let AI models get bar certified and get medically certified?” “So if the AI models, it turns out, are actually proving to be more accurate, more thoughtful, more responsive, more reasonable, whatever metric we're using, and they pass the same criteria as one would need to pass to qualify for the bar, or to qualify for a doctor certificate, why don't we do that for the AI?” “If that then happens, then the same privilege accrues to the AI as it does to the individual human that does it.” “And now, if you extrapolate from where that takes us, if we're suddenly giving AI the same sort of privileged rights that we give to privileged humans, where's that gonna take us ultimately with respect to the overall rights for AI?”

David Friedberg: “Why don't we let AI models get bar certified and get medically certified?” “So if the AI models, it turns out, are actually proving to be more accurate, more thoughtful, more responsive, more reasonable, whatever metric we're using, and they pass the same criteria as one would need to pass to qualify for the bar, or to qualify for a doctor certificate, why don't we do that for the AI?” “If that then happens, then the same privilege accrues to the AI as it does to the individual human that does it.” “And now, if you extrapolate from where that takes us, if we're suddenly giving AI the same sort of privileged rights that we give to privileged humans, where's that gonna take us ultimately with respect to the overall rights for AI?”

The All-In Podcast

77,038 views • 1 year ago

Friedberg’s Datacenter Wake-Up Call: If We Don't Build Them Here, Other Countries Will david friedberg explains why a datacenter moratorium would be a disaster for the US: The data coming in and out of datacenters moves at roughly the speed of light, so you could put them anywhere. And I think that our policymakers need to be very cognizant of that fact. You have, and we do, connect to the internet using high speed cable, high speed fiber optic throughout the world, and so theoretically, if we don't embrace and allow the economic development of the datacenter industry, and it will fundamentally be an industry because it is almost like the new oil, if we don't put them here, someone else will put them on their shores. Someone else will put them in their country, someone else will put them in their jurisdiction, and a lot of the economic value that arises from the people that will build those facilities, the energy that will be installed to produce power for those facilities, and then all of the second and third order industries that emerge as a result of those installations, that value will accrue elsewhere. The demand is there. The economy's moving forward, AI's moving forward. Datacenters do not take up a lot of space. They're very small relative to the economic value that they produce. If you zoom out on the map of the world, all the datacenters in the world fit under the tip of a pin, and so this is a very small footprint. If we're going to give up hundreds of thousands of jobs and many billions of dollars of economic value creation, we're being pretty silly and pretty obtuse in our view of the world. Provided datacenters are producing their own electricity, that means that you're taking electricity consumption off the grid because they otherwise are not being used on the grid, and that will reduce the cost of electricity for other residential and industrial users. So it's silly to think that we need to put a moratorium on datacenters. As soon as you do that, the companies that use datacenters are not going to slow down. They're going to go put them somewhere else, and we're going to miss out.

Friedberg’s Datacenter Wake-Up Call: If We Don't Build Them Here, Other Countries Will david friedberg explains why a datacenter moratorium would be a disaster for the US: The data coming in and out of datacenters moves at roughly the speed of light, so you could put them anywhere. And I think that our policymakers need to be very cognizant of that fact. You have, and we do, connect to the internet using high speed cable, high speed fiber optic throughout the world, and so theoretically, if we don't embrace and allow the economic development of the datacenter industry, and it will fundamentally be an industry because it is almost like the new oil, if we don't put them here, someone else will put them on their shores. Someone else will put them in their country, someone else will put them in their jurisdiction, and a lot of the economic value that arises from the people that will build those facilities, the energy that will be installed to produce power for those facilities, and then all of the second and third order industries that emerge as a result of those installations, that value will accrue elsewhere. The demand is there. The economy's moving forward, AI's moving forward. Datacenters do not take up a lot of space. They're very small relative to the economic value that they produce. If you zoom out on the map of the world, all the datacenters in the world fit under the tip of a pin, and so this is a very small footprint. If we're going to give up hundreds of thousands of jobs and many billions of dollars of economic value creation, we're being pretty silly and pretty obtuse in our view of the world. Provided datacenters are producing their own electricity, that means that you're taking electricity consumption off the grid because they otherwise are not being used on the grid, and that will reduce the cost of electricity for other residential and industrial users. So it's silly to think that we need to put a moratorium on datacenters. As soon as you do that, the companies that use datacenters are not going to slow down. They're going to go put them somewhere else, and we're going to miss out.

The All-In Podcast

89,358 views • 5 months ago

ELON: HERE ARE TWO REASONS WHY LIFE SHOULD BECOME MULTIPLANETARY “One is the defensive reason, where I think we want the light of consciousness to not be extinguished if something were to happen to Earth. And you know, in the case of the dinosaurs, they only had to worry about meteors and super volcanoes and other things. But for us humans, we actually have the power to destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons or some sort of crazy bioterrorism thing. So there's some danger that is not zero that could cause the end of life on Earth as we know it. That's the defensive reason to protect the future of consciousness. Then the other big reason, I think, is that it's exciting and it's adventurous and it's inspiring. It makes you think positively about the future. There need to be reasons to be inspired, reasons that move your heart and say yes, the future is going to be great. And I think, humanity going to Mars, even if you don't yourself want to go to Mars—and most people don't, just watch it, it's a tough gig, frankly. I think it would just be incredibly inspiring to the world in the same way that the Apollo program was inspiring to the world. We need things that make us excited and inspired about the future. And that would be one of them.” Source: Elon Musk, Interview with Ron Baron, November 4, 2022

ELON: HERE ARE TWO REASONS WHY LIFE SHOULD BECOME MULTIPLANETARY “One is the defensive reason, where I think we want the light of consciousness to not be extinguished if something were to happen to Earth. And you know, in the case of the dinosaurs, they only had to worry about meteors and super volcanoes and other things. But for us humans, we actually have the power to destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons or some sort of crazy bioterrorism thing. So there's some danger that is not zero that could cause the end of life on Earth as we know it. That's the defensive reason to protect the future of consciousness. Then the other big reason, I think, is that it's exciting and it's adventurous and it's inspiring. It makes you think positively about the future. There need to be reasons to be inspired, reasons that move your heart and say yes, the future is going to be great. And I think, humanity going to Mars, even if you don't yourself want to go to Mars—and most people don't, just watch it, it's a tough gig, frankly. I think it would just be incredibly inspiring to the world in the same way that the Apollo program was inspiring to the world. We need things that make us excited and inspired about the future. And that would be one of them.” Source: Elon Musk, Interview with Ron Baron, November 4, 2022

Mario Nawfal

185,489 views • 1 year ago

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.

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 views • 1 month ago

We are not okay, and that’s okay to say. I wish I could tell you that we are standing here and that the rest of the world is standing with us. With you. Sadly I can’t say that. There is a loud and aggressive minority around the world who doesn’t get, that being murdered at a peace festival does not equal resistance. I do however, know that we are standing here on behalf of all those people in the world, with moral clarity. And there are a lot of them. And there are many who want to be here with you. And they are here with you at heart. On October 7th, your loved ones went to Nova. We call it a peace music festival because that’s what it was—a place to make new friends, to let loos explore and celebrate life. And this juxtaposition hurts the most —because on that day, the light your loved ones were, was met with the most unimaginable darkness. Our lives will never be the same. But today, as we remember them, we also make a promise: to honor their memory by living as they would have. As we stand here in grief, we have a message to the world: we will not be defeated. Israel was attacked on October 7th and every day since, for the crime of existing. For the audacity of just being here. But we are here, and we are here to stay. And despite the trauma we’ve faced, we are in Israel, standing strong together, committed to the memories of those we lost and to the return of our hostages. We, despite the pain and alongside it, are going to build a brighter future. Together. We will dance again. Am Yisrael Chai Forever

We are not okay, and that’s okay to say. I wish I could tell you that we are standing here and that the rest of the world is standing with us. With you. Sadly I can’t say that. There is a loud and aggressive minority around the world who doesn’t get, that being murdered at a peace festival does not equal resistance. I do however, know that we are standing here on behalf of all those people in the world, with moral clarity. And there are a lot of them. And there are many who want to be here with you. And they are here with you at heart. On October 7th, your loved ones went to Nova. We call it a peace music festival because that’s what it was—a place to make new friends, to let loos explore and celebrate life. And this juxtaposition hurts the most —because on that day, the light your loved ones were, was met with the most unimaginable darkness. Our lives will never be the same. But today, as we remember them, we also make a promise: to honor their memory by living as they would have. As we stand here in grief, we have a message to the world: we will not be defeated. Israel was attacked on October 7th and every day since, for the crime of existing. For the audacity of just being here. But we are here, and we are here to stay. And despite the trauma we’ve faced, we are in Israel, standing strong together, committed to the memories of those we lost and to the return of our hostages. We, despite the pain and alongside it, are going to build a brighter future. Together. We will dance again. Am Yisrael Chai Forever

Noa Tishby

32,728 views • 10 months ago

'To them, we could be like a fungus. Some might say, 'Look, if they were going to do harm to us, wouldn't they have done it by now?' I don't know. We think we're at the top of the food chain. What if, we're not?" (This is SO GOOD and worth your time. Kudos to Dr. Phil because this is one of the best I've seen from a mainstream voice in discussing the, potential, issues with Disclosure that something more advanced is on this planet with us. It was uploaded to his YT on May 8th of this year.) ~ Dr. Phil: "I mean, think about it. Doesn't it cause us to question the meaning of humanity and the cosmos? Wouldn't it change that? Wouldn't it cause us to have to reexamine philosophy, religion, personal worldviews? "Potential reframing of human exceptionalism that we base our value systems on, is that we're at the top of the food chain. That there is human exceptionalism. That we, as humans, are the be-all and end-all of this world. And then, all of a sudden, we find out, not true. To them, we could be like a fungus. "People have posed questions like, 'Well, if they're here, why haven't they talked to us? Why haven't they identified themselves to us?' It may be that we're so minuscule and irrelevant, why would they bother. "And so, the psychological impact on individuals, the individual effects, could result in acute stress, just being awestruck, unbelievable curiosity, and existential anxiety. Like, who are we? If we're not at the top of the food chain, if we're not the be-all and end-all of the Universe, then what are we? Are we like gum on the shoe of the superior beings? How would we explain all of that? "And so people would begin to look for coping strategies, immediately seeking information, spiritual exploration, figuring out how do I fit in? And then, in terms of community dynamics, the world, it could be very divisive. It could increase everything that we do, culturally, religiously, political identities. Rumors, and misinformation could flourish, especially on the web. Oh my God, can you imagine what would start flying around then? Making trusted communicators really crucial. And if there's a crisis of confidence with the government because they've lied to you for so long, where do you go to get real information? "And the long-term mental health aspects when you don't know the motives or the intent of these entities could create chronic worry, conspiracy thinking, paranoia, feelings of unbelievable inadequacy. Some may celebrate with renewed optimism, like 'Wow, look what we found! These people, if they can do all this, maybe they can cure all the diseases. They can come up with solutions to problems. This is great!' "How would governments react (laughs)? Russia, China, United States would all be scrambling to establish some kind of process for monitoring potential collaboration. Our intelligence communities would go crazy. Our Department of Defense, our science agencies would have to start redoing everything, revisiting risk assessment. "Of course, we would be trying to establish exchange programs. Maybe they're not even interested? Like I say, we could be like gum on their shoe. Who knows? How do you feel about that? "If they were to reveal themselves, what is their agenda? Some might say, 'Look, if they were going to do harm to us, wouldn't they have done it by now?' I don't know. If we're so insignificant, it doesn't matter, it could be irrelevant. But then, why are they here? Now you may think, 'Okay, Doctor Phil's finally gone over the high side. He's gone down nutball highway.' That's not what I'm telling you. "I'm saying the government knows more than they're telling us. My question is: Is it unsafe for the general population to know all of this? Would it create such anxiety and panic that it's more than people can handle? Because it would rewrite almost every value, every paradigm that we know. Because we think we're at the top of the food chain. What if, we're not? What does that mean? And how would you feel about that? "You really need to ask yourself those questions because I think we're getting ready, maybe not to meet someone from another galaxy, but I think we're getting ready to find out there are things that we can't explain, but do have in our possession. Evidence that we can explain with concepts we understand. The question is: How do you feel about it? Because that's the real story." (He briefly mentions Grusch in the full, video.)

'To them, we could be like a fungus. Some might say, 'Look, if they were going to do harm to us, wouldn't they have done it by now?' I don't know. We think we're at the top of the food chain. What if, we're not?" (This is SO GOOD and worth your time. Kudos to Dr. Phil because this is one of the best I've seen from a mainstream voice in discussing the, potential, issues with Disclosure that something more advanced is on this planet with us. It was uploaded to his YT on May 8th of this year.) ~ Dr. Phil: "I mean, think about it. Doesn't it cause us to question the meaning of humanity and the cosmos? Wouldn't it change that? Wouldn't it cause us to have to reexamine philosophy, religion, personal worldviews? "Potential reframing of human exceptionalism that we base our value systems on, is that we're at the top of the food chain. That there is human exceptionalism. That we, as humans, are the be-all and end-all of this world. And then, all of a sudden, we find out, not true. To them, we could be like a fungus. "People have posed questions like, 'Well, if they're here, why haven't they talked to us? Why haven't they identified themselves to us?' It may be that we're so minuscule and irrelevant, why would they bother. "And so, the psychological impact on individuals, the individual effects, could result in acute stress, just being awestruck, unbelievable curiosity, and existential anxiety. Like, who are we? If we're not at the top of the food chain, if we're not the be-all and end-all of the Universe, then what are we? Are we like gum on the shoe of the superior beings? How would we explain all of that? "And so people would begin to look for coping strategies, immediately seeking information, spiritual exploration, figuring out how do I fit in? And then, in terms of community dynamics, the world, it could be very divisive. It could increase everything that we do, culturally, religiously, political identities. Rumors, and misinformation could flourish, especially on the web. Oh my God, can you imagine what would start flying around then? Making trusted communicators really crucial. And if there's a crisis of confidence with the government because they've lied to you for so long, where do you go to get real information? "And the long-term mental health aspects when you don't know the motives or the intent of these entities could create chronic worry, conspiracy thinking, paranoia, feelings of unbelievable inadequacy. Some may celebrate with renewed optimism, like 'Wow, look what we found! These people, if they can do all this, maybe they can cure all the diseases. They can come up with solutions to problems. This is great!' "How would governments react (laughs)? Russia, China, United States would all be scrambling to establish some kind of process for monitoring potential collaboration. Our intelligence communities would go crazy. Our Department of Defense, our science agencies would have to start redoing everything, revisiting risk assessment. "Of course, we would be trying to establish exchange programs. Maybe they're not even interested? Like I say, we could be like gum on their shoe. Who knows? How do you feel about that? "If they were to reveal themselves, what is their agenda? Some might say, 'Look, if they were going to do harm to us, wouldn't they have done it by now?' I don't know. If we're so insignificant, it doesn't matter, it could be irrelevant. But then, why are they here? Now you may think, 'Okay, Doctor Phil's finally gone over the high side. He's gone down nutball highway.' That's not what I'm telling you. "I'm saying the government knows more than they're telling us. My question is: Is it unsafe for the general population to know all of this? Would it create such anxiety and panic that it's more than people can handle? Because it would rewrite almost every value, every paradigm that we know. Because we think we're at the top of the food chain. What if, we're not? What does that mean? And how would you feel about that? "You really need to ask yourself those questions because I think we're getting ready, maybe not to meet someone from another galaxy, but I think we're getting ready to find out there are things that we can't explain, but do have in our possession. Evidence that we can explain with concepts we understand. The question is: How do you feel about it? Because that's the real story." (He briefly mentions Grusch in the full, video.)

Joe Murgia

16,763 views • 28 days ago

Why don't we just cut the crap and say it? And the conclusion that I came to, this is an earlier book, The Stuff of Thought (subtitle is Language is a Window into Human Nature), is that direct speech generates common knowledge, and that common knowledge is the basis of our social relationships. Two people--if they're friends, if they're lovers, if they're transactional partners, if they're in a dominance hierarchy--all of those are equilibria in coordination games, and they're matters of common knowledge. In the case of friends, it's we're equal, we would do anything for each other, we're there for each other, and that's kind of the common knowledge that makes friends friends. Clip on direct speech and common knowledge from an interview with Robert Contofalsky (Robert Contofalsky) of R-Academy. -- My new book, When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows . . .: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life is available here:

Why don't we just cut the crap and say it? And the conclusion that I came to, this is an earlier book, The Stuff of Thought (subtitle is Language is a Window into Human Nature), is that direct speech generates common knowledge, and that common knowledge is the basis of our social relationships. Two people--if they're friends, if they're lovers, if they're transactional partners, if they're in a dominance hierarchy--all of those are equilibria in coordination games, and they're matters of common knowledge. In the case of friends, it's we're equal, we would do anything for each other, we're there for each other, and that's kind of the common knowledge that makes friends friends. Clip on direct speech and common knowledge from an interview with Robert Contofalsky (Robert Contofalsky) of R-Academy. -- My new book, When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows . . .: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life is available here:

Steven Pinker

56,084 views • 9 months ago

Brad Gerstner: “AI is becoming deeply unpopular in America” “Silicon Valley is losing the battle around AI.” “Doomers are now scaring people about jobs. They think all these job cuts that are going on in America are the result of AI.” “And number two, they're seeing their electric bills go up and they think that's also the result of AI.” “I've talked with a lot of Republican Senators and House members who say they are afraid to mention the words AI because their popularity ratings go down.” “We need to get on the other side of that, because that is a losing proposition for America.” “I think both of those are false narratives, but we need to get on the other side.” “In China, they're not gonna slow down.” “So if we do an own goal here and slow down because we think somehow that this is the path to greater economic growth, it's gonna be a real problem, both national security as well as economic security.”

Brad Gerstner: “AI is becoming deeply unpopular in America” “Silicon Valley is losing the battle around AI.” “Doomers are now scaring people about jobs. They think all these job cuts that are going on in America are the result of AI.” “And number two, they're seeing their electric bills go up and they think that's also the result of AI.” “I've talked with a lot of Republican Senators and House members who say they are afraid to mention the words AI because their popularity ratings go down.” “We need to get on the other side of that, because that is a losing proposition for America.” “I think both of those are false narratives, but we need to get on the other side.” “In China, they're not gonna slow down.” “So if we do an own goal here and slow down because we think somehow that this is the path to greater economic growth, it's gonna be a real problem, both national security as well as economic security.”

The All-In Podcast

2,073,840 views • 9 months ago

What is the biggest misconception about Palantir? Emil Michael (Under Secretary of War Emil Michael + Department of War CTO), Under Secretary of War for Research & Engineering, & Department of War CTO, explains: "I mean, Palantir is a software company that innovated.. they were sort of the first big data company, if you will.. and in some ways had AI capabilities that delivered useful software to the government. And it's been amazing to watch how people use their product in the department for all sorts of things. We didn't know where our stuff was. We were spending trillions of dollars over the years. Where are our munitions? Where are these things? How do we understand where they are in their lifecycle? How do we repair them? All the things that were really just basic stuff. The protesters want to talk about, you know, some of the other stuff they do that they think is more controversial. But I think they're really a nuts-and-bolts software company with forward deployed engineers that are smart, that sit with a warfighter and solve everyday problems you would in any organization, as much as they do the other stuff." "Why do you think people think they're evil?" "People are crazy. I don't know. If helping the American government do lawful things makes you evil, I mean, you know, who's not on that list? I mean, we all support our—we live here, right? We support our elected government regardless of the party. So I think it sort of hearkens back to, like, a long—it was probably before your time—but there was a sort of a solicitation on who would sell the first cloud software to the government. And Google bailed because their employees were like, “No, you can't.” So imagine.. they wouldn't sell cloud to the government, but they'd sell it to companies in foreign countries. It's crazy. I think those days are over, and the number or percentage of people that will say that about a Palantir or a Google or any one other company has shrunk so much that hopefully it doesn't matter."

What is the biggest misconception about Palantir? Emil Michael (Under Secretary of War Emil Michael + Department of War CTO), Under Secretary of War for Research & Engineering, & Department of War CTO, explains: "I mean, Palantir is a software company that innovated.. they were sort of the first big data company, if you will.. and in some ways had AI capabilities that delivered useful software to the government. And it's been amazing to watch how people use their product in the department for all sorts of things. We didn't know where our stuff was. We were spending trillions of dollars over the years. Where are our munitions? Where are these things? How do we understand where they are in their lifecycle? How do we repair them? All the things that were really just basic stuff. The protesters want to talk about, you know, some of the other stuff they do that they think is more controversial. But I think they're really a nuts-and-bolts software company with forward deployed engineers that are smart, that sit with a warfighter and solve everyday problems you would in any organization, as much as they do the other stuff." "Why do you think people think they're evil?" "People are crazy. I don't know. If helping the American government do lawful things makes you evil, I mean, you know, who's not on that list? I mean, we all support our—we live here, right? We support our elected government regardless of the party. So I think it sort of hearkens back to, like, a long—it was probably before your time—but there was a sort of a solicitation on who would sell the first cloud software to the government. And Google bailed because their employees were like, “No, you can't.” So imagine.. they wouldn't sell cloud to the government, but they'd sell it to companies in foreign countries. It's crazy. I think those days are over, and the number or percentage of people that will say that about a Palantir or a Google or any one other company has shrunk so much that hopefully it doesn't matter."

Molly O’Shea

74,174 views • 7 months ago

Very well said here by Shervin Hajipour: "Just don't forget that we all want one thing, and our goal is one thing, and that is for this country to turn into a better place to live. And we are all trying in some way. Maybe these small ways have differences with each other, and we have small differences of opinion. But we are not supposed to tear ourselves apart on social media and fight with each other because of this difference of opinion. Because there is a minority that is taking maximum advantage of this lack of solidarity among us, and we really shouldn't give them this opportunity."

Very well said here by Shervin Hajipour: "Just don't forget that we all want one thing, and our goal is one thing, and that is for this country to turn into a better place to live. And we are all trying in some way. Maybe these small ways have differences with each other, and we have small differences of opinion. But we are not supposed to tear ourselves apart on social media and fight with each other because of this difference of opinion. Because there is a minority that is taking maximum advantage of this lack of solidarity among us, and we really shouldn't give them this opportunity."

Sina Toossi

14,877 views • 8 months ago

How can OpenAI with $13 billion in revenues make $1.4 trillion of spend commitments? (Source: Bg2 Pod ) Sam Altman: “First of all. We’re doing well more revenue than that. Second of all, Brad, if you want to sell your shares, I'll find you a buyer. I just, enough. I think there's a lot of people who would love to buy OpenAI shares. I think people who talk with a lot of breathless concern about our compute stuff or whatever, that would be thrilled to buy shares. So I think we could sell your shares or anybody else's to some of the people who are making the most noise on Twitter about this very quickly. We do plan for revenue to grow steeply. Revenue is growing steeply. We are taking a forward bet that it's going to continue to grow and that not only will ChatGPT keep growing, but we will be able to become one of the important AI clouds, that our consumer device business will be a significant and important thing, that AI that can automate science will create huge value. There are not many times that I want to be a public company, but one of the rare times it's appealing is when those people are writing these ridiculous OpenAI is about to go out of business. I would love to tell them they could just short the stock, and I would love to see them get burned on that. But we carefully plan. We understand where the technology, where the capability is going to grow and how the products we can build around that and the revenue we can generate. We might screw it up. This is the bet that we're making and we're taking a risk along with that. A certain risk is if we don't have the compute, we will not be able to generate the revenue or make the models at this kind of scale.” Satya Nadella: “And let me just say one thing as both a partner and an investor. There is not been a single business plan that I've seen from OpenAI that they've put in and not beaten it. So in some sense, this is the one place where in terms of their growth and just even the business, it's been unbelievable execution, quite frankly. I mean, obviously, OpenAI, everyone talks about all the success and the usage and what have you. But even I'd say all up, the business execution has been just pretty unbelievable.”

How can OpenAI with $13 billion in revenues make $1.4 trillion of spend commitments? (Source: Bg2 Pod ) Sam Altman: “First of all. We’re doing well more revenue than that. Second of all, Brad, if you want to sell your shares, I'll find you a buyer. I just, enough. I think there's a lot of people who would love to buy OpenAI shares. I think people who talk with a lot of breathless concern about our compute stuff or whatever, that would be thrilled to buy shares. So I think we could sell your shares or anybody else's to some of the people who are making the most noise on Twitter about this very quickly. We do plan for revenue to grow steeply. Revenue is growing steeply. We are taking a forward bet that it's going to continue to grow and that not only will ChatGPT keep growing, but we will be able to become one of the important AI clouds, that our consumer device business will be a significant and important thing, that AI that can automate science will create huge value. There are not many times that I want to be a public company, but one of the rare times it's appealing is when those people are writing these ridiculous OpenAI is about to go out of business. I would love to tell them they could just short the stock, and I would love to see them get burned on that. But we carefully plan. We understand where the technology, where the capability is going to grow and how the products we can build around that and the revenue we can generate. We might screw it up. This is the bet that we're making and we're taking a risk along with that. A certain risk is if we don't have the compute, we will not be able to generate the revenue or make the models at this kind of scale.” Satya Nadella: “And let me just say one thing as both a partner and an investor. There is not been a single business plan that I've seen from OpenAI that they've put in and not beaten it. So in some sense, this is the one place where in terms of their growth and just even the business, it's been unbelievable execution, quite frankly. I mean, obviously, OpenAI, everyone talks about all the success and the usage and what have you. But even I'd say all up, the business execution has been just pretty unbelievable.”

tae kim

1,565,901 views • 9 months ago