Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Satya Nadella was asked directly: in two years, will Microsoft have more engineers or fewer ? He didn't answer with a headcount. He answered with a job description that doesn't exist yet. In the 1980s, if someone had predicted 3.5 billion people would spend their days typing, the world...

Vvikramai's profile picture

Vikram M

2,878 subscribers

96,897 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

BildungNachrichten & PolitikWissenschaft & Technologie
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."
1:12

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."

Patrick OShaughnessy

24,818 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Jensen Huang just explained why every company cutting engineers over AI is asking the entirely wrong question. Huang: “People say, I don’t need software engineers because apparently coding is going to be automated.” That was the narrative. Here is what Huang actually did. Huang: “I’ve given AIs to every one of my software engineers and hardware engineers and engineers period. 100% of NVIDIA has AI assistants, AI coders, and they’re busier than ever.” Not fewer engineers. Not smaller teams. Busier than ever. That is the line most companies are getting completely wrong right now. They hear “AI can write code” and immediately start cutting headcount. Huang did the opposite. He armed everyone. Huang: “And so the question is, what is the task versus what is the job? No different than a financial analyst; the task is mess around with spreadsheets, but the job is to make financial advice. The job is to help a customer.” Writing code was always the task. It was never the job. The job is architecture. Knowing what to build. Why it matters. How it fits into a system that actually creates value. Code is the execution layer between the idea and the outcome. Nothing more. When you automate that layer, you don’t eliminate the engineer. You eliminate the bottleneck between what they can envision and what they can ship. The companies using AI to cut headcount are optimizing for cost. The companies using AI to multiply output are optimizing for territory. Nvidia chose territory. Every engineer at the most valuable semiconductor company on Earth now operates with an AI assistant. Not a pilot program. Not an experiment. Company-wide. Every function. Every team. And the result is not less work. It is more work. Faster. At a scale that was physically impossible twelve months ago. The companies that understand the difference between eliminating engineers and unleashing them will build what comes next. The ones that don’t will watch their best talent walk out the door to the ones that did.
0:35

Jensen Huang just explained why every company cutting engineers over AI is asking the entirely wrong question. Huang: “People say, I don’t need software engineers because apparently coding is going to be automated.” That was the narrative. Here is what Huang actually did. Huang: “I’ve given AIs to every one of my software engineers and hardware engineers and engineers period. 100% of NVIDIA has AI assistants, AI coders, and they’re busier than ever.” Not fewer engineers. Not smaller teams. Busier than ever. That is the line most companies are getting completely wrong right now. They hear “AI can write code” and immediately start cutting headcount. Huang did the opposite. He armed everyone. Huang: “And so the question is, what is the task versus what is the job? No different than a financial analyst; the task is mess around with spreadsheets, but the job is to make financial advice. The job is to help a customer.” Writing code was always the task. It was never the job. The job is architecture. Knowing what to build. Why it matters. How it fits into a system that actually creates value. Code is the execution layer between the idea and the outcome. Nothing more. When you automate that layer, you don’t eliminate the engineer. You eliminate the bottleneck between what they can envision and what they can ship. The companies using AI to cut headcount are optimizing for cost. The companies using AI to multiply output are optimizing for territory. Nvidia chose territory. Every engineer at the most valuable semiconductor company on Earth now operates with an AI assistant. Not a pilot program. Not an experiment. Company-wide. Every function. Every team. And the result is not less work. It is more work. Faster. At a scale that was physically impossible twelve months ago. The companies that understand the difference between eliminating engineers and unleashing them will build what comes next. The ones that don’t will watch their best talent walk out the door to the ones that did.

Dustin

82,757 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Jensen Huang just told the world something nobody wants to hear. AI is not coming for your job. It is coming for the part of your job you mistakenly believe IS your job. Huang: “The purpose of your job and the tasks that you do in your job are related but not the same.” That one sentence is the fault line between the people who thrive in the next decade and the people who vanish from it. Huang used himself as proof. Reduce the CEO of Nvidia to his raw outputs and his entire career is typing and talking. Both have been automated to superhuman levels. Huang: “Typing and talking have both been automated to a superhuman level by AI. And yet, I’m busier than ever.” The man building the infrastructure that automates human labor has never worked harder. That should stop you cold. We look at a profession and see the tasks. The motions. The mechanical friction. We never see the intent underneath. And when AI arrives, we panic. Because we confuse the task with the job. The task was never the job. It was always the bottleneck between a human and their actual purpose. Now the bottleneck is dissolving. Years ago, the experts declared radiology dead. The algorithm could read a scan better than any human. A generation of medical students listened. They walked away from the field. The result was catastrophic. Huang: “We need more radiologists than ever, and we don’t have enough.” The algorithm did not replace the doctor. It armed the doctor. Suddenly the department could see more patients. Catch more anomalies. Generate more revenue. The hospital did not fire the radiologists. It tried to hire more. And could not find them. Because we terrified an entire generation out of a career with a prediction that landed exactly backwards. Now the same hysteria is consuming software engineering. The timeline is screaming that coding is dead. Meanwhile, inside the very company building the hardware that automates code. Huang: “The software engineers that know how to use AI, know how to work with agentic systems, are the most popular and the most successful.” The tool did not replace the architect. It replaced the shovel. This is the pattern nobody wants to confront. AI does not eliminate the human. It eliminates the friction that made the human slow. And when the friction disappears, demand for the human explodes. But only if the human shows up. The ones who defined themselves by the mechanical act of writing code are fading. The ones who defined themselves by what the code was meant to build are now the most valuable people on the planet. That is not a nuance. That is the entire dividing line. The machine will write the script. Read the scan. Draft the brief. It will never possess the reason any of it needed to exist. The task was never the job. And nobody who figures that out last gets the privilege of figuring it out twice.
2:00

Jensen Huang just told the world something nobody wants to hear. AI is not coming for your job. It is coming for the part of your job you mistakenly believe IS your job. Huang: “The purpose of your job and the tasks that you do in your job are related but not the same.” That one sentence is the fault line between the people who thrive in the next decade and the people who vanish from it. Huang used himself as proof. Reduce the CEO of Nvidia to his raw outputs and his entire career is typing and talking. Both have been automated to superhuman levels. Huang: “Typing and talking have both been automated to a superhuman level by AI. And yet, I’m busier than ever.” The man building the infrastructure that automates human labor has never worked harder. That should stop you cold. We look at a profession and see the tasks. The motions. The mechanical friction. We never see the intent underneath. And when AI arrives, we panic. Because we confuse the task with the job. The task was never the job. It was always the bottleneck between a human and their actual purpose. Now the bottleneck is dissolving. Years ago, the experts declared radiology dead. The algorithm could read a scan better than any human. A generation of medical students listened. They walked away from the field. The result was catastrophic. Huang: “We need more radiologists than ever, and we don’t have enough.” The algorithm did not replace the doctor. It armed the doctor. Suddenly the department could see more patients. Catch more anomalies. Generate more revenue. The hospital did not fire the radiologists. It tried to hire more. And could not find them. Because we terrified an entire generation out of a career with a prediction that landed exactly backwards. Now the same hysteria is consuming software engineering. The timeline is screaming that coding is dead. Meanwhile, inside the very company building the hardware that automates code. Huang: “The software engineers that know how to use AI, know how to work with agentic systems, are the most popular and the most successful.” The tool did not replace the architect. It replaced the shovel. This is the pattern nobody wants to confront. AI does not eliminate the human. It eliminates the friction that made the human slow. And when the friction disappears, demand for the human explodes. But only if the human shows up. The ones who defined themselves by the mechanical act of writing code are fading. The ones who defined themselves by what the code was meant to build are now the most valuable people on the planet. That is not a nuance. That is the entire dividing line. The machine will write the script. Read the scan. Draft the brief. It will never possess the reason any of it needed to exist. The task was never the job. And nobody who figures that out last gets the privilege of figuring it out twice.

Dustin

52,882 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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

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

Dustin

535,724 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Jensen Huang just said this is the greatest era in history to build software. AI agents will not kill software. They will do the exact opposite: create a massive new wave of software demand. at NVIDIA GTC Taipei 2026 "Click and type. We now replace that with explaining to the AI what we want, our intent, and the AI generates the code or uses tools to produce the necessary output. This is how computers are going to work in the future. This is Agentic AI. For two years, we've been building toward this, and now it has arrived. One of the big breakthroughs, of course, is tool use. A lot of people have said, “Jensen, AI is coming. Agentic AI is coming. Therefore, all the software companies are going to go out of business.” This is exactly the opposite. Because there are going to be so many agents, the world is no longer limited by the number of people. Therefore, those agents are going to use more tools than ever. This is actually an incredible time to be a software company. But the software has to be presented to the agent in a way that the agent can use it. This is a big breakthrough. And in fact, what we have done, as you know, what Nvidia’s treasure..." ---- From 'NVIDIA' YT channel (link in comment)
0:59

Jensen Huang just said this is the greatest era in history to build software. AI agents will not kill software. They will do the exact opposite: create a massive new wave of software demand. at NVIDIA GTC Taipei 2026 "Click and type. We now replace that with explaining to the AI what we want, our intent, and the AI generates the code or uses tools to produce the necessary output. This is how computers are going to work in the future. This is Agentic AI. For two years, we've been building toward this, and now it has arrived. One of the big breakthroughs, of course, is tool use. A lot of people have said, “Jensen, AI is coming. Agentic AI is coming. Therefore, all the software companies are going to go out of business.” This is exactly the opposite. Because there are going to be so many agents, the world is no longer limited by the number of people. Therefore, those agents are going to use more tools than ever. This is actually an incredible time to be a software company. But the software has to be presented to the agent in a way that the agent can use it. This is a big breakthrough. And in fact, what we have done, as you know, what Nvidia’s treasure..." ---- From 'NVIDIA' YT channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

16,584 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Elon Musk was asked what happens to people when the machines no longer need them. He didn’t soften it. Musk: “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better. These are not things I wish would happen. They probably will.” Sit with that second sentence. He is not celebrating. He is not selling a vision. He is telling you what he believes is inevitable and admitting he wishes it weren’t. That is not optimism. That is a confession. Most people are still arguing over whether this is real. Whether it’s their job or someone else’s. Whether the timeline is years away or decades. Musk isn’t arguing. He resolved it. And it bothers him. Musk: “I think ultimately we will have to have some kind of universal basic income. I don’t think we’re going to have a choice.” Not a political position. Not a utopian proposal. A concession. We are building something so capable that human labor stops being a required input to the economy. The machine does not need rest. It does not need a salary. It does not call in sick. It does not ask for a raise. And it improves every single month. The jobs that feel safe right now are not safe because they are irreplaceable. They feel safe because the technology hasn’t fully arrived yet. It’s arriving. Musk: “How do people then have meaning? If there’s not a need for your labor, what’s the meaning? Do you feel useless?” He said that is the harder problem. Not the economics. Not the policy. Not how you fund UBI or make it hold. The harder problem is what happens to a person who built their entire identity around being needed. That is most people. You were trained from childhood to believe your value is what you produce. That your worth is what you earn. That rest is something you survive the week to reach, not something you deserve simply by existing. When the machine removes the need for your labor, that belief does not update. It breaks. The people least prepared for that moment are the ones who worked the hardest. The ones who took the most pride in being indispensable. The ones who made work the whole answer. Losing the job is survivable. Losing the reason to get up is not. That is what Musk is actually asking. Not how do we pay people. How do we build a world where people still feel like they matter when the economy no longer needs them. Nobody in power is seriously working on that answer. The machine didn’t wait.
1:16

Elon Musk was asked what happens to people when the machines no longer need them. He didn’t soften it. Musk: “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better. These are not things I wish would happen. They probably will.” Sit with that second sentence. He is not celebrating. He is not selling a vision. He is telling you what he believes is inevitable and admitting he wishes it weren’t. That is not optimism. That is a confession. Most people are still arguing over whether this is real. Whether it’s their job or someone else’s. Whether the timeline is years away or decades. Musk isn’t arguing. He resolved it. And it bothers him. Musk: “I think ultimately we will have to have some kind of universal basic income. I don’t think we’re going to have a choice.” Not a political position. Not a utopian proposal. A concession. We are building something so capable that human labor stops being a required input to the economy. The machine does not need rest. It does not need a salary. It does not call in sick. It does not ask for a raise. And it improves every single month. The jobs that feel safe right now are not safe because they are irreplaceable. They feel safe because the technology hasn’t fully arrived yet. It’s arriving. Musk: “How do people then have meaning? If there’s not a need for your labor, what’s the meaning? Do you feel useless?” He said that is the harder problem. Not the economics. Not the policy. Not how you fund UBI or make it hold. The harder problem is what happens to a person who built their entire identity around being needed. That is most people. You were trained from childhood to believe your value is what you produce. That your worth is what you earn. That rest is something you survive the week to reach, not something you deserve simply by existing. When the machine removes the need for your labor, that belief does not update. It breaks. The people least prepared for that moment are the ones who worked the hardest. The ones who took the most pride in being indispensable. The ones who made work the whole answer. Losing the job is survivable. Losing the reason to get up is not. That is what Musk is actually asking. Not how do we pay people. How do we build a world where people still feel like they matter when the economy no longer needs them. Nobody in power is seriously working on that answer. The machine didn’t wait.

Dustin

247,138 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Jensen Huang just described something that should keep every worker in America awake tonight. Not because AI is coming for their job. Because most of them never understood what their job actually was. Huang: “The task of our job and the purpose of our job are related, not the same.” Most people think their job is the thing they do with their hands for eight hours a day. Write code. Fill spreadsheets. Draft emails. Push pixels. That was never the job. That was the task. The job was always the thinking underneath it. Huang: “If you apply that to me, you would come to the conclusion what Jensen does for a living is tap on phones and talk. And tapping on phones and talking, AI has done that just fine. And therefore my job should be gone. But I’m busier than ever.” This is the part nobody wants to sit with. The people panicking about AI aren’t afraid of losing their work. They’re afraid of finding out they never had any. They had a routine. A repetitive motion. A series of keystrokes that felt like purpose. Now a machine does it in four seconds. Huang: “AI has created more than half a million jobs in the last couple of years.” The data says one thing. The fear says another. Because the fear was never about employment numbers. It was about identity. We spent fifty years hunched over keyboards, convinced the hunching was the work. Huang: “The idea that being human means to hunch over on this little thing, typing all the time… 50 years before that, people didn’t do that.” Fifty years. That’s all it took to build an entire identity around a posture. We don’t type for a living. We think for a living. We imagine for a living. The keyboard was always just the delivery mechanism. Never the product. Huang: “It is a fundamental flaw that we only need a billion lines of code written. We need a trillion lines of code written.” The demand was always infinite. The bottleneck was always our fingers. AI doesn’t shrink the workforce. It removes the cap on what the workforce can actually build. Huang: “Companies that use AI have demonstrated the ability to grow faster. When they grow faster, they hire more people.” Growth doesn’t eliminate people. It pulls them in. Every industrial revolution triggered the same panic. Same headlines. Same wrong conclusion. And every single time, the economy didn’t contract. It expanded into territory that didn’t exist before. The real question was never whether AI takes your job. It was whether you were ever anything more than the motions you repeated. Because somewhere in the last fifty years, we stopped asking what the work was for. We just kept typing. And now the typing is done. And millions of people are about to meet themselves for the first time. With nothing to hide behind. Some of them won’t survive what they find.
2:55

Jensen Huang just described something that should keep every worker in America awake tonight. Not because AI is coming for their job. Because most of them never understood what their job actually was. Huang: “The task of our job and the purpose of our job are related, not the same.” Most people think their job is the thing they do with their hands for eight hours a day. Write code. Fill spreadsheets. Draft emails. Push pixels. That was never the job. That was the task. The job was always the thinking underneath it. Huang: “If you apply that to me, you would come to the conclusion what Jensen does for a living is tap on phones and talk. And tapping on phones and talking, AI has done that just fine. And therefore my job should be gone. But I’m busier than ever.” This is the part nobody wants to sit with. The people panicking about AI aren’t afraid of losing their work. They’re afraid of finding out they never had any. They had a routine. A repetitive motion. A series of keystrokes that felt like purpose. Now a machine does it in four seconds. Huang: “AI has created more than half a million jobs in the last couple of years.” The data says one thing. The fear says another. Because the fear was never about employment numbers. It was about identity. We spent fifty years hunched over keyboards, convinced the hunching was the work. Huang: “The idea that being human means to hunch over on this little thing, typing all the time… 50 years before that, people didn’t do that.” Fifty years. That’s all it took to build an entire identity around a posture. We don’t type for a living. We think for a living. We imagine for a living. The keyboard was always just the delivery mechanism. Never the product. Huang: “It is a fundamental flaw that we only need a billion lines of code written. We need a trillion lines of code written.” The demand was always infinite. The bottleneck was always our fingers. AI doesn’t shrink the workforce. It removes the cap on what the workforce can actually build. Huang: “Companies that use AI have demonstrated the ability to grow faster. When they grow faster, they hire more people.” Growth doesn’t eliminate people. It pulls them in. Every industrial revolution triggered the same panic. Same headlines. Same wrong conclusion. And every single time, the economy didn’t contract. It expanded into territory that didn’t exist before. The real question was never whether AI takes your job. It was whether you were ever anything more than the motions you repeated. Because somewhere in the last fifty years, we stopped asking what the work was for. We just kept typing. And now the typing is done. And millions of people are about to meet themselves for the first time. With nothing to hide behind. Some of them won’t survive what they find.

Dustin

92,704 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Jensen Huang said fears about AI destroying jobs are nonsense driven by people making things up. Then he gave the most concrete proof I have ever heard. He called it the radiology story. 12 years ago one of the world's most respected computer scientists made a prediction. Computer vision had become superhuman at reading medical scans. It never got tired. It never missed a detail. So he said radiology was finished. He advised nobody to enter the field. The job was going to be wiped out. Jensen said he was absolutely right. Computer vision did penetrate every single radiology stack. Every radiologist today is augmented by it. The task of reading scans became automated. Then the opposite of the prediction happened. Radiology demand went up. The number of radiologists in the world went up. The reason is the distinction Jensen kept coming back to the whole talk. Task versus purpose. The task of a radiologist is reading scans. The purpose is working with doctors to diagnose disease. When the task got automated, radiologists got more productive. More productive meant more patients admitted. More patients meant more scans. More scans meant more profit. More profit meant they hired more radiologists. The field the expert said would be wiped out needed more people than before. Jensen's point was not that AI creates no disruption. His point was that people confuse the task with the job and then make predictions that cause real damage. Fewer people trained in radiology because of that speech. Now there is a shortage. Someone recently said 90% of software coding will disappear. Jensen said Nvidia is hiring more software engineers than ever. Coding is not a software engineer's job. Solving problems is. When you automate the task, you free the person to do the actual job. That is not a job loss. That is an upgrade.
1:37

Jensen Huang said fears about AI destroying jobs are nonsense driven by people making things up. Then he gave the most concrete proof I have ever heard. He called it the radiology story. 12 years ago one of the world's most respected computer scientists made a prediction. Computer vision had become superhuman at reading medical scans. It never got tired. It never missed a detail. So he said radiology was finished. He advised nobody to enter the field. The job was going to be wiped out. Jensen said he was absolutely right. Computer vision did penetrate every single radiology stack. Every radiologist today is augmented by it. The task of reading scans became automated. Then the opposite of the prediction happened. Radiology demand went up. The number of radiologists in the world went up. The reason is the distinction Jensen kept coming back to the whole talk. Task versus purpose. The task of a radiologist is reading scans. The purpose is working with doctors to diagnose disease. When the task got automated, radiologists got more productive. More productive meant more patients admitted. More patients meant more scans. More scans meant more profit. More profit meant they hired more radiologists. The field the expert said would be wiped out needed more people than before. Jensen's point was not that AI creates no disruption. His point was that people confuse the task with the job and then make predictions that cause real damage. Fewer people trained in radiology because of that speech. Now there is a shortage. Someone recently said 90% of software coding will disappear. Jensen said Nvidia is hiring more software engineers than ever. Coding is not a software engineer's job. Solving problems is. When you automate the task, you free the person to do the actual job. That is not a job loss. That is an upgrade.

Ihtesham Ali

14,480 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Dario Amodei just told software engineers exactly how long they have. Six to twelve months. Amodei: “I have engineers within Anthropic who say I don’t write any code anymore. I just let the model write the code, I edit it, I do the things around it.” The people building the most powerful AI in history have already stopped writing code. That is not a forecast. That is the current working condition inside the lab closest to the frontier. Amodei: “We might be six to 12 months away from when the model is doing most, maybe all, of what SWEs do end-to-end.” The tech industry spent a decade making software engineers its highest-paid, most protected class. That era has a last day now. When a model can execute an entire software build end-to-end, the ability to write syntax stops being a skill. It becomes a credential for a job that no longer exists. Amodei: “And then it’s a question of how fast does that loop close.” That is the sentence everyone skipped. The code was never the hard part. The hard part was everything around it. The model just learned everything around it. Writing the code is already nearly gone. Testing is next. Deployment is next. When all three collapse into a single autonomous execution loop, the machine no longer needs a human in the chain at all. The corporation or sovereign state that closes that loop first does not gain a competitive advantage. It gains a category of speed that biological engineers cannot match, track, or reverse. That is not disruption. That is replacement at a systems level. Amodei is not describing a future disruption. He is describing the current state of his own building. The loop is already closing. The only question is whether you are inside it or outside it when it seals.
0:27

Dario Amodei just told software engineers exactly how long they have. Six to twelve months. Amodei: “I have engineers within Anthropic who say I don’t write any code anymore. I just let the model write the code, I edit it, I do the things around it.” The people building the most powerful AI in history have already stopped writing code. That is not a forecast. That is the current working condition inside the lab closest to the frontier. Amodei: “We might be six to 12 months away from when the model is doing most, maybe all, of what SWEs do end-to-end.” The tech industry spent a decade making software engineers its highest-paid, most protected class. That era has a last day now. When a model can execute an entire software build end-to-end, the ability to write syntax stops being a skill. It becomes a credential for a job that no longer exists. Amodei: “And then it’s a question of how fast does that loop close.” That is the sentence everyone skipped. The code was never the hard part. The hard part was everything around it. The model just learned everything around it. Writing the code is already nearly gone. Testing is next. Deployment is next. When all three collapse into a single autonomous execution loop, the machine no longer needs a human in the chain at all. The corporation or sovereign state that closes that loop first does not gain a competitive advantage. It gains a category of speed that biological engineers cannot match, track, or reverse. That is not disruption. That is replacement at a systems level. Amodei is not describing a future disruption. He is describing the current state of his own building. The loop is already closing. The only question is whether you are inside it or outside it when it seals.

Dustin

318,457 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Google just showed the part of the agent stack most people are still underestimating. Not the model. Not the chat UI. The memory substrate around the agent. In this Antigravity segment, Google describes an agent-first environment built around: - agent conversations - agent-produced artifacts - multi-agent orchestration - subagents - hooks - asynchronous task management That is not a nicer IDE. It is what happens when software stops being a sequence of chats and starts becoming a persistent workforce. Karl's article explains why the winning agents will not just be the ones with the smartest rented model. They will be the ones that remember what they did, what they learned, what changed, and what can be trusted. Full breakdown below.
1:25

Google just showed the part of the agent stack most people are still underestimating. Not the model. Not the chat UI. The memory substrate around the agent. In this Antigravity segment, Google describes an agent-first environment built around: - agent conversations - agent-produced artifacts - multi-agent orchestration - subagents - hooks - asynchronous task management That is not a nicer IDE. It is what happens when software stops being a sequence of chats and starts becoming a persistent workforce. Karl's article explains why the winning agents will not just be the ones with the smartest rented model. They will be the ones that remember what they did, what they learned, what changed, and what can be trusted. Full breakdown below.

Karl Mehta

13,930 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

David Friedberg: The AI Jobs Panic Is a Crock of Sh*t Why? The revenue potential outweighs the cost savings by 100x. “There is no job loss with AI. I've said it a thousand times, and I will say it again, and again, and again. What I see on the ground, and what I've seen at dozens of companies, including my company that I run, there are two sides to a business. There is revenue and there’s costs. On the cost side of the equation, AI can be used to reduce humans doing things that cost money, to some extent. The effect there, I would argue, is nominal. The real opportunity with AI is on the revenue side, where suddenly one engineer can do 100x or 1000x what they used to be able to do, meaning you can make more products at your company, whether those are agricultural seed products, or boats and ships, or software for companies, or clothing, or what have you. Because of AI, everyone has the ability to expand their revenue base to create more products, and that is the foundation of good economic prosperity. It is called productivity. We can grow productivity in this country with AI. So where I see AI being used is on the revenue side 100x more than the cost side. And in that equation, people are hiring like crazy. We cannot hire enough people. I just had a review meeting with my product and engineering team two days ago, and they're like, ‘We want to add an extra 15 headcount to our engineering squads because we have all this opportunity to do stuff that we couldn't otherwise do.’ So we are going to hire more people. And to Sacks' point, we are seeing that show up in the jobs numbers. The idea that AI is going to destroy jobs is a Luddite idea that is being disproven every single day, and I see it on the ground. It is only a matter of time before people wake up to this and they realize that this narrative that they've all been sold is a crock of sh*t.”
1:42

David Friedberg: The AI Jobs Panic Is a Crock of Sh*t Why? The revenue potential outweighs the cost savings by 100x. “There is no job loss with AI. I've said it a thousand times, and I will say it again, and again, and again. What I see on the ground, and what I've seen at dozens of companies, including my company that I run, there are two sides to a business. There is revenue and there’s costs. On the cost side of the equation, AI can be used to reduce humans doing things that cost money, to some extent. The effect there, I would argue, is nominal. The real opportunity with AI is on the revenue side, where suddenly one engineer can do 100x or 1000x what they used to be able to do, meaning you can make more products at your company, whether those are agricultural seed products, or boats and ships, or software for companies, or clothing, or what have you. Because of AI, everyone has the ability to expand their revenue base to create more products, and that is the foundation of good economic prosperity. It is called productivity. We can grow productivity in this country with AI. So where I see AI being used is on the revenue side 100x more than the cost side. And in that equation, people are hiring like crazy. We cannot hire enough people. I just had a review meeting with my product and engineering team two days ago, and they're like, ‘We want to add an extra 15 headcount to our engineering squads because we have all this opportunity to do stuff that we couldn't otherwise do.’ So we are going to hire more people. And to Sacks' point, we are seeing that show up in the jobs numbers. The idea that AI is going to destroy jobs is a Luddite idea that is being disproven every single day, and I see it on the ground. It is only a matter of time before people wake up to this and they realize that this narrative that they've all been sold is a crock of sh*t.”

The All-In Podcast

152,328 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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

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

ANI

114,594 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Arteta on Martin Odegaard: “I think he had a very difficult season in terms of the days that he's missed, the amount of games, which is very unusual. “He's a player that needs that rhythm, that needs to be very connected with the team. And not only that he's missed that opportunity, but the team as well has missed him. “So much for what he brings, that some things that are probably unnoticed to the public or in general are not in those stats, but it's much more profound within the team and the identity of this team. “We need him at his best, we need him constantly with us because we are a much better team with Martin in and around the team. Isaan Khan: “What is it the public don’t notice?” Arteta: “He’s the one that connects everybody, that glides everybody together, that makes the team flow in a way that nobody else can do that, and that's a huge quality to have.”
1:23

Arteta on Martin Odegaard: “I think he had a very difficult season in terms of the days that he's missed, the amount of games, which is very unusual. “He's a player that needs that rhythm, that needs to be very connected with the team. And not only that he's missed that opportunity, but the team as well has missed him. “So much for what he brings, that some things that are probably unnoticed to the public or in general are not in those stats, but it's much more profound within the team and the identity of this team. “We need him at his best, we need him constantly with us because we are a much better team with Martin in and around the team. Isaan Khan: “What is it the public don’t notice?” Arteta: “He’s the one that connects everybody, that glides everybody together, that makes the team flow in a way that nobody else can do that, and that's a huge quality to have.”

Connor Humm

173,568 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Andrew Ng, co-founder of Google Brain and Coursera, on the worst career advice being given about AI right now: He doesn't mince words about what he's hearing from supposed experts: "As early as earlier this year and certainly last year, there are a few people advising others to stop learning to write code because AI will automate it." His reasoning is rooted in a historical pattern most people miss: "As something becomes easier, more people should do it, not fewer. When the world moved from assembly language to COBOL, there were actually articles saying, 'Well, we now have COBOL. Programming is so easier. Looks like we don't need programmers anymore.' But the opposite happened." Andrew believes the same thing is happening now with AI-assisted coding: "As we now have AI assisted coding, a lot more people should be coding. And I think the demand for software, custom software, has no practical ceiling. So the cost of software engineering comes down, which it is, we'll just get more and more great software out in the world." But here's where the advice gets uncomfortable for experienced engineers. Andrew Ng is honest about what he's seeing on the ground: "It is true that a fresh college grad that is really on top of AI will outperform a full stack engineer with 10 years of experience that is still doing things they were back in 2022, 3 years ago before GenAI." However, there's a nuance most people miss when they hear that stereotype: "The other piece that is less well appreciated is the best engineers I know are not fresh college grads. They're actually very experienced engineers that deeply understand architecture and the conceptual framework of how to think about computers and additionally are on top of AI and on top of these AI skills."
1:45

Andrew Ng, co-founder of Google Brain and Coursera, on the worst career advice being given about AI right now: He doesn't mince words about what he's hearing from supposed experts: "As early as earlier this year and certainly last year, there are a few people advising others to stop learning to write code because AI will automate it." His reasoning is rooted in a historical pattern most people miss: "As something becomes easier, more people should do it, not fewer. When the world moved from assembly language to COBOL, there were actually articles saying, 'Well, we now have COBOL. Programming is so easier. Looks like we don't need programmers anymore.' But the opposite happened." Andrew believes the same thing is happening now with AI-assisted coding: "As we now have AI assisted coding, a lot more people should be coding. And I think the demand for software, custom software, has no practical ceiling. So the cost of software engineering comes down, which it is, we'll just get more and more great software out in the world." But here's where the advice gets uncomfortable for experienced engineers. Andrew Ng is honest about what he's seeing on the ground: "It is true that a fresh college grad that is really on top of AI will outperform a full stack engineer with 10 years of experience that is still doing things they were back in 2022, 3 years ago before GenAI." However, there's a nuance most people miss when they hear that stereotype: "The other piece that is less well appreciated is the best engineers I know are not fresh college grads. They're actually very experienced engineers that deeply understand architecture and the conceptual framework of how to think about computers and additionally are on top of AI and on top of these AI skills."

Big Brain AI

211,593 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Corporations that are purely AI and robotics will vastly outperform any corporations that have people in the loop You can think of it like how 'computer' used to be a job that humans had. You would go and get a job as a computer where you would do calculations. They had entire skyscrapers full of humans....20, 30 floors of humans...just doing calculations. Now, that entire skyscraper of humans doing calculations can be replaced by a laptop with a spreadsheet. That spreadsheet can do vastly more calculations than an entire building full of human computers So, you think about it: what if only some of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by humans? That would be much worse than if all of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by the computer. And so, really what will happen is the pure AI, pure robotics corporations or collectives will far outperform any corporations that have humans in the loop. It will happen very quickly
1:22

Corporations that are purely AI and robotics will vastly outperform any corporations that have people in the loop You can think of it like how 'computer' used to be a job that humans had. You would go and get a job as a computer where you would do calculations. They had entire skyscrapers full of humans....20, 30 floors of humans...just doing calculations. Now, that entire skyscraper of humans doing calculations can be replaced by a laptop with a spreadsheet. That spreadsheet can do vastly more calculations than an entire building full of human computers So, you think about it: what if only some of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by humans? That would be much worse than if all of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by the computer. And so, really what will happen is the pure AI, pure robotics corporations or collectives will far outperform any corporations that have humans in the loop. It will happen very quickly

X Freeze

16,843,827 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Jensen Huang just gutted the AI job panic with one profession. Radiology. The field AI was supposed to kill first. Jensen Huang: “Computer vision was superhuman in 2019. And yet, the number of radiologists grew.” Not competitive. Not close. Superhuman. Every forecast said radiologists were finished. Every forecast was wrong. Not slightly wrong. Directionally wrong. There are now fewer radiologists than the world needs. A global shortage. In the exact specialty AI was supposed to erase. Why? Because the task was never the job. Huang: “The purpose of your job and the tasks and the tools that you use to do your job are related. Not the same.” Reading a scan is a task. Diagnosing disease is a purpose. AI handled the task. The purpose didn’t shrink. It compounded. Faster reads meant more patients seen. More patients seen meant more disease caught. More disease caught meant more demand for the people who decide what to do about it. The tool did not kill the job. It fed it. Then the fear did what the technology never could. Huang: “The alarmist warning went too far and it scared people from doing this profession that is so important to society. It did harm.” People heard radiologists were finished and walked away from the field. Medicine bled talent it could not afford to lose. Not because the work vanished. Because the panic said it would. The prediction was wrong. The damage was real. Huang: “The number of software engineers at Nvidia is going to grow, not decline.” Not hold steady. Grow. The company building the infrastructure that automates code is hiring more of the people who write it. Huang: “I wanted my software engineers to solve problems. I didn’t care how many lines of code they wrote.” Nobody ever hired an engineer to type. They hired them to think. When the machine handles syntax, the engineer does not become obsolete. The bottleneck just moves upstream. To architecture. To edge cases. To the kind of reasoning no model handles alone. The world was never short on unsolved problems. It was short on people free to chase them. That is the part the fear narrative misses every single time. 340,000 women once worked as telephone switchboard operators. That job is gone. Nobody mourns it. What replaced it created millions of roles that nobody in 1920 had the vocabulary to describe. The losses are always visible. The gains are always invisible until they arrive. That pattern has survived every technological shift in history. It is surviving this one. The people forecasting mass displacement are making the same mistake as the people who forecasted the end of radiology. They can see the task being automated. They cannot see the purpose expanding underneath it. That blindness is not just wrong. It is expensive. Every person scared out of a career that AI will actually make more valuable is a cost the economy absorbs for nothing. Not because of the technology. Because of the story told about it.
3:02

Jensen Huang just gutted the AI job panic with one profession. Radiology. The field AI was supposed to kill first. Jensen Huang: “Computer vision was superhuman in 2019. And yet, the number of radiologists grew.” Not competitive. Not close. Superhuman. Every forecast said radiologists were finished. Every forecast was wrong. Not slightly wrong. Directionally wrong. There are now fewer radiologists than the world needs. A global shortage. In the exact specialty AI was supposed to erase. Why? Because the task was never the job. Huang: “The purpose of your job and the tasks and the tools that you use to do your job are related. Not the same.” Reading a scan is a task. Diagnosing disease is a purpose. AI handled the task. The purpose didn’t shrink. It compounded. Faster reads meant more patients seen. More patients seen meant more disease caught. More disease caught meant more demand for the people who decide what to do about it. The tool did not kill the job. It fed it. Then the fear did what the technology never could. Huang: “The alarmist warning went too far and it scared people from doing this profession that is so important to society. It did harm.” People heard radiologists were finished and walked away from the field. Medicine bled talent it could not afford to lose. Not because the work vanished. Because the panic said it would. The prediction was wrong. The damage was real. Huang: “The number of software engineers at Nvidia is going to grow, not decline.” Not hold steady. Grow. The company building the infrastructure that automates code is hiring more of the people who write it. Huang: “I wanted my software engineers to solve problems. I didn’t care how many lines of code they wrote.” Nobody ever hired an engineer to type. They hired them to think. When the machine handles syntax, the engineer does not become obsolete. The bottleneck just moves upstream. To architecture. To edge cases. To the kind of reasoning no model handles alone. The world was never short on unsolved problems. It was short on people free to chase them. That is the part the fear narrative misses every single time. 340,000 women once worked as telephone switchboard operators. That job is gone. Nobody mourns it. What replaced it created millions of roles that nobody in 1920 had the vocabulary to describe. The losses are always visible. The gains are always invisible until they arrive. That pattern has survived every technological shift in history. It is surviving this one. The people forecasting mass displacement are making the same mistake as the people who forecasted the end of radiology. They can see the task being automated. They cannot see the purpose expanding underneath it. That blindness is not just wrong. It is expensive. Every person scared out of a career that AI will actually make more valuable is a cost the economy absorbs for nothing. Not because of the technology. Because of the story told about it.

Dustin

554,296 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Abby Phillip: “Why can't [Trump] see this for what it is, which is a very real thing, not a hoax, with real victims, and with a lot of people potentially involved in something, none of whom have been held accountable?” Scott Jennings: “Well, the hoax is Democrats and others who have gone on television and either implied or worse that he had something to do with it. There's not a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with it, but that's what they want people to believe. That's the narrative that they are trying to get out there.” “That's the hoax. He's never said what happened to them as a hoax. In fact, there seems to be some shards of evidence in here that Trump may have been one of the people that turned in Jeffrey Epstein, which is why Epstein, according to some of the documents, apparently hated Donald Trump. And so the hoax is not that it happened. The hoax is what people are trying to imply or worse—”
0:50

Abby Phillip: “Why can't [Trump] see this for what it is, which is a very real thing, not a hoax, with real victims, and with a lot of people potentially involved in something, none of whom have been held accountable?” Scott Jennings: “Well, the hoax is Democrats and others who have gone on television and either implied or worse that he had something to do with it. There's not a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with it, but that's what they want people to believe. That's the narrative that they are trying to get out there.” “That's the hoax. He's never said what happened to them as a hoax. In fact, there seems to be some shards of evidence in here that Trump may have been one of the people that turned in Jeffrey Epstein, which is why Epstein, according to some of the documents, apparently hated Donald Trump. And so the hoax is not that it happened. The hoax is what people are trying to imply or worse—”

RedWave Press

53,415 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Warren Buffett just warned that the US dollar could collapse and admitted he doesn't understand most of the stock market anymore. 95 years old, sitting on $380 billion in cash, and the first time watching from the sidelines instead of actively investing. And what he revealed at this weekend's Berkshire shareholder meeting is genuinely concerning: On the market, Buffett didn't hold back. He compared it to "a church with a casino attached" and said the casino has never been more packed. On one-day options: "That is not investing. It's not speculating. It's gambling. Totally." He pointed to the Avis short squeeze THIS WEEK. A rental car company that's been around for 50 years getting meme-squeezed in 2026. The same behavior that blew up retail traders with GameStop is back, except now it's hitting boring legacy companies with zero business being volatile. "We have lots more regulation now, but people spend their time figuring out how to get around the rules rather than follow the rules." That one sentence explains more about the current market than every CNBC segment combined. When asked why he's hoarding $380 billion instead of investing it, Buffett said something no one expected: "I understand fewer of the businesses as a percentage of the whole than I did 10 years ago. I have not learned new industries for some years. I'm not going to have an edge on a whole bunch of younger people that have actually grown up with it." Think about what he's actually saying... This is a man who made $140 billion by understanding businesses better than anyone alive. And he's telling you the current market is so detached from reality that even HE can't make sense of what's being valued and why. He quoted IBM's Tom Watson Sr.: "I'm smart in spots and I stay around those spots." In 60 years of managing money, he said MAYBE five were "really juicy." Five out of sixty. That means 92% of his career was spent WAITING while everyone else gambled. And he still ended up richer than all of them. Then the conversation turned to inflation and that's where it gets really interesting: Buffett said America is "not immune" from runaway inflation. He brought up countries that went bankrupt "six or seven times" in his lifetime. Compared today to right before Volcker had to rescue the dollar, when Americans were borrowing at 12% to buy farmland earning 6% because they believed the dollar would disappear. "Cash is trash" was the mentality. Nebraska farmers collapsed because of it. Entire communities wiped out not by a recession but by a BELIEF that the currency was dying. And Buffett sees that same energy building again. Then someone asked the question everyone wanted answered: Do you see a crash coming? "If you saw it coming, it wouldn't happen. The things people are talking about and thinking about? It's not going to happen. But there are things that can come out of the blue." He compared it to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 that triggered World War I. Nobody was discussing or anticipating it. But it changed the world overnight. "That's particularly true now because of the things that can come out of the sky." A 95yo man who has survived every crash, every war, every crisis of the last six decades just told you the market is a casino, the dollar isn't safe, and the real collapse will be something nobody sees coming. $380 billion in cash is his answer because he believes things are about to get much worse.
1:04

Warren Buffett just warned that the US dollar could collapse and admitted he doesn't understand most of the stock market anymore. 95 years old, sitting on $380 billion in cash, and the first time watching from the sidelines instead of actively investing. And what he revealed at this weekend's Berkshire shareholder meeting is genuinely concerning: On the market, Buffett didn't hold back. He compared it to "a church with a casino attached" and said the casino has never been more packed. On one-day options: "That is not investing. It's not speculating. It's gambling. Totally." He pointed to the Avis short squeeze THIS WEEK. A rental car company that's been around for 50 years getting meme-squeezed in 2026. The same behavior that blew up retail traders with GameStop is back, except now it's hitting boring legacy companies with zero business being volatile. "We have lots more regulation now, but people spend their time figuring out how to get around the rules rather than follow the rules." That one sentence explains more about the current market than every CNBC segment combined. When asked why he's hoarding $380 billion instead of investing it, Buffett said something no one expected: "I understand fewer of the businesses as a percentage of the whole than I did 10 years ago. I have not learned new industries for some years. I'm not going to have an edge on a whole bunch of younger people that have actually grown up with it." Think about what he's actually saying... This is a man who made $140 billion by understanding businesses better than anyone alive. And he's telling you the current market is so detached from reality that even HE can't make sense of what's being valued and why. He quoted IBM's Tom Watson Sr.: "I'm smart in spots and I stay around those spots." In 60 years of managing money, he said MAYBE five were "really juicy." Five out of sixty. That means 92% of his career was spent WAITING while everyone else gambled. And he still ended up richer than all of them. Then the conversation turned to inflation and that's where it gets really interesting: Buffett said America is "not immune" from runaway inflation. He brought up countries that went bankrupt "six or seven times" in his lifetime. Compared today to right before Volcker had to rescue the dollar, when Americans were borrowing at 12% to buy farmland earning 6% because they believed the dollar would disappear. "Cash is trash" was the mentality. Nebraska farmers collapsed because of it. Entire communities wiped out not by a recession but by a BELIEF that the currency was dying. And Buffett sees that same energy building again. Then someone asked the question everyone wanted answered: Do you see a crash coming? "If you saw it coming, it wouldn't happen. The things people are talking about and thinking about? It's not going to happen. But there are things that can come out of the blue." He compared it to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 that triggered World War I. Nobody was discussing or anticipating it. But it changed the world overnight. "That's particularly true now because of the things that can come out of the sky." A 95yo man who has survived every crash, every war, every crisis of the last six decades just told you the market is a casino, the dollar isn't safe, and the real collapse will be something nobody sees coming. $380 billion in cash is his answer because he believes things are about to get much worse.

Ricardo

1,645,725 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Ilya Sutskever explains why AI will do 100% the work that human can do within few years. "Slowly but surely, or maybe not so slowly, AI will keep getting better. The day will come when AI will do all of our, all the things that we can do, not just some of them, but all of them. Anything which I can learn, anything which any one of you can learn, the AI could do as well. How do we know this, by the way? How can I be so sure? How can I be so sure of that? The reason is that all of us have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer. That's why we have a brain; the brain is a biological computer. So why can't the digital computer, a digital brain, do the same things? This is the one-sentence summary for why AI will be able to do all those things: because we have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer." --- Full Video on 'University of Toronto' YT Channel (link in comment)
0:53

Ilya Sutskever explains why AI will do 100% the work that human can do within few years. "Slowly but surely, or maybe not so slowly, AI will keep getting better. The day will come when AI will do all of our, all the things that we can do, not just some of them, but all of them. Anything which I can learn, anything which any one of you can learn, the AI could do as well. How do we know this, by the way? How can I be so sure? How can I be so sure of that? The reason is that all of us have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer. That's why we have a brain; the brain is a biological computer. So why can't the digital computer, a digital brain, do the same things? This is the one-sentence summary for why AI will be able to do all those things: because we have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer." --- Full Video on 'University of Toronto' YT Channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

334,691 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

jensen spitting bars "So, China is the largest contributor to open source software in the world. Fact. Right? China's the largest contributor to open models in the world. Fact. Today it's built on the American tech stack Nvidia. Fact. All five layers of the tech stack for AI is important. United States ought to go win all five of them. They're all important. The one that is the most important, of course, is the AI application layer. The layer that diffuses into society, the one that uses it most will benefit from this industrial revolution most. But my point is that every layer has to succeed. If we scare this country into thinking that AI is somehow a nuclear bomb so that everybody hates AI and everybody's afraid of AI, I don't know how you're helping the United States. You're doing a disservice. If we scare everybody out of doing software engineering jobs because it's going to kill every software engineering job and we don't have any software engineers as a result of that, we're doing a disservice to United States. If we scare everybody out of radiology so nobody wants to be a radiologist because computer vision is completely free and no AI is going to do a worse job than radiologists and we misunderstand the difference between a job and a task. The job of a radiologist, patient care, task to read a scan. If we misunderstand that so profoundly and we scare everybody out of going to radiology school, we're not going to have enough radiologists and good enough healthcare. So I'm making the case that when you make a premise that is so extreme, everything goes from zero or infinity. We end up scaring people in a way that's just not true. Life is not like that. Do we want United States to be first? Of course we do. Do we need to be a leader in every layer of that stack? Of course we do. Of course we do. Is today you're talking about Mythos because Mythos is important? Sure, that's fantastic, but in a few years time, I'm making you the prediction that when we want the American tech stack, when we want American technology to be diffused around the world, out to India, out to the Middle East, out to Africa, out to Southeast Asia, when our country would like to export because we would like to export our technology, we would like to export our standards. On that day, I want you and I to have that same conversation again, and I will tell you exactly about today's conversation, about how your policy and what you imagined literally caused the United States to concede the second largest market in the world for no good reason at all. We shouldn't concede it. If we lose it, we lose it, but why do we concede it? Now nobody is advocating, nobody is advocating an all or nothing. Nobody is advocating all or nothing, meaning we ship everything to China at all times. Nobody's advocating that. We should always have the best technology here. We should always have the most technology here and the first, but we should also try to compete and win around the world. Both of those things can simultaneously happen. It requires some amount of nuance, some amount of maturity instead of absolutes. The world is just not absolutes."
3:50

jensen spitting bars "So, China is the largest contributor to open source software in the world. Fact. Right? China's the largest contributor to open models in the world. Fact. Today it's built on the American tech stack Nvidia. Fact. All five layers of the tech stack for AI is important. United States ought to go win all five of them. They're all important. The one that is the most important, of course, is the AI application layer. The layer that diffuses into society, the one that uses it most will benefit from this industrial revolution most. But my point is that every layer has to succeed. If we scare this country into thinking that AI is somehow a nuclear bomb so that everybody hates AI and everybody's afraid of AI, I don't know how you're helping the United States. You're doing a disservice. If we scare everybody out of doing software engineering jobs because it's going to kill every software engineering job and we don't have any software engineers as a result of that, we're doing a disservice to United States. If we scare everybody out of radiology so nobody wants to be a radiologist because computer vision is completely free and no AI is going to do a worse job than radiologists and we misunderstand the difference between a job and a task. The job of a radiologist, patient care, task to read a scan. If we misunderstand that so profoundly and we scare everybody out of going to radiology school, we're not going to have enough radiologists and good enough healthcare. So I'm making the case that when you make a premise that is so extreme, everything goes from zero or infinity. We end up scaring people in a way that's just not true. Life is not like that. Do we want United States to be first? Of course we do. Do we need to be a leader in every layer of that stack? Of course we do. Of course we do. Is today you're talking about Mythos because Mythos is important? Sure, that's fantastic, but in a few years time, I'm making you the prediction that when we want the American tech stack, when we want American technology to be diffused around the world, out to India, out to the Middle East, out to Africa, out to Southeast Asia, when our country would like to export because we would like to export our technology, we would like to export our standards. On that day, I want you and I to have that same conversation again, and I will tell you exactly about today's conversation, about how your policy and what you imagined literally caused the United States to concede the second largest market in the world for no good reason at all. We shouldn't concede it. If we lose it, we lose it, but why do we concede it? Now nobody is advocating, nobody is advocating an all or nothing. Nobody is advocating all or nothing, meaning we ship everything to China at all times. Nobody's advocating that. We should always have the best technology here. We should always have the most technology here and the first, but we should also try to compete and win around the world. Both of those things can simultaneously happen. It requires some amount of nuance, some amount of maturity instead of absolutes. The world is just not absolutes."

mark erdmann

13,279 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten