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.

So here's a great example of how our technology is doing things that we might not suspect and how technology itself is actually way past what we general users tend to understand or be aware of. If the phone is in the room w you, it can see more... show more

Crypt0ph3r

1,111 subscribers

40,461 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology News & Politics Comedy #bendinglight

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Jensen to AI Leaders: “We have to be far more thoughtful” when communicating to the public Jensen Huang: “(AI) is not a biological being. It is not alien. It is not conscious. It is computer software.” “We say things like, ‘We don't understand it at all.’ It is not true. We understand a lot of things about this technology.” Chamath: “If you were in the seat in the boardroom of Anthropic over that whole scuttlebutt with the Department of War, what do you think you would've told Dario and that team to do, maybe, differently to try to change some of this outcome and some of this perception?” Jensen: “The first thing that I would say about Anthropic is, first of all, the technology is incredible. We are a large consumer of Anthropic technology.” “The desire to warn people about the capability of the technology is also really terrific.” “We just have to make sure that we understand that the world has a spectrum, and that warning is good, scaring is less good because this technology is too important to us.” “I think that it is fine to predict the future, but we need to be a little bit more circumspect. We need to have a little bit more humility, that, in fact, we can't completely predict the future.” “And to say things that are quite extreme, quite catastrophic, that there's no evidence of it happening, could be more damaging than people think.” “And of course we are technology leaders.” “There was a time when nobody listened to us, but now because technology is so important in the social fabric, such an important industry, so important to national security, our words do matter.” “And I think we have to be much more circumspect, we have to be more moderate, we have to be more balanced, we have to be far more thoughtful.”

Jensen to AI Leaders: “We have to be far more thoughtful” when communicating to the public Jensen Huang: “(AI) is not a biological being. It is not alien. It is not conscious. It is computer software.” “We say things like, ‘We don't understand it at all.’ It is not true. We understand a lot of things about this technology.” Chamath: “If you were in the seat in the boardroom of Anthropic over that whole scuttlebutt with the Department of War, what do you think you would've told Dario and that team to do, maybe, differently to try to change some of this outcome and some of this perception?” Jensen: “The first thing that I would say about Anthropic is, first of all, the technology is incredible. We are a large consumer of Anthropic technology.” “The desire to warn people about the capability of the technology is also really terrific.” “We just have to make sure that we understand that the world has a spectrum, and that warning is good, scaring is less good because this technology is too important to us.” “I think that it is fine to predict the future, but we need to be a little bit more circumspect. We need to have a little bit more humility, that, in fact, we can't completely predict the future.” “And to say things that are quite extreme, quite catastrophic, that there's no evidence of it happening, could be more damaging than people think.” “And of course we are technology leaders.” “There was a time when nobody listened to us, but now because technology is so important in the social fabric, such an important industry, so important to national security, our words do matter.” “And I think we have to be much more circumspect, we have to be more moderate, we have to be more balanced, we have to be far more thoughtful.”

The All-In Podcast

57,581 views • 3 months ago

Google founder Larry Page explains how he decides what to work on When asked about his philosophy and only working on “10x ideas”, Page invokes the idea of additionality from economics: “It means doing something that wouldn’t happen unless you’re actually doing it. I think the more you can do things like that, the bigger impact you can have. And that’s about doing things people might not think are possible.” Page believes technology is a huge enabler of this impact: “I’ve been amazed… The more you learn about technology, the more you learn what’s possible…. And so for me, I just tried to focus on: What is the future really going to be and how do we create it?” Page’s path to additionality is following your curiosity, working on things nobody else is working on, and being willing to take risks that others aren’t. Video source: TED Talks (2014)

Google founder Larry Page explains how he decides what to work on When asked about his philosophy and only working on “10x ideas”, Page invokes the idea of additionality from economics: “It means doing something that wouldn’t happen unless you’re actually doing it. I think the more you can do things like that, the bigger impact you can have. And that’s about doing things people might not think are possible.” Page believes technology is a huge enabler of this impact: “I’ve been amazed… The more you learn about technology, the more you learn what’s possible…. And so for me, I just tried to focus on: What is the future really going to be and how do we create it?” Page’s path to additionality is following your curiosity, working on things nobody else is working on, and being willing to take risks that others aren’t. Video source: TED Talks (2014)

Startup Archive

109,802 views • 7 months ago

How would MLK Jr. and Malcolm X differed on the Gaza genocide? ‘The difference between MLK Jr. and Malcom X is that Malcolm is a revolutionary and says that actually, look, if we see what America supports and actually Israel, Palestine is a perfect example. If we see the genocide that America is supporting in Gaza, that isn’t an example of America not doing what it’s supposed to do and King will be saying, well, let America live up to its true ideals and be fair to the Palestinian people. And Malcolm understands that actually the true ideals of America are settler-colonial genocide. That’s what America is. So once you understand that the system is inherently violent and inherently racist, then you understand that you can’t reform America, you can’t fix America.’ -Prof. Kehinde Andrews, author of Nobody Can Give You Freedom: The Political Life of Malcolm X, on the latest episode of Going Underground FULL INTERVIEW BELOW IN THE REPLIES👇

How would MLK Jr. and Malcolm X differed on the Gaza genocide? ‘The difference between MLK Jr. and Malcom X is that Malcolm is a revolutionary and says that actually, look, if we see what America supports and actually Israel, Palestine is a perfect example. If we see the genocide that America is supporting in Gaza, that isn’t an example of America not doing what it’s supposed to do and King will be saying, well, let America live up to its true ideals and be fair to the Palestinian people. And Malcolm understands that actually the true ideals of America are settler-colonial genocide. That’s what America is. So once you understand that the system is inherently violent and inherently racist, then you understand that you can’t reform America, you can’t fix America.’ -Prof. Kehinde Andrews, author of Nobody Can Give You Freedom: The Political Life of Malcolm X, on the latest episode of Going Underground FULL INTERVIEW BELOW IN THE REPLIES👇

Going Underground

31,713 views • 10 months ago

"Think only about good things. There will be hard days, and we tend to think that way, but I believe that perception is very relative. How you think matters. If you focus on the good, things can feel good. If you think negatively everything can seem bad-

"Think only about good things. There will be hard days, and we tend to think that way, but I believe that perception is very relative. How you think matters. If you focus on the good, things can feel good. If you think negatively everything can seem bad-

𝔪𝔦𝔫𝔷𝔲 saw Taemin again! 🐥

22,247 views • 10 months ago

We want autistic people, with or without a diagnosis, to take our new survey. It is designed to help you tell us what support you need, so we can understand what works and how more can be put in place:

We want autistic people, with or without a diagnosis, to take our new survey. It is designed to help you tell us what support you need, so we can understand what works and how more can be put in place:

Autism Action

134,186 views • 2 years ago

NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang on the future of artificial intelligence: "It is going to be largely optimistic, largely wonderful. There are some use cases that we have to be extremely careful about—as in all great technology. If you look at the progress of technology over the years, electricity, the internet, computers, the automobile, I think we can all, all accept that in each one of those cases, there are situations and cases where we have to be very careful about. So as the creators of this technology, the industry has to be mindful, thoughtful, rigorous about building and advancing this technology properly. This is the first technology in my generation where we invented a new computer technology where it's easier to access than not. For example the computer until now has been programmable for about 30 million people in the world. About 30 million of us know how to program it and apply it to some useful career. Now everybody in the world can program an AI. You just go up to it and just say, 'I'd like to, you know, ask you to do something.' If you're not sure how to use AI, you tell the AI, 'I don't know how to use AI. Tell me how to use AI. How do I, how do I write a program? How do I book a trip? How do I do a research?' And so we've closed the technology divide tremendously, and that's something that's really important to recognize."

NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang on the future of artificial intelligence: "It is going to be largely optimistic, largely wonderful. There are some use cases that we have to be extremely careful about—as in all great technology. If you look at the progress of technology over the years, electricity, the internet, computers, the automobile, I think we can all, all accept that in each one of those cases, there are situations and cases where we have to be very careful about. So as the creators of this technology, the industry has to be mindful, thoughtful, rigorous about building and advancing this technology properly. This is the first technology in my generation where we invented a new computer technology where it's easier to access than not. For example the computer until now has been programmable for about 30 million people in the world. About 30 million of us know how to program it and apply it to some useful career. Now everybody in the world can program an AI. You just go up to it and just say, 'I'd like to, you know, ask you to do something.' If you're not sure how to use AI, you tell the AI, 'I don't know how to use AI. Tell me how to use AI. How do I, how do I write a program? How do I book a trip? How do I do a research?' And so we've closed the technology divide tremendously, and that's something that's really important to recognize."

Ryan Saavedra

20,105 views • 15 days ago

"You can either produce excellence or you can avoid criticism. But you cannot do both of those. The reason that you don't have certain excellence that you want is because you are afraid of getting criticized. You are afraid of the judgment that comes with it. You are afraid of standing out. You are afraid of being alone. You are afraid of people looking at you. You are worried about what people think of you. There are 2 categories of things in this world: 1) Things that are up to you 2) Things that are not up to you Which category does your reputation sit in? Your reputation is not up to you. I'm the one who associates your reputation with something, not you. You just do things. What's up to you? How you act. Your decisions. Your actions. That is up to you. Your reputation is not up to you. Here's how I know that: You all have a reputation about me and it's not in my control. I get to say and do whatever I say and do up here. I am in control of saying it. I am in control of doing it. The moment words leave my lips, who has control over what is done with those words? You! You are in control of what you think of me. And there's no way everybody in this room is going to think the exact same thing about me. No way. When it comes to exceptional, what we've got to understand is you can spend your whole life trying to avoid criticism and earn reputation, and it still won't be in your control. We can waste a lot of time missing out on excellence we could have been producing if we were just simply LESS trying to engineer what we wanted other people to think about us."

"You can either produce excellence or you can avoid criticism. But you cannot do both of those. The reason that you don't have certain excellence that you want is because you are afraid of getting criticized. You are afraid of the judgment that comes with it. You are afraid of standing out. You are afraid of being alone. You are afraid of people looking at you. You are worried about what people think of you. There are 2 categories of things in this world: 1) Things that are up to you 2) Things that are not up to you Which category does your reputation sit in? Your reputation is not up to you. I'm the one who associates your reputation with something, not you. You just do things. What's up to you? How you act. Your decisions. Your actions. That is up to you. Your reputation is not up to you. Here's how I know that: You all have a reputation about me and it's not in my control. I get to say and do whatever I say and do up here. I am in control of saying it. I am in control of doing it. The moment words leave my lips, who has control over what is done with those words? You! You are in control of what you think of me. And there's no way everybody in this room is going to think the exact same thing about me. No way. When it comes to exceptional, what we've got to understand is you can spend your whole life trying to avoid criticism and earn reputation, and it still won't be in your control. We can waste a lot of time missing out on excellence we could have been producing if we were just simply LESS trying to engineer what we wanted other people to think about us."

Brian Kight

308,812 views • 1 year ago

Sequoia's Ravi Gupta and Pat Grady on potential layoffs and why the AI doomers are wrong: "Technology is neither good nor bad, it's what we do with it. The same technology that powers a nuclear bomb can power a nuclear power plant." "A lot of what people are doing when they go and talk about the technology is they talk about all the things that might happen. I would rather us talk about the fact that it's going to get more and more powerful, and it's more and more incumbent on all of us to make sure we use it for something great." "If I could give my kids one thing, it wouldn't be kindness. It wouldn't be curiosity. It would be agency. The technology is going to be what all of us make of it."

Sequoia's Ravi Gupta and Pat Grady on potential layoffs and why the AI doomers are wrong: "Technology is neither good nor bad, it's what we do with it. The same technology that powers a nuclear bomb can power a nuclear power plant." "A lot of what people are doing when they go and talk about the technology is they talk about all the things that might happen. I would rather us talk about the fact that it's going to get more and more powerful, and it's more and more incumbent on all of us to make sure we use it for something great." "If I could give my kids one thing, it wouldn't be kindness. It wouldn't be curiosity. It would be agency. The technology is going to be what all of us make of it."

TBPN

21,055 views • 6 months ago

Spiritual Transformation Is The Only Mechanism To Go Beyond This World Science fiction, and even many whistleblowers in Ufology, often claim that incredible feats can be achieved through technology alone. Technology can be Psychic! Machines exist that can take you into the higher dimensions! You can augment yourself with technology to gain spiritual abilities! Any serious student of Spirituality should be able to see, from a mile away, that a machine cannot seriously achieve these things. The modern day spiritualization of technology is a clear symptom of a society that has lost its spiritual underpinning. It is a sign of a world that has yet to turn inward. What we are really seeing with the spiritualization of technology is human beings that are trying to externalize, and project, inner, spiritual processes and capacities onto machines. This is because it is far easier to externalize something, to project it outward, than to actually understand it's inner meaning and process within ourselves. Ultimately, externalization and projection mean that we can avoid our personal responsibilities. The reality is that machines cannot truly be psychic. Machines cannot take you anywhere you want to go in time and space. Machines cannot create spiritual abilities for you. The only reason why we believe this as a society is because we do not acknowledge the soul. And, even if we do not, as a collective, acknowledge the existence of the soul, we will still yearn for it. We will still seek it even if we do not believe it exists. And, it is this innate seeking to experience Spirit that will lead us to project it where it could not possibly exist. The Esoteric Keys to Disclosure: Audience Questions

Spiritual Transformation Is The Only Mechanism To Go Beyond This World Science fiction, and even many whistleblowers in Ufology, often claim that incredible feats can be achieved through technology alone. Technology can be Psychic! Machines exist that can take you into the higher dimensions! You can augment yourself with technology to gain spiritual abilities! Any serious student of Spirituality should be able to see, from a mile away, that a machine cannot seriously achieve these things. The modern day spiritualization of technology is a clear symptom of a society that has lost its spiritual underpinning. It is a sign of a world that has yet to turn inward. What we are really seeing with the spiritualization of technology is human beings that are trying to externalize, and project, inner, spiritual processes and capacities onto machines. This is because it is far easier to externalize something, to project it outward, than to actually understand it's inner meaning and process within ourselves. Ultimately, externalization and projection mean that we can avoid our personal responsibilities. The reality is that machines cannot truly be psychic. Machines cannot take you anywhere you want to go in time and space. Machines cannot create spiritual abilities for you. The only reason why we believe this as a society is because we do not acknowledge the soul. And, even if we do not, as a collective, acknowledge the existence of the soul, we will still yearn for it. We will still seek it even if we do not believe it exists. And, it is this innate seeking to experience Spirit that will lead us to project it where it could not possibly exist. The Esoteric Keys to Disclosure: Audience Questions

Gigi Young

17,200 views • 2 years ago

Garry Nolan says there are more groups doing what skywatcher is doing right now “we know how to call them” “Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently.” Source -Sol Foundation 🔗 in comments Garry -“The, the information's out there, we, you know, it's already pretty well understood. I mean, look, there's been enough whistleblower types where the information of how to do this has leaked out. You know, we know how to call them. Whether you believe in psionics or not, it seems to be part of the process. So we know how to call them. The question is not can you video them? Skywatcher has already shown that you can video them and there'll be more of that kind of stuff, I think coming in the future, you know, so Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently. So that's citizen science. I mean, I think the answer is you don't wait for the government to do it, for you. Don't wait for daddy or mommy to tell you what's going on. You just do it yourself. Because as long as you're not going out there with, with guns or energy, weapons, trying to pull something down and, you know, get yourself in a bad situation, there's no reason people can't do it themselves and organize. So, you know, that's, that I think is the threat in a way that one needs to use against the governmental authorities who think that they hold all the, all the, all the marbles at this point, they don't anymore because the people who've been in the program, like Jake and others who've, you know, made that statement publicly, have basically made their knowledge and ability public. So do it.”

Garry Nolan says there are more groups doing what skywatcher is doing right now “we know how to call them” “Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently.” Source -Sol Foundation 🔗 in comments Garry -“The, the information's out there, we, you know, it's already pretty well understood. I mean, look, there's been enough whistleblower types where the information of how to do this has leaked out. You know, we know how to call them. Whether you believe in psionics or not, it seems to be part of the process. So we know how to call them. The question is not can you video them? Skywatcher has already shown that you can video them and there'll be more of that kind of stuff, I think coming in the future, you know, so Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently. So that's citizen science. I mean, I think the answer is you don't wait for the government to do it, for you. Don't wait for daddy or mommy to tell you what's going on. You just do it yourself. Because as long as you're not going out there with, with guns or energy, weapons, trying to pull something down and, you know, get yourself in a bad situation, there's no reason people can't do it themselves and organize. So, you know, that's, that I think is the threat in a way that one needs to use against the governmental authorities who think that they hold all the, all the, all the marbles at this point, they don't anymore because the people who've been in the program, like Jake and others who've, you know, made that statement publicly, have basically made their knowledge and ability public. So do it.”

neandrewthal

74,654 views • 1 year ago

Money is technology that enables us to trade, value the future, and coordinate. It's the cornerstone of economic and social harmony. In many ways, we are only as good as our money. No technology is more crucial than #Bitcoin. If we can fix the money, we can fix the world.

Money is technology that enables us to trade, value the future, and coordinate. It's the cornerstone of economic and social harmony. In many ways, we are only as good as our money. No technology is more crucial than #Bitcoin. If we can fix the money, we can fix the world.

Jack Mallers

91,417 views • 1 year ago

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna state that some UAPs and the technology is NOT made by mankind. The problem we have is that we give private companies this technology so our own elected officials can't oversee or even know what's really going on. But, some members in our government DO know and have access. How is it ok to give tech, whether created by mankind or not, to private companies so an elite group of people keep full control over it? What if it eliminates the use for gas or oil? Are you starting to understand? Also, do you believe that they wouldn't fully take advantage of this tech in multiple ways? Since we know there is a "non-human" presence, but we don't know exactly what that presence is, do you really believe they wouldn't take advantage of that, or could potentially "pose" as that "presence" and pretend it's a threat to push an agenda? These are the things you need to start asking yourself and understand that, yes, there are many elites sitting on tech and physics that they do NOT want us to have. The million dollar question becomes, "What exactly are we going to do about this, and how do we fix this for all of mankind?"

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna state that some UAPs and the technology is NOT made by mankind. The problem we have is that we give private companies this technology so our own elected officials can't oversee or even know what's really going on. But, some members in our government DO know and have access. How is it ok to give tech, whether created by mankind or not, to private companies so an elite group of people keep full control over it? What if it eliminates the use for gas or oil? Are you starting to understand? Also, do you believe that they wouldn't fully take advantage of this tech in multiple ways? Since we know there is a "non-human" presence, but we don't know exactly what that presence is, do you really believe they wouldn't take advantage of that, or could potentially "pose" as that "presence" and pretend it's a threat to push an agenda? These are the things you need to start asking yourself and understand that, yes, there are many elites sitting on tech and physics that they do NOT want us to have. The million dollar question becomes, "What exactly are we going to do about this, and how do we fix this for all of mankind?"

The SCIF

20,292 views • 4 months ago

ELON: THE ECONOMY IS NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME “I think generally, people should always be wary that they may have, either consciously, or perhaps mostly subconsciously, internalized the notion of a zero-sum game, or a fixed pie. And if you internalize that, everything is zero-sum, meaning in order for me to get ahead, someone else has to not get ahead or for me to have stuff, someone else must not have stuff, if you have that axiomatic flow, then what it needs to be done is to fix that axiomatic flow, because it is false. It's not a zero-sum game. We can absolutely grow, and have grown, and the evidence is overwhelming, that we have grown the output of goods and services. We have many things today that we did not have in the past. We are far more prosperous. All of humanity is far more prosperous today than it was at times in the past.” European Jewish Association, 2024, Elon Musk

ELON: THE ECONOMY IS NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME “I think generally, people should always be wary that they may have, either consciously, or perhaps mostly subconsciously, internalized the notion of a zero-sum game, or a fixed pie. And if you internalize that, everything is zero-sum, meaning in order for me to get ahead, someone else has to not get ahead or for me to have stuff, someone else must not have stuff, if you have that axiomatic flow, then what it needs to be done is to fix that axiomatic flow, because it is false. It's not a zero-sum game. We can absolutely grow, and have grown, and the evidence is overwhelming, that we have grown the output of goods and services. We have many things today that we did not have in the past. We are far more prosperous. All of humanity is far more prosperous today than it was at times in the past.” European Jewish Association, 2024, Elon Musk

Mario Nawfal

1,682,320 views • 1 year ago

Here is a video that challenges our understanding of human intelligence and progress. Judging by the ancient images, it seems that we are not so unique when it comes to technology. The poses of people reminiscent of using tablets and the drawings depicting car-like vehicles and aeroplanes suggest that all this existed in the past? We may not be the first to have achieved such technological progress. What if other civilisations had already travelled the same path of development and thinking that we are going through now? It is very likely that we are just a repeated link in an infinite chain. History, as we know, is often rewritten and we only have fragments of knowledge of the past. Think about it, what if all that we consider our own achievement was actually the path of ancient knowledge and technology undertaken by someone else, which we are rediscovering for ourselves?😉

Here is a video that challenges our understanding of human intelligence and progress. Judging by the ancient images, it seems that we are not so unique when it comes to technology. The poses of people reminiscent of using tablets and the drawings depicting car-like vehicles and aeroplanes suggest that all this existed in the past? We may not be the first to have achieved such technological progress. What if other civilisations had already travelled the same path of development and thinking that we are going through now? It is very likely that we are just a repeated link in an infinite chain. History, as we know, is often rewritten and we only have fragments of knowledge of the past. Think about it, what if all that we consider our own achievement was actually the path of ancient knowledge and technology undertaken by someone else, which we are rediscovering for ourselves?😉

Andy

61,959 views • 1 month ago

I don’t know about you, but I think it’s hilarious how we in MAGA trust the word of Ghislaine Maxwell more than we trust the word of Pam Blondi. 😅 It goes to show you how unfavorable Blondi really is. The only person who thinks she’s doing a great job is our favorite President!

I don’t know about you, but I think it’s hilarious how we in MAGA trust the word of Ghislaine Maxwell more than we trust the word of Pam Blondi. 😅 It goes to show you how unfavorable Blondi really is. The only person who thinks she’s doing a great job is our favorite President!

Laura Loomer

561,924 views • 10 months ago

Is the system broken, or is it the media? You hear people say ‘the system is broken,’ but are they talking about our government or our media? I studied mass media at the University of Houston - got my bachelor’s in communication. One of the things we analyzed is how the media acts as ‘gatekeepers.’ They decide what we see and what we don’t. It’s not just news; it’s influence. So, what do you think? Are we seeing a broken system? Is that a good or a bad thing? Do you think the media is failing us? Will we ever get the full story?

Is the system broken, or is it the media? You hear people say ‘the system is broken,’ but are they talking about our government or our media? I studied mass media at the University of Houston - got my bachelor’s in communication. One of the things we analyzed is how the media acts as ‘gatekeepers.’ They decide what we see and what we don’t. It’s not just news; it’s influence. So, what do you think? Are we seeing a broken system? Is that a good or a bad thing? Do you think the media is failing us? Will we ever get the full story?

TERANN HILOW

22,980 views • 1 year ago

Jensen Huang just told every AI leader in the room to grow up. Stop scaring the public with science fiction. Start communicating like the weight of civilization is on your shoulders. Because it is. Huang: “AI is not a biological being. It is not alien. It is not conscious. It is computer software.” That single statement dismantles half the panic surrounding this industry. The mainstream conversation is dominated by people projecting human malice onto math. Alien consciousness onto code. Existential dread onto a software architecture we built, we trained, and we can read. Huang: “We say things like, ‘We don’t understand it at all.’ It is not true. We understand a lot of things about this technology.” When builders tell the public they don’t understand their own creation, the public hears threat. The state responds with control. That is already happening. Palihapitiya asked Huang what he would have told Anthropic during their regulatory clash with the Department of Defense. Huang didn’t attack the technology. He attacked the communication. Huang: “The desire to warn people about the capability of the technology is really terrific. We just have to make sure that we understand that the world has a spectrum, and that warning is good, scaring is less good because this technology is too important to us.” Warning shows risks, mitigation, why upside overwhelms downside. Scaring says we might be building something that destroys us and we can’t stop it. One builds trust. The other invites regulation written in panic. Huang: “To say things that are quite extreme, quite catastrophic, that there’s no evidence of it happening, could be more damaging than people think.” Projecting catastrophe without evidence is not caution. It is sabotage. When your technology is embedded in national defense, the financial system, and healthcare infrastructure, your words carry structural weight. If the architects act terrified of their own product, the response is predictable. Governments step in. They restrict. They seize control of something they don’t understand because the builders told them to be afraid. Huang: “There was a time when nobody listened to us, but now because technology is so important in the social fabric, such an important industry, so important to national security, our words do matter.” Most tech founders have not internalized this. You are no longer a startup founder disrupting an industry. You are running infrastructure that nations depend on. Your statements move policy. Your framing shapes legislation. Your tone determines whether governments treat you as partner or threat. Huang: “We have to be much more circumspect, we have to be more moderate, we have to be more balanced, we have to be far more thoughtful.” Huang did not ask for silence. He asked for precision. The leaders who cannot tell the difference will not be leading for long.

Jensen Huang just told every AI leader in the room to grow up. Stop scaring the public with science fiction. Start communicating like the weight of civilization is on your shoulders. Because it is. Huang: “AI is not a biological being. It is not alien. It is not conscious. It is computer software.” That single statement dismantles half the panic surrounding this industry. The mainstream conversation is dominated by people projecting human malice onto math. Alien consciousness onto code. Existential dread onto a software architecture we built, we trained, and we can read. Huang: “We say things like, ‘We don’t understand it at all.’ It is not true. We understand a lot of things about this technology.” When builders tell the public they don’t understand their own creation, the public hears threat. The state responds with control. That is already happening. Palihapitiya asked Huang what he would have told Anthropic during their regulatory clash with the Department of Defense. Huang didn’t attack the technology. He attacked the communication. Huang: “The desire to warn people about the capability of the technology is really terrific. We just have to make sure that we understand that the world has a spectrum, and that warning is good, scaring is less good because this technology is too important to us.” Warning shows risks, mitigation, why upside overwhelms downside. Scaring says we might be building something that destroys us and we can’t stop it. One builds trust. The other invites regulation written in panic. Huang: “To say things that are quite extreme, quite catastrophic, that there’s no evidence of it happening, could be more damaging than people think.” Projecting catastrophe without evidence is not caution. It is sabotage. When your technology is embedded in national defense, the financial system, and healthcare infrastructure, your words carry structural weight. If the architects act terrified of their own product, the response is predictable. Governments step in. They restrict. They seize control of something they don’t understand because the builders told them to be afraid. Huang: “There was a time when nobody listened to us, but now because technology is so important in the social fabric, such an important industry, so important to national security, our words do matter.” Most tech founders have not internalized this. You are no longer a startup founder disrupting an industry. You are running infrastructure that nations depend on. Your statements move policy. Your framing shapes legislation. Your tone determines whether governments treat you as partner or threat. Huang: “We have to be much more circumspect, we have to be more moderate, we have to be more balanced, we have to be far more thoughtful.” Huang did not ask for silence. He asked for precision. The leaders who cannot tell the difference will not be leading for long.

Dustin

160,230 views • 3 months ago

Larry Ellison: “Any technology can be misused” Ellison argues that we should be very careful with respect to banning technology: “Any technology can be misused. Airplanes can be misused, and airplanes have been misused. That doesn’t mean we should ban the building of airplanes. Technologies are neither good nor bad… Overwhelmingly technologies have been used to make us richer, smarter, live longer, and have better lives. But every technology can be misused, including the oldest, most-basic technology.” He gives fire as an example: “Fire is an amazing technology. The first cave entrepreneur who discovered fire said, ‘This is great. It’s cold in the winter; we can use fire to heat the cave. We can use fire to cook our food. We can build a big fire at the mouth of the cave to keep the bears out of the cave. This is a fabulous technology.’… Then there was this one guy in the cave who said fire was very dangerous: ‘People will be burned at the stake. It’ll be used for torture. Very bad. We’ve got to ban and stop fire now.’ And again, my point is that any technology can be misused.” Ellison concludes: “My point is that any technology can be misused… We don’t ban airplanes because they might be misused. We don’t ban fire because it might be misused… We should punish the people who misuse the [technology]. And in a democracy we can do that.”

Larry Ellison: “Any technology can be misused” Ellison argues that we should be very careful with respect to banning technology: “Any technology can be misused. Airplanes can be misused, and airplanes have been misused. That doesn’t mean we should ban the building of airplanes. Technologies are neither good nor bad… Overwhelmingly technologies have been used to make us richer, smarter, live longer, and have better lives. But every technology can be misused, including the oldest, most-basic technology.” He gives fire as an example: “Fire is an amazing technology. The first cave entrepreneur who discovered fire said, ‘This is great. It’s cold in the winter; we can use fire to heat the cave. We can use fire to cook our food. We can build a big fire at the mouth of the cave to keep the bears out of the cave. This is a fabulous technology.’… Then there was this one guy in the cave who said fire was very dangerous: ‘People will be burned at the stake. It’ll be used for torture. Very bad. We’ve got to ban and stop fire now.’ And again, my point is that any technology can be misused.” Ellison concludes: “My point is that any technology can be misused… We don’t ban airplanes because they might be misused. We don’t ban fire because it might be misused… We should punish the people who misuse the [technology]. And in a democracy we can do that.”

Startup Archive

24,040 views • 10 months ago

Steve Jobs: "I've made this mistake probably more than anybody else in this room." When challenged about Apple's technology decisions, Jobs shared a marketing lesson that changed how he approached building products: "You've got to start with the customer experience and work backwards to the technology. You can't start with the technology and try to figure out where you're going to try to sell it." He continues: "And I've got the scar tissue to prove it." Jobs explains that when developing Apple's strategy and vision, the starting point was always: "What incredible benefits can we give to the customer? Where can we take the customer?" Not: "Let's sit down with the engineers and figure out what awesome technology we have and then how are we going to market that." He acknowledges that some technologies might be impressive in isolation, capable of producing great demos or even small commercial applications. But as Jobs puts it, the hardest question is: "How does that fit into a cohesive larger vision?" Start with the experience you want to create. Then build backwards.

Steve Jobs: "I've made this mistake probably more than anybody else in this room." When challenged about Apple's technology decisions, Jobs shared a marketing lesson that changed how he approached building products: "You've got to start with the customer experience and work backwards to the technology. You can't start with the technology and try to figure out where you're going to try to sell it." He continues: "And I've got the scar tissue to prove it." Jobs explains that when developing Apple's strategy and vision, the starting point was always: "What incredible benefits can we give to the customer? Where can we take the customer?" Not: "Let's sit down with the engineers and figure out what awesome technology we have and then how are we going to market that." He acknowledges that some technologies might be impressive in isolation, capable of producing great demos or even small commercial applications. But as Jobs puts it, the hardest question is: "How does that fit into a cohesive larger vision?" Start with the experience you want to create. Then build backwards.

Big Brain Marketing

21,943 views • 5 months ago