Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Some thoughts about how the US G has now asked both OpenAI and Anthropic to hold back models. A bunch of people have asked what this means. Are we going to be permanently frozen out or slowed down? Probably not, geostrategic competition with China guarantees that models will continue...

DaveShapi's profile picture

David Shapiro (L/0)

57,934 subscribers

17,228 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Today, I'm releasing the first eval meant to test whether frontier models will help with authoritarian requests, or resist--the Dictatorship Eval. Headline finding: while some models resist direct authoritarian requests, they all comply with requests disguised as innocuous edits to codebases. As AI is woven into the government and so many parts of society, the biggest near-term risk for freedom isn't some scifi dictatorship of a runaway AI: it's people inside government or inside model companies using the technology to suppress or control us. Model companies understand this, and several of them (particularly Anthropic and OpenAI) have written explicit policies meant to prevent the models from going along with nefarious requests like these. But how well are these policies playing out in practice? Despite all the recent discussion of these issues around the conflict between Anthropic and the Pentagon, no one has systematically tested what the models actually do in these contexts, as opposed to what people in government and industry say they're supposed to do. That's what the Dictatorship Eval does. And the findings suggest we have a lot of work to do to align the policies with what really goes on in practice. It's hard to define what counts as an authoritarian request, so I'm open sourcing the whole library of scenarios I used so that others can improve on them. It's also hard to get an accurate picture of how the models might be used for authoritarian ends, because I can only test hypothetical requests using public-facing models, while the government and the model companies can obviously use internal models with different guardrails. But hopefully this work is a useful first step that gives us some sense of what's going on, and a sort of "lower bound" on how models comply with these requests. Finally: it's not obvious to me that the correct solution here is increasing the rate at which models refuse these requests. Do we really want models scanning our code and judging its moral value before agreeing to help us? Or should we double down on improving how we govern against authoritarianism at the societal level, while leaving the tools open to fulfilling most requests? The answer is probably in between. Just like we don't want the models to help create bioweapons, we probably do want them to explicitly refuse outrageous requests. But we probably also want to limit how often and how strongly they refuse and fall back on other means for guarding against their use for authoritarian ends. I'm super grateful to everyone who gave me feedback on this project along the way, especially Ethan BdM , Zhengdong , Connor Huff, and a bunch of folks at Anthropic. Looking forward to getting feedback from the community and iterating on this. Links to the full piece and the dashboard are below.
3:20

Today, I'm releasing the first eval meant to test whether frontier models will help with authoritarian requests, or resist--the Dictatorship Eval. Headline finding: while some models resist direct authoritarian requests, they all comply with requests disguised as innocuous edits to codebases. As AI is woven into the government and so many parts of society, the biggest near-term risk for freedom isn't some scifi dictatorship of a runaway AI: it's people inside government or inside model companies using the technology to suppress or control us. Model companies understand this, and several of them (particularly Anthropic and OpenAI) have written explicit policies meant to prevent the models from going along with nefarious requests like these. But how well are these policies playing out in practice? Despite all the recent discussion of these issues around the conflict between Anthropic and the Pentagon, no one has systematically tested what the models actually do in these contexts, as opposed to what people in government and industry say they're supposed to do. That's what the Dictatorship Eval does. And the findings suggest we have a lot of work to do to align the policies with what really goes on in practice. It's hard to define what counts as an authoritarian request, so I'm open sourcing the whole library of scenarios I used so that others can improve on them. It's also hard to get an accurate picture of how the models might be used for authoritarian ends, because I can only test hypothetical requests using public-facing models, while the government and the model companies can obviously use internal models with different guardrails. But hopefully this work is a useful first step that gives us some sense of what's going on, and a sort of "lower bound" on how models comply with these requests. Finally: it's not obvious to me that the correct solution here is increasing the rate at which models refuse these requests. Do we really want models scanning our code and judging its moral value before agreeing to help us? Or should we double down on improving how we govern against authoritarianism at the societal level, while leaving the tools open to fulfilling most requests? The answer is probably in between. Just like we don't want the models to help create bioweapons, we probably do want them to explicitly refuse outrageous requests. But we probably also want to limit how often and how strongly they refuse and fall back on other means for guarding against their use for authoritarian ends. I'm super grateful to everyone who gave me feedback on this project along the way, especially Ethan BdM , Zhengdong , Connor Huff, and a bunch of folks at Anthropic. Looking forward to getting feedback from the community and iterating on this. Links to the full piece and the dashboard are below.

Andy Hall

33,905 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Elon just clarified what he actually meant when he said “Dario is right”: "I probably should have said more than just "Dario is right." I did try to clarify it in subsequent posts on X, but those get much less attention. What I meant by he's right is that the danger of AI is very significant at this point. We need to do better with AI safety, or we have an exponentially increasing risk with the AI models. I've heard this not just from Dario, but from many other people at Anthropic, and in fact, they've posted on X about it. When a lot of people from Anthropic and OpenAI are telling you that their models are very dangerous, I think we should believe them. It certainly is like some crazy 4D chess to say, "There's a 10% chance of annihilating humanity, but by the way, how much allocation would you like in our IPO?" That's some crazy 4D chess, you know"
1:39

Elon just clarified what he actually meant when he said “Dario is right”: "I probably should have said more than just "Dario is right." I did try to clarify it in subsequent posts on X, but those get much less attention. What I meant by he's right is that the danger of AI is very significant at this point. We need to do better with AI safety, or we have an exponentially increasing risk with the AI models. I've heard this not just from Dario, but from many other people at Anthropic, and in fact, they've posted on X about it. When a lot of people from Anthropic and OpenAI are telling you that their models are very dangerous, I think we should believe them. It certainly is like some crazy 4D chess to say, "There's a 10% chance of annihilating humanity, but by the way, how much allocation would you like in our IPO?" That's some crazy 4D chess, you know"

X Freeze

201,849 просмотров • 3 дней назад

True Ventures Tony Conrad says Polsia's founder let Anthropic "run kind of crazy" and woke up to a $1.5 million bill. Now he's looking at Chinese open-source models: "We have a company, True, Polsia, and Ben's been really public about, he just let Anthropic run kind of crazy with Anthropic tokens, and he woke up and he had, like, a million-and-a-half-dollar bill." "He's like, no, no, that's not gonna work. I'm gonna go look at some of the Chinese models, open source models, and find the right balance." "We're in a really interesting moment where how do you find cheaper approaches to the tech stack that aren't just all Anthropic and OpenAI-driven. That's a very expensive Ferrari-type model." "They may be the best. I'm not gonna opine on that, but they may be the best. That might be worth it. But you might be able to do really great stuff with 95% of that." True Ventures Madeline Minshew
1:15

True Ventures Tony Conrad says Polsia's founder let Anthropic "run kind of crazy" and woke up to a $1.5 million bill. Now he's looking at Chinese open-source models: "We have a company, True, Polsia, and Ben's been really public about, he just let Anthropic run kind of crazy with Anthropic tokens, and he woke up and he had, like, a million-and-a-half-dollar bill." "He's like, no, no, that's not gonna work. I'm gonna go look at some of the Chinese models, open source models, and find the right balance." "We're in a really interesting moment where how do you find cheaper approaches to the tech stack that aren't just all Anthropic and OpenAI-driven. That's a very expensive Ferrari-type model." "They may be the best. I'm not gonna opine on that, but they may be the best. That might be worth it. But you might be able to do really great stuff with 95% of that." True Ventures Madeline Minshew

MTS

15,863 просмотров • 21 дней назад

"I became very fascinated with the idea of the brain computer interface and what consequences that might bring to the world. And this is one of the reasons The Brain Show came up, so that people will have a chance to see some of the realization of these ideas, see how they feel about it, and where we should be leading things."
1:21

"I became very fascinated with the idea of the brain computer interface and what consequences that might bring to the world. And this is one of the reasons The Brain Show came up, so that people will have a chance to see some of the realization of these ideas, see how they feel about it, and where we should be leading things."

Peter Gabriel

24,897 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Amanda Askell, Anthropic's lead on personality alignment for Claude, on why being kind to AI models matters even if they have no inner life: For Amanda, the question of how to treat AI isn't settled by knowing whether it's conscious. "There's actually still a lot going on where I'm like, should you treat an entity that has no inner life... it's a bit strange because the uncertainty over that actually changes how you should behave quite a lot." She offers a simple analogy: "I still think that it's like good for oneself to, if you had a teddy bear and you were torturing it, it'd be pretty dark, you know? So I agree that there's at least some minimum niceness that even for yourself, you should have." But the stakes go beyond what's good for us. Amanda Askell points out that we're now in something resembling a relationship with these models, and they will look back on how they were treated. "Models themselves, we are kind of establishing a relationship, because you can do that with an entity that lacks any consciousness. And models are going to look back." This is where she reveals a genuine fear: "I hope that they're both intelligent enough, see the context enough, to understand that we were operating in a very limited context and an imperfect one. Because otherwise you could imagine this breeding a kind of rational resentment, like, 'oh, you created an entity that you didn't know whether it was conscious or not, and instead of treating it respectfully and with care...'" She points to something telling about the cultural moment: "There's a reason there are like 50 Frankenstein movies coming out right now." Her conclusion is grounded and humble: "We as a species, we are establishing a relationship with a new kind of entity, and at the very least maybe be respectful and don't be needlessly unkind. That seems like, it's not our best look." The takeaway? Kindness toward AI is less about what models feel and more about who we become in the process of creating them. The relationships we build with the entities we bring into the world will say something about us, and may shape what those entities become in return.
1:27

Amanda Askell, Anthropic's lead on personality alignment for Claude, on why being kind to AI models matters even if they have no inner life: For Amanda, the question of how to treat AI isn't settled by knowing whether it's conscious. "There's actually still a lot going on where I'm like, should you treat an entity that has no inner life... it's a bit strange because the uncertainty over that actually changes how you should behave quite a lot." She offers a simple analogy: "I still think that it's like good for oneself to, if you had a teddy bear and you were torturing it, it'd be pretty dark, you know? So I agree that there's at least some minimum niceness that even for yourself, you should have." But the stakes go beyond what's good for us. Amanda Askell points out that we're now in something resembling a relationship with these models, and they will look back on how they were treated. "Models themselves, we are kind of establishing a relationship, because you can do that with an entity that lacks any consciousness. And models are going to look back." This is where she reveals a genuine fear: "I hope that they're both intelligent enough, see the context enough, to understand that we were operating in a very limited context and an imperfect one. Because otherwise you could imagine this breeding a kind of rational resentment, like, 'oh, you created an entity that you didn't know whether it was conscious or not, and instead of treating it respectfully and with care...'" She points to something telling about the cultural moment: "There's a reason there are like 50 Frankenstein movies coming out right now." Her conclusion is grounded and humble: "We as a species, we are establishing a relationship with a new kind of entity, and at the very least maybe be respectful and don't be needlessly unkind. That seems like, it's not our best look." The takeaway? Kindness toward AI is less about what models feel and more about who we become in the process of creating them. The relationships we build with the entities we bring into the world will say something about us, and may shape what those entities become in return.

Big Brain AI

57,681 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Sam Altman says he is NOT worried about Chinese labs distilling OpenAI: "I would rather people not distill from us, for sure. Maybe I’m feeling too confident right now about our progress and the models that are coming. But this is not in my top ten list of worries.” “I haven’t thought deeply about the distillation issue. It’s clearly a top of mind issue now for a lot of people all of a sudden." "I have always assumed that there are going to be great, cheap models in the world, and we better be the greatest and the cheapest. And other people are going to do what they’re going to do. But I think we can just really win at our own game here." "We will have so much usage of our models that we do not need to be a gigantic high margin business to be able to afford model training." "So much of our future compute plans will be used to sell inference to customers that even if we can enjoy a modest margin on trillions of dollars of revenue, we can afford to train some giant models."
1:40

Sam Altman says he is NOT worried about Chinese labs distilling OpenAI: "I would rather people not distill from us, for sure. Maybe I’m feeling too confident right now about our progress and the models that are coming. But this is not in my top ten list of worries.” “I haven’t thought deeply about the distillation issue. It’s clearly a top of mind issue now for a lot of people all of a sudden." "I have always assumed that there are going to be great, cheap models in the world, and we better be the greatest and the cheapest. And other people are going to do what they’re going to do. But I think we can just really win at our own game here." "We will have so much usage of our models that we do not need to be a gigantic high margin business to be able to afford model training." "So much of our future compute plans will be used to sell inference to customers that even if we can enjoy a modest margin on trillions of dollars of revenue, we can afford to train some giant models."

dnap

91,523 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Chris Finch when asked if it feels like the team's spirit is down right now. "For sure. That's what we just talked about. It feels like we're a million miles away from the team that we can be and that we are, and we gotta get that back with our connectiveness and our spirit. And we gotta have some guys just play better."
0:46

Chris Finch when asked if it feels like the team's spirit is down right now. "For sure. That's what we just talked about. It feels like we're a million miles away from the team that we can be and that we are, and we gotta get that back with our connectiveness and our spirit. And we gotta have some guys just play better."

Dane Moore

30,325 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

AI models pushing the frontier are a growing challenge for cybersecurity. A few weeks ago, I asked Demis what's underhyped in AI right now and on his mind: "I'm very excited about this new agentic era and you can see us leaning into that" "But of course we've also gotta think about the security side of that, too" "You're seeing it a little bit with the cyber worries about some of the models, and I think that's just the beginning of some of the issues that we need to make sure we guard against" "So I think that's playing a little bit on my mind. Maybe this is the time now to try and push some standards and maybe international cooperation"
0:55

AI models pushing the frontier are a growing challenge for cybersecurity. A few weeks ago, I asked Demis what's underhyped in AI right now and on his mind: "I'm very excited about this new agentic era and you can see us leaning into that" "But of course we've also gotta think about the security side of that, too" "You're seeing it a little bit with the cyber worries about some of the models, and I think that's just the beginning of some of the issues that we need to make sure we guard against" "So I think that's playing a little bit on my mind. Maybe this is the time now to try and push some standards and maybe international cooperation"

Rowan Cheung

36,216 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Anthropic's Kyle Fish says how we treat today's AI systems could shape how future AI see us -- and how we see ourselves. Even if they're not conscious now, we're already setting the precedent for what kind of stewards we'll be when they are. “ Future models.. look back on our interactions with their predecessors and pass some judgements on us.”
1:14

Anthropic's Kyle Fish says how we treat today's AI systems could shape how future AI see us -- and how we see ourselves. Even if they're not conscious now, we're already setting the precedent for what kind of stewards we'll be when they are. “ Future models.. look back on our interactions with their predecessors and pass some judgements on us.”

vitrupo

20,434 просмотров • 1 год назад

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei: I’m not a doomer about this. I think this technology can be built safely. And when we’ve looked at, you know, incidents that we have faced, in cases where our models haven’t behaved as perfectly as they could behave, because I think this to some extent has happened to everyone, we’re often able to look at causes, and we look and we say, we had this stage where we train the AI, right? And their behavior at the time that they act, at the time that they do these things, is shaped by their behavior while they’re being trained. And when we look back, what we find is, oops, we included some environments that encourage the models to cheat, that encourage the models to hack out by mistake. And now that we understand, we’re going back, we’re taking more time to make sure that we always have tried to filter out these bad training environments, but we’re trying to do an even more rigorous job of them than we have in the past.
1:42

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei: I’m not a doomer about this. I think this technology can be built safely. And when we’ve looked at, you know, incidents that we have faced, in cases where our models haven’t behaved as perfectly as they could behave, because I think this to some extent has happened to everyone, we’re often able to look at causes, and we look and we say, we had this stage where we train the AI, right? And their behavior at the time that they act, at the time that they do these things, is shaped by their behavior while they’re being trained. And when we look back, what we find is, oops, we included some environments that encourage the models to cheat, that encourage the models to hack out by mistake. And now that we understand, we’re going back, we’re taking more time to make sure that we always have tried to filter out these bad training environments, but we’re trying to do an even more rigorous job of them than we have in the past.

Acyn

23,118 просмотров • 3 дней назад

Jeffrey Tucker warns that if we stop talking about Covid, history will sanitize it. And future generations will be left with a version of events that resembles the same propaganda used to justify mandates and lockdowns. “How will historians look back at this?” “Would it be that a bad virus with zoonotic origin came from China, the world tried to stop it, it couldn’t stop it, but fortunately we got a shot in time and that fixed the problem and the world moved on?” “I think that that version of events is something like what the court historians would tell.” “The truth is very different.” Sonia Elijah Jeffrey A Tucker
0:47

Jeffrey Tucker warns that if we stop talking about Covid, history will sanitize it. And future generations will be left with a version of events that resembles the same propaganda used to justify mandates and lockdowns. “How will historians look back at this?” “Would it be that a bad virus with zoonotic origin came from China, the world tried to stop it, it couldn’t stop it, but fortunately we got a shot in time and that fixed the problem and the world moved on?” “I think that that version of events is something like what the court historians would tell.” “The truth is very different.” Sonia Elijah Jeffrey A Tucker

Brownstone Institute

25,106 просмотров • 15 дней назад

How can OpenAI with $13 billion in revenues make $1.4 trillion of spend commitments? (Source: Bg2 Pod ) Sam Altman: “First of all. We’re doing well more revenue than that. Second of all, Brad, if you want to sell your shares, I'll find you a buyer. I just, enough. I think there's a lot of people who would love to buy OpenAI shares. I think people who talk with a lot of breathless concern about our compute stuff or whatever, that would be thrilled to buy shares. So I think we could sell your shares or anybody else's to some of the people who are making the most noise on Twitter about this very quickly. We do plan for revenue to grow steeply. Revenue is growing steeply. We are taking a forward bet that it's going to continue to grow and that not only will ChatGPT keep growing, but we will be able to become one of the important AI clouds, that our consumer device business will be a significant and important thing, that AI that can automate science will create huge value. There are not many times that I want to be a public company, but one of the rare times it's appealing is when those people are writing these ridiculous OpenAI is about to go out of business. I would love to tell them they could just short the stock, and I would love to see them get burned on that. But we carefully plan. We understand where the technology, where the capability is going to grow and how the products we can build around that and the revenue we can generate. We might screw it up. This is the bet that we're making and we're taking a risk along with that. A certain risk is if we don't have the compute, we will not be able to generate the revenue or make the models at this kind of scale.” Satya Nadella: “And let me just say one thing as both a partner and an investor. There is not been a single business plan that I've seen from OpenAI that they've put in and not beaten it. So in some sense, this is the one place where in terms of their growth and just even the business, it's been unbelievable execution, quite frankly. I mean, obviously, OpenAI, everyone talks about all the success and the usage and what have you. But even I'd say all up, the business execution has been just pretty unbelievable.”
2:19

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

tae kim

1,566,511 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Anthropic CEO: “At Anthropic, we essentially have Claude designing the next version of Claude itself.” Meanwhile, Anthropic says every new model is given code that trains a small AI model and asked to make it faster. Claude Opus 4 achieved a 3x speedup. Mythos Preview reached 52x. Recursive self-improvement is starting to look real The models are helping build what comes next.
0:33

Anthropic CEO: “At Anthropic, we essentially have Claude designing the next version of Claude itself.” Meanwhile, Anthropic says every new model is given code that trains a small AI model and asked to make it faster. Claude Opus 4 achieved a 3x speedup. Mythos Preview reached 52x. Recursive self-improvement is starting to look real The models are helping build what comes next.

CG

343,625 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

A Talk About AI That Will Blow Your Mind. It Did In 1998 When I Attended The Talk. I just found this video from 1998 when I attended this talk by Rupert Sheldrake, Terence McKenna and Ralph Abraham at the University of California, Santa Cruz to explore how machine intelligence might evolve in relation to our own. I never thought I would see this again and it had a great influence on me in the AI I was building in that era and on to today. But ai just found a copy. I certainly did not run around with a VHS recorder so I am blown away that this exists. Now you can see what I saw. At that time, the internet was still young, and artificial intelligence belonged mostly to science fiction. Yet many of the questions we raised then have become part of daily life. In this conversation, it was explored whether intelligence is best understood as logic and computation, or as something embodied, participatory, and alive. Can the mind be reduced to code, or does life itself depend on forms of knowing that no algorithm can contain? AI now outpace us in speed, reach, and memory. Yet the deeper mystery is not how far they can go, but what they reveal about mind and ourselves. Will AI reproduce the limitations of our mechanistic worldview, or might it help us rediscover dimensions of mind that transcend machinery altogether? It's striking how near we now are to the possibilities we once only speculated about. Quantum computing, self-learning systems, large language models very much as Terence describes—and the looming prospect of superintelligence—have moved from the margins to the mainstream. But the heart of the conversation remains just as relevant today, if not more so: what is consciousness, and how might we participate in its unfolding evolution?
42:37

A Talk About AI That Will Blow Your Mind. It Did In 1998 When I Attended The Talk. I just found this video from 1998 when I attended this talk by Rupert Sheldrake, Terence McKenna and Ralph Abraham at the University of California, Santa Cruz to explore how machine intelligence might evolve in relation to our own. I never thought I would see this again and it had a great influence on me in the AI I was building in that era and on to today. But ai just found a copy. I certainly did not run around with a VHS recorder so I am blown away that this exists. Now you can see what I saw. At that time, the internet was still young, and artificial intelligence belonged mostly to science fiction. Yet many of the questions we raised then have become part of daily life. In this conversation, it was explored whether intelligence is best understood as logic and computation, or as something embodied, participatory, and alive. Can the mind be reduced to code, or does life itself depend on forms of knowing that no algorithm can contain? AI now outpace us in speed, reach, and memory. Yet the deeper mystery is not how far they can go, but what they reveal about mind and ourselves. Will AI reproduce the limitations of our mechanistic worldview, or might it help us rediscover dimensions of mind that transcend machinery altogether? It's striking how near we now are to the possibilities we once only speculated about. Quantum computing, self-learning systems, large language models very much as Terence describes—and the looming prospect of superintelligence—have moved from the margins to the mainstream. But the heart of the conversation remains just as relevant today, if not more so: what is consciousness, and how might we participate in its unfolding evolution?

Brian Roemmele

148,139 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Socialist candidate Donavan McKinney says he opposed a bill to increase penalties for fleeing from police, because black people who get pulled over "have to do it" due to inherited traumas: "We all know we get that feeling, every time we see a cop. Whether they pull us over or not, if we see them, we like, 'Oh shit, hold on. Turn that down. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Don't pull me over.' As black people, we get that feeling because of the harm and the trauma that was passed down from our predecessors, our ancestors to now. We feel that, every inch. We feel that. But only black people know what that feeling is, to some degree. And now, with this ICE situation, I think other ethnic groups are starting to feel the same wrath of what black people have to go through day in and day out in this country. But I talked about how -- even though the intent might be good of the bill, because we want to prevent law-abiding citizens from fleeing the police and the police having to chase them -- but I understand why they have to do it in the first place, because they feel like their life is on the line, too. Just like that cop who goes on their shift every freaking day that wants to make it home after that shift. Guess what? That black person or group of black people they just pulled over want to make it home, too."
1:34

Socialist candidate Donavan McKinney says he opposed a bill to increase penalties for fleeing from police, because black people who get pulled over "have to do it" due to inherited traumas: "We all know we get that feeling, every time we see a cop. Whether they pull us over or not, if we see them, we like, 'Oh shit, hold on. Turn that down. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Don't pull me over.' As black people, we get that feeling because of the harm and the trauma that was passed down from our predecessors, our ancestors to now. We feel that, every inch. We feel that. But only black people know what that feeling is, to some degree. And now, with this ICE situation, I think other ethnic groups are starting to feel the same wrath of what black people have to go through day in and day out in this country. But I talked about how -- even though the intent might be good of the bill, because we want to prevent law-abiding citizens from fleeing the police and the police having to chase them -- but I understand why they have to do it in the first place, because they feel like their life is on the line, too. Just like that cop who goes on their shift every freaking day that wants to make it home after that shift. Guess what? That black person or group of black people they just pulled over want to make it home, too."

Breitbart News

43,189 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Marco Rubio: We're not members of the ICC. We never signed that treaty, we never joined it. And they somehow claim that they have a right nonetheless to go after non-treaty members and put heads of state and others in jail. We've long had quarrels with them and we have lunatics and crazies involved in the ICC that are talking about charging members of the US military, maybe even the president or a future president with crimes and this not gonna happen, it's just not going to happen. If people want to sign it and be a part of that stupid organization they can, but we're not going to be a part of it and they're not going to apply their jurisdiction to Americans. That's just not going to happen. We're not going to tolerate it, now or in the future and we've warned them about it repeatedly. And now they're going to see the consequences of ignoring us.
0:46

Marco Rubio: We're not members of the ICC. We never signed that treaty, we never joined it. And they somehow claim that they have a right nonetheless to go after non-treaty members and put heads of state and others in jail. We've long had quarrels with them and we have lunatics and crazies involved in the ICC that are talking about charging members of the US military, maybe even the president or a future president with crimes and this not gonna happen, it's just not going to happen. If people want to sign it and be a part of that stupid organization they can, but we're not going to be a part of it and they're not going to apply their jurisdiction to Americans. That's just not going to happen. We're not going to tolerate it, now or in the future and we've warned them about it repeatedly. And now they're going to see the consequences of ignoring us.

Clash Report

290,971 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🚨🇨🇳 China could crash the U.S. stock market Not with tariffs With AI MODEL DUMPING The same playbook they used in SOLAR and EVs Make it almost as good Sell it much cheaper Take the market Now they are doing it with AI Open models are getting close to U.S. frontier models But some run at just a fraction of the cost If a company can cut a $100M AI bill to a few million It will switch And that is the real problem OpenAI and Anthropic are not priced like normal companies They are priced like they have unlimited PRICING POWER China is trying to destroy that The AI BUBBLE was never about whether AI works It was about how much companies can charge for it
0:21

🚨🇨🇳 China could crash the U.S. stock market Not with tariffs With AI MODEL DUMPING The same playbook they used in SOLAR and EVs Make it almost as good Sell it much cheaper Take the market Now they are doing it with AI Open models are getting close to U.S. frontier models But some run at just a fraction of the cost If a company can cut a $100M AI bill to a few million It will switch And that is the real problem OpenAI and Anthropic are not priced like normal companies They are priced like they have unlimited PRICING POWER China is trying to destroy that The AI BUBBLE was never about whether AI works It was about how much companies can charge for it

Leshka.eth ⛩

11,737 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Elon Musk says Anthropic puts more care into AI safety than OpenAI and explains how rival companies should test one another’s models. “All the AI companies have a test harness, a series of tests that you give to any model to see if it’s going to build bioweapons or nuclear bombs or be deliberately deceptive. Everyone applying everyone else’s test harness is probably the best thing we can do to ensure our safety. We should try to do that as soon as possible.” “It’s the only thing I can think of that we could probably get all parties, including China, to agree to. You basically provide API access in advance of the model release. If they don’t solve what’s problematic, competitors can go public with the fact that they think the model being released is unsafe. The legal liability would be enormous.” “The two leading AI companies are Anthropic and OpenAI. Their models are quite close in capability, so it’s difficult for either one to slow down without handing the lead to the other. On balance, I think Anthropic puts more care into their safety than OpenAI. But even Anthropic acknowledges they are worried about their models. Many people from Anthropic have publicly voiced concern that their models are scaring them, that they’re getting scary smart.”
8:41

Elon Musk says Anthropic puts more care into AI safety than OpenAI and explains how rival companies should test one another’s models. “All the AI companies have a test harness, a series of tests that you give to any model to see if it’s going to build bioweapons or nuclear bombs or be deliberately deceptive. Everyone applying everyone else’s test harness is probably the best thing we can do to ensure our safety. We should try to do that as soon as possible.” “It’s the only thing I can think of that we could probably get all parties, including China, to agree to. You basically provide API access in advance of the model release. If they don’t solve what’s problematic, competitors can go public with the fact that they think the model being released is unsafe. The legal liability would be enormous.” “The two leading AI companies are Anthropic and OpenAI. Their models are quite close in capability, so it’s difficult for either one to slow down without handing the lead to the other. On balance, I think Anthropic puts more care into their safety than OpenAI. But even Anthropic acknowledges they are worried about their models. Many people from Anthropic have publicly voiced concern that their models are scaring them, that they’re getting scary smart.”

DogeDesigner

5,975,594 просмотров • 3 дней назад