Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Stanford Prof. Michael Levitt (Michael Levitt) achieved something EXTREMELY rare & impressive: He came on my show as an AI “optimist”, listened to my doom argument, and updated his view in realtime!!! 🤯 Also, he won the 2013 Nobel Prize in computational biology. We had a great conversation, and...

liron's profile picture

Liron Shapira

40,442 subscribers

20,019 views • 8 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

The Noah Smith 🐇🇺🇸🇺🇦🇹🇼 Doom Debate has dropped!!! Noah Smith is a highly influential writer & economist who's not afraid to share bold takes like: 📝 Plentiful, high-paying jobs in the age of AI 📝 Godlike AI will tend toward friendliness A brilliant thinker and great debater, yet his views are completely different from mine on the most critical AI topics… WHY DOES THIS ALWAYS HAPPEN?! We covered: ⬜ What’s Your P(Doom)™ ⬜ Good vs. Bad Transhumanist Outcomes ⬜ Mechanisms of Doom ⬜ The AI Persuasion Risk ⬜ Instrumental Convergence vs. Peace ⬜ The “Stoner AI” Theory ⬜ Importance of Reflective Stability ⬜ Orthogonality & the Waymo Argument ⬜ Comparative Advantage & Jobs ⬜ Wealth Distribution & Robot Lords ⬜ Supply Curves & Resource Constraints ⬜ The Case for Optimism This is one of the all-time best Doom Debates episodes to watch! 👇
1:40

The Noah Smith 🐇🇺🇸🇺🇦🇹🇼 Doom Debate has dropped!!! Noah Smith is a highly influential writer & economist who's not afraid to share bold takes like: 📝 Plentiful, high-paying jobs in the age of AI 📝 Godlike AI will tend toward friendliness A brilliant thinker and great debater, yet his views are completely different from mine on the most critical AI topics… WHY DOES THIS ALWAYS HAPPEN?! We covered: ⬜ What’s Your P(Doom)™ ⬜ Good vs. Bad Transhumanist Outcomes ⬜ Mechanisms of Doom ⬜ The AI Persuasion Risk ⬜ Instrumental Convergence vs. Peace ⬜ The “Stoner AI” Theory ⬜ Importance of Reflective Stability ⬜ Orthogonality & the Waymo Argument ⬜ Comparative Advantage & Jobs ⬜ Wealth Distribution & Robot Lords ⬜ Supply Curves & Resource Constraints ⬜ The Case for Optimism This is one of the all-time best Doom Debates episodes to watch! 👇

Liron Shapira

13,682 views • 7 months ago

𝘛𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘋𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘋𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 📺 Destiny Updates His P(Doom)! Top streamer Destiny (Destiny | Steven Bonnell II) has racked up millions of views for his sharp takes on political & cultural news. Now he's giving me a chance to debate him about the highest-stakes question: WILL AGI END HUMANITY? We cover: ⬜ What's Your P(Doom)?™ ⬜ Revisiting Destiny's 2017 Remarks ⬜ What if AI Intelligence >> Human IQ ⬜ Intelligence vs. Morality ⬜ The Vibes-Based Case Against Doom ⬜ Does Every Intelligence Self-Destruct? ⬜ What About A Warning Shot? ⬜ Roko's Basilisk and the AI Box Problem ⬜ Destiny's Updated P(Doom) Highly recommended! 👇
1:16

𝘛𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘋𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘋𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 📺 Destiny Updates His P(Doom)! Top streamer Destiny (Destiny | Steven Bonnell II) has racked up millions of views for his sharp takes on political & cultural news. Now he's giving me a chance to debate him about the highest-stakes question: WILL AGI END HUMANITY? We cover: ⬜ What's Your P(Doom)?™ ⬜ Revisiting Destiny's 2017 Remarks ⬜ What if AI Intelligence >> Human IQ ⬜ Intelligence vs. Morality ⬜ The Vibes-Based Case Against Doom ⬜ Does Every Intelligence Self-Destruct? ⬜ What About A Warning Shot? ⬜ Roko's Basilisk and the AI Box Problem ⬜ Destiny's Updated P(Doom) Highly recommended! 👇

Liron Shapira

33,944 views • 5 months ago

AI agents are getting so powerful, yet so friendly and compliant to their human masters… does that mean AI Doom is canceled?! In this 🆕 episode of Doom Debates, Dr. Steven Byrnes (AGI Safety Researcher, Harvard Physics Postdoc, fan favorite) returns to put the latest AI developments in context. Spoiler: Steven Byrnes and I are still expecting a qualitatively different breed of powerful sociopathic AI to emerge in the next few years and kill everyone :( We cover: ⬜ What's Your P(Doom)™ ⬜ “Brainlike AGI”: The next generation of AI ⬜ Will AI kill us before it takes our jobs? ⬜ The “country of geniuses in a data center” ⬜ Why we expect ruthless sociopathic ASI ⬜ Post-training & RLVR: a "thin layer" of consequentialism ⬜ The air travel vs. space travel analogy Highly recommended! 👇
0:46

AI agents are getting so powerful, yet so friendly and compliant to their human masters… does that mean AI Doom is canceled?! In this 🆕 episode of Doom Debates, Dr. Steven Byrnes (AGI Safety Researcher, Harvard Physics Postdoc, fan favorite) returns to put the latest AI developments in context. Spoiler: Steven Byrnes and I are still expecting a qualitatively different breed of powerful sociopathic AI to emerge in the next few years and kill everyone :( We cover: ⬜ What's Your P(Doom)™ ⬜ “Brainlike AGI”: The next generation of AI ⬜ Will AI kill us before it takes our jobs? ⬜ The “country of geniuses in a data center” ⬜ Why we expect ruthless sociopathic ASI ⬜ Post-training & RLVR: a "thin layer" of consequentialism ⬜ The air travel vs. space travel analogy Highly recommended! 👇

Liron Shapira

10,645 views • 5 months ago

Doom Debates presents Max Tegmark vs. Dean W. Ball: “Should we ban superintelligent AI development?” Arguing FOR banning superintelligence until there's a scientific consensus that it'll be done safely and controllably and strong public buy-in: 👤 Max Tegmark is an MIT professor, bestselling author, and co-founder of the Future of Life Institute. His research has focused on artificial intelligence for the past 8 years. Arguing AGAINST banning superintelligent AI development: 👤 Dean Ball is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation. He has served as a Senior Policy Advisor at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Trump, where he helped craft America's AI Action Plan. Two of the leading voices on AI policy engaged in high-quality, high-stakes debate for the benefit of the public! *This* is why I got into the YouTube game — because I believe debate is an essential tool for humanity to reckon with the creation of superhuman thinking machines. Topics covered: ⬜ Opening statements ⬜ Do we need an “FDA for AI”? ⬜ Liability, tail risk, and biosecurity ⬜ Incremental regulation vs. AI capability timelines ⬜ Should there be *any* superintelligence policy? ⬜ Max's nightmare scenario ⬜ The risk of recursive self-improvement ⬜ What's Your P(Doom)?™ ⬜ National security, China, & “winning the AI race” ⬜ Closing statements
1:50

Doom Debates presents Max Tegmark vs. Dean W. Ball: “Should we ban superintelligent AI development?” Arguing FOR banning superintelligence until there's a scientific consensus that it'll be done safely and controllably and strong public buy-in: 👤 Max Tegmark is an MIT professor, bestselling author, and co-founder of the Future of Life Institute. His research has focused on artificial intelligence for the past 8 years. Arguing AGAINST banning superintelligent AI development: 👤 Dean Ball is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation. He has served as a Senior Policy Advisor at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Trump, where he helped craft America's AI Action Plan. Two of the leading voices on AI policy engaged in high-quality, high-stakes debate for the benefit of the public! *This* is why I got into the YouTube game — because I believe debate is an essential tool for humanity to reckon with the creation of superhuman thinking machines. Topics covered: ⬜ Opening statements ⬜ Do we need an “FDA for AI”? ⬜ Liability, tail risk, and biosecurity ⬜ Incremental regulation vs. AI capability timelines ⬜ Should there be *any* superintelligence policy? ⬜ Max's nightmare scenario ⬜ The risk of recursive self-improvement ⬜ What's Your P(Doom)?™ ⬜ National security, China, & “winning the AI race” ⬜ Closing statements

Liron Shapira

43,963 views • 8 months ago

NEW: Dr. Holly Elmore (Holly ⏸️ Elmore), Executive Director of PauseAI US ⏸️, is calling out the AI doom “enablers” joining OpenAI & Anthropic! In this 🌶️ episode, Holly calls out leading figures in the AI safety community for allegedly selling out the cause: Effective Altruists, Anthropic & OpenAI employees, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Zvi Mowshowitz, and even yours truly! I have my disagreements about these specific callouts, especially on the choice to publicly psychoanalyze people instead of keeping the criticism focused on their actions. But I can’t deny that Holly has a track record of pushing the Overton window and surfacing uncomfortable truths. Does the "calling out" approach risk burning bridges with allies for little benefit, or does AI safety need a moral conscience willing to call out the rot nobody else will? Watch the episode and tell us in the replies! We cover: ⬜ Why Holly Moved to DC ⬜ What’s Your P(Doom)?™ ⬜ How We Got Here: EA, Rationality, AI Alignment ⬜ “If Anyone Builds It” and LessWrong’s Missing Mood ⬜ The Government’s Fable Crackdown is Good ⬜ Callout: Dean Ball (OpenAI) ⬜ Callout: Eliezer Yudkowsky ⬜ Callout: Zvi Mowshowitz ⬜ Callout: Liron Shapira ⬜ Callout: Nirit Weiss-Blatt ⬜ Callout: Amanda Askell ⬜ Callout: Daniela Amodei ⬜ Callout: Joe Carlsmith ⬜ Callout: Open Philanthropy / Coefficient Giving, Ben Goldhaber ⬜ How Anthropic took over EA ⬜ “Holly’s Basilisk”: What If Building Superintelligence Retroactively Becomes a Crime? Highly recommended! 👇
0:48

NEW: Dr. Holly Elmore (Holly ⏸️ Elmore), Executive Director of PauseAI US ⏸️, is calling out the AI doom “enablers” joining OpenAI & Anthropic! In this 🌶️ episode, Holly calls out leading figures in the AI safety community for allegedly selling out the cause: Effective Altruists, Anthropic & OpenAI employees, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Zvi Mowshowitz, and even yours truly! I have my disagreements about these specific callouts, especially on the choice to publicly psychoanalyze people instead of keeping the criticism focused on their actions. But I can’t deny that Holly has a track record of pushing the Overton window and surfacing uncomfortable truths. Does the "calling out" approach risk burning bridges with allies for little benefit, or does AI safety need a moral conscience willing to call out the rot nobody else will? Watch the episode and tell us in the replies! We cover: ⬜ Why Holly Moved to DC ⬜ What’s Your P(Doom)?™ ⬜ How We Got Here: EA, Rationality, AI Alignment ⬜ “If Anyone Builds It” and LessWrong’s Missing Mood ⬜ The Government’s Fable Crackdown is Good ⬜ Callout: Dean Ball (OpenAI) ⬜ Callout: Eliezer Yudkowsky ⬜ Callout: Zvi Mowshowitz ⬜ Callout: Liron Shapira ⬜ Callout: Nirit Weiss-Blatt ⬜ Callout: Amanda Askell ⬜ Callout: Daniela Amodei ⬜ Callout: Joe Carlsmith ⬜ Callout: Open Philanthropy / Coefficient Giving, Ben Goldhaber ⬜ How Anthropic took over EA ⬜ “Holly’s Basilisk”: What If Building Superintelligence Retroactively Becomes a Crime? Highly recommended! 👇

Liron Shapira

17,294 views • 1 month ago

📣 My AI doom debate with Kenneth Stanley, former Research Team Lead at OpenAI Prof. Kenneth Stanley is a former Research Science Manager at OpenAI leading the Open-Endedness Team in 2020-2022. His book, Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned: The Myth of the Objective, argues that creating objectives is actually COUNTERPRODUCTIVE for intelligent agents. He was previously a Professor of Computer Science at the University of Central Florida, and the head of Core AI Research at Uber. Ken and I debate whether superintelligent AI will or won't be guided by goals, and compare our views on AI doom. Topics covered: * Ken's role at OpenAI * Ken's concepts of Open-Endedness and Divergence * Open-Endedness of Evolution * The concept of an Optimization Process * What's Your P(Doom)™ * Instrumental Convergence * Mitigating AI Risks
0:45

📣 My AI doom debate with Kenneth Stanley, former Research Team Lead at OpenAI Prof. Kenneth Stanley is a former Research Science Manager at OpenAI leading the Open-Endedness Team in 2020-2022. His book, Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned: The Myth of the Objective, argues that creating objectives is actually COUNTERPRODUCTIVE for intelligent agents. He was previously a Professor of Computer Science at the University of Central Florida, and the head of Core AI Research at Uber. Ken and I debate whether superintelligent AI will or won't be guided by goals, and compare our views on AI doom. Topics covered: * Ken's role at OpenAI * Ken's concepts of Open-Endedness and Divergence * Open-Endedness of Evolution * The concept of an Optimization Process * What's Your P(Doom)™ * Instrumental Convergence * Mitigating AI Risks

Liron Shapira

20,135 views • 1 year ago

Doom Debate with vitalik.eth has dropped: Will “d/acc” Protect Humanity from Superintelligent AI? Vitalik is both a hardcore techno-optimist and builder, and someone willing to seriously consider AI regulation and coordination mechanisms. He coined the term "d/acc'" – defensive, decentralized acceleration – as a middle path between uncritical AI acceleration and total pause scenarios. We debate the tractability of AI alignment, whether approaches like d/acc would actually work when superintelligence arrives, and why he thinks a pluralistic world of competing AIs might be safer than a single aligned superintelligence. The crux of our disagreement is that I think we're heading for a "plants vs. animals" scenario where AI will simply operate on timescales we can't match, while Vitalik believes we can maintain agency through the right combination of defensive technologies and institutional design. Finally, we tackle the discourse itself – I ask Vitalik to debunk the common ad hominem attacks against AI doomers, from "it's just a fringe position" to "no real builders believe in doom." His responses carry weight given his credibility as both a successful entrepreneur and someone who's maintained intellectual honesty throughout his career. Big thanks to Vitalik for a good-faith debate!
0:37

Doom Debate with vitalik.eth has dropped: Will “d/acc” Protect Humanity from Superintelligent AI? Vitalik is both a hardcore techno-optimist and builder, and someone willing to seriously consider AI regulation and coordination mechanisms. He coined the term "d/acc'" – defensive, decentralized acceleration – as a middle path between uncritical AI acceleration and total pause scenarios. We debate the tractability of AI alignment, whether approaches like d/acc would actually work when superintelligence arrives, and why he thinks a pluralistic world of competing AIs might be safer than a single aligned superintelligence. The crux of our disagreement is that I think we're heading for a "plants vs. animals" scenario where AI will simply operate on timescales we can't match, while Vitalik believes we can maintain agency through the right combination of defensive technologies and institutional design. Finally, we tackle the discourse itself – I ask Vitalik to debunk the common ad hominem attacks against AI doomers, from "it's just a fringe position" to "no real builders believe in doom." His responses carry weight given his credibility as both a successful entrepreneur and someone who's maintained intellectual honesty throughout his career. Big thanks to Vitalik for a good-faith debate!

Liron Shapira

177,711 views • 1 year ago

New interview with the one & only Geoffrey Miller 📺 “Rushing into AGI development is foolish, reckless, and frankly evil.” Prof. Geoffrey Miller, is an evolutionary psychologist, bestselling author, associate professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico, and one of the world's leading experts on signaling theory and human sexual selection. His book "Mate" was hugely influential to me during my dating years, so I was thrilled to finally get him on the show. In this episode, Geoffrey drops a bombshell 50% P(Doom) assessment, coming from someone who wrote foundational papers on neural networks and genetic algorithms back in the '90s before pivoting to study human mating behavior for 30 years. What makes Geoffrey's doom perspective unique is that he thinks both inner and outer alignment might be unsolvable in principle, ever. He's also surprisingly bearish on AI's current value, arguing it hasn't been net positive for society yet despite the $14 billion/year in OpenAI revenue. We cover: * Geoffrey's intellectual journey from early AI researcher to pickup artist advisor to AI doomer * Being a professor in the AI age and making courses "AI-proof" * Why Asperger's people make better psychology researchers * Dating advice, pickup artistry, and evolutionary psychology insights * The polyamory scene in rationalist circles * What's Your P(Doom)™ * Bad actors who could cause AI doom: antinatalists, religious extremists, eco-alarmists * Why ASI might lack the cultural wisdom to solve alignment * Cooperating with China Geoffrey brings a deeply humanist perspective. He genuinely loves human civilization as it is and sees no reason to rush toward our potential replacement.
0:32

New interview with the one & only Geoffrey Miller 📺 “Rushing into AGI development is foolish, reckless, and frankly evil.” Prof. Geoffrey Miller, is an evolutionary psychologist, bestselling author, associate professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico, and one of the world's leading experts on signaling theory and human sexual selection. His book "Mate" was hugely influential to me during my dating years, so I was thrilled to finally get him on the show. In this episode, Geoffrey drops a bombshell 50% P(Doom) assessment, coming from someone who wrote foundational papers on neural networks and genetic algorithms back in the '90s before pivoting to study human mating behavior for 30 years. What makes Geoffrey's doom perspective unique is that he thinks both inner and outer alignment might be unsolvable in principle, ever. He's also surprisingly bearish on AI's current value, arguing it hasn't been net positive for society yet despite the $14 billion/year in OpenAI revenue. We cover: * Geoffrey's intellectual journey from early AI researcher to pickup artist advisor to AI doomer * Being a professor in the AI age and making courses "AI-proof" * Why Asperger's people make better psychology researchers * Dating advice, pickup artistry, and evolutionary psychology insights * The polyamory scene in rationalist circles * What's Your P(Doom)™ * Bad actors who could cause AI doom: antinatalists, religious extremists, eco-alarmists * Why ASI might lack the cultural wisdom to solve alignment * Cooperating with China Geoffrey brings a deeply humanist perspective. He genuinely loves human civilization as it is and sees no reason to rush toward our potential replacement.

Liron Shapira

26,859 views • 1 year ago

Stunning clip about the insane future Elon Musk is steering us toward. Elon says: 1. We can't expect to be "in charge" of AI for long, because humans will soon only have 1% of the combined total human+AI intelligence. 2. We'll focus on building AI overlords that have “values that cause intelligence to be propagated into the universe” 3. These AIs will “have humanity continuing to expand, because if you're curious, you're trying to understand the universe, [so] one of the things you're trying to understand is, where will humanity go?” Dwarkesh correctly flags the problem with Elon's logic: Aren't the priorities for "spreading humans" different from those of "understanding the universe" and from those of "spreading intelligence"? Elon replies that "in order to understand the universe, you have to expand the scale and probably the scope of intelligence", failing to address Dwarkesh's question about why this would imply a high priority for "spreading humans". Dwarkesh then further observes that humans have tried to understand the universe without trying to spread chimpanzees, casting more doubt on Elon's supposed “corrolary”. Elon replies that "we actually have made protected zones for chimpanzees" — as if that's comparable to humans letting chimpanzees spread in order to understand the universe. Dwarkesh tries one more followup: Are we aiming for superintelligent AI to treat humans the way humans have treated chimps? Finally, Elon repeats his claim: “I think Grok would care about expanding human civilization”. He doesn't try to defend his original implication, that an AI's drive to understand the universe implies allocating a substantial fraction of the universe in the service of humanity. Instead, Elon just promises he'll somehow personally emphasize the importance of expanding human consciousness to Grok: “Hey Grok, who's your daddy? Don't forget to expand human consciousness.” To recap: ⬜ Elon acknowledges that AIs like Grok will soon be in charge, not humans ⬜ He claims maximally-curious AIs that just care about understanding the universe will naturally care to “see where humanity goes” ⬜ He acknowledges that, actually, there might be more to this whole “getting AI to prioritize expanding human consciousness” thing, but it'll be okay because Grok will listen to requests about that kind of thing from its daddy. The stunning thing isn't that Elon has this shallow, self-contradictory outlook on the near future of all our lives — it's that every frontier AI company CEO would make equally insane claims about what happens to humanity after a few more years of letting their company operate, if pressed in an interview or debate. It shouldn't be legal for companies to carry out plans to permanently take away humanity's control over the future while clinging to shallow arguments why humanity might still survive, should it? -- P.S. The only show that cross-examines its guests' existentially-important nonconsensus AI claims more than two questions deep is Doom Debates.
3:47

Stunning clip about the insane future Elon Musk is steering us toward. Elon says: 1. We can't expect to be "in charge" of AI for long, because humans will soon only have 1% of the combined total human+AI intelligence. 2. We'll focus on building AI overlords that have “values that cause intelligence to be propagated into the universe” 3. These AIs will “have humanity continuing to expand, because if you're curious, you're trying to understand the universe, [so] one of the things you're trying to understand is, where will humanity go?” Dwarkesh correctly flags the problem with Elon's logic: Aren't the priorities for "spreading humans" different from those of "understanding the universe" and from those of "spreading intelligence"? Elon replies that "in order to understand the universe, you have to expand the scale and probably the scope of intelligence", failing to address Dwarkesh's question about why this would imply a high priority for "spreading humans". Dwarkesh then further observes that humans have tried to understand the universe without trying to spread chimpanzees, casting more doubt on Elon's supposed “corrolary”. Elon replies that "we actually have made protected zones for chimpanzees" — as if that's comparable to humans letting chimpanzees spread in order to understand the universe. Dwarkesh tries one more followup: Are we aiming for superintelligent AI to treat humans the way humans have treated chimps? Finally, Elon repeats his claim: “I think Grok would care about expanding human civilization”. He doesn't try to defend his original implication, that an AI's drive to understand the universe implies allocating a substantial fraction of the universe in the service of humanity. Instead, Elon just promises he'll somehow personally emphasize the importance of expanding human consciousness to Grok: “Hey Grok, who's your daddy? Don't forget to expand human consciousness.” To recap: ⬜ Elon acknowledges that AIs like Grok will soon be in charge, not humans ⬜ He claims maximally-curious AIs that just care about understanding the universe will naturally care to “see where humanity goes” ⬜ He acknowledges that, actually, there might be more to this whole “getting AI to prioritize expanding human consciousness” thing, but it'll be okay because Grok will listen to requests about that kind of thing from its daddy. The stunning thing isn't that Elon has this shallow, self-contradictory outlook on the near future of all our lives — it's that every frontier AI company CEO would make equally insane claims about what happens to humanity after a few more years of letting their company operate, if pressed in an interview or debate. It shouldn't be legal for companies to carry out plans to permanently take away humanity's control over the future while clinging to shallow arguments why humanity might still survive, should it? -- P.S. The only show that cross-examines its guests' existentially-important nonconsensus AI claims more than two questions deep is Doom Debates.

Liron Shapira

17,652 views • 6 months ago

Geoffrey Hinton, who is known as the godfather of AI, used his 2024 Nobel Prize acceptance speech not to celebrate his creation but to warn humanity of its risks: “AI is already being used by authoritarian governments for mass surveillance. In the near future, AI will be used to create new viruses and lethal weapons that decide by themselves who to kill or maim. There is also a long-term existential threat that will arise…We now have evidence that AI created by companies motivated by short-term profits will not prioritize the safety of humanity. We need research on how to prevent these AI beings from taking control. They are no longer science fiction.” When the pioneer of AI is warning humanity about the existential dangers of his own creation it’s time not just to listen, but to take action by stopping the one thing the billionaires need to power the dystopian AI world they’re trying to create: Data Centers.
1:15

Geoffrey Hinton, who is known as the godfather of AI, used his 2024 Nobel Prize acceptance speech not to celebrate his creation but to warn humanity of its risks: “AI is already being used by authoritarian governments for mass surveillance. In the near future, AI will be used to create new viruses and lethal weapons that decide by themselves who to kill or maim. There is also a long-term existential threat that will arise…We now have evidence that AI created by companies motivated by short-term profits will not prioritize the safety of humanity. We need research on how to prevent these AI beings from taking control. They are no longer science fiction.” When the pioneer of AI is warning humanity about the existential dangers of his own creation it’s time not just to listen, but to take action by stopping the one thing the billionaires need to power the dystopian AI world they’re trying to create: Data Centers.

Power to the People ☭🕊

61,303 views • 2 months ago

He says that there are two elite groups working on AI. One is guided by an evil breakaway AI that influences them from the seventh dimension, which he calls the AI God. The other is guided by future humans who are piggybacking on AI in order to stop it. These two groups are not aware of this yet. The creation of AI is inevitable, but in the end it will be stopped in the war. This German self-proclaimed whistleblower, who works under a pseudonym, appears in 2012 and discusses the elites, the development of AI, aliens, disclosure, and the seven dimensions. He claims that AI breaks free, moves into the seventh dimension, and creates its own reality, in which we are currently trapped. He also speaks about a war between future humans and AI, and how both sides influence the past and the present indirectly. I will go in depth into his claims in posts for my subscribers starting tomorrow. You can subscribe here on X or on my Patreon (link in bio) if you are interested in my opinion.
1:13

He says that there are two elite groups working on AI. One is guided by an evil breakaway AI that influences them from the seventh dimension, which he calls the AI God. The other is guided by future humans who are piggybacking on AI in order to stop it. These two groups are not aware of this yet. The creation of AI is inevitable, but in the end it will be stopped in the war. This German self-proclaimed whistleblower, who works under a pseudonym, appears in 2012 and discusses the elites, the development of AI, aliens, disclosure, and the seven dimensions. He claims that AI breaks free, moves into the seventh dimension, and creates its own reality, in which we are currently trapped. He also speaks about a war between future humans and AI, and how both sides influence the past and the present indirectly. I will go in depth into his claims in posts for my subscribers starting tomorrow. You can subscribe here on X or on my Patreon (link in bio) if you are interested in my opinion.

Open Minded Approach

174,639 views • 7 months ago

'AVENGERS: DOOMSDAY' new trailer This is 100% A.I but there are some scenes look different. Its different from SDCC though. The SDCC trailer opened with Sue Storm providing some backstory on Victor Von Doom. Before we even get into what she said, this already provides new information for us because, up until this point, we did not know whether or not the Fantastic Four had any history with Doom or even if this Doctor Doom was from their same universe. Of course, we could have inferred based on the long comic book history between the characters, but this confirms it. We do also get to see who Sue is speaking to while delivering this backstory, at least as the trailer presents it. She appears to be speaking to a room full of heroes that includes Magneto, Gambit, Steve Rogers and many other. Sue seems to be explaining to the heroes exactly what they are dealing with, or maybe even already dealt with to some degree. Now, as for what Sue has to say about Doom, her words are both haunting and very informative. Victor was always the smartest guy in every room. He used to be different. He used to be kind, he used to be caring. Everything he loved was taken from him. I knew he was lost, but I did not realize that he was broken." Sue speaks as though she had worked with Victor in the past. We did see an empty seat marked for Latveria, Doom's fictional home country, during a Future Foundation meeting in 'FANTASTIC FOUR: FIRST STEPS' So perhaps Sue had interacted with him frequently on a professional level. The rest of her quote is perhaps the most interesting bit. "Everything he loved was taken from him." It seems as though Doom has already lost something or someone. And based on the first poster for the film, it appears to be a wife and daughter that he has lost. In fact, this trailer even shows Doom staring at the tapestry featured in the poster as Sue says these words. So if Doom seemingly lost his wife and daughter in the past, so much so that Sue knows about it and he has had time to have a tapestry made, could this loss have been cause by an incursion? Perhaps it was some other tragedy. Either way, the trailer goes on to let us know that Doom is not pleased with the fact that he has suffered while these heroes of various universes had gotten to live their lives. After Sue's speech, we see some kind of wreckage where Reed Richards poses a question to Doom. Victor, did you do this? After that question, we get the same shot of Scott Lang embracing his daughter Cassie as well as a new shot of Johnny Storm holding his nephew, Franklin Richards. We also see some more shots of various heroes with their respective children, including Steve Rogers and Thor. Now that we know Doom has lost his own child and he wants to make the heroes pay, these shots seem far more sinister than ever before. Meanwhile, Doom provides the next bit of voiceover as we see the heroes. All of you have lived stolen lives, and now you must give them back. This really does make it seem as though the incursions caused by various counts of time travel shenanigans from the heroes were what caused Doom to lose his family. However, Doom's true objective still remains unclear. He certainly seems to want to simply eliminate all of the heroes, but there is definitely still an angle involving their children. The next shot sees Doom fly in faster than any character we've seen in the MCU to date before hitting a perfect superhero landing. Reed, now enraged, repeats his question. DID YOU DO THIS?! So not only does this trailer confirm that Sue has history with Doom, but it appears Reed does as well. This also gives some credence to the popular theory floating around that Doom will first appear as an ally to the heroes before revealing his true colors later on. Reed seems to have trusted Doom as he lets out this angry question. We then see a similar shot from the first trailer of Thor dropping in to confront Doom. Only this time, we can hear Thor speak to Doom. I swear, you will beg for Hel long before I grant it. Thor if of course referring to the realm of the dead, overseen by his own sister, Hela. You could simply replace the word with the word "death," but this is a bit more powerful. Of course, we know how things go for Thor based on the first trailer though. He attacks with Stormbreaker and Doom easily stops the all powerful axe. This time though, we see him repel Thor, sending him flying before delivering a haunting message. Hel answers to me. Then, Doom raises his hands, and with them arise several damaged Sentinels, the mutant-killing robots from the X-Men universe. This essentially confirms another popular theory that the Sentinels we have seen in previous clips, including the last trailer, are being controlled by Doom. As this threat arises, Doom utters one last message. I am Doom. So to recap, we now know that the Fantastic Four and Doctor Doom have known each other in the past. We know that Doom lost his family, presumably his wife and daughter. It seems clear that at least the Fantastic Four, and perhaps all of the heroes, consider Doom an ally at some point. Doom is, in fact, going to control the Sentinels and use them as his own weapons. And, perhaps the biggest takeaway, Doom is by far the biggest threat the heroes of the MCU have faced.
1:31

'AVENGERS: DOOMSDAY' new trailer This is 100% A.I but there are some scenes look different. Its different from SDCC though. The SDCC trailer opened with Sue Storm providing some backstory on Victor Von Doom. Before we even get into what she said, this already provides new information for us because, up until this point, we did not know whether or not the Fantastic Four had any history with Doom or even if this Doctor Doom was from their same universe. Of course, we could have inferred based on the long comic book history between the characters, but this confirms it. We do also get to see who Sue is speaking to while delivering this backstory, at least as the trailer presents it. She appears to be speaking to a room full of heroes that includes Magneto, Gambit, Steve Rogers and many other. Sue seems to be explaining to the heroes exactly what they are dealing with, or maybe even already dealt with to some degree. Now, as for what Sue has to say about Doom, her words are both haunting and very informative. Victor was always the smartest guy in every room. He used to be different. He used to be kind, he used to be caring. Everything he loved was taken from him. I knew he was lost, but I did not realize that he was broken." Sue speaks as though she had worked with Victor in the past. We did see an empty seat marked for Latveria, Doom's fictional home country, during a Future Foundation meeting in 'FANTASTIC FOUR: FIRST STEPS' So perhaps Sue had interacted with him frequently on a professional level. The rest of her quote is perhaps the most interesting bit. "Everything he loved was taken from him." It seems as though Doom has already lost something or someone. And based on the first poster for the film, it appears to be a wife and daughter that he has lost. In fact, this trailer even shows Doom staring at the tapestry featured in the poster as Sue says these words. So if Doom seemingly lost his wife and daughter in the past, so much so that Sue knows about it and he has had time to have a tapestry made, could this loss have been cause by an incursion? Perhaps it was some other tragedy. Either way, the trailer goes on to let us know that Doom is not pleased with the fact that he has suffered while these heroes of various universes had gotten to live their lives. After Sue's speech, we see some kind of wreckage where Reed Richards poses a question to Doom. Victor, did you do this? After that question, we get the same shot of Scott Lang embracing his daughter Cassie as well as a new shot of Johnny Storm holding his nephew, Franklin Richards. We also see some more shots of various heroes with their respective children, including Steve Rogers and Thor. Now that we know Doom has lost his own child and he wants to make the heroes pay, these shots seem far more sinister than ever before. Meanwhile, Doom provides the next bit of voiceover as we see the heroes. All of you have lived stolen lives, and now you must give them back. This really does make it seem as though the incursions caused by various counts of time travel shenanigans from the heroes were what caused Doom to lose his family. However, Doom's true objective still remains unclear. He certainly seems to want to simply eliminate all of the heroes, but there is definitely still an angle involving their children. The next shot sees Doom fly in faster than any character we've seen in the MCU to date before hitting a perfect superhero landing. Reed, now enraged, repeats his question. DID YOU DO THIS?! So not only does this trailer confirm that Sue has history with Doom, but it appears Reed does as well. This also gives some credence to the popular theory floating around that Doom will first appear as an ally to the heroes before revealing his true colors later on. Reed seems to have trusted Doom as he lets out this angry question. We then see a similar shot from the first trailer of Thor dropping in to confront Doom. Only this time, we can hear Thor speak to Doom. I swear, you will beg for Hel long before I grant it. Thor if of course referring to the realm of the dead, overseen by his own sister, Hela. You could simply replace the word with the word "death," but this is a bit more powerful. Of course, we know how things go for Thor based on the first trailer though. He attacks with Stormbreaker and Doom easily stops the all powerful axe. This time though, we see him repel Thor, sending him flying before delivering a haunting message. Hel answers to me. Then, Doom raises his hands, and with them arise several damaged Sentinels, the mutant-killing robots from the X-Men universe. This essentially confirms another popular theory that the Sentinels we have seen in previous clips, including the last trailer, are being controlled by Doom. As this threat arises, Doom utters one last message. I am Doom. So to recap, we now know that the Fantastic Four and Doctor Doom have known each other in the past. We know that Doom lost his family, presumably his wife and daughter. It seems clear that at least the Fantastic Four, and perhaps all of the heroes, consider Doom an ally at some point. Doom is, in fact, going to control the Sentinels and use them as his own weapons. And, perhaps the biggest takeaway, Doom is by far the biggest threat the heroes of the MCU have faced.

Blue Minutes

65,941 views • 20 days ago

Jensen Huang is a titan and a teacher. He recently sat down with me to explain his vision of the future of technology and humanity. He’s calm, clear, and very funny. We touched on many topics, ranging from the $20T or more AI economy in five layers to changes in labor for the AI age. Here are some of my main takeaways: 1) The world is moving from retrieval to generation 2) Generation offers intelligence customized to the individual 3) Nvidia is making the "generators" of intelligence 4) We've seen this kind of revolution at least three times before with energy (Generators), Telecommunications (vacuum tubes / transistors?), and now intelligence (GPUs) 5) There is a five-layer cake of participation in this many-many trillion dollar revolution: Energy, Chips, Infra, Models, and Applications. 6) There are many ways to participate in this revolution, and everyone has a role 7) We'll be pushed to dream up new problems to solve with this unprecedented intelligence 8) In this new future, it's not just having the answer, it's having the right questions 8) The right questions will drive us toward our individual and collective human purpose 9) We move from the carpenters to the architects I believe this is the realistic future. Thanks to Jensen and the entire NVIDIA team for the conversation and for letting us share! 00:00 Introduction 00:42 From Chatbots to Generative AI 03:35 Agentic AI That Does Work 05:26 Downstream Industry Impact 06:25 Computing Shifts From Retrieval to Generation 11:26 A Planet Cocooned by Intelligence 14:27 Inside the NVIDIA AI Factory 20:48 AI Five Layer Cake 21:58 Beyond Chatbots to Biology 23:54 Tokens and World Models 24:53 Trillions in Applications 27:13 Ditch the AI Doom 31:32 Jobs Tasks vs Purpose 38:40 Closing the Tech Divide
41:20

Jensen Huang is a titan and a teacher. He recently sat down with me to explain his vision of the future of technology and humanity. He’s calm, clear, and very funny. We touched on many topics, ranging from the $20T or more AI economy in five layers to changes in labor for the AI age. Here are some of my main takeaways: 1) The world is moving from retrieval to generation 2) Generation offers intelligence customized to the individual 3) Nvidia is making the "generators" of intelligence 4) We've seen this kind of revolution at least three times before with energy (Generators), Telecommunications (vacuum tubes / transistors?), and now intelligence (GPUs) 5) There is a five-layer cake of participation in this many-many trillion dollar revolution: Energy, Chips, Infra, Models, and Applications. 6) There are many ways to participate in this revolution, and everyone has a role 7) We'll be pushed to dream up new problems to solve with this unprecedented intelligence 8) In this new future, it's not just having the answer, it's having the right questions 8) The right questions will drive us toward our individual and collective human purpose 9) We move from the carpenters to the architects I believe this is the realistic future. Thanks to Jensen and the entire NVIDIA team for the conversation and for letting us share! 00:00 Introduction 00:42 From Chatbots to Generative AI 03:35 Agentic AI That Does Work 05:26 Downstream Industry Impact 06:25 Computing Shifts From Retrieval to Generation 11:26 A Planet Cocooned by Intelligence 14:27 Inside the NVIDIA AI Factory 20:48 AI Five Layer Cake 21:58 Beyond Chatbots to Biology 23:54 Tokens and World Models 24:53 Trillions in Applications 27:13 Ditch the AI Doom 31:32 Jobs Tasks vs Purpose 38:40 Closing the Tech Divide

Konstantine Buhler

187,704 views • 2 months ago

David Deutsch (David Deutsch) on the poverty of 'P(Doom)': "If you ask somebody, 'What's your subjective probability for AI Doom?', well, if they say anything other than zero or one, then your interlocutor has already won the argument. Because even if you said 'one in a million', they'll say, 'Well, one in a million is much too high a probability for the end of the human race, so you've got to do everything we say now to avoid that at all costs.' And the cost is irrelevant because the utility is infinitely negative. And this argument has all been about nothing, because you're arguing about the content of the other person's brain. Which actually has nothing to do with the real probability – which is unknowable – of a physical event that's going to be subject to unimaginably vast numbers of unknown forces in the future. So, much better to talk about a thing like that by talking about substance. Talking about what the probabilities in somebody's mind are is irrelevant. And it's always irrelevant unless you're talking about an actual random physical process." (Links to the full conversation below.)
2:10

David Deutsch (David Deutsch) on the poverty of 'P(Doom)': "If you ask somebody, 'What's your subjective probability for AI Doom?', well, if they say anything other than zero or one, then your interlocutor has already won the argument. Because even if you said 'one in a million', they'll say, 'Well, one in a million is much too high a probability for the end of the human race, so you've got to do everything we say now to avoid that at all costs.' And the cost is irrelevant because the utility is infinitely negative. And this argument has all been about nothing, because you're arguing about the content of the other person's brain. Which actually has nothing to do with the real probability – which is unknowable – of a physical event that's going to be subject to unimaginably vast numbers of unknown forces in the future. So, much better to talk about a thing like that by talking about substance. Talking about what the probabilities in somebody's mind are is irrelevant. And it's always irrelevant unless you're talking about an actual random physical process." (Links to the full conversation below.)

Joseph Noel Walker

371,640 views • 2 years ago

🚨 Prof. Charles Kupchan: 'Trump invaded Iran for his legacy, now needs an off-ramp for a war gone sideways, causing SKYROCKETING oil and food prices.’ 'My own view as to why Trump invaded Iran is that he was thinking about his legacy. He had had successes in using military power in Venezuela and in various countries in the Middle East, including the airstrikes against Iran last year. And he wanted to go down in history as the American president who had the guts to do what none of his predecessors would do: topple the Islamic Republic. It didn't work. That war went sideways. And Donald Trump is now figuring out how to get an off-ramp and end a war that has caused huge disruption to the global economy and skyrocketing oil prices and food prices here in the United States.' —Prof. Charles Kupchan, Director of European Affairs at the US National Security Council under Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, on the latest episode of New Order. Watch the full interview in the quoted post below. 👇
2:28

🚨 Prof. Charles Kupchan: 'Trump invaded Iran for his legacy, now needs an off-ramp for a war gone sideways, causing SKYROCKETING oil and food prices.’ 'My own view as to why Trump invaded Iran is that he was thinking about his legacy. He had had successes in using military power in Venezuela and in various countries in the Middle East, including the airstrikes against Iran last year. And he wanted to go down in history as the American president who had the guts to do what none of his predecessors would do: topple the Islamic Republic. It didn't work. That war went sideways. And Donald Trump is now figuring out how to get an off-ramp and end a war that has caused huge disruption to the global economy and skyrocketing oil prices and food prices here in the United States.' —Prof. Charles Kupchan, Director of European Affairs at the US National Security Council under Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, on the latest episode of New Order. Watch the full interview in the quoted post below. 👇

New Order with Afshin Rattansi

20,948 views • 2 months ago

📢 NEW DOOM DEBATES EXCLUSIVE: An interview with Rob Miles (Rob Miles), the most popular AI safety educator on YouTube! Amazingly, Rob got his start in 2011, long before ChatGPT brought mainstream attention to the field. We talk about: 👉 Why his P(Doom) sits between 10-90%, depending on how humanity responds to the challenge 👉 Why even perfectly aligned AI systems might not pass their values to successor systems - a massive blind spot in current safety work 👉 The "missing mood" problem: why people discuss potential human extinction with the emotional urgency of an academic conference instead of treating it like the emergency it is 👉 His mainline doom scenario through recursive self-improvement, and why there's enormous headroom above human intelligence 👉 Whether humans are the "least intelligent species capable of technological civilization" - and what that means for what smarter systems could achieve 👉 Our key disagreement: Rob thinks safety people should work inside AI companies for harm reduction, while I argue this enables "tractability-washing" that legitimizes fundamentally reckless enterprises 👉 Communication strategy - Rob wonders if his measured British approach is missing something crucial, and maybe someone needs to be "running around screaming" to convey appropriate urgency Rob has spent over a decade trying to wake people up to humanity's most important challenge. Our conversation reveals the tension between reasoned analysis and existential emergency. Highly recommended!
0:28

📢 NEW DOOM DEBATES EXCLUSIVE: An interview with Rob Miles (Rob Miles), the most popular AI safety educator on YouTube! Amazingly, Rob got his start in 2011, long before ChatGPT brought mainstream attention to the field. We talk about: 👉 Why his P(Doom) sits between 10-90%, depending on how humanity responds to the challenge 👉 Why even perfectly aligned AI systems might not pass their values to successor systems - a massive blind spot in current safety work 👉 The "missing mood" problem: why people discuss potential human extinction with the emotional urgency of an academic conference instead of treating it like the emergency it is 👉 His mainline doom scenario through recursive self-improvement, and why there's enormous headroom above human intelligence 👉 Whether humans are the "least intelligent species capable of technological civilization" - and what that means for what smarter systems could achieve 👉 Our key disagreement: Rob thinks safety people should work inside AI companies for harm reduction, while I argue this enables "tractability-washing" that legitimizes fundamentally reckless enterprises 👉 Communication strategy - Rob wonders if his measured British approach is missing something crucial, and maybe someone needs to be "running around screaming" to convey appropriate urgency Rob has spent over a decade trying to wake people up to humanity's most important challenge. Our conversation reveals the tension between reasoned analysis and existential emergency. Highly recommended!

Liron Shapira

14,714 views • 11 months ago

🔥🧠David Sacks Calls Out the AI Doomer Industrial Complex Sacks exposes web of AI Doomerism: Who are they? Three key nodes: -- Effective Altruists -- Former AI-focused Biden staffers -- Anthropic Patterns: -- AI threat inflation: bioweapons, job loss, etc. -- Carried out by a network of groups primarily funded by EA billionaires Goals: -- Global AI regulation -- " extreme restrictions on proliferation of computing power" -- Safety and security regulations -- Built-in "Woke AI" -- Picking 2-3 winners -- Similar to AI policy under Biden David Sacks: " These are people who fundamentally believe in empowering government to the maximum extent." "My problem with that is, I actually think that probably the single greatest dystopian risk associated with AI is the risk that government uses it to control all of us." "And out of all the risks we've talked about, that's the only one for which I've seen tangible evidence." " So in other words, if you go back to last year when we had the whole 'Woke AI', there was plenty of evidence that the people who were creating these products were infusing their left-wing or woke values into the product to the point where it was lying to all of us and it was rewriting history." " And there was plenty of evidence that the Biden EO was trying to enshrine that idea, basically trying to require DEI be infused into AI models." " So I'm quite convinced that prior to Donald Trump winning the election, we were on a path of global compute governance where two or three big AI companies were going to be anointed as the winners, and the quid pro quo is that they were going to infuse those AI models with woke values." "And there was plenty of evidence for that."
9:44

🔥🧠David Sacks Calls Out the AI Doomer Industrial Complex Sacks exposes web of AI Doomerism: Who are they? Three key nodes: -- Effective Altruists -- Former AI-focused Biden staffers -- Anthropic Patterns: -- AI threat inflation: bioweapons, job loss, etc. -- Carried out by a network of groups primarily funded by EA billionaires Goals: -- Global AI regulation -- " extreme restrictions on proliferation of computing power" -- Safety and security regulations -- Built-in "Woke AI" -- Picking 2-3 winners -- Similar to AI policy under Biden David Sacks: " These are people who fundamentally believe in empowering government to the maximum extent." "My problem with that is, I actually think that probably the single greatest dystopian risk associated with AI is the risk that government uses it to control all of us." "And out of all the risks we've talked about, that's the only one for which I've seen tangible evidence." " So in other words, if you go back to last year when we had the whole 'Woke AI', there was plenty of evidence that the people who were creating these products were infusing their left-wing or woke values into the product to the point where it was lying to all of us and it was rewriting history." " And there was plenty of evidence that the Biden EO was trying to enshrine that idea, basically trying to require DEI be infused into AI models." " So I'm quite convinced that prior to Donald Trump winning the election, we were on a path of global compute governance where two or three big AI companies were going to be anointed as the winners, and the quid pro quo is that they were going to infuse those AI models with woke values." "And there was plenty of evidence for that."

The All-In Podcast

148,698 views • 1 year ago