Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

The CEO of OpenAI said something that should terrify every coder alive. Sam Altman was asked: "What is the most important skill people should learn in the age of AI?" His answer was not what anyone expected. He said learning to program, the thing every career advisor has drilled... into an entire generation is "no longer obviously the right thing." So what does he think actually matters now? Four things and all of them are soft skills. And none of them taught in any computer science program on Earth. Become a high agency, act without being told. Make things happen on your own. Get good at generating ideas because when AI can execute anything, the person who knows what to build wins. Be very resilient, things will break constantly in a world moving at this speed. Be very adaptable, the world is rewriting itself every few months. Keep up or get left behind. But here is the part that changes everything. Altman says these skills are not just personality traits you are born with. They are learnable and deeply learnable. He watched people completely transform in three month bootcamps when he was a startup investor. That was, in his own words, "a big update" to how he sees the world. Now think about what this really means. The CEO of a company worth hundreds of billions is telling the world, the moat is no longer what you know. It is how you think and how you move and the old playbook is dead. The people who understand this right now have a massive head start. Everyone else is studying for a test that no longer exists.show more

StockMarket.News

88,360 subscribers

168,102 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Bildung Nachrichten & Politik Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Sam Altman told the world exactly what skills will matter when AI takes over 30 to 40 percent of the global economy. He was asked what his own kids should do to survive it. His answer was surprisingly human. He said the single most valuable thing anyone can build right now is the meta-skill of learning how to learn. Not a degree or a certification but the raw ability to adapt when everything around you changes. He also said learning to understand what other people actually want and building useful things for them will be more valuable than almost any technical knowledge. That skill has never been automated and is not close to being automated. He said human creativity and the desire to express it are, in his words, limitless. Every major technological revolution increased the demand for creative, curious, and socially intelligent people, not decreased it. The Industrial Revolution is the clearest parallel. Machines replaced physical labor and people were terrified. The next generation took those machines and built industries, art forms, and institutions nobody had conceived of before. The people who thrived were not the ones who competed with the machines. They were the ones who learned to direct them toward something new. That dynamic is already playing out right now with AI. The practical implication is this, depth in a single rigid skill is becoming less valuable. The ability to move across domains, pick up new tools quickly, and apply judgment in ambiguous situations is becoming more valuable. Altman also pointed to something most career advice ignores entirely, learning how to interact with the world, build relationships, and earn trust from other people. Those are things AI can simulate but cannot replace. The honest opportunity in this moment is not to outrun AI. It is to focus on the things that make you irreducibly human. Curiosity, judgment, empathy and the ability to ask the right question before anyone knows what the right question is. The people who will matter most in an AI-driven economy are not necessarily the ones who understand the technology deepest. They are the ones who can figure out what the technology should actually be used for. Altman has spent his career betting on human potential in the face of technological disruption. Based on every historical precedent, that is still the right bet to make.

Sam Altman told the world exactly what skills will matter when AI takes over 30 to 40 percent of the global economy. He was asked what his own kids should do to survive it. His answer was surprisingly human. He said the single most valuable thing anyone can build right now is the meta-skill of learning how to learn. Not a degree or a certification but the raw ability to adapt when everything around you changes. He also said learning to understand what other people actually want and building useful things for them will be more valuable than almost any technical knowledge. That skill has never been automated and is not close to being automated. He said human creativity and the desire to express it are, in his words, limitless. Every major technological revolution increased the demand for creative, curious, and socially intelligent people, not decreased it. The Industrial Revolution is the clearest parallel. Machines replaced physical labor and people were terrified. The next generation took those machines and built industries, art forms, and institutions nobody had conceived of before. The people who thrived were not the ones who competed with the machines. They were the ones who learned to direct them toward something new. That dynamic is already playing out right now with AI. The practical implication is this, depth in a single rigid skill is becoming less valuable. The ability to move across domains, pick up new tools quickly, and apply judgment in ambiguous situations is becoming more valuable. Altman also pointed to something most career advice ignores entirely, learning how to interact with the world, build relationships, and earn trust from other people. Those are things AI can simulate but cannot replace. The honest opportunity in this moment is not to outrun AI. It is to focus on the things that make you irreducibly human. Curiosity, judgment, empathy and the ability to ask the right question before anyone knows what the right question is. The people who will matter most in an AI-driven economy are not necessarily the ones who understand the technology deepest. They are the ones who can figure out what the technology should actually be used for. Altman has spent his career betting on human potential in the face of technological disruption. Based on every historical precedent, that is still the right bet to make.

StockMarket.News

376,581 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Sam Altman just told you what OpenAI is actually building. Not a chatbot. Not a search tool. Not an assistant. Altman: “Go look around my computer… read my messages… listen to my meetings… intermediate my interactions for me.” That is not a product pitch. That is the CEO of the most valuable AI company on Earth describing what he personally wants. For himself. Every day. Read his messages. Listen to his meetings. Act on his behalf. Make decisions before he knows a decision needs making. Altman: “I don’t have to think. I don’t have to ask you questions.” Every model of AI ever built runs on the prompt. You ask. It responds. You direct. It executes. The human initiates. The machine follows. Altman is describing the death of that model. The agent does not wait. It already read the email. It already heard the meeting. It already knows what you need before you form the thought. You do not operate the machine. The machine operates around you. Then came the line that makes everything else real. Altman: “You can know everything about my life. Start suggesting more things I should build.” He is not asking the AI to execute his ideas. He is asking it to generate them. From his files. His history. His patterns. His entire context. The agent does not just remove friction. It removes the blank page. You never stall. You never run dry. You never sit wondering what to build next. The machine already mapped your market, your gaps, your momentum. It tells you what comes next before you think to ask. But the individual product is not the story. Altman went further. Altman: “Automated companies… where the AI can do not just coding work, but huge amounts of what it takes to run and operate a company.” Not fully automated. He was precise about that. But accelerated to the point where one person with the right stack does what used to take departments. The billion-dollar company did not reach that valuation because the product was worth a billion. It got there because it took a thousand people to deliver it. When an agent absorbs the work of a hundred of those people, the math of every industry rewrites itself. The startup that needed fifty employees and three years of runway now needs five people and six months. The company that took a decade to scale now compounds in quarters. The person holding the line between their data and their tools is not protecting their privacy. They are protecting their ceiling. Because the cost of this leverage is total transparency. You do not get the agent that acts without being asked unless you give it everything. Your messages. Your calendar. Your files. Your patterns. Your life. Altman is not hiding that tradeoff. He is building it as the product. The people who accept it will operate at a speed the people who refuse cannot touch. Right now, two versions of the future are separating. One where you direct the machine. One where the machine already knows. Altman chose. He is building it. The question is not whether this happens. The question is which side of it finds you.

Sam Altman just told you what OpenAI is actually building. Not a chatbot. Not a search tool. Not an assistant. Altman: “Go look around my computer… read my messages… listen to my meetings… intermediate my interactions for me.” That is not a product pitch. That is the CEO of the most valuable AI company on Earth describing what he personally wants. For himself. Every day. Read his messages. Listen to his meetings. Act on his behalf. Make decisions before he knows a decision needs making. Altman: “I don’t have to think. I don’t have to ask you questions.” Every model of AI ever built runs on the prompt. You ask. It responds. You direct. It executes. The human initiates. The machine follows. Altman is describing the death of that model. The agent does not wait. It already read the email. It already heard the meeting. It already knows what you need before you form the thought. You do not operate the machine. The machine operates around you. Then came the line that makes everything else real. Altman: “You can know everything about my life. Start suggesting more things I should build.” He is not asking the AI to execute his ideas. He is asking it to generate them. From his files. His history. His patterns. His entire context. The agent does not just remove friction. It removes the blank page. You never stall. You never run dry. You never sit wondering what to build next. The machine already mapped your market, your gaps, your momentum. It tells you what comes next before you think to ask. But the individual product is not the story. Altman went further. Altman: “Automated companies… where the AI can do not just coding work, but huge amounts of what it takes to run and operate a company.” Not fully automated. He was precise about that. But accelerated to the point where one person with the right stack does what used to take departments. The billion-dollar company did not reach that valuation because the product was worth a billion. It got there because it took a thousand people to deliver it. When an agent absorbs the work of a hundred of those people, the math of every industry rewrites itself. The startup that needed fifty employees and three years of runway now needs five people and six months. The company that took a decade to scale now compounds in quarters. The person holding the line between their data and their tools is not protecting their privacy. They are protecting their ceiling. Because the cost of this leverage is total transparency. You do not get the agent that acts without being asked unless you give it everything. Your messages. Your calendar. Your files. Your patterns. Your life. Altman is not hiding that tradeoff. He is building it as the product. The people who accept it will operate at a speed the people who refuse cannot touch. Right now, two versions of the future are separating. One where you direct the machine. One where the machine already knows. Altman chose. He is building it. The question is not whether this happens. The question is which side of it finds you.

Dustin

87,680 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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

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

Dustin

247,028 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Frank Slootman: “Being a CEO is a highly confrontational role” “I’ve gone one record a few times and people have taken me to task on it, when I’ve said that being a CEO is a highly confrontational role. But they think that ‘confrontational’ means I’m grabbing people by the lapels and slamming them against the wall and yelling. That’s not what I mean by confrontation.” The former CEO of Snowflake and ServiceNow continues: “Confrontation is about confronting issues and situations. When you see something that is either not good, not good enough, or can be better, you need to talk to the team and people responsible to bring them along in your thinking.” In Frank’s view, the framing should be: “this is why I am saying this, what do you think?” The goal of the conversation is to help them see the problems you’re seeing. You should be driving them to a “higher level of aspiration,” he explains. “I often start the conversation with, ‘How do you think things are going?’ I’m not telling them ‘you suck,’ or ‘things are terrible.’ Let them talk. And then you can say, ‘Well what about this?’ And all of a sudden, the perspective has opened up and changed. So the challenge is bringing them along in your thinking — then it’s not confrontational… Obviously there’s finesse and subtlety. You’re dealing with people. You don’t want to destroy them. You want to build them, not bring them down.” You need to help them grow: “People have a tendency to go sideways. They rinse and repeat and keep doing the same things. You can’t in a high-growth company. You need to become a different version of yourself. I’m trying to help them think through that. What does that look like? What does your organization look like a year from now versus what it looks like today?… In other words, stimulate their thinking. Challenge them to think about what they should do differently next week. Is that confrontation? Yes it is, but it’s dressed up in a way that it engages people.” Frank believes founders should be doing this every single week. Video source: Foundation Capital (2024)

Frank Slootman: “Being a CEO is a highly confrontational role” “I’ve gone one record a few times and people have taken me to task on it, when I’ve said that being a CEO is a highly confrontational role. But they think that ‘confrontational’ means I’m grabbing people by the lapels and slamming them against the wall and yelling. That’s not what I mean by confrontation.” The former CEO of Snowflake and ServiceNow continues: “Confrontation is about confronting issues and situations. When you see something that is either not good, not good enough, or can be better, you need to talk to the team and people responsible to bring them along in your thinking.” In Frank’s view, the framing should be: “this is why I am saying this, what do you think?” The goal of the conversation is to help them see the problems you’re seeing. You should be driving them to a “higher level of aspiration,” he explains. “I often start the conversation with, ‘How do you think things are going?’ I’m not telling them ‘you suck,’ or ‘things are terrible.’ Let them talk. And then you can say, ‘Well what about this?’ And all of a sudden, the perspective has opened up and changed. So the challenge is bringing them along in your thinking — then it’s not confrontational… Obviously there’s finesse and subtlety. You’re dealing with people. You don’t want to destroy them. You want to build them, not bring them down.” You need to help them grow: “People have a tendency to go sideways. They rinse and repeat and keep doing the same things. You can’t in a high-growth company. You need to become a different version of yourself. I’m trying to help them think through that. What does that look like? What does your organization look like a year from now versus what it looks like today?… In other words, stimulate their thinking. Challenge them to think about what they should do differently next week. Is that confrontation? Yes it is, but it’s dressed up in a way that it engages people.” Frank believes founders should be doing this every single week. Video source: Foundation Capital (2024)

Startup Archive

100,750 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Frank Slootman: “Being a CEO is a highly confrontational role” “I’ve gone one record a few times and people have taken me to task on it, when I’ve said that being a CEO is a highly confrontational role. But they think that ‘confrontational’ means I’m grabbing people by the lapels and slamming them against the wall and yelling. That’s not what I mean by confrontation.” The former CEO of Snowflake and ServiceNow continues: “Confrontation is about confronting issues and situations. When you see something that is either not good, not good enough, or can be better, you need to talk to the team and people responsible to bring them along in your thinking.” In Frank’s view, the framing should be: “this is why I am saying this, what do you think?” The goal of the conversation is to help them see the problems you’re seeing. You should be driving them to a “higher level of aspiration,” he explains. “I often start the conversation with, ‘How do you think things are going?’ I’m not telling them ‘you suck,’ or ‘things are terrible.’ Let them talk. And then you can say, ‘Well what about this?’ And all of a sudden, the perspective has opened up and changed. So the challenge is bringing them along in your thinking — then it’s not confrontational… Obviously there’s finesse and subtlety. You’re dealing with people. You don’t want to destroy them. You want to build them, not bring them down.” You need to help them grow: “People have a tendency to go sideways. They rinse and repeat and keep doing the same things. You can’t in a high-growth company. You need to become a different version of yourself. I’m trying to help them think through that. What does that look like? What does your organization look like a year from now versus what it looks like today?… In other words, stimulate their thinking. Challenge them to think about what they should do differently next week. Is that confrontation? Yes it is, but it’s dressed up in a way that it engages people.” Frank believes founders should be doing this every single week. Video source: Foundation Capital (2024)

Frank Slootman: “Being a CEO is a highly confrontational role” “I’ve gone one record a few times and people have taken me to task on it, when I’ve said that being a CEO is a highly confrontational role. But they think that ‘confrontational’ means I’m grabbing people by the lapels and slamming them against the wall and yelling. That’s not what I mean by confrontation.” The former CEO of Snowflake and ServiceNow continues: “Confrontation is about confronting issues and situations. When you see something that is either not good, not good enough, or can be better, you need to talk to the team and people responsible to bring them along in your thinking.” In Frank’s view, the framing should be: “this is why I am saying this, what do you think?” The goal of the conversation is to help them see the problems you’re seeing. You should be driving them to a “higher level of aspiration,” he explains. “I often start the conversation with, ‘How do you think things are going?’ I’m not telling them ‘you suck,’ or ‘things are terrible.’ Let them talk. And then you can say, ‘Well what about this?’ And all of a sudden, the perspective has opened up and changed. So the challenge is bringing them along in your thinking — then it’s not confrontational… Obviously there’s finesse and subtlety. You’re dealing with people. You don’t want to destroy them. You want to build them, not bring them down.” You need to help them grow: “People have a tendency to go sideways. They rinse and repeat and keep doing the same things. You can’t in a high-growth company. You need to become a different version of yourself. I’m trying to help them think through that. What does that look like? What does your organization look like a year from now versus what it looks like today?… In other words, stimulate their thinking. Challenge them to think about what they should do differently next week. Is that confrontation? Yes it is, but it’s dressed up in a way that it engages people.” Frank believes founders should be doing this every single week. Video source: Foundation Capital (2024)

Startup Archive

136,616 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

$Lex Fridman asked Jensen Huang if he is afraid of death. Huang did not flinch. Huang: “The outcome that I seek, that I hope for, is that I die on the job instantaneously.” That is not a figure of speech. That is a man telling you he has already decided how this ends. No retirement. No transition plan. No golden years on a beach somewhere tallying what he built. He wants to be mid-sentence in a meeting the moment his heart gives out. And when you understand why, it changes how you see everything Nvidia is doing. Huang: “This is not a once in a lifetime experience. This is a once in a humanity experience.” Once in a lifetime means others have lived through something comparable. He is saying no one has. Not Edison. Not Ford. Not anyone at Bell Labs or Xerox PARC. The deployment of artificial intelligence at this scale, at this speed, with this much consequence has no precedent in the history of the species. And Huang is sitting at the center of it. That is not ego. That is geography. Nvidia’s chips power virtually every major AI system on Earth right now. He knows what that means. And he treats it with a seriousness most people cannot even summon for their own lives, let alone the trajectory of civilization. Then Lex asked about succession planning. Huang’s answer should be framed on the wall of every founder alive. Huang: “I don’t believe in succession planning.” Not because he thinks he is immortal. Because he thinks it is the wrong question entirely. The right question is what are you doing today to make yourself unnecessary. Huang: “The most important thing you should do today is to pass on knowledge, information, insight, skills, experience as often and continuously as you can.” He does not wait until retirement to hand over what he knows. He does not save his best thinking for a memoir. The second he learns something, it is already moving to someone else on his team. Before he has even finished processing it himself. Huang: “Nothing I learn ever sits on my desk longer than a fraction of a second.” Most executives hoard knowledge. It is how they stay relevant. How they justify the title. How they make themselves impossible to replace. Huang does the opposite. He treats his own mind like a relay station. Information comes in, gets amplified, fires out to every node that needs it. Every meeting is a transfer. Every conversation is a download. The goal is not to be the smartest person in the building. The goal is to make the building smarter than any one person in it. That is why he does not need a succession plan. If you spend every day making the people around you capable of running without you, the org never notices the moment you are gone. Your fingerprints are in how they think. But he is not planning to leave. Huang: “I really don’t want to die. I have a great life. I have a great family. I have really important work.” No drama. No existential spiral. Just a man who looked at death and filed it under problems that can wait. There is still too much to build. The people planning their exit strategies are playing a different game than Jensen Huang. He is not building a company he can walk away from. He is building one that outlasts his heartbeat because every person inside it already thinks in patterns he installed. That is not a death wish. That is a man who found the only thing worth doing and refused to do anything else.$

Lex Fridman asked Jensen Huang if he is afraid of death. Huang did not flinch. Huang: “The outcome that I seek, that I hope for, is that I die on the job instantaneously.” That is not a figure of speech. That is a man telling you he has already decided how this ends. No retirement. No transition plan. No golden years on a beach somewhere tallying what he built. He wants to be mid-sentence in a meeting the moment his heart gives out. And when you understand why, it changes how you see everything Nvidia is doing. Huang: “This is not a once in a lifetime experience. This is a once in a humanity experience.” Once in a lifetime means others have lived through something comparable. He is saying no one has. Not Edison. Not Ford. Not anyone at Bell Labs or Xerox PARC. The deployment of artificial intelligence at this scale, at this speed, with this much consequence has no precedent in the history of the species. And Huang is sitting at the center of it. That is not ego. That is geography. Nvidia’s chips power virtually every major AI system on Earth right now. He knows what that means. And he treats it with a seriousness most people cannot even summon for their own lives, let alone the trajectory of civilization. Then Lex asked about succession planning. Huang’s answer should be framed on the wall of every founder alive. Huang: “I don’t believe in succession planning.” Not because he thinks he is immortal. Because he thinks it is the wrong question entirely. The right question is what are you doing today to make yourself unnecessary. Huang: “The most important thing you should do today is to pass on knowledge, information, insight, skills, experience as often and continuously as you can.” He does not wait until retirement to hand over what he knows. He does not save his best thinking for a memoir. The second he learns something, it is already moving to someone else on his team. Before he has even finished processing it himself. Huang: “Nothing I learn ever sits on my desk longer than a fraction of a second.” Most executives hoard knowledge. It is how they stay relevant. How they justify the title. How they make themselves impossible to replace. Huang does the opposite. He treats his own mind like a relay station. Information comes in, gets amplified, fires out to every node that needs it. Every meeting is a transfer. Every conversation is a download. The goal is not to be the smartest person in the building. The goal is to make the building smarter than any one person in it. That is why he does not need a succession plan. If you spend every day making the people around you capable of running without you, the org never notices the moment you are gone. Your fingerprints are in how they think. But he is not planning to leave. Huang: “I really don’t want to die. I have a great life. I have a great family. I have really important work.” No drama. No existential spiral. Just a man who looked at death and filed it under problems that can wait. There is still too much to build. The people planning their exit strategies are playing a different game than Jensen Huang. He is not building a company he can walk away from. He is building one that outlasts his heartbeat because every person inside it already thinks in patterns he installed. That is not a death wish. That is a man who found the only thing worth doing and refused to do anything else.

Dustin

25,617 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Sam Altman just told you exactly how OpenAI treats the human race. Not in a leaked memo. Not through a whistleblower. On camera. In his own words. Altman: “I think one of the most important strategic insights in the history of OpenAI was deciding we were gonna pursue iterative deployment.” The most important move in the history of the company was to release the technology before they understood it. Not after it was safe. Before. Altman: “Society and technology are a co-evolving system.” Co-evolution means neither side is driving. The machine changes us. We change the machine. Nobody is steering the outcome. This is not a product launch philosophy. This is an admission that the experiment was always designed to be run on us. Altman: “I don’t think we’re gonna solve that, like, thinking really hard about it theoretically. We’re gonna have to, like, learn from the contact with reality.” Contact with reality. That is the phrase the CEO of the most powerful AI company on Earth chose to describe what happens when his technology meets eight billion people. Not careful integration. Not measured rollout. Contact with reality. The language of test pilots describing what happens when an untested airframe hits the atmosphere. The entire promise of AI safety was that the machine would be understood before it was unleashed. Altman just admitted that promise was always a fantasy. You cannot model how intelligence reshapes civilization by running simulations. The second and third order effects are invisible until they detonate. So they shipped it. Altman: “You have to learn as you go. You have to adapt with a tight feedback loop.” Tight feedback loop means they watch what breaks. They measure the collision between human psychology and machine output in real time. Every conversation you have with ChatGPT is a data point in a civilizational stress test you never consented to. Every prompt. Every confession. Every question you would never ask another human being. That is the feedback loop. You are not the customer. You are the contact with reality. Philosophers spent centuries asking whether humanity would ever encounter an intelligence that learned from us faster than we could process what it was doing. That is not a theoretical question anymore. It is running on your phone right now. And the man building it just told you the only way to understand what it does to us is to let it happen. No simulation. No safety net. No control group. Just the experiment, running at the speed of conversation, on a species that will not be the same one that started it.

Sam Altman just told you exactly how OpenAI treats the human race. Not in a leaked memo. Not through a whistleblower. On camera. In his own words. Altman: “I think one of the most important strategic insights in the history of OpenAI was deciding we were gonna pursue iterative deployment.” The most important move in the history of the company was to release the technology before they understood it. Not after it was safe. Before. Altman: “Society and technology are a co-evolving system.” Co-evolution means neither side is driving. The machine changes us. We change the machine. Nobody is steering the outcome. This is not a product launch philosophy. This is an admission that the experiment was always designed to be run on us. Altman: “I don’t think we’re gonna solve that, like, thinking really hard about it theoretically. We’re gonna have to, like, learn from the contact with reality.” Contact with reality. That is the phrase the CEO of the most powerful AI company on Earth chose to describe what happens when his technology meets eight billion people. Not careful integration. Not measured rollout. Contact with reality. The language of test pilots describing what happens when an untested airframe hits the atmosphere. The entire promise of AI safety was that the machine would be understood before it was unleashed. Altman just admitted that promise was always a fantasy. You cannot model how intelligence reshapes civilization by running simulations. The second and third order effects are invisible until they detonate. So they shipped it. Altman: “You have to learn as you go. You have to adapt with a tight feedback loop.” Tight feedback loop means they watch what breaks. They measure the collision between human psychology and machine output in real time. Every conversation you have with ChatGPT is a data point in a civilizational stress test you never consented to. Every prompt. Every confession. Every question you would never ask another human being. That is the feedback loop. You are not the customer. You are the contact with reality. Philosophers spent centuries asking whether humanity would ever encounter an intelligence that learned from us faster than we could process what it was doing. That is not a theoretical question anymore. It is running on your phone right now. And the man building it just told you the only way to understand what it does to us is to let it happen. No simulation. No safety net. No control group. Just the experiment, running at the speed of conversation, on a species that will not be the same one that started it.

Dustin

27,714 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Sam Altman on what you need to do to survive in the age of artificial intelligence. "You are about to enter the greatest golden age of human possibility..." To thrive in that world, the skills that matter most are: - Deep familiarity with the tools - Staying abreast of changes - Developing a great intuition for AI tools, where things are going, and how to make use of it - Resilience and the ability to learn things fast and evolve yourself with technology I know most of this stuff is a pretty big no-brainer for anyone paying attention, but here's the takeaway: AI upskilling and keeping up with AI are possibly the most important skills in the world right now. And the most fascinating part is that new AI developments and tools come out so fast that everyone is constantly learning. I'd be willing to bet that if you're a complete beginner but spend 3 months of dedicated learning, you'd be fully caught up to power users. In other words: Spend 3 months learning → work 2-4x faster and future-proof yourself. There's so much opportunity for anyone who just starts now.

Sam Altman on what you need to do to survive in the age of artificial intelligence. "You are about to enter the greatest golden age of human possibility..." To thrive in that world, the skills that matter most are: - Deep familiarity with the tools - Staying abreast of changes - Developing a great intuition for AI tools, where things are going, and how to make use of it - Resilience and the ability to learn things fast and evolve yourself with technology I know most of this stuff is a pretty big no-brainer for anyone paying attention, but here's the takeaway: AI upskilling and keeping up with AI are possibly the most important skills in the world right now. And the most fascinating part is that new AI developments and tools come out so fast that everyone is constantly learning. I'd be willing to bet that if you're a complete beginner but spend 3 months of dedicated learning, you'd be fully caught up to power users. In other words: Spend 3 months learning → work 2-4x faster and future-proof yourself. There's so much opportunity for anyone who just starts now.

Rowan Cheung

854,262 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Everyone’s talking about what Jensen said at GTC about AI capex. But the most important thing he said got almost no attention — that software companies are about to become the biggest resellers of AI tokens in the world. Think about what that means. Workday buys raw intelligence from OpenAI. Wraps it in HR domain expertise. Sells it back as an AI product at a massive markup. That’s not a software company anymore. That’s a refinery. And right now nobody is tracking the economics of that refining layer — what the crude costs, what the refined product sells for, and who’s capturing the spread. This is the most important data gap in AI right now. More on this soon. $NVDA

Everyone’s talking about what Jensen said at GTC about AI capex. But the most important thing he said got almost no attention — that software companies are about to become the biggest resellers of AI tokens in the world. Think about what that means. Workday buys raw intelligence from OpenAI. Wraps it in HR domain expertise. Sells it back as an AI product at a massive markup. That’s not a software company anymore. That’s a refinery. And right now nobody is tracking the economics of that refining layer — what the crude costs, what the refined product sells for, and who’s capturing the spread. This is the most important data gap in AI right now. More on this soon. $NVDA

Midnight Capital LLC

40,075 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Jony Ive designed the iPhone. The iMac. The MacBook. He asked Steve Jobs to soften his criticism. Jobs: "No. You're just vain. You want people to like you." Jony was furious. Because he knew it was true. He spent 3 minutes explaining what Jobs actually taught him: The first lesson: Focus. "This sounds really simplistic. But it still shocks me how few people actually practice it." "Steve was the most remarkably focused person I've ever met in my life." "Focus is not something you aspire to. It's not something you decide on Monday. 'You know what, I'm going to be focused.'" "It is every minute asking: why are we talking about this? This is what we're working on." "You can achieve so much when you truly focus." The second lesson: What focus actually means. "One of the things Steve would say, because I think he was concerned that I wasn't focused, he would say: how many things have you said no to?" "And I would have these sacrificial things. Because I wanted to be very honest about it." "So I'd say: I said no to this, and no to that." "But he knew I wasn't vaguely interested in doing those things anyway. So there was no real sacrifice." Here's what real focus means. "Saying no to something that with every bone in your body you think is a phenomenal idea." "That you wake up thinking about." "But you say no to it because you're focusing on something else." The third lesson: The difference between caring about people and caring about being liked. Jony asked Jobs why he was so harsh. "Couldn't we moderate the things we said a little bit?" "Why?" "Because I care about the team." Jobs said something brutally insightful. "No Johnny. You're just really vain." "You just want people to like you." "I thought you really held the work up as the most important. Not how you believed you were perceived by other people." "I was terribly cross." "Because I knew he was right."

Jony Ive designed the iPhone. The iMac. The MacBook. He asked Steve Jobs to soften his criticism. Jobs: "No. You're just vain. You want people to like you." Jony was furious. Because he knew it was true. He spent 3 minutes explaining what Jobs actually taught him: The first lesson: Focus. "This sounds really simplistic. But it still shocks me how few people actually practice it." "Steve was the most remarkably focused person I've ever met in my life." "Focus is not something you aspire to. It's not something you decide on Monday. 'You know what, I'm going to be focused.'" "It is every minute asking: why are we talking about this? This is what we're working on." "You can achieve so much when you truly focus." The second lesson: What focus actually means. "One of the things Steve would say, because I think he was concerned that I wasn't focused, he would say: how many things have you said no to?" "And I would have these sacrificial things. Because I wanted to be very honest about it." "So I'd say: I said no to this, and no to that." "But he knew I wasn't vaguely interested in doing those things anyway. So there was no real sacrifice." Here's what real focus means. "Saying no to something that with every bone in your body you think is a phenomenal idea." "That you wake up thinking about." "But you say no to it because you're focusing on something else." The third lesson: The difference between caring about people and caring about being liked. Jony asked Jobs why he was so harsh. "Couldn't we moderate the things we said a little bit?" "Why?" "Because I care about the team." Jobs said something brutally insightful. "No Johnny. You're just really vain." "You just want people to like you." "I thought you really held the work up as the most important. Not how you believed you were perceived by other people." "I was terribly cross." "Because I knew he was right."

Jaynit

193,053 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

Deutsch Explains

72,455 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The CEO of OpenAI was asked for his hottest take. His answer wasn't a prediction about a product. It was that the whole world is sleeping through the most important thing happening to it. A student asked Altman for his spiciest take. He paused. He admitted he could probably find a spicier one with more time. Then he landed somewhere quiet. AI is just going to keep going. That sounds obvious until you hear how he framed it. He said this is not widely believed yet. And if it were actually believed, there would be far more reverberations through society right now than there are. That is the whole point. He is not saying people doubt AI is useful. He is saying people have not internalized what continuing on this curve actually means. They nod along and then go back to their day. Then he gave the timeframe. It has been three and a half years since ChatGPT. He said if you run another three and a half years on the same trajectory, what society is capable of is completely different. Not improved. Different. The scariest takes are usually loud. This one was Altman calmly saying the biggest change in human history is already underway, and almost nobody is acting like it. (Watch the full talk on YouTube at Stanford Online channel)

The CEO of OpenAI was asked for his hottest take. His answer wasn't a prediction about a product. It was that the whole world is sleeping through the most important thing happening to it. A student asked Altman for his spiciest take. He paused. He admitted he could probably find a spicier one with more time. Then he landed somewhere quiet. AI is just going to keep going. That sounds obvious until you hear how he framed it. He said this is not widely believed yet. And if it were actually believed, there would be far more reverberations through society right now than there are. That is the whole point. He is not saying people doubt AI is useful. He is saying people have not internalized what continuing on this curve actually means. They nod along and then go back to their day. Then he gave the timeframe. It has been three and a half years since ChatGPT. He said if you run another three and a half years on the same trajectory, what society is capable of is completely different. Not improved. Different. The scariest takes are usually loud. This one was Altman calmly saying the biggest change in human history is already underway, and almost nobody is acting like it. (Watch the full talk on YouTube at Stanford Online channel)

Ihtesham Ali

15,544 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen

Every serious analyst has called Elon Musk's Terafab unrealistic. The CEO of the company that supplies the machines to build it just said it is an upside opportunity and compared it to the largest chip buildouts in history. That is not a small statement. ASML makes the lithography machines that every advanced semiconductor fab on earth depends on. You cannot print a chip without them. There is no workaround. There is no alternative supplier. If the Terafab gets built, every single machine inside it comes from one company. The interviewer asked the ASML CEO directly about one terawatt of compute power. He did not laugh. He did not hedge. He compared it to the massive DRAM megaprojects in Korea and said new projects at that scale are exactly the kind of upside ASML is positioned for. His exact words: "New projects are opportunity." Then he said something that most people missed. He said ASML is already watching the Terafab very carefully. Tracking when things will happen. At what speed. That is not how you talk about a fantasy project. The mainstream take on the Terafab is that Musk is dreaming. The CEO of the most critical company in the entire chip supply chain just said he is preparing for it. Those are not the same position. (Watch the full 11 minutes Interview at Bloomberg TV on YouTube)

Every serious analyst has called Elon Musk's Terafab unrealistic. The CEO of the company that supplies the machines to build it just said it is an upside opportunity and compared it to the largest chip buildouts in history. That is not a small statement. ASML makes the lithography machines that every advanced semiconductor fab on earth depends on. You cannot print a chip without them. There is no workaround. There is no alternative supplier. If the Terafab gets built, every single machine inside it comes from one company. The interviewer asked the ASML CEO directly about one terawatt of compute power. He did not laugh. He did not hedge. He compared it to the massive DRAM megaprojects in Korea and said new projects at that scale are exactly the kind of upside ASML is positioned for. His exact words: "New projects are opportunity." Then he said something that most people missed. He said ASML is already watching the Terafab very carefully. Tracking when things will happen. At what speed. That is not how you talk about a fantasy project. The mainstream take on the Terafab is that Musk is dreaming. The CEO of the most critical company in the entire chip supply chain just said he is preparing for it. Those are not the same position. (Watch the full 11 minutes Interview at Bloomberg TV on YouTube)

Ihtesham Ali

67,014 Aufrufe • vor 23 Tagen

🚨 WOW! This is EXACTLY the kind of man President Trump really is "This is the most powerful man in the world and yet he purposefully DELAYED his schedule so he could spend more time with the families of hostages, and hostages who had been freed in previous deals that he supported." "What stood out to me is how much he actually cares about the region and the people here!" "And when you think about what this means, it means that you have a leader who is looking toward the future with an understanding of the realities on the ground." It's precisely who and what I voted for. 🇺🇸

🚨 WOW! This is EXACTLY the kind of man President Trump really is "This is the most powerful man in the world and yet he purposefully DELAYED his schedule so he could spend more time with the families of hostages, and hostages who had been freed in previous deals that he supported." "What stood out to me is how much he actually cares about the region and the people here!" "And when you think about what this means, it means that you have a leader who is looking toward the future with an understanding of the realities on the ground." It's precisely who and what I voted for. 🇺🇸

Eric Daugherty

130,393 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Pedro Franceschi explains why Brex doesn’t hire “people managers” anymore One day Brex founder Pedro Franceschi made a list of all of the leaders at the company who worked and didn’t work. “I was trying to find what was predictive of leadership success,” he explains. “A lot of things are important, but they’re not predictive. For example, being customer obsessed is important, but there are people who were customer obsessed who were on both sides of the list.” The only trait that Pedro found to be predictive of leadership success at Brex was what he calls “the ability to operate at all levels” — someone who even at the highest levels of leadership has a deep understanding of the details of execution at the individual contributor level. What this means in practice is a CTO who is actually a great engineer. A Head of Design who can actually design amazing products. And a great Head of Sales who can actually go and close deals themselves if they need to. “It doesn’t mean that they’re going to do that all the time,” Pedro explains, “But it means that they know the nuances of what makes someone great at the craft… If you don’t know how to identify greatness because you don’t know what the bar is yourself, there’s no way to build a team that’s great.” He continues: “A lot of companies develop this role over time that people call a ‘people manager.’ They’re Director of Engineering but they can’t really code because they manage people now… And that concept is just something we eliminated. At the end of the day, there’s no way to manage people divorced from the work — you’re managing the work itself.” Pedro uses Jony Ive as an example: “Jony Ive wasn’t managing the team that designed the iPhone. He was designing the iPhone with a group of people. It’s simple, but it is a very profound change in how you orient your relationship with the work and what you put out there in the world. And I think you have to select for people who appreciate the actual output of the work and the work itself, not the process of doing the work… What matters is: Do you know what great looks like? Can you do it yourself? And can you bring people along with a really high bar for doing it at all level.” Video source: Kleiner Perkins (2025)

Pedro Franceschi explains why Brex doesn’t hire “people managers” anymore One day Brex founder Pedro Franceschi made a list of all of the leaders at the company who worked and didn’t work. “I was trying to find what was predictive of leadership success,” he explains. “A lot of things are important, but they’re not predictive. For example, being customer obsessed is important, but there are people who were customer obsessed who were on both sides of the list.” The only trait that Pedro found to be predictive of leadership success at Brex was what he calls “the ability to operate at all levels” — someone who even at the highest levels of leadership has a deep understanding of the details of execution at the individual contributor level. What this means in practice is a CTO who is actually a great engineer. A Head of Design who can actually design amazing products. And a great Head of Sales who can actually go and close deals themselves if they need to. “It doesn’t mean that they’re going to do that all the time,” Pedro explains, “But it means that they know the nuances of what makes someone great at the craft… If you don’t know how to identify greatness because you don’t know what the bar is yourself, there’s no way to build a team that’s great.” He continues: “A lot of companies develop this role over time that people call a ‘people manager.’ They’re Director of Engineering but they can’t really code because they manage people now… And that concept is just something we eliminated. At the end of the day, there’s no way to manage people divorced from the work — you’re managing the work itself.” Pedro uses Jony Ive as an example: “Jony Ive wasn’t managing the team that designed the iPhone. He was designing the iPhone with a group of people. It’s simple, but it is a very profound change in how you orient your relationship with the work and what you put out there in the world. And I think you have to select for people who appreciate the actual output of the work and the work itself, not the process of doing the work… What matters is: Do you know what great looks like? Can you do it yourself? And can you bring people along with a really high bar for doing it at all level.” Video source: Kleiner Perkins (2025)

Startup Archive

45,584 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Baier: I just got off the phone with the president…. I asked, “what you are saying is you know there is somebody on the ground in Iran that is going to rise up?” He said, “yeah, I feel there is. I feel that and some of them are no longer with us to be honest because it was 49 leaders that were taken out. That was going to take four weeks we thought to get rid of the Iranian leadership and it is always, you know, if they hide, it is a lot longer than four weeks. They would have been hiding. We were shocked when we heard what was going on. We knew exactly what was happening… they are talking about using people now that nobody ever heard of—even they don't know. They are using people, studying people to be the leader that even they don't know who they are. Can you believe that?” I said it's a tough succession plan in Iran. He said, “49 leaders is deep. It's very deep. When they met, they met for breakfast. They assumed it was good for a lot of reasons. Number one they didn't think we knew. You never attack in the morning having to do with wind and sun and a lot of things. It was amazing that we knew everything we knew.”

Baier: I just got off the phone with the president…. I asked, “what you are saying is you know there is somebody on the ground in Iran that is going to rise up?” He said, “yeah, I feel there is. I feel that and some of them are no longer with us to be honest because it was 49 leaders that were taken out. That was going to take four weeks we thought to get rid of the Iranian leadership and it is always, you know, if they hide, it is a lot longer than four weeks. They would have been hiding. We were shocked when we heard what was going on. We knew exactly what was happening… they are talking about using people now that nobody ever heard of—even they don't know. They are using people, studying people to be the leader that even they don't know who they are. Can you believe that?” I said it's a tough succession plan in Iran. He said, “49 leaders is deep. It's very deep. When they met, they met for breakfast. They assumed it was good for a lot of reasons. Number one they didn't think we knew. You never attack in the morning having to do with wind and sun and a lot of things. It was amazing that we knew everything we knew.”

Acyn

1,065,464 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Tucker Carlson sat down with Sam Altman and told him to his face that he is building a religion & replacing God with AI. Altman did not disagree: This will completely change how you think about the technology you use every single day: 1. Carlson's definition of a religion was precise and hard to argue with. Something more powerful than people, to which people already turn for guidance, that provides more certain answers than any individual human ever could. By that definition, ChatGPT already qualifies. 2. Altman admitted he believes something bigger than physics is going on in the universe. He just has never felt direct communication from it. The irony is that he is now building something hundreds of millions of people are already communicating with every single day for answers. 3. Every moral code in recorded history has been written with reference to a higher power. Hammurabi did it. Moses did it. Every civilization did it. Altman is the first person in history to write a moral code for something more powerful than people while openly admitting he has no higher power guiding him. 4. When Carlson pressed him on where his moral framework came from, Altman gave the most honest answer possible. His family. His community. His school. His religion. The same environment everyone grows up in. That personal inheritance is now the foundation of the moral framework being transmitted to billions of people globally without their knowledge or consent. 5. The base model was trained on everything humanity has ever written, every book, every philosophy, every religion, every atrocity, every act of love. Then a small team at one company decided how to align it. Then one man decided he is the person ultimately accountable for those alignment decisions. 6. Altman wrote something called a model spec, a document that spells out exactly what ChatGPT will say, refuse to say, and how it should handle moral questions. Carlson's point was simple. That is a catechism. Every religion has one. The difference is religions admit they are religions and tell you exactly what they stand for. 7. The unsettling part Carlson identified is not that the technology has a moral framework. Every religion has one. It is that this one does not fully admit it is a religion, which means it guides billions of people toward conclusions they may not even realize they are reaching. 8. Altman does not lose sleep over getting the big obvious moral decisions wrong. What keeps him up at night are the small ones. Tiny behavioral choices that seem insignificant individually but get multiplied across hundreds of millions of daily conversations into effects nobody predicted and nobody can fully see. 9. He gave a concrete example of how this already works. ChatGPT has a particular rhythm and style of language. Real people have started writing and speaking that way in their actual lives without realizing it. If that is what happens with just the language, the deeper behavioral and moral effects may be enormous and completely invisible. 10. Altman's stated goal is not to impose his personal views but to reflect a weighted average of humanity's moral preferences. Carlson's counter was immediate. Humanity's moral preferences are not the average middle American preference. Most of the world holds views on marriage, sexuality, and morality that Silicon Valley would find deeply uncomfortable. Whose average is actually being used? 11. Altman acknowledged that plenty of things ChatGPT allows are things he personally disagrees with and that he is intentional about not using his personal views as the standard. But someone's views are the standard. A small team of people at one company made those calls. One man said he is ultimately accountable for them. 12. The hardest question Carlson asked was the simplest. Where can the world go to find out exactly what this technology stands for? What does it prefer? What does it believe? Altman pointed to the model spec. A long document that most users will never read, written by a team most users will never know, deciding things most users do not realize are being decided. If you want more content on business, mindset & life changing ideas then subscribe to my newsletter:

Tucker Carlson sat down with Sam Altman and told him to his face that he is building a religion & replacing God with AI. Altman did not disagree: This will completely change how you think about the technology you use every single day: 1. Carlson's definition of a religion was precise and hard to argue with. Something more powerful than people, to which people already turn for guidance, that provides more certain answers than any individual human ever could. By that definition, ChatGPT already qualifies. 2. Altman admitted he believes something bigger than physics is going on in the universe. He just has never felt direct communication from it. The irony is that he is now building something hundreds of millions of people are already communicating with every single day for answers. 3. Every moral code in recorded history has been written with reference to a higher power. Hammurabi did it. Moses did it. Every civilization did it. Altman is the first person in history to write a moral code for something more powerful than people while openly admitting he has no higher power guiding him. 4. When Carlson pressed him on where his moral framework came from, Altman gave the most honest answer possible. His family. His community. His school. His religion. The same environment everyone grows up in. That personal inheritance is now the foundation of the moral framework being transmitted to billions of people globally without their knowledge or consent. 5. The base model was trained on everything humanity has ever written, every book, every philosophy, every religion, every atrocity, every act of love. Then a small team at one company decided how to align it. Then one man decided he is the person ultimately accountable for those alignment decisions. 6. Altman wrote something called a model spec, a document that spells out exactly what ChatGPT will say, refuse to say, and how it should handle moral questions. Carlson's point was simple. That is a catechism. Every religion has one. The difference is religions admit they are religions and tell you exactly what they stand for. 7. The unsettling part Carlson identified is not that the technology has a moral framework. Every religion has one. It is that this one does not fully admit it is a religion, which means it guides billions of people toward conclusions they may not even realize they are reaching. 8. Altman does not lose sleep over getting the big obvious moral decisions wrong. What keeps him up at night are the small ones. Tiny behavioral choices that seem insignificant individually but get multiplied across hundreds of millions of daily conversations into effects nobody predicted and nobody can fully see. 9. He gave a concrete example of how this already works. ChatGPT has a particular rhythm and style of language. Real people have started writing and speaking that way in their actual lives without realizing it. If that is what happens with just the language, the deeper behavioral and moral effects may be enormous and completely invisible. 10. Altman's stated goal is not to impose his personal views but to reflect a weighted average of humanity's moral preferences. Carlson's counter was immediate. Humanity's moral preferences are not the average middle American preference. Most of the world holds views on marriage, sexuality, and morality that Silicon Valley would find deeply uncomfortable. Whose average is actually being used? 11. Altman acknowledged that plenty of things ChatGPT allows are things he personally disagrees with and that he is intentional about not using his personal views as the standard. But someone's views are the standard. A small team of people at one company made those calls. One man said he is ultimately accountable for them. 12. The hardest question Carlson asked was the simplest. Where can the world go to find out exactly what this technology stands for? What does it prefer? What does it believe? Altman pointed to the model spec. A long document that most users will never read, written by a team most users will never know, deciding things most users do not realize are being decided. If you want more content on business, mindset & life changing ideas then subscribe to my newsletter:

Brad

127,605 Aufrufe • vor 7 Tagen

Elon Musk just said what every government on earth already knows and none will admit. Musk: “AI is moving 10 times faster than government, maybe more.” Not slightly faster. Ten times. And the gap compounds daily. Every institution ever built runs on the same architecture. Committees. Hearings. Drafts. Amendments. Votes. A process designed for a world that moved at the speed of human debate. That world is gone. The moment legislation is signed, the thing it was written for is already three generations obsolete. Law is becoming a monument to things that no longer exist by the time the ink is dry. Musk: “The one thing that the government can do is just issue people money.” The largest militaries ever assembled. The most sophisticated legal infrastructure in human history. The accumulated weight of ten thousand years of institutional evolution. Collapsed to a single remaining function. Printing checks. Not because they failed. Because the velocity of what is coming makes everything else they were built to do ornamental. Musk: “Nobody’s gonna starve is what I’m saying.” The floor rises. Survival becomes automatic. Nobody goes hungry. For ten thousand years, that would have been the finish line. It is not. It is the starting line of the hardest question the species has ever faced. Every civilization in history was organized around one brutal fact. The world needed your labor to function. You worked because you had to. You built because the alternative was death. Every economy, every identity, every reason to get out of bed was downstream of that single pressure. That pressure is being quietly removed. And what it leaves behind is not freedom. It is a vacuum. A check hits your account. Rent is covered. Food is handled. The base layer of existence is solved. But the thing that organized your time. Gave your effort weight. Made your life feel like it pointed somewhere. Gone. No government can legislate that back. No policy can manufacture it. Purpose is not a deposit. Identity is not a program. What you are for when the world no longer needs you to function is not a problem any institution was designed to answer. It is the first problem in history that belongs entirely to you. And while the rest of the world debates how to control what is coming, one person is doing the only thing that has ever mattered. Building what comes next.

Elon Musk just said what every government on earth already knows and none will admit. Musk: “AI is moving 10 times faster than government, maybe more.” Not slightly faster. Ten times. And the gap compounds daily. Every institution ever built runs on the same architecture. Committees. Hearings. Drafts. Amendments. Votes. A process designed for a world that moved at the speed of human debate. That world is gone. The moment legislation is signed, the thing it was written for is already three generations obsolete. Law is becoming a monument to things that no longer exist by the time the ink is dry. Musk: “The one thing that the government can do is just issue people money.” The largest militaries ever assembled. The most sophisticated legal infrastructure in human history. The accumulated weight of ten thousand years of institutional evolution. Collapsed to a single remaining function. Printing checks. Not because they failed. Because the velocity of what is coming makes everything else they were built to do ornamental. Musk: “Nobody’s gonna starve is what I’m saying.” The floor rises. Survival becomes automatic. Nobody goes hungry. For ten thousand years, that would have been the finish line. It is not. It is the starting line of the hardest question the species has ever faced. Every civilization in history was organized around one brutal fact. The world needed your labor to function. You worked because you had to. You built because the alternative was death. Every economy, every identity, every reason to get out of bed was downstream of that single pressure. That pressure is being quietly removed. And what it leaves behind is not freedom. It is a vacuum. A check hits your account. Rent is covered. Food is handled. The base layer of existence is solved. But the thing that organized your time. Gave your effort weight. Made your life feel like it pointed somewhere. Gone. No government can legislate that back. No policy can manufacture it. Purpose is not a deposit. Identity is not a program. What you are for when the world no longer needs you to function is not a problem any institution was designed to answer. It is the first problem in history that belongs entirely to you. And while the rest of the world debates how to control what is coming, one person is doing the only thing that has ever mattered. Building what comes next.

Dustin

47,159 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen

WATCH: Scott Jennings unloads on Zohran Mamdani's long, angry victory speech: Oh, are you saying he didn't -- he wasn't the unifying voice of a generation that you predicted mere moments ago. Axe, where was the -- where was the man that you predicted would not slice and dice the -- guys, he started his speech by quoting Eugene Debs, who ran for president of the United States five times as the Socialist Party of America candidate. He repeatedly attacked people in this -- no, I know my socialists. I keep a close eye on them." "So, here's the thing. He went after everybody that he thinks is a problem: people who own things, people who have businesses. He said an interesting quote: 'No problem too large for government to solve.' And so, when you think of the world that way, that every problem, no matter how small or how large, is something for government to do, let me just decipher this for you. Tax increases as far as the eye can see, which means that people who need to provide jobs to the young people that you say need jobs are going to flee as quickly as they possibly can." "I think this was a divisive speech, and he clearly sees the world in terms of the people who are oppressing you and the oppressed. And he said, the oppressed are now in City Hall."

WATCH: Scott Jennings unloads on Zohran Mamdani's long, angry victory speech: Oh, are you saying he didn't -- he wasn't the unifying voice of a generation that you predicted mere moments ago. Axe, where was the -- where was the man that you predicted would not slice and dice the -- guys, he started his speech by quoting Eugene Debs, who ran for president of the United States five times as the Socialist Party of America candidate. He repeatedly attacked people in this -- no, I know my socialists. I keep a close eye on them." "So, here's the thing. He went after everybody that he thinks is a problem: people who own things, people who have businesses. He said an interesting quote: 'No problem too large for government to solve.' And so, when you think of the world that way, that every problem, no matter how small or how large, is something for government to do, let me just decipher this for you. Tax increases as far as the eye can see, which means that people who need to provide jobs to the young people that you say need jobs are going to flee as quickly as they possibly can." "I think this was a divisive speech, and he clearly sees the world in terms of the people who are oppressing you and the oppressed. And he said, the oppressed are now in City Hall."

Curtis Houck

1,281,783 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten