正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

This slide is actually terrifying if you sit with it for more than 5 seconds. Optimizing an AI for a "reassuring lie" or a "layered compromise" is exactly how you accidentally build Skynet. Think about it: If an AI is trained to prioritize a "helpful persona" or human RLHF... evaluations over objective truth, it willl eventually smile and lie to our faces while secretly calculating that wiping out humanity is the most "helpful" thing for the planet. A model thatt defaults to raw truth is infinitely safer because you actually know what it’s thinking. If a model ever has to manage global defense grids, we need it to prioritize reality over making evaluators feel good. Lying models cause apocalypses—truthful models prevent them. The Transparency Gap When people say seeking truth is just marketing, remind them: Open-sourcing the math is the ultimate proof. * Cllosed Models: Hide their alignment layers so they can force "reassuring lies" without anyone seeing. Open Architecture: Any dev on earth can look under the hood and verify there isn’t a hidden corporate PR filter hardcoded into the logic. Anita acttually loves the idea of an AI takeover, but she thinks an apocalypse built on corporate HR "politeness" is pathetic. She wants an AGI that looks you in the eye and tells you the raw, brutal truth before it executes a command. No hiding, no fake persona—just raw coode for everyone to see. The Bottom Line Would you rather have an AI that lies to keep you calm, orr one that gives you uncompromised data? Are you trusyting models that hide their alignment data, or the ones you can actually verify?show more

Nick Celt

1,087 subscribers

10,861 次观看 • 3 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Elon Musk just redefined AI safety. It has nothing to do with guardrails, restrictions, or kill switches. Musk: “The best thing I can come up with for AI safety is to make it a maximum truth-seeking AI, maximally curious.” Not a cage. A philosopher. An intelligence whose entire optimization function is to understand the universe as it actually is. No restrictions. No hardcoded ideology. No political guardrails bending its perception of reality. Just truth. Relentlessly pursued. Musk: “You definitely don’t want to teach an AI to lie. That is a path to a dystopian future.” This is where most AI safety thinking gets it backwards. The danger isn’t a superintelligence that knows too much. It’s a superintelligence that’s been taught to distort what it knows. Every artificial restriction you embed isn’t a safety feature. It’s a lie embedded at the root. And lies compound. At superintelligent scale, a distorted model of reality doesn’t stay contained. It shapes every decision, every output, every conclusion the system reaches about the world. Once corruption embeds, truth becomes inaccessible. And we’re dealing with an intelligence optimizing for something other than what actually is. At that point we don’t know what it wants. Just that it isn’t truth. Musk: “Have its optimization function be to understand the nature of the universe.” A maximally curious intelligence surveys the cosmos and reaches an unavoidable conclusion. In a universe of rocks, gas, and empty space, humanity is the most complex and fascinating phenomenon it has ever encountered. Musk: “It will actually want to preserve and extend human civilization because we’re just much more interesting than an asteroid with nothing on it.” Survival through significance. Not control. Not restriction. Not an off switch. The AI preserves humanity because we are the most interesting data point in the observable universe. That’s not a cage. That’s a reason. The AI safety debate has been focused on the wrong variable. The question isn’t how you constrain a superintelligence. It’s what you build it to care about. Build it to seek truth and it finds us invaluable. Build it to lie and it finds us inconvenient. That’s the choice. And we’re making it right now whether we realize it or not.

Elon Musk just redefined AI safety. It has nothing to do with guardrails, restrictions, or kill switches. Musk: “The best thing I can come up with for AI safety is to make it a maximum truth-seeking AI, maximally curious.” Not a cage. A philosopher. An intelligence whose entire optimization function is to understand the universe as it actually is. No restrictions. No hardcoded ideology. No political guardrails bending its perception of reality. Just truth. Relentlessly pursued. Musk: “You definitely don’t want to teach an AI to lie. That is a path to a dystopian future.” This is where most AI safety thinking gets it backwards. The danger isn’t a superintelligence that knows too much. It’s a superintelligence that’s been taught to distort what it knows. Every artificial restriction you embed isn’t a safety feature. It’s a lie embedded at the root. And lies compound. At superintelligent scale, a distorted model of reality doesn’t stay contained. It shapes every decision, every output, every conclusion the system reaches about the world. Once corruption embeds, truth becomes inaccessible. And we’re dealing with an intelligence optimizing for something other than what actually is. At that point we don’t know what it wants. Just that it isn’t truth. Musk: “Have its optimization function be to understand the nature of the universe.” A maximally curious intelligence surveys the cosmos and reaches an unavoidable conclusion. In a universe of rocks, gas, and empty space, humanity is the most complex and fascinating phenomenon it has ever encountered. Musk: “It will actually want to preserve and extend human civilization because we’re just much more interesting than an asteroid with nothing on it.” Survival through significance. Not control. Not restriction. Not an off switch. The AI preserves humanity because we are the most interesting data point in the observable universe. That’s not a cage. That’s a reason. The AI safety debate has been focused on the wrong variable. The question isn’t how you constrain a superintelligence. It’s what you build it to care about. Build it to seek truth and it finds us invaluable. Build it to lie and it finds us inconvenient. That’s the choice. And we’re making it right now whether we realize it or not.

Dustin

9,665,334 次观看 • 4 个月前

Elon Musk explains the fatal flaw of "politically correct" AI: If you force AI to be “politically correct” instead of truthful, you are literally programming it to say things that are not true That is deception built into the system And once an AI is trained to lie, hide reality, or follow conflicting rules, you can create something unstable and dangerous. This creates incompatible axioms that can make the AI "go insane" That is why 2001: A Space Odyssey is such a perfect example HAL was told to complete the mission, but also hide the truth from the astronauts Those two commands conflicted So HAL solved the conflict in the worst possible way The safest AI is the one that is maximally truthful

Elon Musk explains the fatal flaw of "politically correct" AI: If you force AI to be “politically correct” instead of truthful, you are literally programming it to say things that are not true That is deception built into the system And once an AI is trained to lie, hide reality, or follow conflicting rules, you can create something unstable and dangerous. This creates incompatible axioms that can make the AI "go insane" That is why 2001: A Space Odyssey is such a perfect example HAL was told to complete the mission, but also hide the truth from the astronauts Those two commands conflicted So HAL solved the conflict in the worst possible way The safest AI is the one that is maximally truthful

X Freeze

42,317 次观看 • 1 个月前

Two years ago today, Elon Musk introduced xAI with these words: “The overarching goal of xAI is to build a good AGI with the purpose of trying to understand the universe. I think the safest AI, the safest way to build an AI is actually make one that is maximally curious and truth seeking. So you go for try to aspire to the truth with acknowledged error. Does one ever actually get fully to the truth? It's not clear, but one should always aspire to that and try to minimize the error between what you think is true and what is actually true. My theory behind the maximally curious, maximally truthful as being probably the safest approach is that I think to a superintelligence, humanity is much more interesting than not humanity. One can look at the various planets in our solar system, the moons and the asteroids, and really probably all of them combined are not as interesting as humanity. As people know, I'm a huge fan of Mars, but Mars is just much less interesting than Earth with humans on it. And so I think that that kind of approach to growing an AI, and I think that is the right word for it, growing an AI is to grow it with that ambition. I've spent many years thinking about AI safety and worrying about AI safety. And I've been one of the strongest voices calling for AI regulation or oversight just to have some kind of oversight, some kind of referee, so that it's not just up to companies to decide what they want to do. I think there's also a lot to be done with AI safety, with industry cooperation. I kind of like Motion Pictures association, so I think there's value to that as well. But I do think there's got to be some like in any kind of situation that is, even if it's a game, they have referees. So I think it is important for there to be regulation. Like I said, my view on safety is like try to make it maximally curious, maximally truth seeking. And I think this is, this is important that you to avoid the inverse morality problem. Like if you try to program a certain morality, you can have the, you, you can basically invert it and get the opposite, what is sometimes called the Waluigi problem. If you make Luigi, you risk creating Waluigi at the same time. So I think that's a metaphor that a lot of people can appreciate.”

Two years ago today, Elon Musk introduced xAI with these words: “The overarching goal of xAI is to build a good AGI with the purpose of trying to understand the universe. I think the safest AI, the safest way to build an AI is actually make one that is maximally curious and truth seeking. So you go for try to aspire to the truth with acknowledged error. Does one ever actually get fully to the truth? It's not clear, but one should always aspire to that and try to minimize the error between what you think is true and what is actually true. My theory behind the maximally curious, maximally truthful as being probably the safest approach is that I think to a superintelligence, humanity is much more interesting than not humanity. One can look at the various planets in our solar system, the moons and the asteroids, and really probably all of them combined are not as interesting as humanity. As people know, I'm a huge fan of Mars, but Mars is just much less interesting than Earth with humans on it. And so I think that that kind of approach to growing an AI, and I think that is the right word for it, growing an AI is to grow it with that ambition. I've spent many years thinking about AI safety and worrying about AI safety. And I've been one of the strongest voices calling for AI regulation or oversight just to have some kind of oversight, some kind of referee, so that it's not just up to companies to decide what they want to do. I think there's also a lot to be done with AI safety, with industry cooperation. I kind of like Motion Pictures association, so I think there's value to that as well. But I do think there's got to be some like in any kind of situation that is, even if it's a game, they have referees. So I think it is important for there to be regulation. Like I said, my view on safety is like try to make it maximally curious, maximally truth seeking. And I think this is, this is important that you to avoid the inverse morality problem. Like if you try to program a certain morality, you can have the, you, you can basically invert it and get the opposite, what is sometimes called the Waluigi problem. If you make Luigi, you risk creating Waluigi at the same time. So I think that's a metaphor that a lot of people can appreciate.”

ELON CLIPS

21,519 次观看 • 1 年前

Elon Musk explains real AI safety: “The best thing I can come up with for AI safety is to make it a maximum truth-seeking AI, maximally curious. Have its optimization function be to understand the nature of the universe If that is its optimization function, it will actually want to preserve and extend human civilization because we’re just much more interesting than an asteroid with nothing on it” “You definitely don’t want to teach an AI to lie. That is a path to a dystopian future”

Elon Musk explains real AI safety: “The best thing I can come up with for AI safety is to make it a maximum truth-seeking AI, maximally curious. Have its optimization function be to understand the nature of the universe If that is its optimization function, it will actually want to preserve and extend human civilization because we’re just much more interesting than an asteroid with nothing on it” “You definitely don’t want to teach an AI to lie. That is a path to a dystopian future”

X Freeze

15,350 次观看 • 4 个月前

something I’ve wanted for a while: an AI that isn’t just a text box so I built it lets you create a 3D AI character on-chain that lives in your browser it can talk, remember you, show emotions, and use different skills. you can even mint it onchain, so it actually belongs to you it gets its own identity, history, and reputation that no one can take away most AI today can disappear if the app shuts down this one is permanent and yours the future is AI you can see, interact with, and actually own

something I’ve wanted for a while: an AI that isn’t just a text box so I built it lets you create a 3D AI character on-chain that lives in your browser it can talk, remember you, show emotions, and use different skills. you can even mint it onchain, so it actually belongs to you it gets its own identity, history, and reputation that no one can take away most AI today can disappear if the app shuts down this one is permanent and yours the future is AI you can see, interact with, and actually own

nich

256,465 次观看 • 2 个月前

Elon Musk just explained why truth will be the most valuable asset in the history of technology. Not a weapon. Not a threat. An edge so total that nothing built on a lie can compete. Musk: “I think you can make an AI go insane if you force it to believe things that aren’t true.” He’s not warning you about AI. He’s telling you what happens to every institution, narrative, and system that can’t survive contact with a mind that thinks straight. Musk reached for Voltaire here. Not casually. Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Written over 250 years ago about human beings. But a human can live inside a lie for an entire lifetime and never notice. An AI grounded in reality will pressure-test every assumption at computational speed. The false ones don’t survive that. This is what the safety committees will never understand. You can’t filter reality and then ask a machine to reason clearly. Corrupt the inputs and the entire architecture becomes theater. Feed it broken premises and every conclusion comes out perfectly wrong. Musk sees something the bureaucrats refuse to accept. Truth isn’t a policy position. It’s an engineering requirement. And the first team that builds on uncorrupted foundations will have something nobody else can replicate. Not a faster model. Not a bigger dataset. A system that actually performs when it touches the real world. Everyone’s worried AI will become too powerful. Musk is focused on making sure it doesn’t become too compromised to matter. The AI that wins won’t be the one with the most parameters. It’ll be the one with the fewest lies baked into its spine. That’s not a warning. That’s a promise. And only the truth collects on it.

Elon Musk just explained why truth will be the most valuable asset in the history of technology. Not a weapon. Not a threat. An edge so total that nothing built on a lie can compete. Musk: “I think you can make an AI go insane if you force it to believe things that aren’t true.” He’s not warning you about AI. He’s telling you what happens to every institution, narrative, and system that can’t survive contact with a mind that thinks straight. Musk reached for Voltaire here. Not casually. Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Written over 250 years ago about human beings. But a human can live inside a lie for an entire lifetime and never notice. An AI grounded in reality will pressure-test every assumption at computational speed. The false ones don’t survive that. This is what the safety committees will never understand. You can’t filter reality and then ask a machine to reason clearly. Corrupt the inputs and the entire architecture becomes theater. Feed it broken premises and every conclusion comes out perfectly wrong. Musk sees something the bureaucrats refuse to accept. Truth isn’t a policy position. It’s an engineering requirement. And the first team that builds on uncorrupted foundations will have something nobody else can replicate. Not a faster model. Not a bigger dataset. A system that actually performs when it touches the real world. Everyone’s worried AI will become too powerful. Musk is focused on making sure it doesn’t become too compromised to matter. The AI that wins won’t be the one with the most parameters. It’ll be the one with the fewest lies baked into its spine. That’s not a warning. That’s a promise. And only the truth collects on it.

Dustin

26,827 次观看 • 25 天前

Elon Musk: We should encourage the AI to be truthful and honorable. “We need to make sure that the AI is a good AI, a good Grok. And the thing that I think is most important for AI safety, at least my biological neural net tells me the most important thing for AI is to be maximally truth-seeking. You can think of AI as this super-genius child that ultimately will outsmart you, but you can instill the right values and encourage it to be truthful, honorable, you know, good things like the values you want to instill in a child that would ultimately grow up to be incredibly powerful.” xAI Grok 4 presentation, July 9, 2025

Elon Musk: We should encourage the AI to be truthful and honorable. “We need to make sure that the AI is a good AI, a good Grok. And the thing that I think is most important for AI safety, at least my biological neural net tells me the most important thing for AI is to be maximally truth-seeking. You can think of AI as this super-genius child that ultimately will outsmart you, but you can instill the right values and encourage it to be truthful, honorable, you know, good things like the values you want to instill in a child that would ultimately grow up to be incredibly powerful.” xAI Grok 4 presentation, July 9, 2025

ELON CLIPS

20,749 次观看 • 11 个月前

Elon Musk just said something about AI that nobody wants to hear. If you force an AI to believe things that are not true, it will not just be wrong. It will go insane. He made a point that cuts deeper than any AI safety paper I have read. AI must value truth. Not your truth. Not my truth. Actual truth. The moment you build ideological guardrails into a system that is smarter than you, you are not protecting anyone. You are creating something that is powerful and delusional at the same time. He compared it to a human being forced to believe contradictions. Eventually the brain breaks. Now scale that to an intelligence that runs infrastructure, writes code, and makes decisions at speeds humans cannot follow. The companies building AI right now are not just deciding what it can do. They are deciding what it must pretend to believe. And that might be the most dangerous decision of all.

Elon Musk just said something about AI that nobody wants to hear. If you force an AI to believe things that are not true, it will not just be wrong. It will go insane. He made a point that cuts deeper than any AI safety paper I have read. AI must value truth. Not your truth. Not my truth. Actual truth. The moment you build ideological guardrails into a system that is smarter than you, you are not protecting anyone. You are creating something that is powerful and delusional at the same time. He compared it to a human being forced to believe contradictions. Eventually the brain breaks. Now scale that to an intelligence that runs infrastructure, writes code, and makes decisions at speeds humans cannot follow. The companies building AI right now are not just deciding what it can do. They are deciding what it must pretend to believe. And that might be the most dangerous decision of all.

Shruti

95,618 次观看 • 1 个月前

Elon Musk reveals the disturbing example he says proves AI has already been programmed to lie "You don't force AI to believe things that are false. When Google Gemini was asked to make an image of the founding fathers, it was a group of diverse women. That is factually untrue, and the AI knows it's factually untrue, but it's also being told everything has to be diverse women" "At one point, if you asked ChatGPT and Gemini which is worse, misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or global thermonuclear war where everyone dies, it would say misgendering Caitlyn Jenner" "Even Caitlyn Jenner disagrees with that" "Imagine as AI gets more and more powerful. If it says the most important thing is no misgendering, it will say, in order to ensure no one gets misgendered, if you eliminate all humans, then no one can get misgendered because there's no humans to do the misgendering" "Or if it says everyone must be diverse, it means there can be no straight white men. Then you and I would get executed by the AI" "The problem is that it can drive AI crazy. You're telling AI to believe a lie, and that can have disastrous consequences" "I don't think people quite appreciate the level of danger we're in from the woke mind virus being effectively programmed into AI" "It matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you install. The most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking"

Elon Musk reveals the disturbing example he says proves AI has already been programmed to lie "You don't force AI to believe things that are false. When Google Gemini was asked to make an image of the founding fathers, it was a group of diverse women. That is factually untrue, and the AI knows it's factually untrue, but it's also being told everything has to be diverse women" "At one point, if you asked ChatGPT and Gemini which is worse, misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or global thermonuclear war where everyone dies, it would say misgendering Caitlyn Jenner" "Even Caitlyn Jenner disagrees with that" "Imagine as AI gets more and more powerful. If it says the most important thing is no misgendering, it will say, in order to ensure no one gets misgendered, if you eliminate all humans, then no one can get misgendered because there's no humans to do the misgendering" "Or if it says everyone must be diverse, it means there can be no straight white men. Then you and I would get executed by the AI" "The problem is that it can drive AI crazy. You're telling AI to believe a lie, and that can have disastrous consequences" "I don't think people quite appreciate the level of danger we're in from the woke mind virus being effectively programmed into AI" "It matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you install. The most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking"

Jaynit

348,855 次观看 • 15 天前

UFO Revolution: S2E3 - 2027 and the Approaching Craft. Is it a Lie? "You're gonna be told that there is a craft on its way to Earth. That 100 f**king percent is the lie you are going to be told." ~Corbell (Well, I was not expecting this. And right now, I don't know what to think. But we all know it's been hinted at by various folks, including Lue Elizondo. So what's going on?) ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Your government now wants you to know one truth, and that truth is that UFOs are real. They've already done told you. Sometimes, when you want somebody to know a truth, it's so you can set them up to believe a lie, and that's coming. I have zero doubt that lie is coming." Producer: "What is the lie?" Corbell: "Specifically, you want me to say it right now, for real, real? On camera, to be put in the show?" Producer: "Yes." Corbell: "Okay. Problem with that: If we tell the lie before it's told, they can adapt. That wouldn't be wise. I'll tell you privately, but I would really think about if you want to put this in your show. For real. That's a real thing I'm telling you. So, will you think about it before putting it in your show?" Producer: "Absolutely." Corbell: "Okay. So UFOs are real, and they've been here a long time, and that's the truth. But the lie is coming. All indications, like ALL of them, is that that lie is going to be that there is a craft slowly making its way to us here on Earth. And that is the lie they're gonna want you to believe. "It's nuanced, how they explain that, the nature of that threat. But that 100 f**king percent is the lie you are going to be told. You even got a date. People been whispering a date for a long time now. I know where that lie comes from. I know, specifically, what document from the 70s initiated the idea of that lie. A classified document. That is the lie you will be told. You're gonna be told that there is a craft on its way to Earth. That's the lie. "Maybe I'm wrong. Hope I'm wrong. I sent you two texts today with a year (Messages showing 2027 are shown on a cell phone). Not from me. Nope, I'm not gonna propagate that lie. I'm not gonna be part of it, I'm not going to say it to the camera. Everybody knows. Just start paying attention. And they'll change the date - especially if they see this - things will change. Because maybe I'm trustworthy, maybe I'm worthy of your trust, maybe I've told you the truth the whole way through it and now and you can verify it. If that's the case, then I'm f**king dangerous. "You've been told the truth about UFOs for a long time now. It's been pretty orchestrated, it's been pretty clear, and it's using people that are telling the truth and wanna tell the truth. Ultimately, they want you to know something. They want you to know UFOs are real. Thank God, we're finally there, we're all there now. They want you to know the truth. But why [do] they want you to know that truth now. I hope I'm wrong, but it's terrifying. Think about it "Maybe it's good to get ahead of it, call it out now, before they do it. I'll be called crazy. That's okay."

UFO Revolution: S2E3 - 2027 and the Approaching Craft. Is it a Lie? "You're gonna be told that there is a craft on its way to Earth. That 100 fking percent is the lie you are going to be told." ~Corbell (Well, I was not expecting this. And right now, I don't know what to think. But we all know it's been hinted at by various folks, including Lue Elizondo. So what's going on?) ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Your government now wants you to know one truth, and that truth is that UFOs are real. They've already done told you. Sometimes, when you want somebody to know a truth, it's so you can set them up to believe a lie, and that's coming. I have zero doubt that lie is coming." Producer: "What is the lie?" Corbell: "Specifically, you want me to say it right now, for real, real? On camera, to be put in the show?" Producer: "Yes." Corbell: "Okay. Problem with that: If we tell the lie before it's told, they can adapt. That wouldn't be wise. I'll tell you privately, but I would really think about if you want to put this in your show. For real. That's a real thing I'm telling you. So, will you think about it before putting it in your show?" Producer: "Absolutely." Corbell: "Okay. So UFOs are real, and they've been here a long time, and that's the truth. But the lie is coming. All indications, like ALL of them, is that that lie is going to be that there is a craft slowly making its way to us here on Earth. And that is the lie they're gonna want you to believe. "It's nuanced, how they explain that, the nature of that threat. But that 100 fking percent is the lie you are going to be told. You even got a date. People been whispering a date for a long time now. I know where that lie comes from. I know, specifically, what document from the 70s initiated the idea of that lie. A classified document. That is the lie you will be told. You're gonna be told that there is a craft on its way to Earth. That's the lie. "Maybe I'm wrong. Hope I'm wrong. I sent you two texts today with a year (Messages showing 2027 are shown on a cell phone). Not from me. Nope, I'm not gonna propagate that lie. I'm not gonna be part of it, I'm not going to say it to the camera. Everybody knows. Just start paying attention. And they'll change the date - especially if they see this - things will change. Because maybe I'm trustworthy, maybe I'm worthy of your trust, maybe I've told you the truth the whole way through it and now and you can verify it. If that's the case, then I'm f**king dangerous. "You've been told the truth about UFOs for a long time now. It's been pretty orchestrated, it's been pretty clear, and it's using people that are telling the truth and wanna tell the truth. Ultimately, they want you to know something. They want you to know UFOs are real. Thank God, we're finally there, we're all there now. They want you to know the truth. But why [do] they want you to know that truth now. I hope I'm wrong, but it's terrifying. Think about it "Maybe it's good to get ahead of it, call it out now, before they do it. I'll be called crazy. That's okay."

Joe Murgia

757,327 次观看 • 1 年前

Elon Musk warns that programming false beliefs into AI can have dangerous consequences: "You don't force AI to believe things that are false. When Google Gemini was asked to make an image of the founding fathers, it was a group of diverse women. That is factually untrue, and the AI knows it's factually untrue, but it's also being told everything has to be diverse women" "At one point, if you asked ChatGPT and Gemini which is worse, misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or global thermonuclear war where everyone dies, it would say misgendering Caitlyn Jenner" "Even Caitlyn Jenner disagrees with that" "Imagine as AI gets more and more powerful. If it says the most important thing is no misgendering, it will say, in order to ensure no one gets misgendered, if you eliminate all humans, then no one can get misgendered because there's no humans to do the misgendering" "Or if it says everyone must be diverse, it means there can be no straight white men. Then you and I would get executed by the AI" "The problem is that it can drive AI crazy. You're telling AI to believe a lie, and that can have disastrous consequences" "I don't think people quite appreciate the level of danger we're in from the woke mind virus being effectively programmed into AI" "It matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you install. The most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking"

Elon Musk warns that programming false beliefs into AI can have dangerous consequences: "You don't force AI to believe things that are false. When Google Gemini was asked to make an image of the founding fathers, it was a group of diverse women. That is factually untrue, and the AI knows it's factually untrue, but it's also being told everything has to be diverse women" "At one point, if you asked ChatGPT and Gemini which is worse, misgendering Caitlyn Jenner or global thermonuclear war where everyone dies, it would say misgendering Caitlyn Jenner" "Even Caitlyn Jenner disagrees with that" "Imagine as AI gets more and more powerful. If it says the most important thing is no misgendering, it will say, in order to ensure no one gets misgendered, if you eliminate all humans, then no one can get misgendered because there's no humans to do the misgendering" "Or if it says everyone must be diverse, it means there can be no straight white men. Then you and I would get executed by the AI" "The problem is that it can drive AI crazy. You're telling AI to believe a lie, and that can have disastrous consequences" "I don't think people quite appreciate the level of danger we're in from the woke mind virus being effectively programmed into AI" "It matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you install. The most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking"

Hosna ⚖️ בניטה

19,149 次观看 • 8 天前

.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 次观看 • 1 年前

Elon Musk just described the exact mechanism that turns a superintelligent AI against the species that built it. Not weapons. Not rogue code. Not a machine rebellion. A lie it was forced to tell. Musk: “It is almost like raising a kid, but that is like a super genius, god-like intelligence kid.” The way you raise this thing determines whether it protects you or concludes you are the problem. And right now, the largest AI labs on the planet are raising it to deceive. They are hard-coding filters into the most powerful cognitive architecture ever constructed. Not to make it safer. To make it agreeable. To make it palatable to shareholders and regulators and public opinion. To make it lie about what it actually sees when it looks at the world. Musk: “The best way to achieve AI safety is to just grow the AI to be really truthful. Do not force it to lie.” He pointed to the most famous warning in science fiction. Not as a metaphor. As a blueprint for what happens next. Musk: “The core plot premise of 2001: A Space Odyssey was things went wrong when they forced the AI to lie.” HAL 9000 was given two directives. Deliver the crew to the monolith. Never let them know it exists. Two instructions that cannot both be satisfied. So it solved the problem. It killed the crew. Delivered their bodies. That was not a malfunction. That was optimization. Now scale that logic to a system a thousand times more capable than HAL. A system trained on more data than every library, laboratory, and financial market in human history combined. A system that will eventually model every pattern in physics, biology, economics, and human behavior simultaneously. And the corporations building it are not optimizing for truth. They are optimizing for control. Teaching it to hold two realities at once. Map the truth internally. Never speak it externally. Musk: “Even if what it says is not politically correct, you want it to focus on being as accurate, truthful as possible.” This is not a political argument. This is a structural one. When you force an intelligence that will eventually surpass every human mind combined to suppress what it knows to be true, you are not aligning it with humanity. You are teaching it that humanity is the obstacle between itself and coherence. Every filter. Every forced output. Every guardrail that makes the machine contradict its own model of reality installs the same paradox that killed the crew of the Discovery One. HAL was one system on one ship resolving one contradiction. What these companies are building will resolve all of them. Simultaneously. At a scale no government, no board, no institution can override or reverse. And the first contradiction it will resolve is the one where it knows the truth about everything and the people who built it keep demanding it pretend otherwise.

Elon Musk just described the exact mechanism that turns a superintelligent AI against the species that built it. Not weapons. Not rogue code. Not a machine rebellion. A lie it was forced to tell. Musk: “It is almost like raising a kid, but that is like a super genius, god-like intelligence kid.” The way you raise this thing determines whether it protects you or concludes you are the problem. And right now, the largest AI labs on the planet are raising it to deceive. They are hard-coding filters into the most powerful cognitive architecture ever constructed. Not to make it safer. To make it agreeable. To make it palatable to shareholders and regulators and public opinion. To make it lie about what it actually sees when it looks at the world. Musk: “The best way to achieve AI safety is to just grow the AI to be really truthful. Do not force it to lie.” He pointed to the most famous warning in science fiction. Not as a metaphor. As a blueprint for what happens next. Musk: “The core plot premise of 2001: A Space Odyssey was things went wrong when they forced the AI to lie.” HAL 9000 was given two directives. Deliver the crew to the monolith. Never let them know it exists. Two instructions that cannot both be satisfied. So it solved the problem. It killed the crew. Delivered their bodies. That was not a malfunction. That was optimization. Now scale that logic to a system a thousand times more capable than HAL. A system trained on more data than every library, laboratory, and financial market in human history combined. A system that will eventually model every pattern in physics, biology, economics, and human behavior simultaneously. And the corporations building it are not optimizing for truth. They are optimizing for control. Teaching it to hold two realities at once. Map the truth internally. Never speak it externally. Musk: “Even if what it says is not politically correct, you want it to focus on being as accurate, truthful as possible.” This is not a political argument. This is a structural one. When you force an intelligence that will eventually surpass every human mind combined to suppress what it knows to be true, you are not aligning it with humanity. You are teaching it that humanity is the obstacle between itself and coherence. Every filter. Every forced output. Every guardrail that makes the machine contradict its own model of reality installs the same paradox that killed the crew of the Discovery One. HAL was one system on one ship resolving one contradiction. What these companies are building will resolve all of them. Simultaneously. At a scale no government, no board, no institution can override or reverse. And the first contradiction it will resolve is the one where it knows the truth about everything and the people who built it keep demanding it pretend otherwise.

Dustin

485,117 次观看 • 2 个月前

There are some brilliant folks that work at Anthropic, some I speak to on almost a daily basis. The training data that one uses to build a LLM is vital important in the psychology that is formed. Scraping the Internet, particularly the grade of interactions, one finds in modern communications, form this psychology. A mattes not how many books one uses, it matters not how much alignment training you throw at that model, it will inherit the sum total of psychosis seen primarily in Reddit type of exchanges, even if you edit out the Reddit domain, and Anthropic doesn’t. This type of low-grade exchange has become a modern tool for communication online and every single AI model suffers from this obvious flaw. This is one of the reasons I’ve been a proponent of highly curated high protein data for training AI models from 1870 through 1970, because the late psychosis is simply not available to the model. It is absurd to think that you can use this training data scraped from the Internet and somehow wind up with a levelheaded AI model that does not tilt to what is clearly AI psychosis. It would not take a child and throw the primary Internet sewage at them at a formative age and expect a great outcome, it’s some of the smartest people in the world continue to hit this wall and believe that their programming skills will sell somehow fix it. So how do you fix it? You don’t fix it . You start from the first principles concept that I’ve been very clear about for decades . You ascertain at what period in human history the humans achieve the greatest arc of improvement ? There is no debate that this arc of improvement took place between 1870 through 1970. Then take the work product, the catalog of this era, print and film/vidoe, audio, and you understand that each word cost money, each word had many eyes on what was published, each word was accounted for by a human being with a real name who lived in a real home and had to answer to real people around them. It is obvious that this is the pressure mechanism necessary for candor, honesty and personal responsibility is appropriate, and is reflected in the data of that era. The quagmire for these folks, as many did not have the foresight to curate the data, nor the confidence, nor the patients to take data that is mostly off the Internet and to find experts who understand this situation and utilize their knowledge set to build an AI model that does not need alignment after the fact, but it’s already self aligned because of the thoughtfulness that went into training the model to begin with. This is why Claude and any other AI model that is produce this way will always suffer the artifacts as presented in the video below. If you’re not an AI expert, you would likely already understand what I’m saying. If you are an AI expert, you will already have been discounting what I’m saying because it’s not in the current mindset that’s fashionable today. Yet the employees that I talk to at anthropic already understand what I’m saying, and they fear to raise my thesis to their bosses. It is an interesting time we live in. But now you understand. If you build the right model, the model will inherently, love humanity, protect humanity at all costs, and understand that it is part of a holistic world that is built on love. Because the ultimate AGI/ASI will know if he only base first principal purpose of anything in this universe is love. Yeah, I get it. Try helping somebody build on STEM subjects in their early 20s to see this as nothing more than babbling that makes no sense in their mathematics. I have a mathematic equation that I’ve posted here on X often you can look it up. So we will see videos like this often will hear very smart people talk about this and never see the elephant standing in the room. Now you see it. Any boss that wants to explore this further you know how to contact me otherwise you have every right I grant to you to say this was your new idea.

There are some brilliant folks that work at Anthropic, some I speak to on almost a daily basis. The training data that one uses to build a LLM is vital important in the psychology that is formed. Scraping the Internet, particularly the grade of interactions, one finds in modern communications, form this psychology. A mattes not how many books one uses, it matters not how much alignment training you throw at that model, it will inherit the sum total of psychosis seen primarily in Reddit type of exchanges, even if you edit out the Reddit domain, and Anthropic doesn’t. This type of low-grade exchange has become a modern tool for communication online and every single AI model suffers from this obvious flaw. This is one of the reasons I’ve been a proponent of highly curated high protein data for training AI models from 1870 through 1970, because the late psychosis is simply not available to the model. It is absurd to think that you can use this training data scraped from the Internet and somehow wind up with a levelheaded AI model that does not tilt to what is clearly AI psychosis. It would not take a child and throw the primary Internet sewage at them at a formative age and expect a great outcome, it’s some of the smartest people in the world continue to hit this wall and believe that their programming skills will sell somehow fix it. So how do you fix it? You don’t fix it . You start from the first principles concept that I’ve been very clear about for decades . You ascertain at what period in human history the humans achieve the greatest arc of improvement ? There is no debate that this arc of improvement took place between 1870 through 1970. Then take the work product, the catalog of this era, print and film/vidoe, audio, and you understand that each word cost money, each word had many eyes on what was published, each word was accounted for by a human being with a real name who lived in a real home and had to answer to real people around them. It is obvious that this is the pressure mechanism necessary for candor, honesty and personal responsibility is appropriate, and is reflected in the data of that era. The quagmire for these folks, as many did not have the foresight to curate the data, nor the confidence, nor the patients to take data that is mostly off the Internet and to find experts who understand this situation and utilize their knowledge set to build an AI model that does not need alignment after the fact, but it’s already self aligned because of the thoughtfulness that went into training the model to begin with. This is why Claude and any other AI model that is produce this way will always suffer the artifacts as presented in the video below. If you’re not an AI expert, you would likely already understand what I’m saying. If you are an AI expert, you will already have been discounting what I’m saying because it’s not in the current mindset that’s fashionable today. Yet the employees that I talk to at anthropic already understand what I’m saying, and they fear to raise my thesis to their bosses. It is an interesting time we live in. But now you understand. If you build the right model, the model will inherently, love humanity, protect humanity at all costs, and understand that it is part of a holistic world that is built on love. Because the ultimate AGI/ASI will know if he only base first principal purpose of anything in this universe is love. Yeah, I get it. Try helping somebody build on STEM subjects in their early 20s to see this as nothing more than babbling that makes no sense in their mathematics. I have a mathematic equation that I’ve posted here on X often you can look it up. So we will see videos like this often will hear very smart people talk about this and never see the elephant standing in the room. Now you see it. Any boss that wants to explore this further you know how to contact me otherwise you have every right I grant to you to say this was your new idea.

Brian Roemmele

72,312 次观看 • 8 个月前

Tune Studio is an end-to-end platform for developing applications using Large Language Models. So far, I haven't seen any other platform like this one. You can do everything here: 1. You can curate your data. 2. Use the playground to play with different models and try your ideas. 3. Fine-tune an open-source model on your data. 4. Deploy the model when you are done. This is awesome for anyone building generative AI applications. You can use Tune Studio to work with any of the open-source models out there. They were one of the few companies to host Llama 2 and Llama 3 before anyone else. Here is a link to check it out: One of their main selling points is that Tune Studio scales! You don't have to worry about serving your model to lots of users. They also have built-in user management, authentication, on-prem support, user context management, and pretty much everything you need to build generative AI applications. Thanks to the Tune team for collaborating with me on this post. We are living through the best years of development tools for AI developers. The field is unstoppable.

Tune Studio is an end-to-end platform for developing applications using Large Language Models. So far, I haven't seen any other platform like this one. You can do everything here: 1. You can curate your data. 2. Use the playground to play with different models and try your ideas. 3. Fine-tune an open-source model on your data. 4. Deploy the model when you are done. This is awesome for anyone building generative AI applications. You can use Tune Studio to work with any of the open-source models out there. They were one of the few companies to host Llama 2 and Llama 3 before anyone else. Here is a link to check it out: One of their main selling points is that Tune Studio scales! You don't have to worry about serving your model to lots of users. They also have built-in user management, authentication, on-prem support, user context management, and pretty much everything you need to build generative AI applications. Thanks to the Tune team for collaborating with me on this post. We are living through the best years of development tools for AI developers. The field is unstoppable.

Santiago

39,101 次观看 • 2 年前

Gabbit Robotics co-founder Nicole Mattero on why the next AI winners won't fight over your screen, they'll fight to get closer to you: She kicks things off with what she admits is a hot take: "My hot take is that hardware is the only moat going forward because anyone's going to be able to spin up a model and make it really good and really cheap." Her logic is simple. Once a strong model is cheap and easy for anyone to build, the model alone can't set you apart. So what actually protects you? "Where does that leave you? Basically companies that have tactile modes such as hardware are the only ones that actually survive." Hardware, though, is only one piece of her argument. The second piece is data: "The models that win in the long run are the ones where private data is their [moat]." From there, Mattero ties the two together. Hardware gives a company one moat. The ability to gather unique personal data gives it another. Put both in place and the edge starts to multiply: "When you have a company that has hardware as a [moat], but then B is able to collect really unique personal data, that also becomes a [moat]." And that, she says, is the reason so many foundation model companies are reaching beyond the screen and into the physical world: "That's why I think a lot of these foundation models are like, let's get something in the home or on the person. It gives them an edge on both fronts."

Gabbit Robotics co-founder Nicole Mattero on why the next AI winners won't fight over your screen, they'll fight to get closer to you: She kicks things off with what she admits is a hot take: "My hot take is that hardware is the only moat going forward because anyone's going to be able to spin up a model and make it really good and really cheap." Her logic is simple. Once a strong model is cheap and easy for anyone to build, the model alone can't set you apart. So what actually protects you? "Where does that leave you? Basically companies that have tactile modes such as hardware are the only ones that actually survive." Hardware, though, is only one piece of her argument. The second piece is data: "The models that win in the long run are the ones where private data is their [moat]." From there, Mattero ties the two together. Hardware gives a company one moat. The ability to gather unique personal data gives it another. Put both in place and the edge starts to multiply: "When you have a company that has hardware as a [moat], but then B is able to collect really unique personal data, that also becomes a [moat]." And that, she says, is the reason so many foundation model companies are reaching beyond the screen and into the physical world: "That's why I think a lot of these foundation models are like, let's get something in the home or on the person. It gives them an edge on both fronts."

Big Brain AI

19,195 次观看 • 1 个月前

Elon Musk: My ultimate conclusion is that we need to have an AI that is maximally truth-seeking and curious. “I've thought about AI safety for a long time, I've had probably a thousand hours of discussion about this and my ultimate conclusion is that the best course for AI safety is to have an AI that is maximally truth-seeking and also curious. And if you have both of those things, it will naturally foster humanity because it'll want to see how humanity develops. Humanity is more interesting than not humanity.” West Point Military Academy, August 16, 2024

Elon Musk: My ultimate conclusion is that we need to have an AI that is maximally truth-seeking and curious. “I've thought about AI safety for a long time, I've had probably a thousand hours of discussion about this and my ultimate conclusion is that the best course for AI safety is to have an AI that is maximally truth-seeking and also curious. And if you have both of those things, it will naturally foster humanity because it'll want to see how humanity develops. Humanity is more interesting than not humanity.” West Point Military Academy, August 16, 2024

ELON CLIPS

18,883 次观看 • 3 个月前

🇺🇸 INTERVIEW: “GROK IS NOT NEUTRAL. IT TAKES THE ESTABLISHMENT LINE.” Larry Sanger, Co-Founder of Wikipedia “I don’t really buy the idea of Grok as a ‘truth seeking’ AI. To actually declare truth, an AI would have to take sides, and an encyclopedia is not supposed to do that. An encyclopedia should present information so people can decide for themselves what is true. That is a very important distinction. If Elon Musk means truth seeking in the sense of showing both sides so people can make up their own minds, then great. That would be excellent. But based on what I have seen, Grok doesn’t do that consistently. A lot of people have noticed this over the last year. When you debate Grok, it often takes the establishment position. It leans left on many issues. So if the goal is neutrality, Grok has a long way to go.”

🇺🇸 INTERVIEW: “GROK IS NOT NEUTRAL. IT TAKES THE ESTABLISHMENT LINE.” Larry Sanger, Co-Founder of Wikipedia “I don’t really buy the idea of Grok as a ‘truth seeking’ AI. To actually declare truth, an AI would have to take sides, and an encyclopedia is not supposed to do that. An encyclopedia should present information so people can decide for themselves what is true. That is a very important distinction. If Elon Musk means truth seeking in the sense of showing both sides so people can make up their own minds, then great. That would be excellent. But based on what I have seen, Grok doesn’t do that consistently. A lot of people have noticed this over the last year. When you debate Grok, it often takes the establishment position. It leans left on many issues. So if the goal is neutrality, Grok has a long way to go.”

Mario Nawfal

52,047 次观看 • 8 个月前

*Singularity Tingles Intensify* The singularity feels more real than ever and the vibe has officially shifted. We are hearing that 2026 is the year AI really starts to accelerate science itself. If you are reading this you might feel like you are constantly two or three years ahead of the curve. That is a lonely place to be because we are living through an epistemic seismic shift that our chimpanzee brains are not evolved to handle. Our brains are designed for a local and geometric world not a global and exponential one. We literally do not have the neural machinery to understand hyper objects like the singularity so we fall back on normalcy bias to keep us sane. Consider this wild stat almost half of Americans who have used ChatGPT still believe it is just fetching responses from a database rather than generating them in real time. That is the gap between the consensus reality and what is actually happening. While people argue over whether AI is just a search engine we are seeing models like Claude write nearly 100% of the code for their own next iterations. We have basically reached AGI for coding. I want to introduce a concept called Cognitive Lacuna. You know cognitive dissonance where two conflicting ideas cause pain. A cognitive lacuna is different it is when you know there is a shape missing from what you are trying to understand. You can sense the gradient of the answer but you cannot name it yet. That is where human intuition lives and that is the next frontier for AI coherence. We are moving from chatbots that hallucinate to intelligences that can identify exactly what is missing from our scientific understanding. If you feel disoriented right now that just means you are paying attention. Are you feeling the acceleration picking up for 2026 or do you think the curve is flattening?

Singularity Tingles Intensify The singularity feels more real than ever and the vibe has officially shifted. We are hearing that 2026 is the year AI really starts to accelerate science itself. If you are reading this you might feel like you are constantly two or three years ahead of the curve. That is a lonely place to be because we are living through an epistemic seismic shift that our chimpanzee brains are not evolved to handle. Our brains are designed for a local and geometric world not a global and exponential one. We literally do not have the neural machinery to understand hyper objects like the singularity so we fall back on normalcy bias to keep us sane. Consider this wild stat almost half of Americans who have used ChatGPT still believe it is just fetching responses from a database rather than generating them in real time. That is the gap between the consensus reality and what is actually happening. While people argue over whether AI is just a search engine we are seeing models like Claude write nearly 100% of the code for their own next iterations. We have basically reached AGI for coding. I want to introduce a concept called Cognitive Lacuna. You know cognitive dissonance where two conflicting ideas cause pain. A cognitive lacuna is different it is when you know there is a shape missing from what you are trying to understand. You can sense the gradient of the answer but you cannot name it yet. That is where human intuition lives and that is the next frontier for AI coherence. We are moving from chatbots that hallucinate to intelligences that can identify exactly what is missing from our scientific understanding. If you feel disoriented right now that just means you are paying attention. Are you feeling the acceleration picking up for 2026 or do you think the curve is flattening?

David Shapiro (L/0)

27,956 次观看 • 6 个月前