Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

This was another great question from Bret Baier tonight, with a great follow-up: Q: "What do you say to people who look at this and say the American government could throttle back some companies and set up regulations, but we have no control over what China or India does?"... Jacob Coxon: "You have to think of this arms race. This technology is not ordinary technology. It’s not like other forms of innovation. This is essentially a super weapon. And I think that I expect the international community to be ready to make agreements about how to control the development of super weapon technology." Bret's follow-up Q: "So people would say, if you say it’s like an arms race, then we dealt with nuclear weapons and kind of a standoff with mutual assured destruction and worked with allies and enemies to say, 'We have got the stuff, too. Don’t think that you’re going to get away with anything.' So does that work against what you’re saying?" Coxon: "Unfortunately we know how to control nuclear weapons pretty much. We don’t yet know how to control AI. This is possibly the most dangerous technology that humanity has ever created. It’s basically out of science fiction. I think we have no other choice but to cooperate internationally..."show more

Peter J. Hasson

72,391 subscribers

34,948 views • 2 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology Education News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

26 Comments

Peter J. Hasson2 days ago

(And of course, anybody who remembers the Paris Climate Accords knows how "international cooperation" will go: America sabotaging its economy while enemies surge ahead)

Gregg Re2 days ago

A better question would be: “you worked at this company for six weeks. Then you quit with tons of national news coverage. What do you say to people — since I can’t actually ask a question myself — who say it sounds like you’re a plant who was hired by Anthropic for precisely this purpose?”

El Villegas2 days ago

@BretBaier Open- source models are approaching OpenAI’s most powerful models. Stopping people from using and improving them would require a hyper-vigilant global superstate, a global dictatorship.

Jack Burton2 days ago

@BretBaier Why are we caring what Harry Potter thinks?

Mister Fillmore2 days ago

@BretBaier "We know how to control Nuclear weapons pretty much...". Yeah. But we didn't at the beginning back in the 40's. So why would you say that about AI when it's in it's infancy now? We'll need to figure that out, but opting out isn't an answer.

WolvenOne2 days ago

@BretBaier The fact that this guy insists we don't know how to control AI is a dead giveaway that he's full of it. No, controlling AI is easy, it's called three feet of empty air! This is not some unstoppable super weapon, no matter what these lying maniacs tell you.

StarGazer842 days ago

@BretBaier

Common Sense2 days ago

@BretBaier China could not be reached for comment. 😂😂😂😂😂

coyote2 days ago

@BretBaier No we ain't cooperating internationally, Scary Potter. Time to go back to your muggles and let the Americans handle the magic

F222 days ago

@BretBaier "nuclear weapons, killing everybody" ? did he get his talking points from Dwarkesh Patel we will manage the risk, stop panicking human intelligence is declining, worry about that

markglasgow2 days ago

@BretBaier Kid’s in a cult

BongBong2 days ago

@BretBaier That kid can take his Leftist anti-AI cult propaganda and stuff it. AFAIC, he's no better than an agent of the CCP.

Nick Papageorgio2 days ago

@BretBaier

🫧🛸Piper🏝️Paprika🛸🫧2 days ago

@BretBaier I thought that was Harry Potter for a sec

Rob Nichols2 days ago

@BretBaier I for one will embrace my new AI overlords!

G.J.Quartermaine 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿2 days ago

@BretBaier I wouldn't take the advice of a mid-level tech nerd on what brand of coffee to drink.

𝙰𝚐𝚎𝚗𝚝𝙼𝚌𝙵𝚕𝚢2 days ago

@BretBaier So naive

Patricia Vinson2 days ago

@BretBaier That guy only worked for two weeks. He knows nothing.

Mike2 days ago

@BretBaier There it is. Cooperate internationally. Bernies best friend.

Benjamin2 days ago

@BretBaier Naive. China will NEVER cooperate as he envisions. This is the death of democracy and the dawn of Chinese domination.

Samuel Gabriel 🇺🇸2 days ago

@BretBaier It's a psyop the whistle blower

StrangerinaStrangeMeme2 days ago

@BretBaier Let's see him do an AskMeAnything cause this was a preplanned interview with all questions and answers agreed before hand.

Chet2 days ago

@BretBaier He shows his ignorance in plain sight… yes it’s an arms race. Then his conclusion is horse shit. Which should cause you to question any aspect of his judgement.

JY2 days ago

@BretBaier

Alex 3yb0^2 days ago

@BretBaier You are making him look good 🙃

The Tao of Waffle2 days ago

@BretBaier Controlling it should be pretty simple... unplug it.

Related Videos

TERRIFYING: Former Anthropic AI Systems Developer Jacob Coxon: “We know how to control nuclear weapons pretty much. We DON’T YET know how to control AI. This is possibly the most DANGEROUS technology that humanity has ever created. It’s basically out of science fiction.” “I think we have NO OTHER choice but to cooperate internationally because an arms race would be disastrous in a way that no other human activity has been in the past.”

TERRIFYING: Former Anthropic AI Systems Developer Jacob Coxon: “We know how to control nuclear weapons pretty much. We DON’T YET know how to control AI. This is possibly the most DANGEROUS technology that humanity has ever created. It’s basically out of science fiction.” “I think we have NO OTHER choice but to cooperate internationally because an arms race would be disastrous in a way that no other human activity has been in the past.”

RedWave Press

639,310 views • 2 days ago

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

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

Brian Kight

308,878 views • 1 year ago

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

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

The All-In Podcast

57,581 views • 5 months ago

Sam Altman's new interview: AI should not be designed to pursue goals that are disconnected from human needs. People must remain at the center of AI development. “I have no interest in building a super-smart AI that accomplishes some non-human goals. People should react. People should say, ‘Hey, this is what I want, and this is what I do not want.’ I do not think the issue is that we have failed to explain the benefits. We say, ‘AI is going to cure a bunch of diseases,’ and people say, ‘Okay, that is great, but that is not really my question. My question is: What is my role in the future? What is my economic future? What is my agency? How do I know that my kids and my family will still be able to have fulfilling, creative expression, struggle, drive the world forward, grow, and do this thing together in a way that has worked for a long time?’ When people in AI say, ‘Sure, there are going to be no jobs,’ or ‘50% of jobs are going to go away,’ or ‘90% of jobs are going to go away,’ and ‘AI is going to be smarter than you at everything,’ and ‘We will give you some basic income, but you are not really going to have a role,’ that is horrible. And by the way, if an AI company says, ‘Maybe we are going to destroy all the jobs, and we will be the most valuable company in the world,’ people should look at you like, ‘Yeah, that is a terrible message.’ I do not think the problem is that we have not articulated the upsides. I think people actually believe us. They hear, ‘AI may cure your cancer,’ and they think, ‘That sounds great.’ I think we, as an industry, have failed to explain how people stay in control of determining the future at every step, and how people can still have a meaningful life in all the ways we care about.” ---- From "CNBC Television" YouTube channel, (link in comment)

Sam Altman's new interview: AI should not be designed to pursue goals that are disconnected from human needs. People must remain at the center of AI development. “I have no interest in building a super-smart AI that accomplishes some non-human goals. People should react. People should say, ‘Hey, this is what I want, and this is what I do not want.’ I do not think the issue is that we have failed to explain the benefits. We say, ‘AI is going to cure a bunch of diseases,’ and people say, ‘Okay, that is great, but that is not really my question. My question is: What is my role in the future? What is my economic future? What is my agency? How do I know that my kids and my family will still be able to have fulfilling, creative expression, struggle, drive the world forward, grow, and do this thing together in a way that has worked for a long time?’ When people in AI say, ‘Sure, there are going to be no jobs,’ or ‘50% of jobs are going to go away,’ or ‘90% of jobs are going to go away,’ and ‘AI is going to be smarter than you at everything,’ and ‘We will give you some basic income, but you are not really going to have a role,’ that is horrible. And by the way, if an AI company says, ‘Maybe we are going to destroy all the jobs, and we will be the most valuable company in the world,’ people should look at you like, ‘Yeah, that is a terrible message.’ I do not think the problem is that we have not articulated the upsides. I think people actually believe us. They hear, ‘AI may cure your cancer,’ and they think, ‘That sounds great.’ I think we, as an industry, have failed to explain how people stay in control of determining the future at every step, and how people can still have a meaningful life in all the ways we care about.” ---- From "CNBC Television" YouTube channel, (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

79,111 views • 3 months ago

Chanhyuk: Company doesn’t matter, but it’s about the people you work with. “There’s also something like this. Even though we say we created a “company,” we just used that word because it’s easier for people to understand. But in the end, it’s not really about the company, it’s about the people. Like, who you work with. And what kind of experiences you share with them, that’s what really matters the most. So with these people, whether we go, volunteering or travel somewhere, we always move together as one group. Because if not and later on, when I write and release a song, if we hadn’t shared those experiences, I’d have to explain everything. Like, “I went somewhere and had this kind of experience…” But since we’ve all lived it together, I can just say, “Hey, I wrote this kind of song this time,” and they’ll be like, “Oh, yeah, I get it. I know exactly what that is.” It just makes everything so much faster, right?”

Chanhyuk: Company doesn’t matter, but it’s about the people you work with. “There’s also something like this. Even though we say we created a “company,” we just used that word because it’s easier for people to understand. But in the end, it’s not really about the company, it’s about the people. Like, who you work with. And what kind of experiences you share with them, that’s what really matters the most. So with these people, whether we go, volunteering or travel somewhere, we always move together as one group. Because if not and later on, when I write and release a song, if we hadn’t shared those experiences, I’d have to explain everything. Like, “I went somewhere and had this kind of experience…” But since we’ve all lived it together, I can just say, “Hey, I wrote this kind of song this time,” and they’ll be like, “Oh, yeah, I get it. I know exactly what that is.” It just makes everything so much faster, right?”

akmerch ⚔️

194,243 views • 5 months ago

.President Donald J. Trump: "I have a great relationship with President Xi, and I think it’s going to remain that way. We have a lot of things to discuss. I wouldn’t say Iran is one of them, to be honest with you, because we have Iran very much under control."

.President Donald J. Trump: "I have a great relationship with President Xi, and I think it’s going to remain that way. We have a lot of things to discuss. I wouldn’t say Iran is one of them, to be honest with you, because we have Iran very much under control."

Trump War Room

16,924 views • 4 months ago

Trump: I hope we get cooperation from the courts because you know, we have thousands of people that are ready to go out. And you cannot have a trial for all of these people. The system was not meant that not -- we don't think there is anything that says… We are getting them out. And a judge cannot say no, you have to have a trial. The trial is going to take two years. No, we are going to have a very dangerous country if we are not allowed to do what we are entitled to do.

Trump: I hope we get cooperation from the courts because you know, we have thousands of people that are ready to go out. And you cannot have a trial for all of these people. The system was not meant that not -- we don't think there is anything that says… We are getting them out. And a judge cannot say no, you have to have a trial. The trial is going to take two years. No, we are going to have a very dangerous country if we are not allowed to do what we are entitled to do.

Acyn

327,595 views • 1 year ago

"We know how to control nuclear weapons... We don't yet know how to control AI." Former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon, who recently left the company, is sounding the alarm on artificial intelligence, calling it "possibly the most dangerous technology that humanity has ever created." Coxon, who says he spent three years conducting research at Anthropic and OpenAI, wrote in a viral post on X that the companies are more focused on beating each other to build the most advanced AI models than they are on safety. He says an international AI arms race would be "disastrous," arguing global cooperation is the only way to manage the rapidly advancing technology. Special Report

"We know how to control nuclear weapons... We don't yet know how to control AI." Former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon, who recently left the company, is sounding the alarm on artificial intelligence, calling it "possibly the most dangerous technology that humanity has ever created." Coxon, who says he spent three years conducting research at Anthropic and OpenAI, wrote in a viral post on X that the companies are more focused on beating each other to build the most advanced AI models than they are on safety. He says an international AI arms race would be "disastrous," arguing global cooperation is the only way to manage the rapidly advancing technology. Special Report

Fox News

1,629,302 views • 2 days ago

#WATCH | Delhi: Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi says, "I think a good idea would be that we frame the discussion not on us saying what you have not done and not on you saying what we have not done, but simply saying that what are we going to do for the people in India in the future, what are the action steps that we need to take. So I would say that it would be an interesting experiment to see if instead of you blaming us and we blaming you, we can try and say on this one issue where we agree, there's no disagreement, there we say, listen, let us just talk about the future of people of India." (Source: Sansad TV)

#WATCH | Delhi: Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi says, "I think a good idea would be that we frame the discussion not on us saying what you have not done and not on you saying what we have not done, but simply saying that what are we going to do for the people in India in the future, what are the action steps that we need to take. So I would say that it would be an interesting experiment to see if instead of you blaming us and we blaming you, we can try and say on this one issue where we agree, there's no disagreement, there we say, listen, let us just talk about the future of people of India." (Source: Sansad TV)

ANI

148,497 views • 9 months ago

Wow. BRUTAL words for her fellow liberals from Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky on CNN: “I’m going to speak some hard truths...We are not be party of common sense, which is the message the voters sent to us...When we address Latino voters...as Latinx, for instance, b/c that’s the politically correct thing to do, it makes them think we don’t even live in the same planet as they do. When we are too afraid to say that, hey, college kids, if you're trashing the campus of Columbia University b/c you’re unhappy about some sort of policy and you’re taking over a university and you’re trashing it and preventing other students from learning, that is unacceptable. But we’re so worried about alienating one or another cohort in our coalition that we do not know what to say when normal people look at that and say, wait a second. I send my kids to college so they can learn, not so they can burn buildings and trash lawns, right? And so on and so forth. When we put pronouns after names and say she/her as opposed to saying, you know what, if I call you by the wrong pronoun, call me out. I am sorry. I won't do it again. But stop with the virtue signaling and speak to people like they’re normal. There is nothing that I'm going to say to Shermichael that I’m not going to say to your or I’m not going to say to somebody else. I speak the same language to everybody. But that’s not what Democrats do. We constantly try to parse out different ways of speaking because our focus groups or polling shows that so-and-so appeals to such and such. That’s not how normal people think. It is not common sense and we need to start being the part of common sense again. Joe Biden is not responsible for that, neither is Kamala Harris. That is a problem that Democrats have had for years. I’ve been banging the drum on this for I don’t know how — probably ten years on this. We need to get back to being the party of common sense that people look at us and say we understand you. We appreciate what you say because you speak our language. And, until we do that, we should stop blaming other people for our own mistakes.”

Wow. BRUTAL words for her fellow liberals from Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky on CNN: “I’m going to speak some hard truths...We are not be party of common sense, which is the message the voters sent to us...When we address Latino voters...as Latinx, for instance, b/c that’s the politically correct thing to do, it makes them think we don’t even live in the same planet as they do. When we are too afraid to say that, hey, college kids, if you're trashing the campus of Columbia University b/c you’re unhappy about some sort of policy and you’re taking over a university and you’re trashing it and preventing other students from learning, that is unacceptable. But we’re so worried about alienating one or another cohort in our coalition that we do not know what to say when normal people look at that and say, wait a second. I send my kids to college so they can learn, not so they can burn buildings and trash lawns, right? And so on and so forth. When we put pronouns after names and say she/her as opposed to saying, you know what, if I call you by the wrong pronoun, call me out. I am sorry. I won't do it again. But stop with the virtue signaling and speak to people like they’re normal. There is nothing that I'm going to say to Shermichael that I’m not going to say to your or I’m not going to say to somebody else. I speak the same language to everybody. But that’s not what Democrats do. We constantly try to parse out different ways of speaking because our focus groups or polling shows that so-and-so appeals to such and such. That’s not how normal people think. It is not common sense and we need to start being the part of common sense again. Joe Biden is not responsible for that, neither is Kamala Harris. That is a problem that Democrats have had for years. I’ve been banging the drum on this for I don’t know how — probably ten years on this. We need to get back to being the party of common sense that people look at us and say we understand you. We appreciate what you say because you speak our language. And, until we do that, we should stop blaming other people for our own mistakes.”

Curtis Houck

12,251,735 views • 1 year ago

EARHARDT: We have to fight back. So when you say you don't think America has the appetite to do what we're seeing tonight, I think we do. I think we're ready to see this. TRUMP: Part of the problem is they read the fake news. Because Fox is great. That's the way it should be covered. And if was covered that way, the public would say, 'Wow, what a great situation this is.' We are stopping a very evil nation.

EARHARDT: We have to fight back. So when you say you don't think America has the appetite to do what we're seeing tonight, I think we do. I think we're ready to see this. TRUMP: Part of the problem is they read the fake news. Because Fox is great. That's the way it should be covered. And if was covered that way, the public would say, 'Wow, what a great situation this is.' We are stopping a very evil nation.

Aaron Rupar

48,766 views • 3 months ago

Bill Maher just DRAGGED Billie Eilish in front of everyone over her Grammy comments about “stolen land.” He pointed out that Eilish even admitted, “it’s hard to know what to say,” to which Maher landed a haymaker: “Then don’t say anything, because you don’t know things.” MAHER: “They did not hear me at the Grammys because Billie Eilish, big controversy this week, she said there’s no illegals on stolen land.” “And she said ‘it’s hard to know what to say,’ which I would say, then don’t say anything, because you don’t know things.” “You didn’t go to school, I don’t think, and you don’t know facts.” [Audience laughs] “She said keep fighting and protesting and speaking up. I totally agree with that. She said voices matter, people matter.” “And I would just say so does knowledge.” Maher then tore into the logical fallacy underpinning the whole argument: “What is the practical next step if you say that there’s no such thing as illegal people on stolen land?” “No, of course, immediately the people, the tribe here in California asked for her house.” “Which, I thought was pretty great!” “But what is the practical next step? This is my problem always with things like this from the left that are always so performative.” “Okay, even if we agreed with that stolen land — and yes, lots of land is stolen by the way, not just here — what do we do about that?” “We give it all back and go back to living in teepees?” “What is the practical next step?”

Bill Maher just DRAGGED Billie Eilish in front of everyone over her Grammy comments about “stolen land.” He pointed out that Eilish even admitted, “it’s hard to know what to say,” to which Maher landed a haymaker: “Then don’t say anything, because you don’t know things.” MAHER: “They did not hear me at the Grammys because Billie Eilish, big controversy this week, she said there’s no illegals on stolen land.” “And she said ‘it’s hard to know what to say,’ which I would say, then don’t say anything, because you don’t know things.” “You didn’t go to school, I don’t think, and you don’t know facts.” [Audience laughs] “She said keep fighting and protesting and speaking up. I totally agree with that. She said voices matter, people matter.” “And I would just say so does knowledge.” Maher then tore into the logical fallacy underpinning the whole argument: “What is the practical next step if you say that there’s no such thing as illegal people on stolen land?” “No, of course, immediately the people, the tribe here in California asked for her house.” “Which, I thought was pretty great!” “But what is the practical next step? This is my problem always with things like this from the left that are always so performative.” “Okay, even if we agreed with that stolen land — and yes, lots of land is stolen by the way, not just here — what do we do about that?” “We give it all back and go back to living in teepees?” “What is the practical next step?”

Overton

999,179 views • 7 months ago

Elon 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. I think it’s going to be necessary There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better These are not things that I wish would happen - these are simply things that I think probably will happen If my assessment is correct, then we need to say, ‘What are we going to do about it?’ Universal basic income is going to be necessary The much harder challenge is how do people then have meaning? A lot of people derive their meaning from their employment If you’re not needed, if there’s not a need for your labor, what’s the meaning? Do you have meaning? Do you feel useless? That’s a much harder problem to deal with”

Elon 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. I think it’s going to be necessary There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better These are not things that I wish would happen - these are simply things that I think probably will happen If my assessment is correct, then we need to say, ‘What are we going to do about it?’ Universal basic income is going to be necessary The much harder challenge is how do people then have meaning? A lot of people derive their meaning from their employment If you’re not needed, if there’s not a need for your labor, what’s the meaning? Do you have meaning? Do you feel useless? That’s a much harder problem to deal with”

Zen

37,173 views • 21 days ago

Dario Amodei says AI improving itself is not a moment that is coming, and he put Anthropic's internal number on how fast it is already happening: "I don't think it's a moment in time. I think it's a continuous process. We're already seeing it in some ways, where the AI is able to suggest architectures for the next AI." "I would say a year ago we were seeing 10 to 15% kind of increase in total factor productivity due to AI. Like, that's probably up to 20 or 30% now. It might be doubling. Like, as with all things, we're on the exponential." "There's no moment where AI improves itself or runs out of control or becomes unsafe. What we have is an accelerating exponential. And at each point on the exponential we have to assess, is this a time to slow down? Is this a time to put more controls on this technology? I think more and more of that is going to be required." "But I think the Rosetta Stone to all of this is the smooth exponential." "I think there's an object lesson in the people who were against all AI regulation and then they saw one thing and they wanted to nationalize. I think there's an object lesson in the people who dismissed the power of AI and then said, oh my God, it's improving itself. It's running out of control. We have to shut it all down. Yo-yoing between those extreme reactions is incredibly unhelpful as a response to this technology." "The right response, the wise response, is to say, we're not going to panic. Our countermeasures will smoothly ratchet up with the power of the technology. If you see someone having this kind of crazy yo-yo reaction, that's a sign that they were caught by surprise and that they're not serious." - Dario Amodei (Dario Amodei), CEO of Anthropic, on The Circuit with Emily Chang (Bloomberg Originals).

Dario Amodei says AI improving itself is not a moment that is coming, and he put Anthropic's internal number on how fast it is already happening: "I don't think it's a moment in time. I think it's a continuous process. We're already seeing it in some ways, where the AI is able to suggest architectures for the next AI." "I would say a year ago we were seeing 10 to 15% kind of increase in total factor productivity due to AI. Like, that's probably up to 20 or 30% now. It might be doubling. Like, as with all things, we're on the exponential." "There's no moment where AI improves itself or runs out of control or becomes unsafe. What we have is an accelerating exponential. And at each point on the exponential we have to assess, is this a time to slow down? Is this a time to put more controls on this technology? I think more and more of that is going to be required." "But I think the Rosetta Stone to all of this is the smooth exponential." "I think there's an object lesson in the people who were against all AI regulation and then they saw one thing and they wanted to nationalize. I think there's an object lesson in the people who dismissed the power of AI and then said, oh my God, it's improving itself. It's running out of control. We have to shut it all down. Yo-yoing between those extreme reactions is incredibly unhelpful as a response to this technology." "The right response, the wise response, is to say, we're not going to panic. Our countermeasures will smoothly ratchet up with the power of the technology. If you see someone having this kind of crazy yo-yo reaction, that's a sign that they were caught by surprise and that they're not serious." - Dario Amodei (Dario Amodei), CEO of Anthropic, on The Circuit with Emily Chang (Bloomberg Originals).

Karl Mehta

50,718 views • 1 month ago

For decades you guys we been dealing with this! Y’all so scared to lose your Guns! Seriously that’s the real reason we can’t fix this. Talk to people who own a gun and see. That is the fear not that their kid could die or their love ones can die not that. Losing their right to carry a gun is the bigger fear! WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK IS WRONG WITH US!! It seems to me we still in the “they can’t do that or that can’t happen” phase BUT IT IS HAPPENING WAKE UP! You will have to explain to the next generation why it’s so fucked up now. We can be the ones to change this. But we are PUSSYS! We are so scared of change that we don’t realize that change don’t give a fuck about our fear. It’s gonna happen with or without you. But we have the chance now to work with change to make it better. If not get ready for the fuckedupness(yea I made a word) that’s about to occur! Not one of you, NOT ONE OF US, can say “how did this happen” we know we let it happen! GET OUT OF YOUR OWN SHIT AND PARTICIPATE YOU LIVE HERE TOOO!! UGHHHHH! #sosickofus

For decades you guys we been dealing with this! Y’all so scared to lose your Guns! Seriously that’s the real reason we can’t fix this. Talk to people who own a gun and see. That is the fear not that their kid could die or their love ones can die not that. Losing their right to carry a gun is the bigger fear! WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK IS WRONG WITH US!! It seems to me we still in the “they can’t do that or that can’t happen” phase BUT IT IS HAPPENING WAKE UP! You will have to explain to the next generation why it’s so fucked up now. We can be the ones to change this. But we are PUSSYS! We are so scared of change that we don’t realize that change don’t give a fuck about our fear. It’s gonna happen with or without you. But we have the chance now to work with change to make it better. If not get ready for the fuckedupness(yea I made a word) that’s about to occur! Not one of you, NOT ONE OF US, can say “how did this happen” we know we let it happen! GET OUT OF YOUR OWN SHIT AND PARTICIPATE YOU LIVE HERE TOOO!! UGHHHHH! #sosickofus

Leslie Jones 🦋

217,765 views • 2 years ago

Tim Dillon: “The plan is to have a world war where we eliminate 4 billion people.” “What else would you do?” “Prosecute those people that are having sex with kids?” “But that seems so complicated.” “They all have lawyers.” “Making homes affordable again is really not that easy.” “And then the boomers are gonna get mad.” “They’re gonna go, my money’s in my house, why are you stealing my money?” “You want them mad at you?” “4 billion people will have to be killed over the next 24 months so that we can finally start to get back to what matters here.” “I don’t say this to try to be a Debbie Downer.” “I think this has been decided.” “We’re gonna use nuclear weapons and hypersonic missiles and hydrogen bombs and large swaths of the planet are going to be uninhabitable for a period of time.” “And there’s a lot of underground bases that people have been getting ready for this type of event.” “Again, I don’t want people to get mad at me for this.” “Because when I go to dinner with people and they say, what do you think happens, and I go, I think quite honestly, we have to eliminate half the world’s population in the next 24 months, you would not believe the attitude that you get.” “Am I open to more than half?” “Yes.” “4-6 billion people in the next 24 months.” “I think that’s the plan.” Tim Dillon

Tim Dillon: “The plan is to have a world war where we eliminate 4 billion people.” “What else would you do?” “Prosecute those people that are having sex with kids?” “But that seems so complicated.” “They all have lawyers.” “Making homes affordable again is really not that easy.” “And then the boomers are gonna get mad.” “They’re gonna go, my money’s in my house, why are you stealing my money?” “You want them mad at you?” “4 billion people will have to be killed over the next 24 months so that we can finally start to get back to what matters here.” “I don’t say this to try to be a Debbie Downer.” “I think this has been decided.” “We’re gonna use nuclear weapons and hypersonic missiles and hydrogen bombs and large swaths of the planet are going to be uninhabitable for a period of time.” “And there’s a lot of underground bases that people have been getting ready for this type of event.” “Again, I don’t want people to get mad at me for this.” “Because when I go to dinner with people and they say, what do you think happens, and I go, I think quite honestly, we have to eliminate half the world’s population in the next 24 months, you would not believe the attitude that you get.” “Am I open to more than half?” “Yes.” “4-6 billion people in the next 24 months.” “I think that’s the plan.” Tim Dillon

Holden Culotta

831,318 views • 6 months ago