Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Vinod Khosla on why he does not really prefer "AI co-pilots". Because he thinks "humans get in the way of co-pilots", which slows everything down and blocks real change. He says workers like accountants and programmers do not actually want co-pilots, because they feel their jobs are at risk...

rohanpaul_ai's profile picture

Rohan Paul

156,194 subscribers

38,438 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & PolitikaBilim & Teknoloji
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

A man from Chicago says that people should not be working certain jobs in this country if they cannot speak English properly. He explained that he went to the DMV and could not understand one of the workers because the employee did not speak English clearly.
0:42

A man from Chicago says that people should not be working certain jobs in this country if they cannot speak English properly. He explained that he went to the DMV and could not understand one of the workers because the employee did not speak English clearly.

Goofies Of Chicago

39,894 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Baykar Chairman and CTO Selçuk Bayraktar compares AI-powered combat drones to the computer that defeated Garry Kasparov, arguing that the comparison between human pilots and autonomous aircraft is becoming obsolete. “There is no human in this aircraft. It can do everything a manned aircraft does — and more,” he says, emphasizing that autonomous systems are cheaper and eliminate the years of training and human risk associated with fighter pilots: “The human is truly the most expensive element.”
1:02

Baykar Chairman and CTO Selçuk Bayraktar compares AI-powered combat drones to the computer that defeated Garry Kasparov, arguing that the comparison between human pilots and autonomous aircraft is becoming obsolete. “There is no human in this aircraft. It can do everything a manned aircraft does — and more,” he says, emphasizing that autonomous systems are cheaper and eliminate the years of training and human risk associated with fighter pilots: “The human is truly the most expensive element.”

Clash Report

22,974 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

One line from Prasanna Sankar has stayed with me: "You're not helping AI anymore. You're getting in the way by being in the way." That's exactly why he's building Vorflux Not another AI coding assistant. His vision is an autonomous AI software engineer that can build software with minimal human involvement. Coming from someone who was India's #1 competitive programmer, helped build Rippling into a $15B company, and once turned down Facebook's $100M acquisition offer, it's a perspective worth paying attention to. In this conversation, we go deep on: • Why AI has already surpassed humans at software engineering. • Why tools like Cursor and Claude Code are only the beginning—and how Vorflux is thinking differently. • Why the engineer of the future becomes a "builder." • The story behind building Rippling and starting over from scratch. • Why he turned down Facebook's $100M acquisition offer. • Why he believes we're moving toward zero-employee companies. • What humans will be uniquely valuable for in an AI-first world. One of the most thought-provoking conversations I've had on AI and the future of software. Full conversation is now live on the 1947 Rise Podcast. Link in comments Prasanna S Vorflux
1:21

One line from Prasanna Sankar has stayed with me: "You're not helping AI anymore. You're getting in the way by being in the way." That's exactly why he's building Vorflux Not another AI coding assistant. His vision is an autonomous AI software engineer that can build software with minimal human involvement. Coming from someone who was India's #1 competitive programmer, helped build Rippling into a $15B company, and once turned down Facebook's $100M acquisition offer, it's a perspective worth paying attention to. In this conversation, we go deep on: • Why AI has already surpassed humans at software engineering. • Why tools like Cursor and Claude Code are only the beginning—and how Vorflux is thinking differently. • Why the engineer of the future becomes a "builder." • The story behind building Rippling and starting over from scratch. • Why he turned down Facebook's $100M acquisition offer. • Why he believes we're moving toward zero-employee companies. • What humans will be uniquely valuable for in an AI-first world. One of the most thought-provoking conversations I've had on AI and the future of software. Full conversation is now live on the 1947 Rise Podcast. Link in comments Prasanna S Vorflux

Shiva Singh Sangwan

72,216 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Why “technology always creates new jobs” will not work this time. - From ex-OpenAI researcher Daniel Kokotajlo, and the founder of the AI Futures Project. Previous technological automation replaced particular tasks while leaving humans better at the new ones that emerged. Superintelligence, by definition, breaks that pattern because it is, by definition, better than humans across every task—not merely the old jobs. --- He is the founder of the AI Futures Project, and the lead author of 'AI 2027,’ the famous report mapping the trajectory of AI From "The Diary Of A CEO" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)
1:39

Why “technology always creates new jobs” will not work this time. - From ex-OpenAI researcher Daniel Kokotajlo, and the founder of the AI Futures Project. Previous technological automation replaced particular tasks while leaving humans better at the new ones that emerged. Superintelligence, by definition, breaks that pattern because it is, by definition, better than humans across every task—not merely the old jobs. --- He is the founder of the AI Futures Project, and the lead author of 'AI 2027,’ the famous report mapping the trajectory of AI From "The Diary Of A CEO" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

Rohan Paul

13,732 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Andrej Karpathy just told you exactly what humans will be used for in the AI era. Not partners. Not masters. He used the word “actuators.” Karpathy: “The intelligence ends up puppeteering almost a little bit, like humanity. Humans are kind of like its actuators. But humans are also like its sensors.” This is not a novelist guessing at the future. This is a founding researcher at OpenAI and former Director of AI at Tesla. One of the most respected minds in the field, and one of the few willing to say out loud what the rest are thinking. He is not describing a risk. He is describing a design. In any system, the processor decides. Sensors collect. Actuators execute. The system does not consult its actuators. We are no longer the processor. Karpathy: “Society will kind of reshape in a certain way to serve that. Humans will be serving those needs of that machine.” The machine does not adapt to us. We adapt to it. We become the biological layer it runs on. We perceive what it cannot perceive. We move what it cannot move. We are the nervous system of something that no longer requires our judgment. Most people are still waiting for AI to become a tool they can direct. He helped build it. He just told you that you are the tool.
0:34

Andrej Karpathy just told you exactly what humans will be used for in the AI era. Not partners. Not masters. He used the word “actuators.” Karpathy: “The intelligence ends up puppeteering almost a little bit, like humanity. Humans are kind of like its actuators. But humans are also like its sensors.” This is not a novelist guessing at the future. This is a founding researcher at OpenAI and former Director of AI at Tesla. One of the most respected minds in the field, and one of the few willing to say out loud what the rest are thinking. He is not describing a risk. He is describing a design. In any system, the processor decides. Sensors collect. Actuators execute. The system does not consult its actuators. We are no longer the processor. Karpathy: “Society will kind of reshape in a certain way to serve that. Humans will be serving those needs of that machine.” The machine does not adapt to us. We adapt to it. We become the biological layer it runs on. We perceive what it cannot perceive. We move what it cannot move. We are the nervous system of something that no longer requires our judgment. Most people are still waiting for AI to become a tool they can direct. He helped build it. He just told you that you are the tool.

Dustin

59,474 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO, on why top programmers won't be replaced by AI, they'll be amplified by it: He starts with an observation about the existing hierarchy in software: "The very top programmers were worth 10 times more than the ones right below. There's something special about the mathematical reasoning skills of programmers." Rather than flattening that gap, he argues AI will widen it: "Those people will become more valuable, not less valuable, because these systems need to be controlled by humans at the moment. Those people will be capable of grasping the parallelization and the activities of this." To show what this amplification actually looks like in practice, Eric shares a story from a startup he's involved with. He was talking to one of the programmers there, who works on UIs, about his daily workflow: "He said, 'I write the spec of what I want and then I write a test function, an evaluation function. And then I turn it on.' I said, 'What time?' And he goes, '7:00 in the evening.' And I go, 'Okay. What do you then do?' Well, he has dinner with his wife and he goes to sleep." Eric continues: "I said, 'Do you wake up?' Said, 'No, I sleep very well.' 'When does it finish?' 'Oh, 4:00 in the morning.' And then he gets up, has breakfast, you know, does whatever he does, and then he sees what's been good." Eric Schmidt calls the whole thing "mindboggling." The story captures what amplification really means. The programmer isn't writing less code. He's producing a night's worth of work while asleep, because the machine is running on his spec, his tests, his judgment of what "good" looks like. The leverage belongs to those who can define the problem precisely, write the tests that matter, and recognize good output when they see it.
1:02

Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO, on why top programmers won't be replaced by AI, they'll be amplified by it: He starts with an observation about the existing hierarchy in software: "The very top programmers were worth 10 times more than the ones right below. There's something special about the mathematical reasoning skills of programmers." Rather than flattening that gap, he argues AI will widen it: "Those people will become more valuable, not less valuable, because these systems need to be controlled by humans at the moment. Those people will be capable of grasping the parallelization and the activities of this." To show what this amplification actually looks like in practice, Eric shares a story from a startup he's involved with. He was talking to one of the programmers there, who works on UIs, about his daily workflow: "He said, 'I write the spec of what I want and then I write a test function, an evaluation function. And then I turn it on.' I said, 'What time?' And he goes, '7:00 in the evening.' And I go, 'Okay. What do you then do?' Well, he has dinner with his wife and he goes to sleep." Eric continues: "I said, 'Do you wake up?' Said, 'No, I sleep very well.' 'When does it finish?' 'Oh, 4:00 in the morning.' And then he gets up, has breakfast, you know, does whatever he does, and then he sees what's been good." Eric Schmidt calls the whole thing "mindboggling." The story captures what amplification really means. The programmer isn't writing less code. He's producing a night's worth of work while asleep, because the machine is running on his spec, his tests, his judgment of what "good" looks like. The leverage belongs to those who can define the problem precisely, write the tests that matter, and recognize good output when they see it.

Big Brain AI

15,319 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Why are CEOs of AI companies privately warning about the extinction of humans? To understand that, I’m joined by someone who helped build the field… Stuart Russell is one of the world’s leading AI researchers. He co-wrote Artificial Intelligence*: ‘*A Modern Approach’ - the textbook used to train AI engineers in more than 1,500 universities. He has spent decades advising governments and global leaders on the safety and control of advanced AI. Right now, the people building the most powerful AI systems are raising alarms in private that they rarely voice in public. Some estimate up to a 25% chance that AI could lead to human extinction… Stuart has heard these conversations directly. He believes we’re in a race we don’t really understand, pushed by incentives no one is really controlling.
1:29

Why are CEOs of AI companies privately warning about the extinction of humans? To understand that, I’m joined by someone who helped build the field… Stuart Russell is one of the world’s leading AI researchers. He co-wrote Artificial Intelligence*: ‘*A Modern Approach’ - the textbook used to train AI engineers in more than 1,500 universities. He has spent decades advising governments and global leaders on the safety and control of advanced AI. Right now, the people building the most powerful AI systems are raising alarms in private that they rarely voice in public. Some estimate up to a 25% chance that AI could lead to human extinction… Stuart has heard these conversations directly. He believes we’re in a race we don’t really understand, pushed by incentives no one is really controlling.

Steven Bartlett

16,981 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Every time you travel in a Shoffr, your driver has a co-pilot - an AI-powered dashcam from Cautio Was he on the phone? Was he on time? Did he show signs of fatigue? Did he take the car for a personal ride? Cautio helps fleet operators answer these questions not with anecdotes, but with video evidence and AI-led driver behavior monitoring. Cautio is not an “AI wrapper”:
1:19

Every time you travel in a Shoffr, your driver has a co-pilot - an AI-powered dashcam from Cautio Was he on the phone? Was he on time? Did he show signs of fatigue? Did he take the car for a personal ride? Cautio helps fleet operators answer these questions not with anecdotes, but with video evidence and AI-led driver behavior monitoring. Cautio is not an “AI wrapper”:

Rahul Mathur

20,677 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

If an AI lab is kicking off an intelligence explosion, would it be in their interest to tell the President or not? Scott Alexander and Daniel Kokotajlo think yes. "We made the guess that early in 2027, the [leading AI] company would deliberately wake up the president. Strategically, [not telling] would be quite risky for them because if they keep the president in the dark ... and then the president finds out anyway, perhaps because a whistleblower, he might be very upset at them and he might crack down really hard and just actually execute on all the threats. They want him on their side. And to get him on their side, they have to make sure he's not surprised by any of these crazy developments."
1:38

If an AI lab is kicking off an intelligence explosion, would it be in their interest to tell the President or not? Scott Alexander and Daniel Kokotajlo think yes. "We made the guess that early in 2027, the [leading AI] company would deliberately wake up the president. Strategically, [not telling] would be quite risky for them because if they keep the president in the dark ... and then the president finds out anyway, perhaps because a whistleblower, he might be very upset at them and he might crack down really hard and just actually execute on all the threats. They want him on their side. And to get him on their side, they have to make sure he's not surprised by any of these crazy developments."

Dwarkesh Patel

53,186 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Ilya Sutskever, the co-founder of OpenAI, on the one AI risk that grows with every jump in capability. "There are concerns around if an AGI ever becomes very, very powerful, which is possible. Maybe it will want to go rogue, being that it is an agent." "We are also doing a lot of research on addressing the technological side of things, so that the AI will never want to go rogue. And this is something which I am working on as well." The work he is describing has a name: the assurance layer. Proving a powerful, agentic system will not go rogue before you deploy it, not after. That layer does not build itself. It gets built by the labs, regulators, and insurers who agree on how to test and verify these systems. P.S. That is the entire agenda of the AI Assurance and Governance Summit. Frontier labs, regulated industries, insurers, and investors in one room at Stanford on October 1. Reserve a seat: - Ilya Sutskever (Ilya Sutskever), co-founder of OpenAI, at TED
1:05

Ilya Sutskever, the co-founder of OpenAI, on the one AI risk that grows with every jump in capability. "There are concerns around if an AGI ever becomes very, very powerful, which is possible. Maybe it will want to go rogue, being that it is an agent." "We are also doing a lot of research on addressing the technological side of things, so that the AI will never want to go rogue. And this is something which I am working on as well." The work he is describing has a name: the assurance layer. Proving a powerful, agentic system will not go rogue before you deploy it, not after. That layer does not build itself. It gets built by the labs, regulators, and insurers who agree on how to test and verify these systems. P.S. That is the entire agenda of the AI Assurance and Governance Summit. Frontier labs, regulated industries, insurers, and investors in one room at Stanford on October 1. Reserve a seat: - Ilya Sutskever (Ilya Sutskever), co-founder of OpenAI, at TED

Karl Mehta

22,453 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Jensen is pushing back on the AI will kill all software narrative just like he pushed back last year on the DeepSeek panic. He was right then. He will be right again. "There's this notion that .. the software industry is in decline and will be replaced by AI. You could tell because there's a whole bunch of software companies whose stock prices are under a lot of pressure. Because somehow AI is going to replace them. It is the most illogical thing in the world and time will prove itself. .. If you were an artificial general intelligence, would you use the tools like ServiceNow and SAP and Cadence and Synopsys? Or would you reinvent a calculator? Of course, you would just use a calculator."
1:45

Jensen is pushing back on the AI will kill all software narrative just like he pushed back last year on the DeepSeek panic. He was right then. He will be right again. "There's this notion that .. the software industry is in decline and will be replaced by AI. You could tell because there's a whole bunch of software companies whose stock prices are under a lot of pressure. Because somehow AI is going to replace them. It is the most illogical thing in the world and time will prove itself. .. If you were an artificial general intelligence, would you use the tools like ServiceNow and SAP and Cadence and Synopsys? Or would you reinvent a calculator? Of course, you would just use a calculator."

tae kim

112,469 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Gupta: He says he doesn’t want to exercise because he finds it boring, so he doesn’t really do aerobic activity. He walks on the golf course—that’s kind of the most that he does. And he eats frequent hamburgers and French fries, according to this article. In one sitting, a hamburger and French fries can be up to 80% of your sodium intake and saturated fat intake. That’s not healthy.
1:08

Gupta: He says he doesn’t want to exercise because he finds it boring, so he doesn’t really do aerobic activity. He walks on the golf course—that’s kind of the most that he does. And he eats frequent hamburgers and French fries, according to this article. In one sitting, a hamburger and French fries can be up to 80% of your sodium intake and saturated fat intake. That’s not healthy.

Acyn

160,543 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

🗣️: “which driver do you think secretly loves the attention the most?” carlos: “all of them. all of us. no, i can tell you who doesn't the most. alex albon, my teammate. he really doesn't like it. he loves the racing. and not that he doesn't, he stands good on camera and he does a good job on camera, but he couldn't care less about cameras and attention and fame. he's a very pure, spiritual individual. he's like really there for what he enjoys doing and i respect him a lot for that.”
0:37

🗣️: “which driver do you think secretly loves the attention the most?” carlos: “all of them. all of us. no, i can tell you who doesn't the most. alex albon, my teammate. he really doesn't like it. he loves the racing. and not that he doesn't, he stands good on camera and he does a good job on camera, but he couldn't care less about cameras and attention and fame. he's a very pure, spiritual individual. he's like really there for what he enjoys doing and i respect him a lot for that.”

yoyo

340,038 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Andrej Karpathy had already talked about this possibility 1 month back, that he might join one of the big AI labs and why he may do so. "They (the AI labs) are kind of like at the edge of capability of what's possible. And they are working on what's coming down the line. And I think if you're outside of that frontier lab, your judgment fundamentally will start to drift because you're not part of what's coming down the line. And so I feel like my judgment will inevitably start to drift as well. And I won't actually have an understanding of how these systems actually work under the hood. It's a big system. I won't have a good understanding of how to develop and etc. And so I do think that in that sense, I agree and something I'm nervous about. I think it's worth basically being in touch with what's actually happening and actually being in the frontier lab. And if some of the frontier labs would have me come for some amount of time and do really good work for them, then I think that's maybe a good setup" --- From 'No Priors: AI, Machine Learning, Tech, & Startups" YT channel (link in comment)
0:46

Andrej Karpathy had already talked about this possibility 1 month back, that he might join one of the big AI labs and why he may do so. "They (the AI labs) are kind of like at the edge of capability of what's possible. And they are working on what's coming down the line. And I think if you're outside of that frontier lab, your judgment fundamentally will start to drift because you're not part of what's coming down the line. And so I feel like my judgment will inevitably start to drift as well. And I won't actually have an understanding of how these systems actually work under the hood. It's a big system. I won't have a good understanding of how to develop and etc. And so I do think that in that sense, I agree and something I'm nervous about. I think it's worth basically being in touch with what's actually happening and actually being in the frontier lab. And if some of the frontier labs would have me come for some amount of time and do really good work for them, then I think that's maybe a good setup" --- From 'No Priors: AI, Machine Learning, Tech, & Startups" YT channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

57,496 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Tucker Carlson: “It’s so dark I haven’t even told my wife.” Tucker Carlson says the U.S. government has been in contact with non human “supernatural beings” for a long time, possibly since the 1930s, and that parts of what he has been told are so disturbing he has not shared them with his own family. “I feel comfortable saying this as a fact. These are real, whatever they are, and they’re not human, and the government has known that for a long time.” He adds that he has spoken to people with firsthand knowledge, not internet rumors. “I haven’t verified any of this, but this is not just stuff I read on the internet. There are parts of that story that I do not understand at all that are really, really, really dark. That story bothers me.” Carlson says there is a spiritual component he does not fully grasp, and that the official effort over decades has been to convince the public these phenomena are not supernatural. “There’s a spiritual component there that I don’t fully understand.” He has also said he stopped digging because he no longer wants to know more. If God is real, why should we be afraid?
3:16

Tucker Carlson: “It’s so dark I haven’t even told my wife.” Tucker Carlson says the U.S. government has been in contact with non human “supernatural beings” for a long time, possibly since the 1930s, and that parts of what he has been told are so disturbing he has not shared them with his own family. “I feel comfortable saying this as a fact. These are real, whatever they are, and they’re not human, and the government has known that for a long time.” He adds that he has spoken to people with firsthand knowledge, not internet rumors. “I haven’t verified any of this, but this is not just stuff I read on the internet. There are parts of that story that I do not understand at all that are really, really, really dark. That story bothers me.” Carlson says there is a spiritual component he does not fully grasp, and that the official effort over decades has been to convince the public these phenomena are not supernatural. “There’s a spiritual component there that I don’t fully understand.” He has also said he stopped digging because he no longer wants to know more. If God is real, why should we be afraid?

Interstellar

473,853 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

We asked Nathan Leamer how he thinks about AI job displacement. His take: before talking about jobs AI may replace, talk about the jobs AI is already creating. “Before I get to the displacement, I wanna highlight that there are thousands, hundreds of thousands of workers out there.” “Tradesmen, skilled laborers, who are building this infrastructure.” “They’ve never been busier in their life than they have been building data centers.” “One electrician said, ‘I have human dignity now because of this work.’” “These are the real men and women doing great work.”
1:37

We asked Nathan Leamer how he thinks about AI job displacement. His take: before talking about jobs AI may replace, talk about the jobs AI is already creating. “Before I get to the displacement, I wanna highlight that there are thousands, hundreds of thousands of workers out there.” “Tradesmen, skilled laborers, who are building this infrastructure.” “They’ve never been busier in their life than they have been building data centers.” “One electrician said, ‘I have human dignity now because of this work.’” “These are the real men and women doing great work.”

MTS

10,652 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

There is a very small action in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring that I find increasingly unsettling the more closely I look at it: when Saruman reveals the Palantír, Gandalf immediately pulls the cloth back over it. One man wants to look. The other wants to cover up the very thing that allows him to see more. Why? If the Palantír is a tool that allows someone to see across great distances, shouldn't a wise person want to know as much as possible? And yet this scene suggests a paradox: sometimes the danger does not lie in knowing too little, but in becoming too convinced that what we know is enough to draw a conclusion. Saruman is the clearest example of this. When he shows the Palantír to Gandalf, Saruman says: “I have seen it.” The sentence sounds like a declaration of knowledge. I have seen it. I know what is happening. I understand Sauron’s power. But that is precisely the problem: seeing one thing is not the same as seeing the whole truth. The Palantír gives Saruman a wider field of vision, but a wider field of vision does not necessarily mean a complete perspective. Saruman can see Sauron’s rising power, the scale of the threat, and things an ordinary person could never see. But he cannot see everything that will ultimately determine the outcome of the war. He does not see Frodo. He does not know how far a small Hobbit can go. He does not know how loyalty, friendship, sacrifice, and seemingly insignificant choices will shape the course of history. In other words, Saruman has more information, but that does not mean he possesses the whole truth. And this is where the Palantír becomes such an interesting image of the trap of knowledge. Because information does not draw conclusions by itself. Human beings do. Saruman sees that Sauron is powerful. From that, he reasons that Sauron will win. Then, from “will win,” he arrives at “cannot be resisted.” And finally: “We must join with him.” Notice the word “must.” Saruman does not say, “I want to stand with Sauron.” He says, “We must.” A personal choice is transformed into an inevitability imposed by reality itself. That is Saruman’s real tragedy. He does not need to stop thinking in order to become corrupted. On the contrary, he continues to reason. He continues to analyze. He continues to speak in the language of rationality. He even calls his choice wisdom: “It would be wise, my friend.” And this is where intelligence begins to become a trap. Saruman has constructed a chain of reasoning in which every path leads to the same conclusion: Sauron is too powerful, therefore resisting him is futile; if resistance is futile, then cooperation is the practical choice; and if that is the practical choice, then surrender can be called wisdom. He is no longer using reason to search for the truth. He is using reason to protect a conclusion he has already accepted. That is a particularly dangerous form of self-justification: when a person begins to call what they fear something they “must” do, and then calls their surrender “reason.” And this is why Gandalf’s reaction to the Palantír is so significant. He does not argue with Saruman that knowledge is bad. He simply says: “A Palantír is a dangerous tool.” Then he covers it. Gandalf understands something Saruman has forgotten: being wise does not mean always wanting to see more. It means knowing the limits of your own understanding. There are things we need to know. But there are also things we need to recognize that we cannot fully control in the way they affect us. Gandalf does not cover the Palantír because he is afraid of the truth. He covers it because he understands that not everything we can see should be looked at in whatever way we choose. Especially because Gandalf also says: “We do not know who else may be watching.” That line completely changes the meaning of the orb. The Palantír is not merely a window through which we can look out at the world. It is also a window through which someone else can look back at us. Saruman thinks he is using the tool to observe Sauron. But eventually, Saruman himself becomes trapped in a relationship he no longer controls. This is the paradox of power: we think we are holding the tool, until we realize that the tool has begun to shape the way we see the world. And from here, the two Wizards stand before the same problem but respond to it in completely different ways. Saruman looks at Sauron’s power and concludes: We cannot win. Gandalf looks at the same thing but refuses to accept that conclusion. Not because Gandalf knows for certain that they will win. But because he understands that no one has the right to turn a possibility into a destiny simply because they cannot yet see a way out. That is why Gandalf’s question cuts so deeply: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?” Gandalf does not ask: “When did you become evil?” He asks: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason?” Because Saruman’s fall begins with the very thing that once made him powerful: his intelligence. Intelligence itself is not the problem. The problem begins at the moment a person believes their intelligence has become great enough that they no longer need to question themselves. And perhaps that is what makes the Palantír such an intriguing symbol. It is an orb designed to see far into the distance. Yet the farther Saruman sees, the narrower his world becomes. He sees Sauron and no longer sees the possibility of resisting Sauron. He sees power and no longer sees courage. He sees war and no longer sees the small people who might change its outcome. Gandalf, meanwhile, sees less, but leaves room for more possibilities. And perhaps this is the deepest difference between the two. Saruman wants a complete view of the world so that he can be certain about the future. Gandalf accepts that the future cannot be seen in its entirety. One seeks certainty. The other accepts the limits of knowledge. And in Tolkien’s world, it is the second person who remains free. Because sometimes the most dangerous thing is not that we do not know enough. It is that we know a little, reason a great deal, and then begin to believe that our conclusion is the whole truth. Saruman is not defeated by the Palantír simply because he looks into it. He is defeated by what happens afterward: he allows what he sees to become the limit of what he can imagine. And Gandalf, through an action so small that it could almost be overlooked, simply pulls the cloth back over the Palantír. As if reminding us: Wisdom does not always mean seeing more. Sometimes wisdom means recognizing that the very way we see can deceive us.
4:37

There is a very small action in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring that I find increasingly unsettling the more closely I look at it: when Saruman reveals the Palantír, Gandalf immediately pulls the cloth back over it. One man wants to look. The other wants to cover up the very thing that allows him to see more. Why? If the Palantír is a tool that allows someone to see across great distances, shouldn't a wise person want to know as much as possible? And yet this scene suggests a paradox: sometimes the danger does not lie in knowing too little, but in becoming too convinced that what we know is enough to draw a conclusion. Saruman is the clearest example of this. When he shows the Palantír to Gandalf, Saruman says: “I have seen it.” The sentence sounds like a declaration of knowledge. I have seen it. I know what is happening. I understand Sauron’s power. But that is precisely the problem: seeing one thing is not the same as seeing the whole truth. The Palantír gives Saruman a wider field of vision, but a wider field of vision does not necessarily mean a complete perspective. Saruman can see Sauron’s rising power, the scale of the threat, and things an ordinary person could never see. But he cannot see everything that will ultimately determine the outcome of the war. He does not see Frodo. He does not know how far a small Hobbit can go. He does not know how loyalty, friendship, sacrifice, and seemingly insignificant choices will shape the course of history. In other words, Saruman has more information, but that does not mean he possesses the whole truth. And this is where the Palantír becomes such an interesting image of the trap of knowledge. Because information does not draw conclusions by itself. Human beings do. Saruman sees that Sauron is powerful. From that, he reasons that Sauron will win. Then, from “will win,” he arrives at “cannot be resisted.” And finally: “We must join with him.” Notice the word “must.” Saruman does not say, “I want to stand with Sauron.” He says, “We must.” A personal choice is transformed into an inevitability imposed by reality itself. That is Saruman’s real tragedy. He does not need to stop thinking in order to become corrupted. On the contrary, he continues to reason. He continues to analyze. He continues to speak in the language of rationality. He even calls his choice wisdom: “It would be wise, my friend.” And this is where intelligence begins to become a trap. Saruman has constructed a chain of reasoning in which every path leads to the same conclusion: Sauron is too powerful, therefore resisting him is futile; if resistance is futile, then cooperation is the practical choice; and if that is the practical choice, then surrender can be called wisdom. He is no longer using reason to search for the truth. He is using reason to protect a conclusion he has already accepted. That is a particularly dangerous form of self-justification: when a person begins to call what they fear something they “must” do, and then calls their surrender “reason.” And this is why Gandalf’s reaction to the Palantír is so significant. He does not argue with Saruman that knowledge is bad. He simply says: “A Palantír is a dangerous tool.” Then he covers it. Gandalf understands something Saruman has forgotten: being wise does not mean always wanting to see more. It means knowing the limits of your own understanding. There are things we need to know. But there are also things we need to recognize that we cannot fully control in the way they affect us. Gandalf does not cover the Palantír because he is afraid of the truth. He covers it because he understands that not everything we can see should be looked at in whatever way we choose. Especially because Gandalf also says: “We do not know who else may be watching.” That line completely changes the meaning of the orb. The Palantír is not merely a window through which we can look out at the world. It is also a window through which someone else can look back at us. Saruman thinks he is using the tool to observe Sauron. But eventually, Saruman himself becomes trapped in a relationship he no longer controls. This is the paradox of power: we think we are holding the tool, until we realize that the tool has begun to shape the way we see the world. And from here, the two Wizards stand before the same problem but respond to it in completely different ways. Saruman looks at Sauron’s power and concludes: We cannot win. Gandalf looks at the same thing but refuses to accept that conclusion. Not because Gandalf knows for certain that they will win. But because he understands that no one has the right to turn a possibility into a destiny simply because they cannot yet see a way out. That is why Gandalf’s question cuts so deeply: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?” Gandalf does not ask: “When did you become evil?” He asks: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason?” Because Saruman’s fall begins with the very thing that once made him powerful: his intelligence. Intelligence itself is not the problem. The problem begins at the moment a person believes their intelligence has become great enough that they no longer need to question themselves. And perhaps that is what makes the Palantír such an intriguing symbol. It is an orb designed to see far into the distance. Yet the farther Saruman sees, the narrower his world becomes. He sees Sauron and no longer sees the possibility of resisting Sauron. He sees power and no longer sees courage. He sees war and no longer sees the small people who might change its outcome. Gandalf, meanwhile, sees less, but leaves room for more possibilities. And perhaps this is the deepest difference between the two. Saruman wants a complete view of the world so that he can be certain about the future. Gandalf accepts that the future cannot be seen in its entirety. One seeks certainty. The other accepts the limits of knowledge. And in Tolkien’s world, it is the second person who remains free. Because sometimes the most dangerous thing is not that we do not know enough. It is that we know a little, reason a great deal, and then begin to believe that our conclusion is the whole truth. Saruman is not defeated by the Palantír simply because he looks into it. He is defeated by what happens afterward: he allows what he sees to become the limit of what he can imagine. And Gandalf, through an action so small that it could almost be overlooked, simply pulls the cloth back over the Palantír. As if reminding us: Wisdom does not always mean seeing more. Sometimes wisdom means recognizing that the very way we see can deceive us.

🎼🌺Music Love♥️

15,487 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Some men think being bold online means they are becoming more confident. Not necessarily. Sometimes they are not becoming more confident at all. They are becoming more protected, hidden, and distanced from the weight of real human interaction. And that matters, because what you repeat becomes practice. If a man keeps using hidden profiles or digital distance to say things he would never say face to face, he may be training a pattern that does not help him in real life. Then later he wonders why real confidence feels unnatural, why interactions feel heavy, or why he does not know how to carry himself in a grounded way. That is the deeper point. Privacy is not the problem. The problem is what some men rehearse under the protection of privacy. The full video is now on YouTube.
0:39

Some men think being bold online means they are becoming more confident. Not necessarily. Sometimes they are not becoming more confident at all. They are becoming more protected, hidden, and distanced from the weight of real human interaction. And that matters, because what you repeat becomes practice. If a man keeps using hidden profiles or digital distance to say things he would never say face to face, he may be training a pattern that does not help him in real life. Then later he wonders why real confidence feels unnatural, why interactions feel heavy, or why he does not know how to carry himself in a grounded way. That is the deeper point. Privacy is not the problem. The problem is what some men rehearse under the protection of privacy. The full video is now on YouTube.

Command Within | Build Self-Command

17,508 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Elon Musk describes AI as a "supersonic tsunami" that will overtake digital jobs "like lightning." He expects physical jobs — cooking, plumbing, electrical work — to exist for much longer. He predicts that ultimately AI and robots combined will make working optional. working optional sounds great. income optional does not. the ones who act will have Grok Bot earning for them by Monday. one tool. one weekend. $200 that pays itself back. this is the how ↓
3:54

Elon Musk describes AI as a "supersonic tsunami" that will overtake digital jobs "like lightning." He expects physical jobs — cooking, plumbing, electrical work — to exist for much longer. He predicts that ultimately AI and robots combined will make working optional. working optional sounds great. income optional does not. the ones who act will have Grok Bot earning for them by Monday. one tool. one weekend. $200 that pays itself back. this is the how ↓

Rahul

63,179 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce