Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

We built a rage machine — and then handed the controls to algorithms, foreign adversaries, and big tech. Outrage drives engagement. Engagement drives profit. If I can get you angry, I can keep you scrolling. But here’s the twist: in person, we’re more civil. Online, we’re caricatures. That’s by...

33,333 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Shuler: If you think about every industrial revolution we’ve been through, working people have helped us make that transition. It’s really because we’ve helped tame the technology and figured out how to use it in the most effective way. So I think your question about augmentation versus replacement is the big question we have. If we can all agree that this is about making our jobs better, safer, easier, and more productive, then we’re all in. But if you’re looking to de-skill, dehumanize, and replace workers, to put people out on the street with no path forward, then absolutely you’re going to have a revolution. So I think that’s something we all need to be very real about and think seriously about. If we’re going to have productivity gains, working people—the ones who make these industries happen—need to share in that. There hasn’t been a lot of discussion about that here. Of course, in terms of how we create policies, how we create tax infrastructure, whether or not we are redistributing—yes, that word is a dirty word around here—we need to talk about it and confront how we’re going to make sure working people share in the gains of these technologies. And if you look at the numbers of jobs, let’s talk about job quality. Yes, maybe there are a lot of jobs created, but what kind of jobs are we talking about? Are they jobs that can sustain a family? Is it a job where people can actually work one job? One job should be enough.

Acyn

41,942 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Now the question hanging over the entire conflict is this: does the world play it safe and allow remnants of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure to survive? Or risk a final strike that could eliminate the threat for good, but possibly trigger even greater instability? “Do you risk more danger by taking out and eliminating the nuclear threat for good,” Hanson asked, “and by association, you humiliate the theocracy to the point it can be overthrown?” That’s the gamble. He didn’t shy away from his own discomfort with war. “I don’t like forever wars,” he added. “I don’t like preemptive wars. I do not like the United States intervening anywhere in that godforsaken area. But if the war ends with the regime intact and a recoverable nuclear program, it won’t just be back to square one. It will be a disaster.” That’s when he dropped a bombshell prediction of the future in the area after the dust settles in the desert. Whether this ends in collapse or resurgence, Hanson believes the next phase of the war could reshape the entire region and the world’s understanding of power in the Middle East. “So we’ll see what happens,” he said. “And hold on, everybody. I think we’re going to see things that we haven’t seen in our lifetime in the Middle East. And it could turn out very bad.” “But it could also turn out to be quite revolutionary and remake the map of the entire region.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

202,789 просмотров • 1 год назад

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei just identified the most dangerous outcome on the AI board. Partial automation isn’t the safe path. It’s the most destructive one. Amodei: “I actually think the most societally divisive outcome is if randomly 50 percent of the jobs are suddenly done by AI because what that means the societal message is we’re picking half, we’re randomly picking half of people and saying you are useless, you are devalued, you are unnecessary.” A civilization where half the workforce is mathematically obsolete and the other half controls the compute engine doesn’t gradually adjust. It fractures. The current economic system measures human value entirely by repetitive output. When AI drives the cost of that output to zero, the definition of usefulness collapses with it. Amodei: “We’re going to have to look at what is technologically possible and say we need to think about usefulness and uselessness in a different way than we have before. Our current way of thinking has not been tenable.” Define yourself strictly by your ability to process administrative tasks and the algorithm will replace you by morning. The next era doesn’t measure people by manual throughput. It measures them by what they choose to build when survival is no longer the constraint. Amodei: “I don’t know what the solution is but it’s got to be different than we’re all useless, right? We’re all useless is a nihilistic answer. We’re not gonna get anywhere with that answer. We’re gonna have to come up with something else.” The most toxic belief in the current tech sector is that AGI renders humanity pointless. When the machine absorbs the mundane friction of survival, human ambition doesn’t collapse. It scales. Nihilists will surrender to the algorithm and accept the narrative of obsolescence. Builders will take the same compute engine and aim it at something the machine never would have chosen on its own.

Dustin

66,265 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад