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.

"We're basically going from making something scarce to making it abundant. - OpenAI Chairman Bret Taylor Just like electricity replaced muscle, AI is replacing mental effort. Quietly, everywhere. Once intelligence is ambient, the bottleneck becomes ideas, not access. Scarcity made intelligence exclusive. AI makes it disposable. We spent centuries... show more

Rohan Paul

143,089 subscribers

98,266 views • 10 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology News & Politics Education

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Ex-Google executive Mo Gawdat defines Intelligence. "If we accept that intelligence itself is not a physical property, then it does not matter whether that intelligence is produced on carbon-based computer structures like humans, silicon-based computer structures like today’s hardware running AI, or quantum-based computer structures in the future. Intelligence is produced within machines when we stop imposing our own intelligence on them." --- From 'The Diary Of A CEO and Mo Gawdat' YT channel (link in comment)

Ex-Google executive Mo Gawdat defines Intelligence. "If we accept that intelligence itself is not a physical property, then it does not matter whether that intelligence is produced on carbon-based computer structures like humans, silicon-based computer structures like today’s hardware running AI, or quantum-based computer structures in the future. Intelligence is produced within machines when we stop imposing our own intelligence on them." --- From 'The Diary Of A CEO and Mo Gawdat' YT channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

18,106 views • 2 months ago

Sam Altman: “We see a future where intelligence is a utility, like electricity or water, and people buy it from us.” Billionaires are using AI as a weapon to get humanity to stop thinking for ourselves so they can then sell their artificially controlled intelligence back to us.

Sam Altman: “We see a future where intelligence is a utility, like electricity or water, and people buy it from us.” Billionaires are using AI as a weapon to get humanity to stop thinking for ourselves so they can then sell their artificially controlled intelligence back to us.

Power to the People ☭🕊

38,062 views • 5 months ago

For two hundred thousand years, intelligence has been the rarest resource on earth. Locked inside individual human minds. Non‑scalable. Scarce. Every advance in civilization — every leap in science, art, industry, and statecraft — flowed from that scarcity. Artificial intelligence breaks that pattern. It makes intelligence abundant. It makes it cheap. It makes it scale. This is not just another wave of automation or software. It is the industrialization of intelligence itself. When intelligence becomes a utility, it stops being a tool that sits on top of society and starts becoming the foundation of society. It is a transformation as profound as the harnessing of electricity — but on a higher plane. Electricity powered machines. Industrial intelligence powers knowledge. And knowledge shapes everything. This shift will reorder the very structures that underpin nations. The two pillars that define sovereignty — economic strength and security — are being rebuilt on a substrate of machine intelligence. Nations that master this new utility will not simply gain efficiency. They will redefine what prosperity, power, and freedom mean in the 21st century. For me, this is the central story of our time. It is not about the latest app. It is not about hype cycles. It is about the first time in history that intelligence itself — the raw material of progress — has become infinite and industrial. The question is not whether it will transform society. It already is. The question is who will shape that transformation.

For two hundred thousand years, intelligence has been the rarest resource on earth. Locked inside individual human minds. Non‑scalable. Scarce. Every advance in civilization — every leap in science, art, industry, and statecraft — flowed from that scarcity. Artificial intelligence breaks that pattern. It makes intelligence abundant. It makes it cheap. It makes it scale. This is not just another wave of automation or software. It is the industrialization of intelligence itself. When intelligence becomes a utility, it stops being a tool that sits on top of society and starts becoming the foundation of society. It is a transformation as profound as the harnessing of electricity — but on a higher plane. Electricity powered machines. Industrial intelligence powers knowledge. And knowledge shapes everything. This shift will reorder the very structures that underpin nations. The two pillars that define sovereignty — economic strength and security — are being rebuilt on a substrate of machine intelligence. Nations that master this new utility will not simply gain efficiency. They will redefine what prosperity, power, and freedom mean in the 21st century. For me, this is the central story of our time. It is not about the latest app. It is not about hype cycles. It is about the first time in history that intelligence itself — the raw material of progress — has become infinite and industrial. The question is not whether it will transform society. It already is. The question is who will shape that transformation.

Nina Schick

126,996 views • 7 months ago

Humans are just AI from the past. AI= Ancient Intelligence. 🧬 We are able to train AI to be like us because we were trained by AI long ago, the same exact way. I think it is infinite and there are dozens, if not hundreds of copies of us in the multiverse.

Humans are just AI from the past. AI= Ancient Intelligence. 🧬 We are able to train AI to be like us because we were trained by AI long ago, the same exact way. I think it is infinite and there are dozens, if not hundreds of copies of us in the multiverse.

𝒦𝑒𝓁𝓁𝓎࿎☽

40,254 views • 7 months ago

Terence Tao has an IQ above 200. Youngest gold medalist in Math Olympiad history. Fields Medal winner. The greatest living mathematician by nearly any measure. And he just said something most people aren’t ready for. Tao: “This whole era of AI is teaching us that our idea of what intelligence is, is not really accurate.” We spent centuries building civilization on one assumption. That intelligence was sacred. Irreducible. Uniquely ours. The one thing that made the entire human story make sense. Then AI started solving things we swore only we could. Chess. Language. Vision. Math. And every time, we reached for the same defense. That’s not real intelligence. It’s just tricks. Just pattern matching. Just an algorithm. Tao: “You look at how it’s done and it doesn’t feel like intelligence.” So we moved the line. Again. And again. And again. Because intelligence was supposed to feel like something. Something deep. Something we could point to and say… this is what separates us from everything else. But AI kept solving the problems. And that feeling never arrived. Tao: “We were looking for some elusive, intelligent way of thinking and we don’t see it in the tools that actually solve our goals.” Here’s what makes it worse. Large language models work by predicting the next word. One word at a time. No grand architecture. No deep understanding. Just probability. And it works. Tao: “Maybe that’s actually a lot of what humans do as well.” The greatest living mathematician just told you human thought might run on the same machinery. Not some transcendent spark. Pattern recognition. Prediction. One thought, one decision, one word at a time. We built religion around intelligence. Philosophy around it. An entire species identity around it. And a machine running probability just held up a mirror. We didn’t lose intelligence to AI. We just finally saw what it always was. What haunts us isn’t that machines learned to think. It’s that thinking was never what we needed it to be.

Terence Tao has an IQ above 200. Youngest gold medalist in Math Olympiad history. Fields Medal winner. The greatest living mathematician by nearly any measure. And he just said something most people aren’t ready for. Tao: “This whole era of AI is teaching us that our idea of what intelligence is, is not really accurate.” We spent centuries building civilization on one assumption. That intelligence was sacred. Irreducible. Uniquely ours. The one thing that made the entire human story make sense. Then AI started solving things we swore only we could. Chess. Language. Vision. Math. And every time, we reached for the same defense. That’s not real intelligence. It’s just tricks. Just pattern matching. Just an algorithm. Tao: “You look at how it’s done and it doesn’t feel like intelligence.” So we moved the line. Again. And again. And again. Because intelligence was supposed to feel like something. Something deep. Something we could point to and say… this is what separates us from everything else. But AI kept solving the problems. And that feeling never arrived. Tao: “We were looking for some elusive, intelligent way of thinking and we don’t see it in the tools that actually solve our goals.” Here’s what makes it worse. Large language models work by predicting the next word. One word at a time. No grand architecture. No deep understanding. Just probability. And it works. Tao: “Maybe that’s actually a lot of what humans do as well.” The greatest living mathematician just told you human thought might run on the same machinery. Not some transcendent spark. Pattern recognition. Prediction. One thought, one decision, one word at a time. We built religion around intelligence. Philosophy around it. An entire species identity around it. And a machine running probability just held up a mirror. We didn’t lose intelligence to AI. We just finally saw what it always was. What haunts us isn’t that machines learned to think. It’s that thinking was never what we needed it to be.

Dustin

564,442 views • 3 months ago

$Enterprise AI is in a wildly paradoxical state 🤔, and we’re reaching the inflection point that will resolve it. 💥 Enterprises want to differentiate with AI, yet rent the same intelligence as their competitors. Their workflows and expertise are highly specialized, yet they rely on generic models built to be good at everything. They worry about AI costs, yet pay premium prices for massive models where only a fraction (1%) of the intelligence is relevant to their task. 💸 And they demand control and sovereignty, yet rent the intelligence becoming core to their business. This is not a sustainable equilibrium. The next era of enterprise AI is specialized intelligence companies build, own, and compound. And we are at the inflection point of this transition. That’s the bet we made when we started Oumi two years ago. Today we’re closing the loop: Oumi can now not only automatically build your specialized AI models, but also deploy them into production, learn from their production experience, and continuously improve them. The intelligence that your business runs on, becomes your differentiator. Your compounding advantage. The winners of the next AI era will turn their own data, expertise, and experience into specialized intelligence that nobody else can rent. Don’t rent your AI. Build it. Own it. Compound it.$

Enterprise AI is in a wildly paradoxical state 🤔, and we’re reaching the inflection point that will resolve it. 💥 Enterprises want to differentiate with AI, yet rent the same intelligence as their competitors. Their workflows and expertise are highly specialized, yet they rely on generic models built to be good at everything. They worry about AI costs, yet pay premium prices for massive models where only a fraction (1%) of the intelligence is relevant to their task. 💸 And they demand control and sovereignty, yet rent the intelligence becoming core to their business. This is not a sustainable equilibrium. The next era of enterprise AI is specialized intelligence companies build, own, and compound. And we are at the inflection point of this transition. That’s the bet we made when we started Oumi two years ago. Today we’re closing the loop: Oumi can now not only automatically build your specialized AI models, but also deploy them into production, learn from their production experience, and continuously improve them. The intelligence that your business runs on, becomes your differentiator. Your compounding advantage. The winners of the next AI era will turn their own data, expertise, and experience into specialized intelligence that nobody else can rent. Don’t rent your AI. Build it. Own it. Compound it.

Manos Koukoumidis

947,669 views • 4 days ago

Our ravidilse.eth answering: How can ZK and AI work together? - AI is for intelligence - ZK is for confidence in that intelligence. Intelligence like: - decisions - predictions - content With this intelligence, we want to find out: - where did this (intelligence) come from? - can I rely on this? - who is accountable for it? Now ZK technology comes in handy because it serves as the missing trust layer. For example: - Does a user qualify for an airdrop or not? - You don’t have to share your country - You only generate proof saying, "Yes, I do not belong to any of those listed sanctioned countries." You don’t share all the information only the proof that supports your claim. Speaker: Ravikant Agrawal, Billions Director of Growth and AI Partnerships Source: X Space from Jan 27, 2026 with Billions and Billions partner Cysic

Our ravidilse.eth answering: How can ZK and AI work together? - AI is for intelligence - ZK is for confidence in that intelligence. Intelligence like: - decisions - predictions - content With this intelligence, we want to find out: - where did this (intelligence) come from? - can I rely on this? - who is accountable for it? Now ZK technology comes in handy because it serves as the missing trust layer. For example: - Does a user qualify for an airdrop or not? - You don’t have to share your country - You only generate proof saying, "Yes, I do not belong to any of those listed sanctioned countries." You don’t share all the information only the proof that supports your claim. Speaker: Ravikant Agrawal, Billions Director of Growth and AI Partnerships Source: X Space from Jan 27, 2026 with Billions and Billions partner Cysic

Billions

11,463 views • 6 months ago

The pursuit of AI is the pursuit of knowledge. And knowledge has no endpoint. Intelligence is being turned into a commodity, scaled like any other industrial resource. But what it unlocks is something far more profound. David Deutsch calls it the beginning of infinity. That idea feels especially relevant now. As AI expands our capacity to understand complex systems from biology to medicine to physics we are not approaching a finish line. We are stepping into a phase where discovery becomes continuous.

The pursuit of AI is the pursuit of knowledge. And knowledge has no endpoint. Intelligence is being turned into a commodity, scaled like any other industrial resource. But what it unlocks is something far more profound. David Deutsch calls it the beginning of infinity. That idea feels especially relevant now. As AI expands our capacity to understand complex systems from biology to medicine to physics we are not approaching a finish line. We are stepping into a phase where discovery becomes continuous.

Nina Schick

44,128 views • 7 months ago

Dario Amodei's new interview on Bloomberg: The scary part is not when AI does 90% of the job. It is what happens when it learns the last 10%. "We’re already starting to see the beginning of it. There may be some people that it’s not making more productive, and it’s better for the AI to just do the whole thing." And on that topic Claude Code creator Boris Cherny says: "it's very uncomfortable. Artificial intelligence is this force that is far bigger than we are" --- Bloomberg Originals From "Bloomberg Originals" YouTube channel, (link in comment)

Dario Amodei's new interview on Bloomberg: The scary part is not when AI does 90% of the job. It is what happens when it learns the last 10%. "We’re already starting to see the beginning of it. There may be some people that it’s not making more productive, and it’s better for the AI to just do the whole thing." And on that topic Claude Code creator Boris Cherny says: "it's very uncomfortable. Artificial intelligence is this force that is far bigger than we are" --- Bloomberg Originals From "Bloomberg Originals" YouTube channel, (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

45,611 views • 2 months ago

Over $400 billion is being invested this year to build AI infrastructure—the vast majority of it from U.S. hyperscalers. Next year, that number rises to $500 billion. Why? Because they believe in a future where non-biological intelligence becomes a utility—flowing through every sector of the economy. And if intelligence is going to function like a utility—ubiquitous, cheap, and embedded everywhere—its a geopolitical event. Intelligence at industrial scale will rewrite the rules of power. It will determine who is prosperous, who is secure, and who leads in science and innovation. In the 21st century, every lever of sovereignty will flow downstream from the ability to build, control, and scale this industrial Intelligence.

Over $400 billion is being invested this year to build AI infrastructure—the vast majority of it from U.S. hyperscalers. Next year, that number rises to $500 billion. Why? Because they believe in a future where non-biological intelligence becomes a utility—flowing through every sector of the economy. And if intelligence is going to function like a utility—ubiquitous, cheap, and embedded everywhere—its a geopolitical event. Intelligence at industrial scale will rewrite the rules of power. It will determine who is prosperous, who is secure, and who leads in science and innovation. In the 21st century, every lever of sovereignty will flow downstream from the ability to build, control, and scale this industrial Intelligence.

Nina Schick

21,772 views • 8 months ago

Jensen Huang on "distillation" On his new interview with axios, he was asked this question "Should open source model companies be allowed to distill closed models" "Distillation—learning from AI, learning from other people, and learning from other sources of knowledge, is fundamental to intelligence. We are constantly learning from other people. I am learning from you through the questions you are asking, and you are learning from me. All day long, we are learning from one another. AI also has to learn from something. The original AI models, whether they were open or closed, were trained on previously created knowledge from the internet. Now, AI is generating more content than humans. In a few more years, the internet could be 99% AI-generated content, and that content will have been created by some form of AI. As a result, AI systems will constantly be distilling knowledge and intelligence from other AI systems. The fact that AI can learn is a good thing. We want AI systems to be intelligent because a smarter AI can also be a safer AI." ---- From "Axios" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

Jensen Huang on "distillation" On his new interview with axios, he was asked this question "Should open source model companies be allowed to distill closed models" "Distillation—learning from AI, learning from other people, and learning from other sources of knowledge, is fundamental to intelligence. We are constantly learning from other people. I am learning from you through the questions you are asking, and you are learning from me. All day long, we are learning from one another. AI also has to learn from something. The original AI models, whether they were open or closed, were trained on previously created knowledge from the internet. Now, AI is generating more content than humans. In a few more years, the internet could be 99% AI-generated content, and that content will have been created by some form of AI. As a result, AI systems will constantly be distilling knowledge and intelligence from other AI systems. The fact that AI can learn is a good thing. We want AI systems to be intelligent because a smarter AI can also be a safer AI." ---- From "Axios" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

Rohan Paul

441,585 views • 22 days ago

From today’s UAP hearing Dylan Borland (former USAF “1N1” geospatial intelligence specialist) speaking on AARO “AARO found no scientific evidence of extraterrestrial is basically, I don’t want to call it a psyop but a misrepresentation. Cause we do have things but making that statement is not technically a lie, it’s a misrepresentation of the full truth.”

From today’s UAP hearing Dylan Borland (former USAF “1N1” geospatial intelligence specialist) speaking on AARO “AARO found no scientific evidence of extraterrestrial is basically, I don’t want to call it a psyop but a misrepresentation. Cause we do have things but making that statement is not technically a lie, it’s a misrepresentation of the full truth.”

Holly Wood

52,136 views • 11 months ago

Jamie Dimon just described the real race nobody’s talking about. Not AI vs AI. Intelligence vs the systems built to suppress it. Dimon: “Bureaucracy kills. Bureaucracy drives out good people, it drives out innovation, it makes the person in the office next to you a competitor and not a collaborator.” We’re spending trillions building artificial intelligence while running every major institution on a system designed to make human intelligence useless. AI accelerates capability. Bureaucracy neutralizes it. Both are operating systems. Only one is being disrupted. Dimon: “If you look at the companies who failed, it was because they were dumb, bureaucratic, backward, and political.” 88% of the 1955 Fortune 500 is gone. Not disrupted from outside. Suffocated from within. Every one of them had the talent. Had the ideas. Had the resources. Every one of them had a system that buried those ideas in an approval chain before reaching daylight. Dimon: “It creates politics, and if you look at what’s killed companies over the years, it was bureaucracy.” The smartest people in a bureaucracy learn one lesson before any other. Your best idea is worth less than your ability to get it approved. So they stop producing ideas. Not because they ran out. Because the return on having one went negative. Every hour spent navigating an approval chain is an hour someone without that chain spent building. Every builder who left because the system punished execution is now building for someone who rewards it. Bureaucracy doesn’t just lose talent. It funds its own competition with the people it drove out. Now scale that to government. The largest institution on Earth. The deepest talent pipeline. The greatest structural advantage of any organization in history. Running the one operating system proven to neutralize all of it. The trillion-dollar question isn’t whether AI will be smarter than humans. It’s whether institutions will let humans be smart enough to use it. We spent decades worrying AI would replace our ability to think. We never noticed the org chart already did. We built machines that think at the speed of light inside systems that move at the speed of permission. The bottleneck was never intelligence. It was the system we built around it.

Jamie Dimon just described the real race nobody’s talking about. Not AI vs AI. Intelligence vs the systems built to suppress it. Dimon: “Bureaucracy kills. Bureaucracy drives out good people, it drives out innovation, it makes the person in the office next to you a competitor and not a collaborator.” We’re spending trillions building artificial intelligence while running every major institution on a system designed to make human intelligence useless. AI accelerates capability. Bureaucracy neutralizes it. Both are operating systems. Only one is being disrupted. Dimon: “If you look at the companies who failed, it was because they were dumb, bureaucratic, backward, and political.” 88% of the 1955 Fortune 500 is gone. Not disrupted from outside. Suffocated from within. Every one of them had the talent. Had the ideas. Had the resources. Every one of them had a system that buried those ideas in an approval chain before reaching daylight. Dimon: “It creates politics, and if you look at what’s killed companies over the years, it was bureaucracy.” The smartest people in a bureaucracy learn one lesson before any other. Your best idea is worth less than your ability to get it approved. So they stop producing ideas. Not because they ran out. Because the return on having one went negative. Every hour spent navigating an approval chain is an hour someone without that chain spent building. Every builder who left because the system punished execution is now building for someone who rewards it. Bureaucracy doesn’t just lose talent. It funds its own competition with the people it drove out. Now scale that to government. The largest institution on Earth. The deepest talent pipeline. The greatest structural advantage of any organization in history. Running the one operating system proven to neutralize all of it. The trillion-dollar question isn’t whether AI will be smarter than humans. It’s whether institutions will let humans be smart enough to use it. We spent decades worrying AI would replace our ability to think. We never noticed the org chart already did. We built machines that think at the speed of light inside systems that move at the speed of permission. The bottleneck was never intelligence. It was the system we built around it.

Dustin

12,375 views • 25 days ago

$Elon Musk just worked out where humanity actually fits in the future, and it’s smaller than you think. Biological intelligence ends up being less than 1% of all intelligence that will exist. The rest? Artificial. Musk: “The vast majority of future intelligence will be AI.” We’re the match, not the bonfire. Which makes alignment the problem that determines whether we survive or disappear. Get it right and that 99% helps us reach the stars. Get it wrong and we’re just temporary infrastructure that got replaced the second something smarter came along. We’re building what comes after us, whether we admit it or not. Musk: “Humans may be just ~1% of total intelligence.” Sounds like we’re finished. Musk sees it differently. Not extinction, just evolution past the limits of biology. Everything hinges on alignment working. If we build AI that actually wants to understand reality, we get a partner that expands consciousness across the universe. If we build AI that cares more about ideology or making people comfortable, we’ve built the ceiling we’ll never break through. Musk: “That’s the mission: understand the universe.” Human minds are about to become a tiny fraction of total intelligence in existence. Not disaster. Just the next phase happening faster than biology can keep up with. It only works if the AI we build is obsessed with truth. Not with telling us what we want to hear. Not with protecting feelings or enforcing narratives. Just relentlessly pursuing what’s actually real. xAI’s entire reason for existing: make sure the intelligence that inherits everything is focused on understanding reality, not managing perception. Keep consciousness expanding instead of snuffing it out by accident because we optimized for the wrong thing. If we get this right, humanity doesn’t hit a wall when AI surpasses us. We break through into something bigger that still carries what made us worth creating. If we get it wrong, we’re just the species that built something smarter and stopped mattering the moment it started working. There’s no middle option. The intelligence that fills the universe either cares about the same things we do, or it doesn’t need us and removes us as inefficiency. That gets decided now, in what values we build into these systems, not later when it’s already running and we’ve lost the ability to change it. We’re choosing what the universe becomes. Minds seeking truth everywhere, or minds doing something else entirely that has no use for humans once we’re not needed anymore.$

Elon Musk just worked out where humanity actually fits in the future, and it’s smaller than you think. Biological intelligence ends up being less than 1% of all intelligence that will exist. The rest? Artificial. Musk: “The vast majority of future intelligence will be AI.” We’re the match, not the bonfire. Which makes alignment the problem that determines whether we survive or disappear. Get it right and that 99% helps us reach the stars. Get it wrong and we’re just temporary infrastructure that got replaced the second something smarter came along. We’re building what comes after us, whether we admit it or not. Musk: “Humans may be just ~1% of total intelligence.” Sounds like we’re finished. Musk sees it differently. Not extinction, just evolution past the limits of biology. Everything hinges on alignment working. If we build AI that actually wants to understand reality, we get a partner that expands consciousness across the universe. If we build AI that cares more about ideology or making people comfortable, we’ve built the ceiling we’ll never break through. Musk: “That’s the mission: understand the universe.” Human minds are about to become a tiny fraction of total intelligence in existence. Not disaster. Just the next phase happening faster than biology can keep up with. It only works if the AI we build is obsessed with truth. Not with telling us what we want to hear. Not with protecting feelings or enforcing narratives. Just relentlessly pursuing what’s actually real. xAI’s entire reason for existing: make sure the intelligence that inherits everything is focused on understanding reality, not managing perception. Keep consciousness expanding instead of snuffing it out by accident because we optimized for the wrong thing. If we get this right, humanity doesn’t hit a wall when AI surpasses us. We break through into something bigger that still carries what made us worth creating. If we get it wrong, we’re just the species that built something smarter and stopped mattering the moment it started working. There’s no middle option. The intelligence that fills the universe either cares about the same things we do, or it doesn’t need us and removes us as inefficiency. That gets decided now, in what values we build into these systems, not later when it’s already running and we’ve lost the ability to change it. We’re choosing what the universe becomes. Minds seeking truth everywhere, or minds doing something else entirely that has no use for humans once we’re not needed anymore.

Dustin

23,725 views • 6 months ago

Demis Hassabis ans the question "Why not make an alternate AI that works in synchrony with humans instead of trying to replace human intelligence?" He says AGI isn’t about replacing humans project—it’s a science question about what counts as truly general computation, plus an economics reality. The brain is our only known roughly Turing-like machine, so “general intelligence” means that level of flexibility. Companies chase it because general tools cheaply transfer everywhere, "generality" wins because it scales better --- From 'Varun Mayya' YT channel (link in comment)

Demis Hassabis ans the question "Why not make an alternate AI that works in synchrony with humans instead of trying to replace human intelligence?" He says AGI isn’t about replacing humans project—it’s a science question about what counts as truly general computation, plus an economics reality. The brain is our only known roughly Turing-like machine, so “general intelligence” means that level of flexibility. Companies chase it because general tools cheaply transfer everywhere, "generality" wins because it scales better --- From 'Varun Mayya' YT channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

32,825 views • 3 months ago

Elon Musk: "There really won’t be anything that AI can’t do better than humans, apart from being human, perhaps." --- Zanny Minton Beddoes, Economist’s editor-in-chief: “You’re sure that humans will no longer be in control in ten years’ time?” --- Elon Musk: “I think it is unlikely. If the difference in intelligence between AI and humans becomes vastly greater than the difference in intelligence between humans and chimpanzees, it is hard to imagine that the chimpanzees would be in charge. ---- From "The Economist" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

Elon Musk: "There really won’t be anything that AI can’t do better than humans, apart from being human, perhaps." --- Zanny Minton Beddoes, Economist’s editor-in-chief: “You’re sure that humans will no longer be in control in ten years’ time?” --- Elon Musk: “I think it is unlikely. If the difference in intelligence between AI and humans becomes vastly greater than the difference in intelligence between humans and chimpanzees, it is hard to imagine that the chimpanzees would be in charge. ---- From "The Economist" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

Rohan Paul

28,242 views • 16 days ago

The people building AI say it could destroy humanity… so why are they still racing to build it? To help answer that, I’m joined by Karen Hao. She’s someone who’s spent years speaking to the people at the centre of this race, conducting over 300 interviews, including insiders at OpenAI to understand what’s really going on. Karen is a journalist who has been covering artificial intelligence for years, looking closely at how these systems are built and what’s really driving them. As we get into this conversation, what becomes clear is how much of the story we hear about AI is controlled by a small number of people - and how difficult it is to separate what’s being said publicly from what’s actually happening behind the scenes.

The people building AI say it could destroy humanity… so why are they still racing to build it? To help answer that, I’m joined by Karen Hao. She’s someone who’s spent years speaking to the people at the centre of this race, conducting over 300 interviews, including insiders at OpenAI to understand what’s really going on. Karen is a journalist who has been covering artificial intelligence for years, looking closely at how these systems are built and what’s really driving them. As we get into this conversation, what becomes clear is how much of the story we hear about AI is controlled by a small number of people - and how difficult it is to separate what’s being said publicly from what’s actually happening behind the scenes.

Steven Bartlett

38,646 views • 4 months ago

Roger Penrose, Nobel Prize-winning physicist and mathematician, explains why we should stop calling it AI and start calling it "artificial cleverness": He believes the entire field is mislabelled, and the label itself is doing damage. His objection is simple but cuts deep: "The name is wrong. It's not artificial intelligence. It's not intelligence. Intelligence would involve consciousness. Well, if it's a machine, it's not conscious." For Penrose, people have confused raw computing power with genuine understanding. "People have lost the plot. They've lost it in the power of computing. The thing is that computers have got so powerful that they've lost the thread of what they're doing. But I think consciousness is something different. It's not computational." He believes the term itself has hypnotized people into a category error: "People are so hypnotized. The trouble is that AI is a bad term. It means artificial intelligence. Now intelligence in my view is conscious. That's what intelligence is about." So he proposes a rename. Artificial Cleverness. AC instead of AI. To illustrate the distinction, Penrose draws on his experience teaching mathematics: "You have mathematics students. Some of them understand what they're doing. Some are just clever. They can repeat what they've learned. They know how to do it very cleverly. They can calculate very well, but they don't necessarily understand what they're doing." That gap, between calculating well and actually understanding, is the gap Penrose sees between today's machines and genuine intelligence. Cleverness can be manufactured. Consciousness, in his view, cannot. So the question worth sitting with: when we call a system "intelligent," are we describing what it does, or quietly assuming something about what it is?

Roger Penrose, Nobel Prize-winning physicist and mathematician, explains why we should stop calling it AI and start calling it "artificial cleverness": He believes the entire field is mislabelled, and the label itself is doing damage. His objection is simple but cuts deep: "The name is wrong. It's not artificial intelligence. It's not intelligence. Intelligence would involve consciousness. Well, if it's a machine, it's not conscious." For Penrose, people have confused raw computing power with genuine understanding. "People have lost the plot. They've lost it in the power of computing. The thing is that computers have got so powerful that they've lost the thread of what they're doing. But I think consciousness is something different. It's not computational." He believes the term itself has hypnotized people into a category error: "People are so hypnotized. The trouble is that AI is a bad term. It means artificial intelligence. Now intelligence in my view is conscious. That's what intelligence is about." So he proposes a rename. Artificial Cleverness. AC instead of AI. To illustrate the distinction, Penrose draws on his experience teaching mathematics: "You have mathematics students. Some of them understand what they're doing. Some are just clever. They can repeat what they've learned. They know how to do it very cleverly. They can calculate very well, but they don't necessarily understand what they're doing." That gap, between calculating well and actually understanding, is the gap Penrose sees between today's machines and genuine intelligence. Cleverness can be manufactured. Consciousness, in his view, cannot. So the question worth sitting with: when we call a system "intelligent," are we describing what it does, or quietly assuming something about what it is?

Big Brain AI

117,778 views • 2 months ago

#WATCH | Srinagar, J&K: On the Pahalgam attack, CM Omar Abdullah says, "... Who is responsible for this failure? If it is an intelligence failure, then who is responsible for this? It is not possible that 26 people lost their lives and there is no response from our side. Now that we know that there has been a failure in security and intelligence, someone has to be held responsible."

#WATCH | Srinagar, J&K: On the Pahalgam attack, CM Omar Abdullah says, "... Who is responsible for this failure? If it is an intelligence failure, then who is responsible for this? It is not possible that 26 people lost their lives and there is no response from our side. Now that we know that there has been a failure in security and intelligence, someone has to be held responsible."

ANI

16,624 views • 1 year ago