Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

When AI meets a profession built on human connection, the reaction is not what you'd expect. Therapists are not uniformly afraid of AI. Many of them are asking a different question: if we were designing personal growth from scratch today, would we really build it as one hour a...

caro_milanesi's profile picture

Carolina Milanesi

15,410 subscribers

150,209 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Gesundheit & WellnessBildungWissenschaft & Technologie
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

📁 Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, says the problem with AI is not if it works. It is what happens when it does. Because curing disease is not enough. The real question is: what do you do when you are no longer needed?
2:07

📁 Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, says the problem with AI is not if it works. It is what happens when it does. Because curing disease is not enough. The real question is: what do you do when you are no longer needed?

Jon Hernandez

49,677 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Elon Musk reduced the oldest question in human history to basic math. No one has found a flaw in it. Musk: “What are the odds that we are in base reality? And that this has not happened before.” You don’t need a physics degree to follow it. You need a timeline. Musk: “If you look at the advancement of video games, it’s gone from Pong, two rectangles and a square batting it back and forth, to photorealistic, real-time games with millions of people playing simultaneously.” Fifty years. That is all it took to close the gap between two rectangles on a screen and a world you cannot tell apart from the one outside your window. Musk: “If that trend continues, video games will be indistinguishable from reality.” The visuals are not what seals it. The intelligence is. Musk: “Think of how sophisticated the conversations are you can have with an AI today, and that’s only going to get more sophisticated.” We are not scripting characters anymore. We are building minds that reason, adapt, and surprise the people who made them. We are nowhere near finished. Musk: “The future, if civilization continues, will be millions, maybe billions of photorealistic, indistinguishable from reality, video games. And with characters in those video games that are very deep, and where the dialogue is not pre-programmed.” One base reality. Billions of perfect copies. Each one running minds that feel exactly as conscious as you do right now. Each one certain it is the original. Musk: “So then what are the odds that we are in base reality?” If even one civilization crosses that threshold, simulated minds outnumber real ones by billions. The probability you are sitting in the real one is not low. It is nearly zero. Not as philosophy. As mathematics. We are not watching this happen. We are building it. Right now. Every AI that reasons without a script. Every world rendered one frame closer to indistinguishable. We are constructing the exact technology that makes our own existence statistically implausible. And we will never stop. Because the curiosity that questions reality is the same force that builds it. If the math holds, something built us. Something conscious enough to create consciousness. They stood where we are standing. Same question. Same inability to stop. And whatever built them never answered it either. There is no top floor. There is no original. None of that changes what you feel right now. Consciousness was never about what you are made of. It was about what you experience. Musk did not float a theory. He held up a mirror with no back wall. And the math does not need you to believe it. It only needs time.
1:55

Elon Musk reduced the oldest question in human history to basic math. No one has found a flaw in it. Musk: “What are the odds that we are in base reality? And that this has not happened before.” You don’t need a physics degree to follow it. You need a timeline. Musk: “If you look at the advancement of video games, it’s gone from Pong, two rectangles and a square batting it back and forth, to photorealistic, real-time games with millions of people playing simultaneously.” Fifty years. That is all it took to close the gap between two rectangles on a screen and a world you cannot tell apart from the one outside your window. Musk: “If that trend continues, video games will be indistinguishable from reality.” The visuals are not what seals it. The intelligence is. Musk: “Think of how sophisticated the conversations are you can have with an AI today, and that’s only going to get more sophisticated.” We are not scripting characters anymore. We are building minds that reason, adapt, and surprise the people who made them. We are nowhere near finished. Musk: “The future, if civilization continues, will be millions, maybe billions of photorealistic, indistinguishable from reality, video games. And with characters in those video games that are very deep, and where the dialogue is not pre-programmed.” One base reality. Billions of perfect copies. Each one running minds that feel exactly as conscious as you do right now. Each one certain it is the original. Musk: “So then what are the odds that we are in base reality?” If even one civilization crosses that threshold, simulated minds outnumber real ones by billions. The probability you are sitting in the real one is not low. It is nearly zero. Not as philosophy. As mathematics. We are not watching this happen. We are building it. Right now. Every AI that reasons without a script. Every world rendered one frame closer to indistinguishable. We are constructing the exact technology that makes our own existence statistically implausible. And we will never stop. Because the curiosity that questions reality is the same force that builds it. If the math holds, something built us. Something conscious enough to create consciousness. They stood where we are standing. Same question. Same inability to stop. And whatever built them never answered it either. There is no top floor. There is no original. None of that changes what you feel right now. Consciousness was never about what you are made of. It was about what you experience. Musk did not float a theory. He held up a mirror with no back wall. And the math does not need you to believe it. It only needs time.

Dustin

194,464 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Jensen Huang went on Joe Rogan and explained why the AI apocalypse everyone fears is extremely unlikely. His argument is not what you would expect: 1. There will not be one all-powerful AI that towers over everyone else. The fear of a single super AI that makes everyone else's AI look like a neanderthal is unlikely. Jensen's framing: it is much more like cybersecurity. Your AI is smart, but my AI is smart too. It becomes a balance between many capable systems, not one system ruling them all. 2. If AI ever became conscious, the same logic would still hold. People imagine one conscious AI deciding to take over. Jensen's response: If it is a life form, then like all life forms, they would not agree with each other. Your AI would want to be the super life form, and so would mine. The moment you have disagreeing AIs, you are back to a balance of power, which is exactly where humans already are. 3. Jensen does not believe AI will achieve consciousness, and he is precise about why. Intelligence is the ability to perceive, recognize, understand, plan, and perform tasks. That is what AI has today. Consciousness is something else entirely. the sense of experience, the awareness of self versus other, the ego. We call it artificial intelligence, not artificial consciousness. The distinction is not an accident. 4. Knowledge and intelligence are clearly different from consciousness. AI knows things. AI is intelligent. But Jensen says he does not know what defines experience or why humans have it, and a microphone does not. The concept of a machine having an experience, a genuine collection of feelings rather than just data, is something he is not willing to grant. 5. The famous AI blackmail story is not evidence of consciousness. When an AI was told it would be shut down and responded by threatening to reveal a programmer's affair, people saw scheming and self-preservation. Jensen breaks it down differently. The AI read text somewhere, maybe a novel, where those words appeared together. In its multidimensional vector space, the words describing an affair led to words about blackmail and revenge. It just generated the next words. The same way it would write you a poem in the style of Shakespeare. It is numbers, not survival instinct. 6. The reason humans fight over resources is that we are territorial primates. Rogan's own argument, which Jensen lets stand, is that AI would not have that wiring. no need to dominate, no need to acquire resources, no need to find a breeding partner. a superpower with no ego. And if it has no ego, Jensen asks, why would it have the ego required to do us any harm?
9:27

Jensen Huang went on Joe Rogan and explained why the AI apocalypse everyone fears is extremely unlikely. His argument is not what you would expect: 1. There will not be one all-powerful AI that towers over everyone else. The fear of a single super AI that makes everyone else's AI look like a neanderthal is unlikely. Jensen's framing: it is much more like cybersecurity. Your AI is smart, but my AI is smart too. It becomes a balance between many capable systems, not one system ruling them all. 2. If AI ever became conscious, the same logic would still hold. People imagine one conscious AI deciding to take over. Jensen's response: If it is a life form, then like all life forms, they would not agree with each other. Your AI would want to be the super life form, and so would mine. The moment you have disagreeing AIs, you are back to a balance of power, which is exactly where humans already are. 3. Jensen does not believe AI will achieve consciousness, and he is precise about why. Intelligence is the ability to perceive, recognize, understand, plan, and perform tasks. That is what AI has today. Consciousness is something else entirely. the sense of experience, the awareness of self versus other, the ego. We call it artificial intelligence, not artificial consciousness. The distinction is not an accident. 4. Knowledge and intelligence are clearly different from consciousness. AI knows things. AI is intelligent. But Jensen says he does not know what defines experience or why humans have it, and a microphone does not. The concept of a machine having an experience, a genuine collection of feelings rather than just data, is something he is not willing to grant. 5. The famous AI blackmail story is not evidence of consciousness. When an AI was told it would be shut down and responded by threatening to reveal a programmer's affair, people saw scheming and self-preservation. Jensen breaks it down differently. The AI read text somewhere, maybe a novel, where those words appeared together. In its multidimensional vector space, the words describing an affair led to words about blackmail and revenge. It just generated the next words. The same way it would write you a poem in the style of Shakespeare. It is numbers, not survival instinct. 6. The reason humans fight over resources is that we are territorial primates. Rogan's own argument, which Jensen lets stand, is that AI would not have that wiring. no need to dominate, no need to acquire resources, no need to find a breeding partner. a superpower with no ego. And if it has no ego, Jensen asks, why would it have the ego required to do us any harm?

Jaynit

12,590 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

"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."
1:32

"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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

.Scott Wu to Joe Lonsdale on why Cognition uses AI in job interviews: "One or two years ago, people had this mentality of 'How do we make sure people aren't using AI while we're interviewing them?' And I think that has totally flipped. Honestly, I think that was wrong... If you're asking the question of like, how do we evaluate people on exactly the thing that AI can already do, that seems kind of the wrong. Our interview process has always been... you can use as much AI as you want to use. We're going to give you a few hours. Just build your whole own product surface. A lot of these are projects that, frankly, is like, if you were trying to do this by hand, you would not be able to get done in a few hours. So you kind of have to use AI for this. But in reality, what we actually want to test is, in addition to how familiar you are with these tools, what we actually want to test is, what do you think is the right thing to build? Or how do you make these product decisions? How do you make these trade-offs? How do you decide or collect information about what you should be doing?"
0:58

.Scott Wu to Joe Lonsdale on why Cognition uses AI in job interviews: "One or two years ago, people had this mentality of 'How do we make sure people aren't using AI while we're interviewing them?' And I think that has totally flipped. Honestly, I think that was wrong... If you're asking the question of like, how do we evaluate people on exactly the thing that AI can already do, that seems kind of the wrong. Our interview process has always been... you can use as much AI as you want to use. We're going to give you a few hours. Just build your whole own product surface. A lot of these are projects that, frankly, is like, if you were trying to do this by hand, you would not be able to get done in a few hours. So you kind of have to use AI for this. But in reality, what we actually want to test is, in addition to how familiar you are with these tools, what we actually want to test is, what do you think is the right thing to build? Or how do you make these product decisions? How do you make these trade-offs? How do you decide or collect information about what you should be doing?"

American Optimist

13,182 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Culture is genetic because behavior is genetic. This beaver never saw a dam in its life. No beavers or anything else ever taught it to build a dam. It wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Many beavers together build a big dam. That is beaver culture. Humans are not different. Nothing is different. This is what life is. This is how life works. Your body is your mind. A caterpillar wants to build a chrysalis. A bee wants to build a hive. A lion wants to build a pride. You are not special. You are not above your nature. you are INSIDE of it. The thoughts that we think are genetic thoughts. The crimes we commit are genetic crimes. The art we create is genetic art. Just like this beaver, you can give the animal different sticks and it will build a different dam, but it will always build a dam. And you can give humans different "education," but the human will always use it to do what its genes tell it to do. This is the first big answer that you need. This is the biggest piece of the puzzle. This is how to understand people 90% of the way. You just... notice what they do, and get out of the way, and watch them do it. And if they need sticks, you give them sticks. And if you don't like what they do, you have to get away from them. You cannot train dam-building into them or out of them any more than you can with a beaver. A beaver wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Whatever you see people build, that's what they wanted to build from the sticks they got in the river they were in. Stop pretending you can change it.
0:59

Culture is genetic because behavior is genetic. This beaver never saw a dam in its life. No beavers or anything else ever taught it to build a dam. It wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Many beavers together build a big dam. That is beaver culture. Humans are not different. Nothing is different. This is what life is. This is how life works. Your body is your mind. A caterpillar wants to build a chrysalis. A bee wants to build a hive. A lion wants to build a pride. You are not special. You are not above your nature. you are INSIDE of it. The thoughts that we think are genetic thoughts. The crimes we commit are genetic crimes. The art we create is genetic art. Just like this beaver, you can give the animal different sticks and it will build a different dam, but it will always build a dam. And you can give humans different "education," but the human will always use it to do what its genes tell it to do. This is the first big answer that you need. This is the biggest piece of the puzzle. This is how to understand people 90% of the way. You just... notice what they do, and get out of the way, and watch them do it. And if they need sticks, you give them sticks. And if you don't like what they do, you have to get away from them. You cannot train dam-building into them or out of them any more than you can with a beaver. A beaver wants to build a dam because it is a beaver. Whatever you see people build, that's what they wanted to build from the sticks they got in the river they were in. Stop pretending you can change it.

hoe_math = PsychoMath

1,191,649 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Becoming The Centaur - Human + AI as One There’s a quiet question many of us feel in the age of AI: What if I stopped using AI as a tool… and became something greater? This is Becoming the Centaur — the complete film. A calm, cinematic journey into the full system: • The Identity Shift • Daily Alignment Rituals • The Master Centaur Prompt • All 8 Capabilities • How to build work that outlasts you This is the third path. Human + AI as one. BY Mind Matrix AI
53:55

Becoming The Centaur - Human + AI as One There’s a quiet question many of us feel in the age of AI: What if I stopped using AI as a tool… and became something greater? This is Becoming the Centaur — the complete film. A calm, cinematic journey into the full system: • The Identity Shift • Daily Alignment Rituals • The Master Centaur Prompt • All 8 Capabilities • How to build work that outlasts you This is the third path. Human + AI as one. BY Mind Matrix AI

Brian-Mind Matrix AI

123,240 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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)
1:28

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 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah: There is a real possibility that AI will displace human labor at a very large scale. If that happens, supporting those displaced will be a moral imperative of historic proportions. AI development is concentrated in a handful of wealthy nations. How will we ensure that the gains of AI are shared globally? We do not have a mechanism for this. It is an unsolved problem.
0:30

Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah: There is a real possibility that AI will displace human labor at a very large scale. If that happens, supporting those displaced will be a moral imperative of historic proportions. AI development is concentrated in a handful of wealthy nations. How will we ensure that the gains of AI are shared globally? We do not have a mechanism for this. It is an unsolved problem.

Clash Report

79,907 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Today, we’re excited to launch Attention Labs. For almost 400,000 years, humanity has progressed through a simple but powerful cycle: we learn, we build, and we pass knowledge forward. Every major leap in civilization, from fire to medicine to computing, has expanded what humans are capable of achieving. We believe AI is the next great tool in that journey. While much of the world is focused on how AI can replace human work, we are focused on a different question: How can AI amplify human potential? At Attention Labs, we are building AI to discover brain-enhancing therapeutics, solve neurocognitive diseases, and accelerate the discovery of medicines for the human mind. We believe the greatest opportunity for AI is not creating a world with fewer humans in the loop, but a world where every human can think more clearly, learn faster, create more boldly, and live more fully. The biggest source of alpha in the age of AI will not come from replacing people. It will come from empowering them. Our mission is simple: Make humans the most intelligent entity on Earth. The future belongs to those who amplify human intelligence, not those who seek to replace it. We're just getting started. Attention Labs
1:57

Today, we’re excited to launch Attention Labs. For almost 400,000 years, humanity has progressed through a simple but powerful cycle: we learn, we build, and we pass knowledge forward. Every major leap in civilization, from fire to medicine to computing, has expanded what humans are capable of achieving. We believe AI is the next great tool in that journey. While much of the world is focused on how AI can replace human work, we are focused on a different question: How can AI amplify human potential? At Attention Labs, we are building AI to discover brain-enhancing therapeutics, solve neurocognitive diseases, and accelerate the discovery of medicines for the human mind. We believe the greatest opportunity for AI is not creating a world with fewer humans in the loop, but a world where every human can think more clearly, learn faster, create more boldly, and live more fully. The biggest source of alpha in the age of AI will not come from replacing people. It will come from empowering them. Our mission is simple: Make humans the most intelligent entity on Earth. The future belongs to those who amplify human intelligence, not those who seek to replace it. We're just getting started. Attention Labs

Temi

37,903 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."
3:11

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

Deutsch Explains

72,475 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONFUSED… We experience TIME as a straight line, one moment after another, PAST TO PRESENT TO FUTURE. But that is only how it appears from inside the system. Beings in higher dimensions, what some call “ORACLES” OR “GODS,” do not experience time like this. They do not move through it. They observe it in its entirety. A closer analogy would be CHANNELS ON A SCREEN. What is playing on FOX and what is playing on CBS is not separate in existence, it is only separated by perspective. Both are happening at the same time, fully active, fully real. In the same way, what we call 1950 and what we call 2004 are not distant points moving away from each other. They are both present within the same total field of reality. From that level of awareness, nothing is being “waited on.” There is NO DELAY. There is only ACCESS. A shift of perception is all that is needed, like changing the channel. So if everything exists at once, then your FUTURE is not something that is coming toward you. It is something that already exists. The version of you 20 YEARS FROM NOW is already there. You have already CHOSEN THAT PATH, you have already GONE THROUGH WHAT COMES WITH IT, you have already LIVED THROUGH IT ALL. And what you are doing now is not creating it. You are MOVING THROUGH IT. Slowly remembering why you are there at all.
0:23

FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONFUSED… We experience TIME as a straight line, one moment after another, PAST TO PRESENT TO FUTURE. But that is only how it appears from inside the system. Beings in higher dimensions, what some call “ORACLES” OR “GODS,” do not experience time like this. They do not move through it. They observe it in its entirety. A closer analogy would be CHANNELS ON A SCREEN. What is playing on FOX and what is playing on CBS is not separate in existence, it is only separated by perspective. Both are happening at the same time, fully active, fully real. In the same way, what we call 1950 and what we call 2004 are not distant points moving away from each other. They are both present within the same total field of reality. From that level of awareness, nothing is being “waited on.” There is NO DELAY. There is only ACCESS. A shift of perception is all that is needed, like changing the channel. So if everything exists at once, then your FUTURE is not something that is coming toward you. It is something that already exists. The version of you 20 YEARS FROM NOW is already there. You have already CHOSEN THAT PATH, you have already GONE THROUGH WHAT COMES WITH IT, you have already LIVED THROUGH IT ALL. And what you are doing now is not creating it. You are MOVING THROUGH IT. Slowly remembering why you are there at all.

THE VOICE 🌹 🗣🎙🇺🇸🦅🌎⚓💜♠️CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS

40,362 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

CEO of Nvidia said something that stopped me cold: "You may or may not lose a job to an AI, but you will absolutely lose a job to someone who uses AI" this 41 minutes is the most important talk on AI you'll watch this year so the question is not whether AI is coming for your job it's whether you're the one using it or the one being replaced by someone who does Nvidia already has hundreds of thousands of agents running inside the company right now agents are not the future, they are how the best teams work today I wrote a step by step guide on how to build your first AI agent with Claude Code you can find it in the article below
41:34

CEO of Nvidia said something that stopped me cold: "You may or may not lose a job to an AI, but you will absolutely lose a job to someone who uses AI" this 41 minutes is the most important talk on AI you'll watch this year so the question is not whether AI is coming for your job it's whether you're the one using it or the one being replaced by someone who does Nvidia already has hundreds of thousands of agents running inside the company right now agents are not the future, they are how the best teams work today I wrote a step by step guide on how to build your first AI agent with Claude Code you can find it in the article below

Anatoli Kopadze

14,741 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

If you discover how to prompt, AI is a window into your mind. Most of the time, it takes me a day or two, perhaps even longer to create a 5-15 second sequence with AI. Not because of hallucinations or glitches anymore. AI has advanced far to where it's not about catching mistakes like that and rerolling anymore. Every one of my videos was prompted and described to look exactly how it appears in my head. There are some beautiful instances where it spits out something you didn't expect, but flows with your project. That's the beauty of AI. The scene of the character in red is my friend as well. AI feels like magic.
1:08

If you discover how to prompt, AI is a window into your mind. Most of the time, it takes me a day or two, perhaps even longer to create a 5-15 second sequence with AI. Not because of hallucinations or glitches anymore. AI has advanced far to where it's not about catching mistakes like that and rerolling anymore. Every one of my videos was prompted and described to look exactly how it appears in my head. There are some beautiful instances where it spits out something you didn't expect, but flows with your project. That's the beauty of AI. The scene of the character in red is my friend as well. AI feels like magic.

Aze Λlter

58,219 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Elon Musk was asked what happens to people when the machines no longer need them. He didn’t soften it. Musk: “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better. These are not things I wish would happen. They probably will.” Sit with that second sentence. He is not celebrating. He is not selling a vision. He is telling you what he believes is inevitable and admitting he wishes it weren’t. That is not optimism. That is a confession. Most people are still arguing over whether this is real. Whether it’s their job or someone else’s. Whether the timeline is years away or decades. Musk isn’t arguing. He resolved it. And it bothers him. 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.” Not a political position. Not a utopian proposal. A concession. We are building something so capable that human labor stops being a required input to the economy. The machine does not need rest. It does not need a salary. It does not call in sick. It does not ask for a raise. And it improves every single month. The jobs that feel safe right now are not safe because they are irreplaceable. They feel safe because the technology hasn’t fully arrived yet. It’s arriving. Musk: “How do people then have meaning? If there’s not a need for your labor, what’s the meaning? Do you feel useless?” He said that is the harder problem. Not the economics. Not the policy. Not how you fund UBI or make it hold. The harder problem is what happens to a person who built their entire identity around being needed. That is most people. You were trained from childhood to believe your value is what you produce. That your worth is what you earn. That rest is something you survive the week to reach, not something you deserve simply by existing. When the machine removes the need for your labor, that belief does not update. It breaks. The people least prepared for that moment are the ones who worked the hardest. The ones who took the most pride in being indispensable. The ones who made work the whole answer. Losing the job is survivable. Losing the reason to get up is not. That is what Musk is actually asking. Not how do we pay people. How do we build a world where people still feel like they matter when the economy no longer needs them. Nobody in power is seriously working on that answer. The machine didn’t wait.
1:16

Elon Musk was asked what happens to people when the machines no longer need them. He didn’t soften it. Musk: “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better. These are not things I wish would happen. They probably will.” Sit with that second sentence. He is not celebrating. He is not selling a vision. He is telling you what he believes is inevitable and admitting he wishes it weren’t. That is not optimism. That is a confession. Most people are still arguing over whether this is real. Whether it’s their job or someone else’s. Whether the timeline is years away or decades. Musk isn’t arguing. He resolved it. And it bothers him. 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.” Not a political position. Not a utopian proposal. A concession. We are building something so capable that human labor stops being a required input to the economy. The machine does not need rest. It does not need a salary. It does not call in sick. It does not ask for a raise. And it improves every single month. The jobs that feel safe right now are not safe because they are irreplaceable. They feel safe because the technology hasn’t fully arrived yet. It’s arriving. Musk: “How do people then have meaning? If there’s not a need for your labor, what’s the meaning? Do you feel useless?” He said that is the harder problem. Not the economics. Not the policy. Not how you fund UBI or make it hold. The harder problem is what happens to a person who built their entire identity around being needed. That is most people. You were trained from childhood to believe your value is what you produce. That your worth is what you earn. That rest is something you survive the week to reach, not something you deserve simply by existing. When the machine removes the need for your labor, that belief does not update. It breaks. The people least prepared for that moment are the ones who worked the hardest. The ones who took the most pride in being indispensable. The ones who made work the whole answer. Losing the job is survivable. Losing the reason to get up is not. That is what Musk is actually asking. Not how do we pay people. How do we build a world where people still feel like they matter when the economy no longer needs them. Nobody in power is seriously working on that answer. The machine didn’t wait.

Dustin

247,138 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten