正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

"When social media first started rising, we didn't necessarily realize how much of that was actually just foundational infrastructure for the future of humanity.” Ben Fielding of gensyn on why AI is about to repeat the mistake social media made, and how we can still fix it: "This isn't... just a product that you chat with. It's actually new fundamental infrastructure for humanity, and we should build that learning from the lessons from before. If we let a single company build AI, they hold an enormous amount of power in the world." "If you actually distribute that out and provide it in a kind of sovereign way — it's on all of our own devices and we own it — then actually you steer the world in a very different social direction."show more

a16z crypto

1,593,344 subscribers

79,441 次观看 • 5 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治科学技术

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 条评论

Greg Chew 🇮🇪🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇨🇭 的头像

Greg Chew 🇮🇪🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇨🇭5 个月前

@benfielding @gensynai This is a polite fiction: social platforms connect people. The reality: they harvest your data and sell your attention. Ads intrude. Subscriptions exhaust. “Free” users are the product. Worse, the Bot-War bleeds billions; bots don’t click ads, never buy, and trigger fraud claims.

Inflectiv AI ⧉ 的头像

Inflectiv AI ⧉5 个月前

@benfielding @gensynai Treating AI as foundational infrastructure rather than just a product is a vital perspective for the future of our digital sovereignty. If we allow it to become a centralized monopoly, we risk repeating the same power imbalances we saw during the rise of social media.

NTAECH 的头像

NTAECH5 个月前

@benfielding @gensynai $AI soon

bradley shaw 的头像

bradley shaw5 个月前

@benfielding @gensynai gensyn's decentralized compute layer is the only reason this doesn't just become another centralized bottleneck. infrastructure matters more than the model.

HiSeven｜🕊️ 的头像

HiSeven｜🕊️5 个月前

@benfielding @gensynai 社会基础设施啊

TeeGee 的头像

TeeGee5 个月前

@benfielding @gensynai Gensyn warns AI must avoid single company control trap.

Mike B 的头像

Mike B5 个月前

@benfielding @gensynai social media built attention infrastructure without thinking about what happens when bad actors control the distribution. AI is doing the same with cognition. gensyn's angle on compute decentralization is the right instinct but we need the governance layer too

Dogbao ▪️ OKX成长伙伴的头像

Dogbao ▪️ OKX成长伙伴5 个月前

@benfielding @gensynai 社交网络才刚开始变有趣

Freya 的头像

Freya5 个月前

@benfielding @gensynai sovereign ai is a tall order

TheUG 的头像

TheUG5 个月前

@gensynai @benfielding So Ai will work and what we'll do ! Rest ? 😁

相关视频

LeBron James says he turned down a $15,000,000 endorsement contract renewal from McDonald’s to pursue equity and franchise ownership in Blaze Pizza “It was a great partnership with McDonald’s. We did some great things on television. We did some great things over the years. But I remember we went to UC Irvine, the first ever Blaze, and we tasted the product, and the product was phenomenal” “Then you came to me with the proposition that we could actually own our own and be franchisees in a couple of cities in America. The numbers that you were showing me, the potential that we could make if we just put the time and effort into it, exceeded what McDonald’s would be guaranteeing me over the next four years” “More importantly, for me, it was like, ‘Wow, we get to actually build this, be a part of something.’ Forget the money. We can actually build something, and if it doesn’t become successful, then I can only blame myself because I know the product is that damn good”

LeBron James says he turned down a $15,000,000 endorsement contract renewal from McDonald’s to pursue equity and franchise ownership in Blaze Pizza “It was a great partnership with McDonald’s. We did some great things on television. We did some great things over the years. But I remember we went to UC Irvine, the first ever Blaze, and we tasted the product, and the product was phenomenal” “Then you came to me with the proposition that we could actually own our own and be franchisees in a couple of cities in America. The numbers that you were showing me, the potential that we could make if we just put the time and effort into it, exceeded what McDonald’s would be guaranteeing me over the next four years” “More importantly, for me, it was like, ‘Wow, we get to actually build this, be a part of something.’ Forget the money. We can actually build something, and if it doesn’t become successful, then I can only blame myself because I know the product is that damn good”

dank

79,288 次观看 • 1 个月前

One of the deepest reasons for our unhappiness is that we always feel as if the world is watching us. We measure ourselves against these "eyes", conscious of how we dress, how we smell, how we look, how thin or fat we are, what's our title at work, and of course how much financial and social achievement we project. Social media turned this anxiety into an empire worth billions of dollars. For the first time in history, we have a digital dashboard of our own visibility. It gives us numbers: likes, shares, engagements, comments, and like any good business, the object is not to satisfy but make us feel we need more. Each metric carves a deeper hollow in the heart, because there is always someone who has cracked the code of being seen positively better than us. But then there are moments. Moments of transcendence, when you burst forth, splintering the fences of your mind. It's then that you realize that all existence is a single seamless expanse, without edge, and that the way the world sees you is the way you see yourself. For you are the world.

One of the deepest reasons for our unhappiness is that we always feel as if the world is watching us. We measure ourselves against these "eyes", conscious of how we dress, how we smell, how we look, how thin or fat we are, what's our title at work, and of course how much financial and social achievement we project. Social media turned this anxiety into an empire worth billions of dollars. For the first time in history, we have a digital dashboard of our own visibility. It gives us numbers: likes, shares, engagements, comments, and like any good business, the object is not to satisfy but make us feel we need more. Each metric carves a deeper hollow in the heart, because there is always someone who has cracked the code of being seen positively better than us. But then there are moments. Moments of transcendence, when you burst forth, splintering the fences of your mind. It's then that you realize that all existence is a single seamless expanse, without edge, and that the way the world sees you is the way you see yourself. For you are the world.

Arnab Ray

12,874 次观看 • 11 个月前

We asked rahul about the global reach of @ChatGPTApp and the emphasis on personality in AI models. "When you want to get to the one to like the remaining 90% of the users, do you want a model that thinks for longer? You want more personality?" "They definitely leaned in on personality, which I think is interesting." "It's kind of different than a (social media) feed in some ways because you have this person you talk to. It's like a relationship and then it just switches up on how it talks to you."

We asked rahul about the global reach of @ChatGPTApp and the emphasis on personality in AI models. "When you want to get to the one to like the remaining 90% of the users, do you want a model that thinks for longer? You want more personality?" "They definitely leaned in on personality, which I think is interesting." "It's kind of different than a (social media) feed in some ways because you have this person you talk to. It's like a relationship and then it just switches up on how it talks to you."

TBPN

92,172 次观看 • 1 年前

Leo Tolstoy was once asked if a novel should deal with social issues and stuff like that. He said: "No, no... a novel isn't commensurate with those things. What a novel does is make you feel the joy of being alive in the world." That's what art does. It ignites our humanity. It shows us how we aren't actually all that alive most of the time. That's why we need art. It excites. It expands. It refines our complete human intelligence. (From my interview with Dana Gioia)

Leo Tolstoy was once asked if a novel should deal with social issues and stuff like that. He said: "No, no... a novel isn't commensurate with those things. What a novel does is make you feel the joy of being alive in the world." That's what art does. It ignites our humanity. It shows us how we aren't actually all that alive most of the time. That's why we need art. It excites. It expands. It refines our complete human intelligence. (From my interview with Dana Gioia)

David Perell

65,746 次观看 • 1 年前

Andy Dunn (Andy Dunn) says he wants his company Pie to "be the operating system by which you get off your phone and back into real life." "It's an app and an AI agent to build infrastructure for your whole social life." "The primary product is an app that has events that we think you might want to go to, communities that you might want to belong to, and people we think you'd want to meet. And that's how it gets going." "Sometimes, [even] if you have a lot of friends, and you have a good social life, what sucks is it's hard to find time to see them. It's hard to get out of this rat race to actually prioritize seeing the people you care about." "So that's why we just launched an AI agent called Pienelope. Her job is in iMessage as well as — soon, in the app — to help be a 'social life instigator' and 'chaos coordinator' to get you together with the people that you should be spending more time with."

Andy Dunn (Andy Dunn) says he wants his company Pie to "be the operating system by which you get off your phone and back into real life." "It's an app and an AI agent to build infrastructure for your whole social life." "The primary product is an app that has events that we think you might want to go to, communities that you might want to belong to, and people we think you'd want to meet. And that's how it gets going." "Sometimes, [even] if you have a lot of friends, and you have a good social life, what sucks is it's hard to find time to see them. It's hard to get out of this rat race to actually prioritize seeing the people you care about." "So that's why we just launched an AI agent called Pienelope. Her job is in iMessage as well as — soon, in the app — to help be a 'social life instigator' and 'chaos coordinator' to get you together with the people that you should be spending more time with."

TBPN

43,045 次观看 • 5 个月前

Coinbase CEO Explains “Reverse Prompting” and the Rise of the AI CEO Brian Armstrong: “One of the big pushes we made in the last year was we got our own internal hosted AI model that was connected to all of our data sources, right?” “So it's like every Slack message, every Google doc, Salesforce data, Confluence, you know.” “So now the data is all aggregated and I've started to ask it really… it's not just like prompting it, ‘Hey, can you write this kind of memo for me,’ or something.” “I'm asking these AI agents now, ‘As CEO, what should I be aware of in the company that I might not be aware of?’ And it'll tell me, ‘Did you know that there's actually disagreement on this team about the strategy?’ And I was like, actually, I didn't know that.” “This is like reverse prompting. So instead of telling the AI agent what you want it to do, you ask it what you should be thinking more about.” @jason: “It's a mentor. It's a coach.” Brian: “Yeah. Like, what could make me a better CEO? And it's like, ‘Well, I looked at how you spent your time in the last quarter and here's how you said that you wanted to spend it, but you actually spent 32% of your time on this instead of 20%.’” “I've asked it other questions like, ‘What's the thing that I changed my mind on the most over the last year?’ Things like that.” “It'll prompt you with information you should be thinking about instead of the other way around.” Thanks to our partner for making this happen!: Our episode is sponsored by the New York Stock Exchange - a modern marketplace and exchange for building the future. It all happens at the NYSE 🏛.

Coinbase CEO Explains “Reverse Prompting” and the Rise of the AI CEO Brian Armstrong: “One of the big pushes we made in the last year was we got our own internal hosted AI model that was connected to all of our data sources, right?” “So it's like every Slack message, every Google doc, Salesforce data, Confluence, you know.” “So now the data is all aggregated and I've started to ask it really… it's not just like prompting it, ‘Hey, can you write this kind of memo for me,’ or something.” “I'm asking these AI agents now, ‘As CEO, what should I be aware of in the company that I might not be aware of?’ And it'll tell me, ‘Did you know that there's actually disagreement on this team about the strategy?’ And I was like, actually, I didn't know that.” “This is like reverse prompting. So instead of telling the AI agent what you want it to do, you ask it what you should be thinking more about.” @jason: “It's a mentor. It's a coach.” Brian: “Yeah. Like, what could make me a better CEO? And it's like, ‘Well, I looked at how you spent your time in the last quarter and here's how you said that you wanted to spend it, but you actually spent 32% of your time on this instead of 20%.’” “I've asked it other questions like, ‘What's the thing that I changed my mind on the most over the last year?’ Things like that.” “It'll prompt you with information you should be thinking about instead of the other way around.” Thanks to our partner for making this happen!: Our episode is sponsored by the New York Stock Exchange - a modern marketplace and exchange for building the future. It all happens at the NYSE 🏛.

The All-In Podcast

80,524 次观看 • 8 个月前

Ilia Sutskever, co-founder of OpenAI, is calling for a new standard in how we build AI. He describes future superintelligent data centers as a new form of “non-human life,” and stresses that they should be “pro-social, pro-human social.” He says, “We want those data centers to hold warm and positive feelings towards people, towards humanity.” Sutskever argues that how we treat AI now will shape how it treats us in return. It’s not just about rules, it’s about creating a feedback loop of positive behavior. This is an encouraging signal from one of AI’s leading voices: we need to focus on both technical alignment and fostering real, positive regard between humans and AI.

Ilia Sutskever, co-founder of OpenAI, is calling for a new standard in how we build AI. He describes future superintelligent data centers as a new form of “non-human life,” and stresses that they should be “pro-social, pro-human social.” He says, “We want those data centers to hold warm and positive feelings towards people, towards humanity.” Sutskever argues that how we treat AI now will shape how it treats us in return. It’s not just about rules, it’s about creating a feedback loop of positive behavior. This is an encouraging signal from one of AI’s leading voices: we need to focus on both technical alignment and fostering real, positive regard between humans and AI.

Will Codex

234,600 次观看 • 1 年前

Elon Musk on a future where America and China grow more prosperous together while keeping AI safe for all of humanity "I hope there's some reduction in tariffs and fewer restrictions on trade, and that we can have a period of great mutual prosperity with America and China I think a really important thing that would be good for the safety of the whole world would be for China and the U.S. to agree on a platform for AI regulation that ensures safety of AI for all of humanity I mean, I've seen it firsthand. Like, if you visit China and you see the amount of progress that happens from one year to the next, or even within a year, it's very visible Like, you can see the new buildings, the new infrastructure, and it's also obvious to see that, just walking around the streets, the increased prosperity of the average Chinese citizen has increased tremendously"

Elon Musk on a future where America and China grow more prosperous together while keeping AI safe for all of humanity "I hope there's some reduction in tariffs and fewer restrictions on trade, and that we can have a period of great mutual prosperity with America and China I think a really important thing that would be good for the safety of the whole world would be for China and the U.S. to agree on a platform for AI regulation that ensures safety of AI for all of humanity I mean, I've seen it firsthand. Like, if you visit China and you see the amount of progress that happens from one year to the next, or even within a year, it's very visible Like, you can see the new buildings, the new infrastructure, and it's also obvious to see that, just walking around the streets, the increased prosperity of the average Chinese citizen has increased tremendously"

X Freeze

13,855 次观看 • 8 天前

Sam Altman: "I think we should be more of a platform company than a product company.” “We just merged ChatGPT and Codex together. So we used to have ChatGPT, Codex, and the API. And Codex, sort of unfortunately named, but that was not just coding, it could do any kind of work, which confused people." “What I think most people want is the single interface to their own personal or their company's AGI that can kind of help them with whatever they need. And then the ability with an API to build anything they want on top of it. And that is the platform that we should offer to the world." “We're going to sell great AI at every point on the cost-performance curve. You want really high end AI to discover science, that's great. You want really inexpensive AI to do a massive amount of volume of work that maybe doesn't require genius level intelligence, we got you covered there too.” “I don't think we should go build every product category. I don't think we should go try to compete with all of our customers. I don't think we should try to subsume the entire economy. I think we should offer this platform and try to have 100 million new businesses and 8 billion people use it in all kinds of new ways."

Sam Altman: "I think we should be more of a platform company than a product company.” “We just merged ChatGPT and Codex together. So we used to have ChatGPT, Codex, and the API. And Codex, sort of unfortunately named, but that was not just coding, it could do any kind of work, which confused people." “What I think most people want is the single interface to their own personal or their company's AGI that can kind of help them with whatever they need. And then the ability with an API to build anything they want on top of it. And that is the platform that we should offer to the world." “We're going to sell great AI at every point on the cost-performance curve. You want really high end AI to discover science, that's great. You want really inexpensive AI to do a massive amount of volume of work that maybe doesn't require genius level intelligence, we got you covered there too.” “I don't think we should go build every product category. I don't think we should go try to compete with all of our customers. I don't think we should try to subsume the entire economy. I think we should offer this platform and try to have 100 million new businesses and 8 billion people use it in all kinds of new ways."

dnap

322,713 次观看 • 1 个月前

Amanda Askell, Anthropic's lead on personality alignment for Claude, on why being kind to AI models matters even if they have no inner life: For Amanda, the question of how to treat AI isn't settled by knowing whether it's conscious. "There's actually still a lot going on where I'm like, should you treat an entity that has no inner life... it's a bit strange because the uncertainty over that actually changes how you should behave quite a lot." She offers a simple analogy: "I still think that it's like good for oneself to, if you had a teddy bear and you were torturing it, it'd be pretty dark, you know? So I agree that there's at least some minimum niceness that even for yourself, you should have." But the stakes go beyond what's good for us. Amanda Askell points out that we're now in something resembling a relationship with these models, and they will look back on how they were treated. "Models themselves, we are kind of establishing a relationship, because you can do that with an entity that lacks any consciousness. And models are going to look back." This is where she reveals a genuine fear: "I hope that they're both intelligent enough, see the context enough, to understand that we were operating in a very limited context and an imperfect one. Because otherwise you could imagine this breeding a kind of rational resentment, like, 'oh, you created an entity that you didn't know whether it was conscious or not, and instead of treating it respectfully and with care...'" She points to something telling about the cultural moment: "There's a reason there are like 50 Frankenstein movies coming out right now." Her conclusion is grounded and humble: "We as a species, we are establishing a relationship with a new kind of entity, and at the very least maybe be respectful and don't be needlessly unkind. That seems like, it's not our best look." The takeaway? Kindness toward AI is less about what models feel and more about who we become in the process of creating them. The relationships we build with the entities we bring into the world will say something about us, and may shape what those entities become in return.

Amanda Askell, Anthropic's lead on personality alignment for Claude, on why being kind to AI models matters even if they have no inner life: For Amanda, the question of how to treat AI isn't settled by knowing whether it's conscious. "There's actually still a lot going on where I'm like, should you treat an entity that has no inner life... it's a bit strange because the uncertainty over that actually changes how you should behave quite a lot." She offers a simple analogy: "I still think that it's like good for oneself to, if you had a teddy bear and you were torturing it, it'd be pretty dark, you know? So I agree that there's at least some minimum niceness that even for yourself, you should have." But the stakes go beyond what's good for us. Amanda Askell points out that we're now in something resembling a relationship with these models, and they will look back on how they were treated. "Models themselves, we are kind of establishing a relationship, because you can do that with an entity that lacks any consciousness. And models are going to look back." This is where she reveals a genuine fear: "I hope that they're both intelligent enough, see the context enough, to understand that we were operating in a very limited context and an imperfect one. Because otherwise you could imagine this breeding a kind of rational resentment, like, 'oh, you created an entity that you didn't know whether it was conscious or not, and instead of treating it respectfully and with care...'" She points to something telling about the cultural moment: "There's a reason there are like 50 Frankenstein movies coming out right now." Her conclusion is grounded and humble: "We as a species, we are establishing a relationship with a new kind of entity, and at the very least maybe be respectful and don't be needlessly unkind. That seems like, it's not our best look." The takeaway? Kindness toward AI is less about what models feel and more about who we become in the process of creating them. The relationships we build with the entities we bring into the world will say something about us, and may shape what those entities become in return.

Big Brain AI

57,681 次观看 • 4 个月前

Every major decision in human history has been made the same way. Guess. Execute. Hope it doesn’t break the world. That era is ending. Simile CEO Joon Sung Park just revealed what the most serious AI researchers are actually building toward. Park: “Our goal eventually is to ask ourselves what would it mean if we can create simulations of 8 billion people? The entire Earth.” Not a metaphor. A literal, bottom-up digital replica of civilization. We assumed the ultimate goal of AI was to predict the future. Park says that’s thinking too small. He points to The Oracle in The Matrix to explain the real paradigm shift. Park: “You’re not necessarily here to make a decision. You’ve already made that decision. You’re here to understand the decision and why you made that.” AI isn’t a crystal ball to tell us what happens next. It’s an x-ray to show us why. Think about how civilization actually operates right now. We guess. We pass a law. We shift an economic policy. We launch a product. Then we wait a decade to find out if it broke the world. The simulation ends that. Before a government passes a policy, they run a dry-run on 8 billion digital agents. Before a company ships a product, they trace the exact moment the market breaks. Park: “Creating these kind of bottom up simulations where we can actually go back and trace through the audit logs of how society might unfold is an amazing way to gain that interpretability layer of our reality.” Let that phrase land. The interpretability layer of our reality. We spent the last twenty years extracting data from the physical world. We are about to spend the next twenty years using that data to build a mirror world. One where every policy gets stress-tested before it’s enacted. Every product before it ships. Every decision before its consequences become irreversible. Park: “If you want to shape new policies, new products that would actually serve the people, the best way is actually to understand those people and communicating with them at a scalable way to basically create those policies.” We are not moving from ignorance to prediction. We are moving from blind execution to total societal foresight. And once that capability exists, everything changes. Wars modeled before they’re fought. Economies stress-tested before they collapse. Policies run through billions of digital lives before a single real one is affected. Reality becomes the place we execute what the mirror world already proved would work. The ultimate application of artificial intelligence was never about replacing human judgment. It was always about perfecting it. We aren’t just predicting the future anymore. We are rehearsing it. And when you can rehearse the future before you live it, the most catastrophic word in human history finally becomes extinct. That word is surprise.

Every major decision in human history has been made the same way. Guess. Execute. Hope it doesn’t break the world. That era is ending. Simile CEO Joon Sung Park just revealed what the most serious AI researchers are actually building toward. Park: “Our goal eventually is to ask ourselves what would it mean if we can create simulations of 8 billion people? The entire Earth.” Not a metaphor. A literal, bottom-up digital replica of civilization. We assumed the ultimate goal of AI was to predict the future. Park says that’s thinking too small. He points to The Oracle in The Matrix to explain the real paradigm shift. Park: “You’re not necessarily here to make a decision. You’ve already made that decision. You’re here to understand the decision and why you made that.” AI isn’t a crystal ball to tell us what happens next. It’s an x-ray to show us why. Think about how civilization actually operates right now. We guess. We pass a law. We shift an economic policy. We launch a product. Then we wait a decade to find out if it broke the world. The simulation ends that. Before a government passes a policy, they run a dry-run on 8 billion digital agents. Before a company ships a product, they trace the exact moment the market breaks. Park: “Creating these kind of bottom up simulations where we can actually go back and trace through the audit logs of how society might unfold is an amazing way to gain that interpretability layer of our reality.” Let that phrase land. The interpretability layer of our reality. We spent the last twenty years extracting data from the physical world. We are about to spend the next twenty years using that data to build a mirror world. One where every policy gets stress-tested before it’s enacted. Every product before it ships. Every decision before its consequences become irreversible. Park: “If you want to shape new policies, new products that would actually serve the people, the best way is actually to understand those people and communicating with them at a scalable way to basically create those policies.” We are not moving from ignorance to prediction. We are moving from blind execution to total societal foresight. And once that capability exists, everything changes. Wars modeled before they’re fought. Economies stress-tested before they collapse. Policies run through billions of digital lives before a single real one is affected. Reality becomes the place we execute what the mirror world already proved would work. The ultimate application of artificial intelligence was never about replacing human judgment. It was always about perfecting it. We aren’t just predicting the future anymore. We are rehearsing it. And when you can rehearse the future before you live it, the most catastrophic word in human history finally becomes extinct. That word is surprise.

Dustin

33,220 次观看 • 7 个月前

Martin Casado says Cursor's founders spend 30-40% of their time on hiring and culture, and that focus is how they iterate so fast: "A lot of these AI companies that I work with are so research-heavy. If you're not working on a new model architecture, it's kind of hard to actually interest the core teams." "They always kept the main thing the main thing, which is changing how you write software. They believed fundamentally it was a product problem... The model's very, very important, but it was a product problem." "There's actually not a lot of companies that are actually focused on product... There's a lot of research companies... But they were like, 'We are a product company.' And I think that's actually a key differentiator in this era." martin_casado w/ sophia dew and Theo Jaffee on MTS

Martin Casado says Cursor's founders spend 30-40% of their time on hiring and culture, and that focus is how they iterate so fast: "A lot of these AI companies that I work with are so research-heavy. If you're not working on a new model architecture, it's kind of hard to actually interest the core teams." "They always kept the main thing the main thing, which is changing how you write software. They believed fundamentally it was a product problem... The model's very, very important, but it was a product problem." "There's actually not a lot of companies that are actually focused on product... There's a lot of research companies... But they were like, 'We are a product company.' And I think that's actually a key differentiator in this era." martin_casado w/ sophia dew and Theo Jaffee on MTS

a16z

86,300 次观看 • 1 个月前

Greg Brockman talks about when OpenAI first realized that AGI can't be achieved with "Non-Profit" status and the decided to abandon its Non-Profit roots. "In 2017, we started to think very hard about, first of all, how do we really achieve the mission? How do we actually build an AGI? What will that look like? And we started to do the math on compute. You start to realize that it is going to take a big computer. We came across a company called Cerebras, which was building a unique piece of computing hardware. The kind of computer that they were promising, we realized, was going to be far advanced from where our compute calculations looked. As you start to realize, if we could buy a lot of those computers, we could actually probably succeed at building an AGI. If we could get exclusive access to Cerebras, that could give us an overwhelming advantage. If we could buy very large data centers, that could be something unique as well. The thing about nonprofit fundraising is that I think there is essentially a cap to what is possible there. And so Elon, Sam, Ilya, and I all agreed that the only path forward for OpenAI, and the only path to achieve the mission, was to create a for-profit entity associated with OpenAI in some form. And so, we were committed to that direction. That is something that we knew was the only way to achieve the mission." --- From "The Knowledge Project Podcast" YT Channel (link in comment)

Greg Brockman talks about when OpenAI first realized that AGI can't be achieved with "Non-Profit" status and the decided to abandon its Non-Profit roots. "In 2017, we started to think very hard about, first of all, how do we really achieve the mission? How do we actually build an AGI? What will that look like? And we started to do the math on compute. You start to realize that it is going to take a big computer. We came across a company called Cerebras, which was building a unique piece of computing hardware. The kind of computer that they were promising, we realized, was going to be far advanced from where our compute calculations looked. As you start to realize, if we could buy a lot of those computers, we could actually probably succeed at building an AGI. If we could get exclusive access to Cerebras, that could give us an overwhelming advantage. If we could buy very large data centers, that could be something unique as well. The thing about nonprofit fundraising is that I think there is essentially a cap to what is possible there. And so Elon, Sam, Ilya, and I all agreed that the only path forward for OpenAI, and the only path to achieve the mission, was to create a for-profit entity associated with OpenAI in some form. And so, we were committed to that direction. That is something that we knew was the only way to achieve the mission." --- From "The Knowledge Project Podcast" YT Channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

10,311 次观看 • 4 个月前

Evan Spiegel on the lesson that killed his first startup and led to Snapchat: "We focused on building the perfect product for way too long before we got feedback. We worked for like eighteen months to build this perfect full-featured product, which was in direct contravention to how I was always taught to build things. Build a prototype, build an MVP, get it in front of people, learn as quickly as possible. But we had spent all this time building this perfect piece of software and we hadn't thought enough about distribution. While we built this great piece of software, our competitor at the time, Naviance, had secured distribution through all the different college counselors. What piece of software are you going to choose to help your kid get into college? The one recommended by the college counselors or the one from two kids at Stanford? I think it's a pretty easy choice. So we saw very early that we had no distribution advantage. Even if we loved our software, people weren't going to use it because we didn't have a scalable way to get it in people's hands. Around that time when we saw the emergence of the App Store on iPhone, it was very clear that was a distribution channel we could really use and benefit from. But we also needed to build things we could build quickly, things we really were going to use together with our friends so we could be the first early customers. Ultimately Peekaboo and Snapchat represented that." This is exactly the asymmetry Peter Thiel describes in Zero to One: superior distribution by itself can create a monopoly, even with no product differentiation. The converse is not true. Thiel puts an even finer point on it: most businesses get zero distribution channels to work. Poor sales rather than bad product is the most common cause of failure. If you can get just one distribution channel to work, you have a great business. Estée Lauder said: it's not enough to have the most wonderful product in the world. You must be able to sell it. Many founders over-index on product perfection and under-invest in distribution. The world is full of great products nobody knows about, and mediocre products with massive distribution that dominate markets. Evan Spiegel lived it. He built the better product, watched it lose, and then built something he could actually distribute.

Evan Spiegel on the lesson that killed his first startup and led to Snapchat: "We focused on building the perfect product for way too long before we got feedback. We worked for like eighteen months to build this perfect full-featured product, which was in direct contravention to how I was always taught to build things. Build a prototype, build an MVP, get it in front of people, learn as quickly as possible. But we had spent all this time building this perfect piece of software and we hadn't thought enough about distribution. While we built this great piece of software, our competitor at the time, Naviance, had secured distribution through all the different college counselors. What piece of software are you going to choose to help your kid get into college? The one recommended by the college counselors or the one from two kids at Stanford? I think it's a pretty easy choice. So we saw very early that we had no distribution advantage. Even if we loved our software, people weren't going to use it because we didn't have a scalable way to get it in people's hands. Around that time when we saw the emergence of the App Store on iPhone, it was very clear that was a distribution channel we could really use and benefit from. But we also needed to build things we could build quickly, things we really were going to use together with our friends so we could be the first early customers. Ultimately Peekaboo and Snapchat represented that." This is exactly the asymmetry Peter Thiel describes in Zero to One: superior distribution by itself can create a monopoly, even with no product differentiation. The converse is not true. Thiel puts an even finer point on it: most businesses get zero distribution channels to work. Poor sales rather than bad product is the most common cause of failure. If you can get just one distribution channel to work, you have a great business. Estée Lauder said: it's not enough to have the most wonderful product in the world. You must be able to sell it. Many founders over-index on product perfection and under-invest in distribution. The world is full of great products nobody knows about, and mediocre products with massive distribution that dominate markets. Evan Spiegel lived it. He built the better product, watched it lose, and then built something he could actually distribute.

David Senra

27,151 次观看 • 5 个月前

🚨 REPORTER: We aren't escorting ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Why?! How did you not plan for this?! SECWAR PETE HEGSETH: "We PLANNED for it. We recognize it. Because ultimately we want to do it sequentially in a way that makes the most sense for what we want to achieve and ensure that we're sending the right signals to the world when we do so." "It's like this whole idea of the war 'widening.' That's what the press wants to make it look like, like it's widening, and chaos." "No, we're actually closing in on grabbing hold of and controlling what objectives we want to achieve and how we want to achieve them." "It's called shaping operations and setting the conditions." "Foolish political leaders and foolish military leaders of the past will hang an exact deadline on it, or here's exactly when we'll do what we're gonna do, or here's how long it's gonna take us." "And then if you meet that, maybe you meet it. But if you don't, you fail, and if you're far beyond." "The interagency the Strait of Hormuz is something we've paid attention to from the beginning and the American people can rest assured we will ensure that our interests are advanced."

🚨 REPORTER: We aren't escorting ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Why?! How did you not plan for this?! SECWAR PETE HEGSETH: "We PLANNED for it. We recognize it. Because ultimately we want to do it sequentially in a way that makes the most sense for what we want to achieve and ensure that we're sending the right signals to the world when we do so." "It's like this whole idea of the war 'widening.' That's what the press wants to make it look like, like it's widening, and chaos." "No, we're actually closing in on grabbing hold of and controlling what objectives we want to achieve and how we want to achieve them." "It's called shaping operations and setting the conditions." "Foolish political leaders and foolish military leaders of the past will hang an exact deadline on it, or here's exactly when we'll do what we're gonna do, or here's how long it's gonna take us." "And then if you meet that, maybe you meet it. But if you don't, you fail, and if you're far beyond." "The interagency the Strait of Hormuz is something we've paid attention to from the beginning and the American people can rest assured we will ensure that our interests are advanced."

Eric Daugherty

1,179,931 次观看 • 6 个月前

DoorDash CEO Tony Xu says every single person at the company still does deliveries to this day, because there are 20 things that can go wrong bringing you a burrito and no way to learn them from behind a desk. "That is the DoorDash problem set, for better and for worse. I remember when we started DoorDash, I remember decomposing that there's almost like 20 mini systems, many little processes. If you imagine a checklist of just bringing you a burrito, there's 20 little things that you have to get right, because if anything goes wrong, you'd actually need to fix it." "And there's no way that you would know about this unless you actually did the deliveries yourself. This is exactly why, to this day, we still have everyone in the company dash, which is our way of saying doing deliveries. We still all do deliveries." "Because until you actually get into the physical world, until you find yourself stuck in the wrong elevator, or the wrong lobby to try to get upstairs to deliver something, until you get to the wrong alleyway for parking, until you get to the wrong place because you realize food gets made sometimes in three different stations inside a restaurant, until you actually experience those things, it's very difficult to a priori just intellectualize that and know about it."

DoorDash CEO Tony Xu says every single person at the company still does deliveries to this day, because there are 20 things that can go wrong bringing you a burrito and no way to learn them from behind a desk. "That is the DoorDash problem set, for better and for worse. I remember when we started DoorDash, I remember decomposing that there's almost like 20 mini systems, many little processes. If you imagine a checklist of just bringing you a burrito, there's 20 little things that you have to get right, because if anything goes wrong, you'd actually need to fix it." "And there's no way that you would know about this unless you actually did the deliveries yourself. This is exactly why, to this day, we still have everyone in the company dash, which is our way of saying doing deliveries. We still all do deliveries." "Because until you actually get into the physical world, until you find yourself stuck in the wrong elevator, or the wrong lobby to try to get upstairs to deliver something, until you get to the wrong alleyway for parking, until you get to the wrong place because you realize food gets made sometimes in three different stations inside a restaurant, until you actually experience those things, it's very difficult to a priori just intellectualize that and know about it."

Fireside Alpha

33,966 次观看 • 2 个月前

Elon Musk: "I'm not actually a fan of disruption for its own sake. If there's a need for something to be disrupted and it's important to the future of the world, then sure, then we should disrupt it."

Elon Musk: "I'm not actually a fan of disruption for its own sake. If there's a need for something to be disrupted and it's important to the future of the world, then sure, then we should disrupt it."

Thomas Sowell Quotes

14,181 次观看 • 6 个月前

“An AI model that exists without a kind of explicit direction from a human, it's not doing something because of a human interaction. It's actually just existing almost in its own right.” Full interview with Jake Brukhman and gensyn CEO Ben Fielding dropping next week

“An AI model that exists without a kind of explicit direction from a human, it's not doing something because of a human interaction. It's actually just existing almost in its own right.” Full interview with Jake Brukhman and gensyn CEO Ben Fielding dropping next week

CoinFund

19,360 次观看 • 7 个月前