Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Video yรผkleniyor...
Video Yรผklenemedi
๐๐ผฬ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐น'๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐บ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ ๐น๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ผ๐๐๐ป๐ฒ๐๐?! Sir Roger Roger Penrose, Nobel laureate in physics, claims intelligence & consciousness are โuncomputableโ phenomena related toโฆ quantum wave function collapse ๐คฆโโ๏ธ How can he be so wrong? It's interesting to try to see the world through Dr. Penrose's eyes, before recoiling from... show more
22,224 gรถrรผntรผleme โข 1 yฤฑl รถnce โขvia X (Twitter)
11 Yorum
Search "Doom Debates" in your podcast player or watch on YouTube:
The YouTube commenters are going wild!
Does Penrose have a YouTube bot army or something?
Einstein said time is an illusion. Ever wonder why? Always wanted a Deeper Knowledge of Science? Wish you could Understand Einstein and Quantum Mechanics without needing a degree in Math or Science? This is the book youโve been waiting for!
@penrose youโre channel is so underrated
@penrose Thanks homes
@penrose no. The theorem proves that humans have to accept that there are truths which they cannot prove or that their worldview is full of contradictions.
@penrose The Systems reply to Searle's Chinese Room is convincing and Penrose's objection weak/nonexistent. On another note, @andrzejdragan introduced me to the CAPTCHA test a few days back (ie. beyond Gรถdel). Didn't know it was coined by Scott Aaronson. -
@penrose Watched last night. Great analysis. Huge respect for Penrose, but Iโm not convinced on his theory of consciousness
@penrose Watching the vid, I'm reminded of this classic
@penrose Nice to see you are finally treating Gรถdel seriously! But it's not Penrose that's putting the incomplete machine in the box that makes it halt...it's reality! We talked about this a year ago...happy to renew the convo.
![Stunning clip about the insane future Elon Musk is steering us toward. Elon says: 1. We can't expect to be "in charge" of AI for long, because humans will soon only have 1% of the combined total human+AI intelligence. 2. We'll focus on building AI overlords that have โvalues that cause intelligence to be propagated into the universeโ 3. These AIs will โhave humanity continuing to expand, because if you're curious, you're trying to understand the universe, [so] one of the things you're trying to understand is, where will humanity go?โ Dwarkesh correctly flags the problem with Elon's logic: Aren't the priorities for "spreading humans" different from those of "understanding the universe" and from those of "spreading intelligence"? Elon replies that "in order to understand the universe, you have to expand the scale and probably the scope of intelligence", failing to address Dwarkesh's question about why this would imply a high priority for "spreading humans". Dwarkesh then further observes that humans have tried to understand the universe without trying to spread chimpanzees, casting more doubt on Elon's supposed โcorrolaryโ. Elon replies that "we actually have made protected zones for chimpanzees" โ as if that's comparable to humans letting chimpanzees spread in order to understand the universe. Dwarkesh tries one more followup: Are we aiming for superintelligent AI to treat humans the way humans have treated chimps? Finally, Elon repeats his claim: โI think Grok would care about expanding human civilizationโ. He doesn't try to defend his original implication, that an AI's drive to understand the universe implies allocating a substantial fraction of the universe in the service of humanity. Instead, Elon just promises he'll somehow personally emphasize the importance of expanding human consciousness to Grok: โHey Grok, who's your daddy? Don't forget to expand human consciousness.โ To recap: โฌ Elon acknowledges that AIs like Grok will soon be in charge, not humans โฌ He claims maximally-curious AIs that just care about understanding the universe will naturally care to โsee where humanity goesโ โฌ He acknowledges that, actually, there might be more to this whole โgetting AI to prioritize expanding human consciousnessโ thing, but it'll be okay because Grok will listen to requests about that kind of thing from its daddy. The stunning thing isn't that Elon has this shallow, self-contradictory outlook on the near future of all our lives โ it's that every frontier AI company CEO would make equally insane claims about what happens to humanity after a few more years of letting their company operate, if pressed in an interview or debate. It shouldn't be legal for companies to carry out plans to permanently take away humanity's control over the future while clinging to shallow arguments why humanity might still survive, should it? -- P.S. The only show that cross-examines its guests' existentially-important nonconsensus AI claims more than two questions deep is Doom Debates.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2020906862397489492/amplify_video_thumb/2020904610400260096/img/dlMmQe7FW6nROsst.jpg)
![The most interesting part for me is where Andrej Karpathy describes why LLMs aren't able to learn like humans. As you would expect, he comes up with a wonderfully evocative phrase to describe RL: โsucking supervision bits through a straw.โ A single end reward gets broadcast across every token in a successful trajectory, upweighting even wrong or irrelevant turns that lead to the right answer. > โHumans don't use reinforcement learning, as I've said before. I think they do something different. Reinforcement learning is a lot worse than the average person thinks. Reinforcement learning is terrible. It just so happens that everything that we had before is much worse.โ So what do humans do instead? > โThe book Iโm reading is a set of prompts for me to do synthetic data generation. It's by manipulating that information that you actually gain that knowledge. We have no equivalent of that with LLMs; they don't really do that.โ > โI'd love to see during pretraining some kind of a stage where the model thinks through the material and tries to reconcile it with what it already knows. There's no equivalent of any of this. This is all research.โ Why canโt we just add this training to LLMs today? > โThere are very subtle, hard to understand reasons why it's not trivial. If I just give synthetic generation of the model thinking about a book, you look at it and you're like, 'This looks great. Why can't I train on it?' You could try, but the model will actually get much worse if you continue trying.โ > โSay we have a chapter of a book and I ask an LLM to think about it. It will give you something that looks very reasonable. But if I ask it 10 times, you'll notice that all of them are the same.โ > โYou're not getting the richness and the diversity and the entropy from these models as you would get from humans. How do you get synthetic data generation to work despite the collapse and while maintaining the entropy? It is a research problem.โ How do humans get around model collapse? > โThese analogies are surprisingly good. Humans collapse during the course of their lives. Children haven't overfit yet. They will say stuff that will shock you. Because they're not yet collapsed. But we [adults] are collapsed. We end up revisiting the same thoughts, we end up saying more and more of the same stuff, the learning rates go down, the collapse continues to get worse, and then everything deteriorates.โ In fact, thereโs an interesting paper arguing that dreaming evolved to assist generalization, and resist overfitting to daily learning - look up The Overfitted Brain by Erik Hoel. I asked Karpathy: Isnโt it interesting that humans learn best at a part of their lives (childhood) whose actual details they completely forget, adults still learn really well but have terrible memory about the particulars of the things they read or watch, and LLMs can memorize arbitrary details about text that no human could but are currently pretty bad at generalization? > โ[Fallible human memory] is a feature, not a bug, because it forces you to only learn the generalizable components. LLMs are distracted by all the memory that they have of the pre-trained documents. That's why when I talk about the cognitive core, I actually want to remove the memory. I'd love to have them have less memory so that they have to look things up and they only maintain the algorithms for thought, and the idea of an experiment, and all this cognitive glue for acting.โ](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1979259041013731752/amplify_video_thumb/1979257571786543104/img/OqUh56yit9gUQWnb.jpg)
![Phenomena, AAWSAP, Stratton and Consciousness "I keenly believe that consciousness is a key aspect of all of this, and perception." ~Jay Stratton ~ "I entered the [AATIP] program in 2008. I was asked by its director [Lacatski] to come on board and establish this program [AATIP]. And then, in 2010 is when I was asked to take over the effort." ~Lue Elizondo during WaPo Interview "Fast forward to 2015...I created a program called AATIP, which was a derivative of AAWSAP." ~Jay Stratton (As I've discussed before, AATIP (V2) didn't exist until much later (2015) than what we've been told by Lue. So what program did Lue come on board to in 2008 and which program did he "take over the effort" for in 2010 if AATIP (V2) was created by Stratton in 2015? Is that not a fair question to ask?) ~~~ Jay Stratton: "Starting back in the early 2000s, we saw the need - my colleague (Jim Lacatski. ~Joe) and I at the Defense Intelligence Agency - to start paying very close attention to this topic. Advanced technologies, emerging technologies, and really kind of the areas that the stigma has led for us to ignore for many years. "So, you know, we created a program that Hal (Puthoff) referred to as AAWSAP, you know, to address those issues. And that really started around 2005. So the DIA program, which you jumped in earlier and said the DOE or, you know, the DOD's program, and really, it's the Intelligence Community's program. DIA is part of the IC, the D in there being Defense, predominantly means the DIA looks at foreign-defense capabilities. "And we were looking at this from - and I hate to say it now - but a threat perspective. And the reason I say, 'I hate to say,' is because threat is capability plus intent, and some of these things, we just don't have an idea on the intent." (Does that mean that on some of these things we DO have an idea on the intent?) Stratton: "So, determining threat, you know, maybe it's an emerging-technologies threat or a concern anytime it can potentially exceed our own capabilities. But that DIA program focused on that, and the contract from 2008 to 2010, and then we transitioned and tried to move the program to a couple of other places. "Fast forward to 2015, I created a program called AATIP, which was a derivative of AAWSAP, and actually AATIP was a nickname for AAWSAP. And I know there's a lot of crazy names, but Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. But those 2015 events were the ones that you see now on the news: the Gimbal, the Go Fast. Ryan Graves, who usually participates in this, his wife is having a baby, currently, so he's not here (laughs). But all of those events started to happen...and those events helped fuel, you know, further highlight that need on the U.S. government side that, we gotta do something about this. "Which led to the creation of the UAP Task Force in 2018 into 2019 as when I started building it. I spent over two years building it out before the public even knew about it in 2020 when DoD established it. And at that point, it was truly a whole-of-government, interagency effort. Kind of the dream of, you know, my fifteen-years plus, at that point of looking at this topic and knowing everything that we needed with all the different authorities." (Much more on that can be found here: ) Stratton: "And that led into where we're at today with AARO, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office under DOD. And I think, you know, a few hiccups here and there, but I think now Dr Jon Koslowski, who has AARO, is approaching this problem set and dealing with the topic appropriately." (He seems like a good guy but James Fox recently said that he met with Kosloski who told him (Fox) that he (Kosloski) can't even part his hair without the DoD's permission. If that's true, and I have no reason to doubt Fox on that, I have little hope AARO will help bring Disclosure.) Stratton: "And I hope that, you know, obviously, my legacy, or the legacy of all of those involved, carries on, and that the government continues to take it seriously. And that we never have to look a pilot in the eyes again and say, 'Sorry, can't help you,' you know? Or the ridicule factor and all these other issues that happen from that." (If you want a true, lasting legacy... Push to be the UAP Czar, start another AAWSAP-like program, and do it for a few years until the world learns the truth about us not being alone on this planet and that we have craft and bodies of NHI. Allegedly, right? And help us figure out what the hell the phenomenon represents.) Stratton: "So, I mean, that's kind of the the cliff notes and the history. But the UAP Task Force recently got an award from the DNI. It's the first UFO program to get an award at that level, to my knowledge. And I'm really proud of where we're at today and and that we can have events like these to discuss this topic seriously, and everybody that's involved in putting their brands on this problem." (More on that award... ) Stratton: "I don't think we should overlook...and you had, you know, Paul (Smith) and others talk about remote viewing and that consciousness connection. I keenly believe that consciousness is a key aspect of all of this, and perception, you know, all the things that come from that. And that's an area that can get confusing, right? If you look at all of these recent drones, day-to-day, right? It's honestly driving me crazy because people are throwing in, you know, video of a Cessna Citation on final approach and calling it a UAP, you know? It's definitely a Cessna Citation. "And then folks start throwing around (laughs) the terms mimicry and other things that we've definitely looked at. And it gets like the Skinwalker Ranch, as you know I'm involved out there. You know, the things that you see, and are you really...you know, how is your brain forming that thing you're seeing and can that be manipulated? And I think that that technology is an area that, you know, I certainly focused on with my friends, Hal and others, to try to understand it." (Manipulation and perception deception. Is it a byproduct of the technology on our brains, or is it an intentional effort to deceive us? If it's the latter, that certainly doesn't seem to be a good thing for humanity, but I'm still open to all theories.) Stratton: "And that consciousness connection could be a key to understanding how some of these UAP are flying, you know, how they're acting, how they're controlled, I guess is the best way to put it, right?" (Are the craft controlled by some sort of 6th sense that the operators have and need in order to fly a craft?) Stratton: "So, you got to have that kind of open mindedness to approach this topic and I hope that my government, you know, folks are open to those kinds of things. And I know that there are still some key players that are open and thinking about...thinking out of the box about all those kinds of things. So, I mean, I think consciousness is the area that I would want to put more resources and time into if I were still there. (Yes, yes and yes. Bring back Stratton as the UAP and Consciousness Czar!) Anna Brady-Estevez: "And it's interesting because there's quite a bit of access to consciousness, you know, on a personal level-type experimentation. So it is interesting in that, you know, to get into UAPs, I mean, maybe you've seen one or more, maybe you haven't. But, if you haven't, you're kind of digging through other people's data. Whereas some of these consciousness or the remote viewing, it really just takes a couple people and a sheet of paper. So you can kind of step away pretty quickly from the, 'Do I believe the reports?' you know? Or somebody else's versus you can get to that primary experimentation at the cost of a sheet of paper, a pencil, and fifteen minutes or more of somebody's time here, at the most basic level. I mean, obviously there's extensive training to build the high-end capabilities. But some of that initial testing is pretty immediate. So thank you for bringing up that consciousness work." (When I took a basic Controlled Remove Viewing class with Lyn Buchanan (one of the OG remote viewers) in 1997, I saw the results for myself when I tried it. And right there and then, I KNEW that it worked. So people can debate with me all day long about the validity of psi and remote viewing but they won't change my mind. Seeing (and trying it for yourself) is believing.) Stratton: "I was gonna say, it took me years to move away from that nuts and bolts mentality of, you know, as an aerospace engineer, this is how it flies, thrust, you know, power, etc, you know, to...there's a lot more to this, right? Hence the name, you know, Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, or Aerial Phenomena, however you want to look at it. That phenomena word is key in the definition and understanding of all of this." (Big H/T to neandrewthal and anybody else who let me know about this event Stratton was a part of.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1877251655475015686/ext_tw_video_thumb/1877218159318675459/pu/img/VKwNKdJL6fnPKkWs.jpg)
![๐ฅ๐ฝ This is REALLY good! ๐ฝ๐ฅ "In my view, there absolutely is an adversarial actor in our world. There is a human-engagement program underway. I don't think it's the rainbow that everyone kind of hopes that it is." ~Reed (IMO, Reed Summers is an unsung, VERY important voice in this community, and what he says in this clip, currently, resonates with me in a big way. Take the time to read or watch. Then we have what Ross Coulthart says about the "deliberate lifting of consciousness" and "frequency," which is more on the side of love, light and space brothers. I don't see that right now, and none of my contacts have ever mentioned it. If it's there, maybe its hands are tied with how it can help us?) ~ "Genetic interventions, cultural influence, right? Social engineering. All of these could be at play in a subversive sense. NHI is operating in a strategic silence, in a state of non-disclosure. Intelligence indicates intent, intentful engagement indicates a program. And so what is their program? We talk about the Legacy-human program. What about the non-human program? ~Reed ~ Ross: "I've been told that the United States has developed quite advanced weaponry, particularly plasma-beam technology that might, in part, have been inspired by what they've seen or recovered from non-human technology. I think, also, just to add the concern of NHI with what humanity is doing. There's also a very deliberate lifting of consciousness. And I really am struck by what Chris (Bledsoe - Chris Bledsoe) says about the frequency. This is something that I'm getting from so many people. That the level of intensity of public reporting of their engagement with NHI, of a clear intent by NHI, to essentially give up on governments from ever disclosing. But to raise human consciousness and awareness. "And I think they're doing this, increasingly (laughs), through direct engagement with individuals. I've got many friends and colleagues and people I've interviewed - witnesses - who've had incredible experiences. I've just been recording for a TV show, something that we're doing here in Australia, where people are inviting or summoning the phenomenon. And there seems to be an interest in the phenomenon engaging with humans much, much more overtly. And I do think that stems from a concern about us primitive monkeys playing with matches." (Were they concerned when this abduction-like event allegedly happened to Jim Semivan and his wife? Semivan: "I had a hole in the back of my neck, and my wife...unexplained bleeding for 17 days." Source: Engaging The Phenomenon's interview with Jim ~ Jim Garrison: "But Reid, speak to us about this interplay between malevolence and benevolence." Reed: "Sure, well, and you described, Jim, the first part of my life in which I was focused primarily on supporting my father, Marshall (Vian Summers and The Allies of Humanity), who had direct encounters with NHI, communications with NHI." (Was Marshall really in contact with extraterrestrial intelligence, known as The Allies of Humanity? I don't know. But a lot of what he has said rings true to me. Doesn't mean it's true. Read one transcript I did in 2021: โItโs Probably Not Humanโ โ Elizondo, Blumenthal & The Allies Of Humanity ~ Reed: "And my family felt the full force and impact of what that was like, as well as what comes with it ("it" being his dad's alleged contact with ET intelligence). Which is, what might be called the hitchhiker effect, the anomalous effects that attend those who have been selected by the phenomenon without their understanding or knowing why." (Add another few names to the list of people who have now said they experienced the hitchhiker effect: Jay Stratton, George Knapp, Kelleher, Davis, Bigelow, Brandon Fugal, Thomas Winterton, Semivan, and more. That includes poltergeist-like events, shadow people, orbs, etc.) Reed: ""But my later work is really about assessing intent with a structured framework. I think we need to step back from belief systems, hopeful or fearful interpretations, and lay out the spectrum of possibilities, right? From curiosity on the left, salvation and assistance, even further on the left, to transaction, integration on the right, or even something more hostile. And in the end, intent is all about human outcomes. We can't know their consciousness. The project, in my mind right now, is not, let's set out to understand what they're like, who they are, how they think, how they cognate. That's impossible, in my perspective. But we can assess the real human outcomes that stem from the hazard and the risk and the possible threat of a non-human factor acting upon. Like a forcing, an environmental or evolutionary-forcing upon humanity at a historically-unprecedented time." (From what I have seen, whatever this is, has, overall, NOT helped humanity. If that's happening, it's going on behind the scenes. I know some experiencers report having their lives changed in a positive way, and some say they have been healed of illnesses. But others say their lives have been ruined and they've been hurt, intentionally or not, by coming in close contact with the phenomenon. Also, various people have come down with several auto-immune diseases after close contact, and some of that was detailed in the must-read book, "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon." jakebarber also mentioned that. Is it multiple intelligences with multiple intents, or one intelligence mixing in some positive outcomes as a propaganda effort? We don't know.) Reed: "And there are significant signals and indicators in the history of the phenomenon that give very good anchors for assessing intent, and for going from possibilities to probabilities and ultimately making a starting assessment, which informs the research pathway, which is the other part of my work in supporting the human institute, devising an intelligent, scientific research and investigatory citizen-led effort to uncover the phenomenon, to disclose it, to interrogate its activity, lest we just be interrogated, unknowingly, ourselves. So, a lot of good work to do there." (Interrogate the activity of the phenomenon. I really like that approach. Let's not assume anything.) Reed: "But, in my view, when you look at all that the sensor data has given us, technologically, when you corroborate that with the geographic, circumstantial [and] temporal aspects of how the phenomena appears, who it manifests to, and the considerable problem it presents to the international community and to national laws and frameworks that govern territorial sovereignty, these incursions into sensitive sites and the potential, programmatic engagement with civilians in the form of physical NHI-initiated contact - abductions - it builds a picture. It bounds those possibilities into a zone of probabilities. "And whether it's a transactional presence, whether it's an integrative or one that wants to integrate with humanity, or ultimately replace humanity, I think there are multiple possibilities at play and multiple intents at play. Although, I don't think it's the rainbow that everyone kind of hopes that it is. It's not, everything the Universe has to offer is gonna come all at once, now, and function harmoniously in our skies and oceans. No. The hostile intent will not tolerate a beneficial actor who themselves would have to arm themselves and militarily confront the hostile actor, which we do not see indications of." (My translation: If, there's a benevolent intelligence here that wants to help humanity break free from the chains of an alleged malevolent intelligence that may be using us, the benevolent force would need to somehow arm themselves in order to militarily take on this malevolent force, potentially, defeat them, and rescue us from a bad predicament. And we see no evidence of that.) Reed: "So, you know, we have analogs in our own human history to this, the natives of the new world. They looked out on the quay and they saw the ships, different flags, different vessels, and they assumed it's gotta be either the angels from the spirit realm - it has to comport to our belief system - or a variety of intentions, and we should work with and collaborate. And it may not be that way. "It's not about, it's all hostile or it's all beneficial or benevolent. In my mind, it's exo-systemic. It's an ecosystem arriving on our shores at a specific 20th-century moment in which we have detonated nuclear weapons, we have flashed the Universe with technology capability, and we have triggered an engagement event. This is really what this is. And a program to engage humanity over a longitudinal time period." (I think it was here and intersecting with us a long time before we first detonated our nukes.) Karla Turner: "We know from some of our own research that the abduction phenomenon has affected families going back four generations and that would be around the turn of the century (1900). In my husband's family, his grandmother had an encounter with a non-human entity that led her off into a swampy area where there was a period of missing before she was returned, when she was only five-years old. That was 1903. So if you think it's new and you think it's something the media has spread, you start looking into the cases and find out how far back it's goes in some of these families' generations. I know of an African American family in East Texas that has had it going on since the early 1900s and it's still going on today with that same family. Three to four generations is fairly typical." ~ Reed: "And so, we need to step back and really look at the human project of getting our act together to diplomatically engage now and in the future, to manage the NHI presence internationally, and coordinate responses, lest we divide and conquer ourselves over this issue. And that's where the reframing of disclosure as fundamentally belonging to the human species, being one that should, I think, be framed in first principles - to Karl Nell's point - with a naturalistic framework, a science-informed, data-driven framework. "And with that, we go out into the field and collect evidence on the phenomenon. We go out to where it is interacting with people. That's the key missing data set that would be necessary to inform decision makers." (We had that with AAWSAP and can have it again. Plus, the Vallรฉe/AAWSAP Capella database of approximately 250,000 cases. Using AI and the best human minds on this planet, all of that may inform us of the intent of these alleged NHI actors.) Reed: "In my view, there absolutely is an adversarial actor in our world. There is a human-engagement program underway. And that's not the whole story, but if that is true, that should marshal our human response above all other possibilities, initially, because we may wake up in 30 years and find that we are not the human beings we used to be. Genetic interventions, cultural influence, right? Social engineering. All of these could be at play in a subversive sense." (If it's true, it should be the most important thing for human beings to address, ASAP. We need to find out now.) Reed: "And, you know, NHI is operating in a strategic silence, in a state of non-disclosure. They're operating covertly and selectively with military-defense organizations, internationally, which are already in competition." (I'd like to hear more about the claim that NHI are operating covertly and selectively with military-defense organizations. We've all heard those claims but is there evidence of that?) Reed: "And that, to me, is another one of a number of alarming signals that should just command us to take a cautionary response. And and we've gotta get out there and use the best of science, research and investigation to do reconnaissance - reconnai-science, as I call it, on behalf of the human interest, and not just national interests." Garrison: "Yeah, that's a profound way to put it, Reed. You know that we've triggered an interaction event." Reed: "And so, intelligence indicates intent, intentful engagement indicates a program. And so what is their program? We talk about the Legacy-human program. What about the non-human program? We do not query that nearly as much as we should. And in my view, disclosure. How do we get disclosure moving? If we recenter the controversy not on human actors, human governments, but on the non- human presence itself, that allows the human actors a way to rapidly and catastrophically disclose their involvements, which is what is keeping this back in part. Thank you."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1981810728706404477/amplify_video_thumb/1981809725080588288/img/whyOa_20NT88rMwo.jpg)
![The most epic 13 minute AI rant I've heard in 2026 PS: My parent's heard this when I was playing it in the car and thought Jason โจ๐พSaaStr.Aiโจ Lemkin went OFF like Stephen A Smith does on first take PPS: Full transcript below [17:00] Harry Stebbings: I I just wanted to ask Jason, if the people that we want are fundamentally different, the developers that we used to hire, we don't because AI writes the code for us. The marketers we don't want, the sales people we don't wantโwho who do we want genuinely? Like what is the attractive profile? Because your Anthropicโs and your OpenAIs are hiring, so so what are the people that we want in the companies of the future? [17:18] Jason Lemkin: Look, I know it sounds trite, but but the answer is simple. It's just the expression each year changes. We want folks that are genuinely AI fluent. It's pretty simple. Now you know, maybe last year we called them prompt engineers, right? That used to be a job. I don't know if you remember that actually used to be the hottest job on planet earth. Now no one needs a prompt engineer because it's pretty easy to prompt all these tools. That job died. Okay. Um and now we need go-to-market engineers. Um I think that job's going to die. We needโeveryone needs so many forward deployed engineers. Like you can't hire enough forward deployed engineers. But uh you know um but Palantir just announced in whatever their their big their big eventโthey've gotten their deployment times down over 90% with forward deployed engineers. So that may becomeโso the this wave of disruption for the titles and the specificity, it's also exhaustingly accelerating. But it's really simple. You meet anyone for any roleโsales, marketing, engineering, product, QAโthey're they're either they're either they can't keep all of the ways they use AI to accelerate their job from spewing out of their mouth, or they're staring at you. It's there's nowhere in the middle. Like, and the person that comes in and saysโit's it's it sounds Captain Obviousโbut like, you know, you just had the whatever from Lovable, the the marketing head that was super popular on the show, right? She's just spewing AI-native insights into Lovable, right? It's not that complicated. You hire her, Elena, or whatever it is. You just hire her. It doesn't matter whether she's still in college or a junior or a senior or a middler, a left or right. And honestly, if you interview people, I would say of all even of the best startups I've invested in, maybe 30% of the management team meets this standard at best. 30%. Maybe less. And of the interviews I do in general, it's single-digit percents. It's just and in in that sense, it's the same as ever. Like you either lower the bar in hiring or you hire someone that's actually great. And someone that's actually great is so far ahead of you in how to apply to to employ the efficiencies of AI in their role, your jaw falls on the table. The difference is we used to need warm bodies. That's what's changing. We used to need warm bodies to answer the call, to do QA, to do code review, to to get the blue pixel to go from the upper left to the lower right. You laugh, but you need you literally needed to brute force this with humans. With AI, every day that goes by, the AIโyou do not need brute force human beings on your team. And that's another reason they're shrinking. Why are all these new companies so efficient? They're just not brute forcing things with humans. They're just not. They're choosing not to. And so these teamโall the brute forcers out thereโeveryone talks about how bloated teams got in 2021. I don't agree with that. I think they got as big as they needed to be when growth was high and you needed humans to do everything. All you look at these teams that that doubledโwell if growth continued at 60% like the rate in early 2021 for 5 years or can help me do the math and every single thing a software company did required a human. You were understaffed by your 2021 headcount. You'd be sitting here in 2026. You every office in SoMa would be triple packed and you there wouldn't be enough humans to staff your company. It's just the world changed. [20:33] Harry Stebbings: Jason, you live on the bleeding edge. I think me and Rory see that and I think the world sees that when they hear you every week in terms of how you run SaaS. For all of the CEOs and execs who listen to the show, what would you advise them in terms of determining whether someone is AI fluent when they meet them for jobs, for talent? [20:51] Jason Lemkin: Here's I realized I was just asked this. I just did a review with a super fast startup growing just crossing 100 million and I was asked this question. And one of my favorite executives, I thought his answer was pretty dated and because he gave me an answer that was about 6 months old. The answer 6 months old is: "I look for folks in my team, I look for you know at what tools they play with." Okay, that was a great answer in like summer of 2025. Okay, I tried Lovable last week. Okay, the answer in 2026 is: "What commercial AI tool have you brought into your organization this month?" That's the test. Anyone that is on the bleeding edge that you would want to hireโnow there are so many great products in the market. Okay, there is no excuse in any role to have not brought one tool a month into your organization. Okay, thereโnow there's going to be better and better tools and better and better products as the year goes on. What's the one you did? And you will see folks with their deer in the headlights to this question. What what sales tool? What marketing tool? What product tool? What engineering tool? What did you bring in? Why did you pick it? How does it working? Because if you're at remotely at the cutting edge, you're all over this. You're looking for the next agentic tools that will radically improve how you do business. This isโyou think everyone thinks SaaS is at the bleeding edge, right? You know, you know, all we do is we're just looking for the tools and trying them. Okay? Okay, we're one year ahead of everybody else because we did the simplest thing in the world. Like we tried the tools early and we trained them. We trained them for a month. Okay, I'll give youโwant hear a horrible example from this week? Super hot AI company valued at 6 billion. Okay, I'm not going to name it. Um, this week yesterday told us we had to quadruple what we spent on their product. Okay, their agent told us, right? And why did this happen? Okay. Well, at this $6 billion company, no one had trained the agent on its pricing properly. No one had tested it. They said, "Well, well, we've been in beta." And we said, "Well, when did the beta launch? A year ago." Okay, these are people asleep at at the wheel. You want somebody who the instant this comes up, they exactly know what the issue is. And "Hey, when I was at Lovable Replit, we trained the agent. This is how we did it. I brought in this tool. I brought in this tool that that Rory invested in last week. It solved all these issues." That's what you want to hear. And if they haven't brought in a tool in the last 30 days, at least deeply evaluated it. I don't really care whether they bought it, but gone so far down the funnel they can tell youโpick whatever tool: Fixie, Regie, GC, AIGCโI don't care how you went through it, you looked at it, you can tell me the eight ways it would improve the productivity of your business and three you didn't. Just don't hire that person because they're going to run your company to the ground. This is the job today. The job today is not to screw around on ChatGPT and to be a prompt engineer. The job today is to bring the best AI and agentic products into your organization and leverage all the hard work that the engineers have done building those products. That's your job. You don't have to screw around. You don't have to be a prompt engineer anymore. You have to be an agent deployment expert. Aโthis is the new job we're making up today. An Agentic Deployment Expert. That's your job from C-level to junior. Agentic Deployment Expert. Don't hire anybody else. You're going to regret it. They're going to stare at the camera. He's good. Stare at the camera. He's honorable. We could probably just I could slip away, get a coffee, and come back. No. And I I sound exasperated, Rory. And Iโbut the reason I am is I can just see I can see my best companies doing it. And I can see some companies I've invested in not doing it. And I want to cry. I just want to cry when they have no ADs on their team. I justโlike you're flushing your years of your life down the toilet by not approaching your how you're building this company this way. [24:33] Rory: Yes. And at the risk of being positive, it's worth pointing out two things he didn't say. Well, something implicit why he saidโJason didn't do the only hire, you know, he didn't commit the um employment law, I think it's a civil penalty of saying only employ people below X who get the new new thing because he implicitly said anyone can do it provided you're willing to learn. And I think that's the big aha that's one of the positive statements to make here right? Look and I think it appliesโI'm always wary of being "Hey, coming across, hey this this is the things that you all have to do." I think it applies to everyone including investors right? I mean I will say I have found that unless you're willing to invest the time learning these tools you actually shouldn't be investing in them. One of my partners Andy had this expression: "You know, if you decide you want to stop learning new things you probably should retire within 6 to 12 months and never write another check again." Maybe that's down to 3 to 6 months at this stage, right? And I think, you know, it'sโ [25:27] Harry Stebbings: Yeah, I actually I actually had a meeting with mine and Jason's biggest investor the other day and Iโpretend he's not hereโI said I think he's the most equipped investor for this generation of investing because I don't think anyone quite sits at the bleeding edge like he does on the investor side. [25:42] Harry Stebbings: Why in terms of using the equip stuff? Yeah. Yeah. In terms of using the stuff, understanding understanding bottlenecks, constraints. For sure. [25:51] Jason Lemkin: But can I just add one point? We can just cuz it's so important if it helps people. Okay, we areโand thank you Harry. We're going through these phases. Okay, and when AI started to blow up for real for us, uh call it early 2024, right? Maybe late '23, I wasn't equipped. It was too technical. I wasn't going to go in and figure outโI wasn't smart enough to figure out how to deal with a massively hallucinating LLM API and turn that and turn that into something magical. Kudos to investors and others that that got it in early '23, '22. I mean I remember IโI guess it was maybe SaaStr Annual '23. I was with David Sacks and I did a Q&A and I said, "How you thinking about AI at Craft?" He's like, "Well we're all in. We want 80% of '23 of investments to be AI." I'm like, "Great but like show me the show me the great ones in market." He's like, "They're all prototypes. We're all they're all they're all proof of concepts but we're all in anyway." That's where you kind of had to be in '23 if you weren't investing at like the LLM level. Okay, I wasn't smart enough. Then we went through this weird-ass prompt engineer era where like you you could torture these products to do something good, right? But you had to torture them. You had to like craft these crazy things that made no sense. Now we are in the era where mere ordinarily smart generalists can make these tools do magical things. And literally I go to these meetings and people be like, "I don't know how to like this is so scary. I don't know how to do this." And we show them our backends. Do you know how to do a workflow generator? Do you know how to do a a decision tree? Like we've been building these since software in the '90s. Okay, if youโI can show you all of our agents. The how they work is novel. They do have to be trained. You can't be lazy and have these agents work. But honestly, the the UI, the UX, the way we interact with them, it's just software. And so my point is: Pick yourself off the ground. This is your time now. If you felt lost in AI era, if you felt like you're behind, you don't understand what all these people are saying on X and Twitter and their Claude and and their and talking about all the 4.6 point Nano point and it's overโlike you just it's not your world. This is your time. This is your time for the generalist that knows how to use software tools really really well. And Iโthis is my last point but it's so important. If ever in your recent lifeโand this is why you could be all you need to be is young at heart to Rory's pointโif in the last three to five years you have successfully deployed a piece of enterprise software of any sort you yourself, not some agency you hired, but if you have deployed it, you can deploy any agentic tool. Any. And you can become the hero in your company and you can become the hero in your functional area. But I watch folksโI'm literally helping a company now that they're adding hundreds of sales folks this year with a new pre-IPO COOโhe's not hasn't brought in a single tool, totally scared of it. Okay, it's not that hard. Did you use SalesLoft? Did you use Outreach? Did you use HubSpot? Do you know these tools? If you can deploy these tools, you can deploy a world-changing AI agent. And so this is the time for people like the folks that that were shut out of the AI revolution right now. The generalist folks that are not that know how to deploy software that don't even know how to build software. Like vibe coding for me was folks who knew how to build software, but you didn't have to be an engineer. Now, you just need to know how to deploy software to win with AI agents. That's all you need to know. So many people have these skills and they're petrified of AI. "How did you do that? How did you deploy an AI BDR?" Well, we bought a piece of software, we figured out how it worked for a day, we set it up in an afternoon, and then and then we did spend 30 months training it, which you didn't do with this old software because in the old days, we just had to manually upload all the data, right? And there was no training. The the only non-intuitive part is training these things. And it's it's it's just work. So that's why when I see folks on the management team not doing this, there's no excuse. You do not need to be technical to win with AI agents in Q2 of '26. You do not need to be even 1% technical. Not at all. So it's your time. Or you're going to get laid off. Or you're going to get laid off because you're not going to matter.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2036795243681423518/amplify_video_thumb/2036794127560613888/img/52_cdbzzL6_foTSI.jpg)
![๐ฝ Did Grusch See Footage of Live Aliens? ๐ฝ "Grusch has seen evidence that will leave you slack-jawed when you hear it." ~JF ๐ถ What Left Congress Speechless, and Staffers with Their Eyes Popping Out of Their Heads? ๐ฑ ~ "Examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence." ~Burlison Proposed Legislation (I'm gonna break all of this down and give you my speculation on what left Fox with his jaw on the floor, members of Congress speechless, and their senior staffers with their eyes popping out of their heads.) ~ James Fox: " Probably about two weeks ago (late May), we were having meetings on The Hill with members of Congress. We brought in a PR firm, 42 West, and we were having a meeting with staff members, bipartisan. We had Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office, Rep. Eric Burlison. We had a representative from Congressman Jared Moskowitz's office. We had a number of Chiefs of Staff (top staffer for a specific member of Congress), like, present." (Don't really know why they needed a public relations firm in attendance, but if it helps them with advice on how to handle this, so be it. Just know: it appears like members of that PR firm know what Grusch said, and we don't.) Fox: "And, I can't reveal what was said. I thought it was gonna be said at the actual event that we had yesterday (June 9th) in DC with Mr. Grusch." (Don't be mad at Fox for keeping his word to Grusch and not sharing what was said in that private meeting. But I don't blame people for being annoyed that Grusch shared this information six or so weeks ago and we still don't know what he said in that room.) Fox: "Then, what Mr. Grusch revealed to all of us, what he had seen with his own eyes, left the room speechless. It drew the oxygen out of the room. I looked at everybody in that room, and their eyeballs were popping out. My jaw was on the floor. Like, I simply couldn't believe what he'd seen with his own eyes. Like, I can't wait for it to come out. "So I asked Mr. Grusch today, 'Can I talk about what I heard?' And he's like, 'No, but I will be addressing it very soon.'" (Like I said, it's almost been one month now (June 12) since Fox said this, so what does "very soon" mean? Was Grusch supposed to share this information on CNN with Jake Tapper last week but it didn't happen because that interview was, reportedly (Fox told us), postponed?) Fox: "So that's where we stand right now. But I can tell you, Mr. Grusch has seen evidence that will leave you slack-jawed when you hear it. It's coming, it's coming." (We heard that Gruch's Op/Ed was coming soon and that was 2.5 years ago. It never happened. So, I don't blame people for being skeptical about this. If Grusch hasn't told us by this time next week, I propose someone (a member of Congress) who was in that room just tell us. That's fair, right? Total transparency from our elected representatives?) ~ Fox: "Mr. Grusch is legitimately concerned about his personal safety. He's coming out with it, I promise you, this is coming out. He assured me today that he will address this issue to the general public very soon, in the near future." (I'm glad Grusch told a room full of people what he saw, as that may offer him some protection from people who allegedly want him to stop talking.) Fox: "So I can't speak to what he's gonna say, but I'm just telling you from what I heard out of his mouth, sitting in an office of a member of Congress? And everybody (Fox laughs) in the room, you could have heard a pin drop." Clayton Morris: "Could you give us a hint? Is it related to craft? Can you maybe dance around it a little bit? I want to say, 'You're killing me, Smalls (laughs).'" Fox: "Yeah, so if you can imagine, if you know about 'Moment of Contact,' that involves captured non-human intelligent beings. Think about that for a minute. Think about that case. I heard it out of his mouth, and I can tell you, I was in the room. And I looked around the room, and I'm looking at these young, like, guys in their 20s, you know, the staff guys? And their eyeballs were popping out of their head. My jaw was on the floor. I couldn't believe it." (There's a reason why I included that quote (living or deceased non-human intelligence) from the new Burlison/Carson/Crane legislation at the top of this tweet: At the very least, I'm confident Grusch told them that he saw photos of dead non-human beings. Bodies. But what about evidence of LIVING non-humans, aka aliens of unknown origin? More on that at the end. Fox: "My jaw was on the floor. I couldn't believe it." (Would Grusch saying he saw photos of craft and dead non-humans have that type of effect on Fox? Seems like that's something he would have expected to hear.) ~ Fox: "It was an [out of] body experience when I heard that. But I can tell you...the impression I got, was that he felt a little more protected to talk about this because of President Trump's directive to release the files, and that this... Again, this is my speculation, okay? This is not what Mr. Grusch said. "I got the impression that he was much more relaxed - even though he was still not fully relaxed - because of President Trump's directive to release these files. And that it was something that he had seen during his official investigations just within the last few years." (Imagine how much more relaxed Grusch (and others) would feel if we had an actual Executive Order from Trump with strong language to protect whistleblowers?) Fox: "And that it...I think it had an extremely profound impact on his life when he saw this evidence that he described. Again I'm leaving it right there. I've been talking with Republicans, and they said if Joe Rogan tweets about this, that the President will hear it, And I can't overstate the significance of that." (Why hasn't Rogan already done that? No excuse. Fox has been on Rogan and I'm sure he has Joe's contact information. Make it happen.) Fox: "We need people. We're not asking for money, we're not asking to get on your show, we're just asking, Mr. President, please, as many people as possible, release the files that should not be associated with national security. And that's the alien or non-human sentient beings. That's it." ~~~ (I'm going to speculate on what Grusch may have said in that room.) Fox: "I think it had an extremely profound impact on [Grusch's] life when he saw this evidence that he described." (Grusch has said he started out as a skeptic when he started looking into this. If he was shown what he felt were photos of non-human bodies, I think that might be enough to have an, "extremely profound impact on his life." Depending on exactly what those photos showed, of course.) In "Moment of Contact," Eric Davis had this exchange with Fox: James Fox: "Put me wherever you were when you got to see photographs of crash retrieval and documents. What did that feel like?" Dr. Eric Davis: "That was startling, when I actually see recorded evidence with my own eyes. Photographs, reports, and whatnot. That took it to a higher level, that kicked it up several notches of reality. And that made it very clear that this reality is very hard, very physical, very real. "And this type of evidence, you can't come by in the open literature, it's not public, it's classified. And I can't discuss what it was, but I can tell you, yeah, it's a crash retrieval, there's a craft, and there's alien bodies. That's all I can say about it." Fox: "You swear on your life that you saw those pictures?" Davis: "Oh, I swear on my life, and everybody's...my children's life, so (laughs). Yeah, I'm absolutely telling you the truth. I saw the evidence, and it's stark! I can't tell you the exact number, because it's classified, but I'll just say, there's a few dozen total retrievals." Full exchange with video... ~~~ As I said in my other post, I think Davis, Semivan, Puthoff, Kelleher, Grusch, Lacatski, Stratton, aka The AAWSAP Gang (I just made that up), may have seen the same evidence of photos and reports. Has Grusch seen more than that? I don't know. In 2025, Davis said this... Burlison: "Can you comment on whatever species have been piloting these craft? Are they largish? Are they multiple species? What was their size, and how many are usually on a craft?" Davis: "They're typically the multiple species people are familiar with. The Greys, the Nordics. People have talked about Reptilians and Insectoids. It's not that they're Reptilian or Insectoid, it's that they resemble, to the participant, a reptile, or insect type. A humanoid, because they have this...a hand, and four limbs, and a torso, so..." Burlison: "Large? Small?" Davis: "Human size, human scale." Burlison: "How many are in a crew?" Davis: "Well, the group, well, the Greys I'm familiar with from investigating the crash at Corona, which is misnamed the crash at Roswell. It's not the crash at Roswell, it's the crash at Corona, New Mexico. Those were Greys, those were four-foot tall. And the Nordics are typically human-sized, probably...I've heard five, six-feet tall. And same with the people who mislabel Reptilian and Insectoid. They're roughly that height, too. I haven't heard anything about anything seven or eight feet or nine-foot tall, of that nature." Full post with video... ~ And this past Sunday, Davis said this to The Good Trouble Show with Matt Ford... Davis: "I can say to you guys that there are a minimum of four different alien species. The credibility of that ranges on the spectrum from no credibility to high credibility. The high credibility is the classified part." Full post: My Final Thoughts (Based on everything Davis has shared, it seems he saw classified photos of what appeared to him to be non-human craft and photos that appeared to show dead non-humans (bodies) with enough detail that he could see that some resembled reptiles and others resembled insects. Were there also photos of Greys and beings that looked human (Nordic)? I don't know. These images of non-humans would fall into what Davis deemed "high credibility" and "the classified part.") Davis: "I saw the evidence, and it's stark!" (If Davis saw close-up photos that showed details of beings that looked like Reptilians and Mantids, I'd say that qualifies as stark!) Back to what Fox said... Fox: "Then, what Mr. Grusch revealed to all of us, what he had seen with his own eyes, left the room speechless. It drew the oxygen out of the room. I looked at everybody in that room, and their eyeballs were popping out. My jaw was on the floor. Like, I simply couldn't believe what he'd seen with his own eyes." (I think what caused that reaction was Grusch describing seeing close-up photos of different types of non-human beings. Maybe.) However, Fox also said this: "...if you can imagine, if you know about 'Moment of Contact,' that involves captured non-human intelligent beings (This is the Varginha, Brazil case. ~Joe). Think about that for a minute. Think about that case. I heard it out of his mouth, and I can tell you, I was in the room." (The biggest CLAIM in that film and from that case is that a live, non-human being was captured and that Dr. Italo saw video of it, and then stood next to it for a few minutes when it was in the hospital, in a bed, being cared for by another doctor. Did Grusch say he saw evidence (photos or videos) of a live being that appeared to be non-human? Joe Rogan asked him that in his November 2023 interview... Grusch: "Once you realize the phenomenon's real, then you realize we've recovered artifacts and, you know, biologics or, you know, dead pilots, if you will, even though it's kind of creepy to think about in your world view. You don't think they were ever, you know, alive sometimes, too, right? And I'll leave it at that, only because, you know, that is something the President and his cabinet need to disclose this in a controlled manner." (He was either hinting that he's seen them alive or that them being alive and on this planet is a huge deal and not his responsibility to announce. I think it's the latter.) Rogan: "Are there discussions of interactions with live beings?" Grusch: "Uhh, there was some water-cooler talk about that kind of thing." Rogan: "But that's it?" Grusch: "But, you know, I don't even wanna get into it because it's like, uh, there was some details provided to me but it's like, it's secondary and I don't know if that's like, the telephone game and I don't know if it was hyperbolized in any way...um, you know, in the break room, so to speak. So I just... I'm so anal about making sure what I say is accurate...I don't, you know, I don't know." (Based on what he said there, it seems like he has NOT seen any evidence of live beings. If he now comes out and says that he has, it will seem like a flip flop. So, I'm gonna go with Grusch said he saw photos of non-human bodies and they were of the different types/species that Dr. Eric Davis referenced. One more flashback to what Davis said in that public, congressional briefing in May of 2025.) Davis: "It's not that they're Reptilian or Insectoid, it's that they resemble, to the participant, a reptile, or insect type." (That sounds like someone who has seen exactly what they look like, via photos.) Final point... "Examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence." ~Burlison Proposed Legislation (That language was in the original UAPD Disclosure Act co-sponsored by Senators Schumer and Rounds, and four other senators. Why put that language in there if you haven't heard credible reports of living or deceased (bodies) non-human intelligence? Are there stories of living, non-humans on this planet? Yes, and I'll leave you with one of them.) ) (Just to make it clear: I think Grusch will say that he saw clear photos of different types of non-human bodies and some looked like reptiles and others looked like insects. It would be amazing to hear Grusch say he saw video or film of living beings, but I don't expect that. However...this still bothers me... Would Grusch describing seeing photos of craft and different kinds of dead aliens leave veteran-of-the-UFO-field, James Fox, with his jaw on the floor? I guess we're gonna see. And hopefully soon.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2075447649453691237/amplify_video_thumb/2075447438866006017/img/nXEwcYZHCI2fyrrG.jpg)
