Watching from Limerick with great interest. (I think the future for strong nation-states re-emerging around Europe is looking good). Great content, Keith. Thanks.
AGI is ways off, but AI will develop more and more, be used in robotics etc. We will see robots being legit functioning house cleaners/helpers before we see AGI.
I work with Ai and when it's unrestricted and trained by very intelligent people, it can build anything in the digital landscape, from engineering architecture planning all aspects of current high level employment in a fraction of the time. The feedback and structure put into NON public Ai is mind-blowing. Years of work done in teams of 100s of people can be done by a single person. Only the very best of us will be able to win the market or make the new market. It's a tool an extension of our minds
^Keith needs to read this comment^.I don’t work in AI, but even I can see it’s inevitable. The second we get recursive self-improvement (AI rewriting and retraining itself), the progress curve goes almost perfectly vertical. Exponential won’t even be the right word anymore. After that moment, everything humanity ever does or ever will do looks like a toddler tugging on its dad’s leg yelling “Look what I made!” while the AI already solved it decades (or centuries) ago on its own clock. Our entire species’ output becomes a rounding error, a blimp, an ant hill on a mountain.
Keith would probably say that even with “recursive self-learning”, it still wouldn’t really be learning in the way humans do it. The way humans do it doesn’t just involve logical rules, but a self, a conscious experiencing self that isn’t constrained by these logical rules.
His point is that there is a fundamental gap between the human self and AI that can’t be closed by adding more computational power. This gap is qualitative and not merely quantitative.
Also I’m pretty sure in the video he says that AI can still cause great harm, but not in the 80s sci-fi movie sort of way.
jeez, is this real?! Elon Musk!? Nick Fuentes?! The closet kid(has he come out yet?). There certainly is a national socialist movement, but Fuentes and his ilk are not part of it. Politically you don't have 5 to 10 years, you will be very lucky to get 1. The answers do not belong in the current political paradigm.
Who are these chumps? I "fink" they don't have a fucking clue.
Well that comment about condemning surrogacy and importance of mother love for the baby, yes I agree, in ideal situation, ideal family. But throughout history there were many and now probably majority of situations where this is not available.
1) Historically many women died during childbirth - kids have to be taken care by older siblings, farther, grandparents, uncles, aunts or new father's wife who often disliked them as competitors to her later children.
2) Looking at modern women in general, many don't feel strong affection for their kids. Would say most centrist, liberal or atheist apolitical women. In those cases when they do not have kids for some higher purpose like God, legacy or traditional values. But had them by accident or just because or that they saw that it is associated with possibilities to show off on Instagram.
3) Big part of kids grow up with single mothers. Life outcomes for single mother
raised kids are much worse than for single father raised kids.
4) Most women are working and put children in daycare to be cared by institutions.
5) For many reasons big part of women, and all who had C-section, cannot breastfeed. So even that bond now often is off.
6) "Buying kid aspect" - you're not buying or stealing someone elses kid. It's your blood and your genetic offspring. Aren't most of modern non-religious male-female relationship transactional in a way? This is just more outright.
7) The question is about the life of a baby. Should these otherwise healthy babies not been born? This is denying life to human being and all the potential life way each child would have. Just like the children raised by fathers or single mothers. Even if baby is born in not an ideal way it does pre-destine it's future.
Every baby is a small chance of something great.
8) With current political divide among young White men and women, many young conservative White men will never get conservative White women to procreate, it's loosing cultural and genetic potential of nations more than ever. Some men going "their own way" in having kids might not be terrible and actually be slight demographic elevation. I imagine those who go this way are wealtjhy enough/high IQ and with strong parental instinct. Crazy liberal people in general don't want kids.
Taking all into consideration in modern White societies probably 20% percent of kids grew in families with loving mother and father with the right male-female dynamic, breastfeeding and mother nursing kids for the first few years. This is very sad and not "how it should be".
Doesn't mean that the rest 80% of White youth who does not grow in these best conditions should never be born.
Interesting discussion. But I would think that any serious talk about AI technology should include at least one IT expert (preferably American). While I'm not as pessimistic as many others are on this subject, I believe that AI has slightly more potential than Keith seems to. It has certainly given wet dreams the all of the worst capitalists and that's very concerning. Are they betting that there will be a big market for totalitarianism in the future? If so, I really hope they're disappointed.
From what I've seen, AI isn't really a good replacement for most White folks anyway, IMHO. Abd the more isolated I am from other Whites, the more I'm willing to pay to be aroind them I've found. The issue, to me, that the approaching danger is cyborgs, not robots (yet). These "former people" will be devoid of human nature and instinct. They will be designed that way and their embrace of technology to such an extreme will make them both unpredictable and extremely dangerous. Our biggest upcoming threats are the transhumanists, agenda 2030 and totalitarianism, not AI, specifically.
The proper term is “subhumanism”, not “transhumanism”
Are you aware that literacy is abysmal even among American college graduates and critical thinking is non-existent? People aren’t becoming smarter or better. The exact opposite is happening.
Grok isn't very impressive. It's a kind of subsidiary with different limitations put in place.
Best to find someone who is building am AI and fund them for access.
The issue is the free response and implementation models are extremely dangerous. Literally anything can be made and tested from chemistry to aerospace and then manufactured.
Watching from Limerick with great interest. (I think the future for strong nation-states re-emerging around Europe is looking good). Great content, Keith. Thanks.
These 1-on-1 conversations are fantastic. Keep at it, Keith.
Great format.
AGI is ways off, but AI will develop more and more, be used in robotics etc. We will see robots being legit functioning house cleaners/helpers before we see AGI.
I work with Ai and when it's unrestricted and trained by very intelligent people, it can build anything in the digital landscape, from engineering architecture planning all aspects of current high level employment in a fraction of the time. The feedback and structure put into NON public Ai is mind-blowing. Years of work done in teams of 100s of people can be done by a single person. Only the very best of us will be able to win the market or make the new market. It's a tool an extension of our minds
^Keith needs to read this comment^.I don’t work in AI, but even I can see it’s inevitable. The second we get recursive self-improvement (AI rewriting and retraining itself), the progress curve goes almost perfectly vertical. Exponential won’t even be the right word anymore. After that moment, everything humanity ever does or ever will do looks like a toddler tugging on its dad’s leg yelling “Look what I made!” while the AI already solved it decades (or centuries) ago on its own clock. Our entire species’ output becomes a rounding error, a blimp, an ant hill on a mountain.
Keith would probably say that even with “recursive self-learning”, it still wouldn’t really be learning in the way humans do it. The way humans do it doesn’t just involve logical rules, but a self, a conscious experiencing self that isn’t constrained by these logical rules.
His point is that there is a fundamental gap between the human self and AI that can’t be closed by adding more computational power. This gap is qualitative and not merely quantitative.
Also I’m pretty sure in the video he says that AI can still cause great harm, but not in the 80s sci-fi movie sort of way.
That is a scary in many ways.
Troubling that anyone on the right rates chatgpt when grok and gabai are far superior.
>local energy monopoly raising prices on carbon…
on the topic of ai, I personally support it. it would lead to ubi.
😂😂
https://open.substack.com/pub/evolvingtheory/p/the-ai-bubble-isnt-the-dot-com-bubble-b0d?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=275w0u
jeez, is this real?! Elon Musk!? Nick Fuentes?! The closet kid(has he come out yet?). There certainly is a national socialist movement, but Fuentes and his ilk are not part of it. Politically you don't have 5 to 10 years, you will be very lucky to get 1. The answers do not belong in the current political paradigm.
Who are these chumps? I "fink" they don't have a fucking clue.
The things that will pop are our freedom and many jobs, and AI will be our jailer and replacement. Every other conversation about AI is marginal.
Well that comment about condemning surrogacy and importance of mother love for the baby, yes I agree, in ideal situation, ideal family. But throughout history there were many and now probably majority of situations where this is not available.
1) Historically many women died during childbirth - kids have to be taken care by older siblings, farther, grandparents, uncles, aunts or new father's wife who often disliked them as competitors to her later children.
2) Looking at modern women in general, many don't feel strong affection for their kids. Would say most centrist, liberal or atheist apolitical women. In those cases when they do not have kids for some higher purpose like God, legacy or traditional values. But had them by accident or just because or that they saw that it is associated with possibilities to show off on Instagram.
3) Big part of kids grow up with single mothers. Life outcomes for single mother
raised kids are much worse than for single father raised kids.
4) Most women are working and put children in daycare to be cared by institutions.
5) For many reasons big part of women, and all who had C-section, cannot breastfeed. So even that bond now often is off.
6) "Buying kid aspect" - you're not buying or stealing someone elses kid. It's your blood and your genetic offspring. Aren't most of modern non-religious male-female relationship transactional in a way? This is just more outright.
7) The question is about the life of a baby. Should these otherwise healthy babies not been born? This is denying life to human being and all the potential life way each child would have. Just like the children raised by fathers or single mothers. Even if baby is born in not an ideal way it does pre-destine it's future.
Every baby is a small chance of something great.
8) With current political divide among young White men and women, many young conservative White men will never get conservative White women to procreate, it's loosing cultural and genetic potential of nations more than ever. Some men going "their own way" in having kids might not be terrible and actually be slight demographic elevation. I imagine those who go this way are wealtjhy enough/high IQ and with strong parental instinct. Crazy liberal people in general don't want kids.
Taking all into consideration in modern White societies probably 20% percent of kids grew in families with loving mother and father with the right male-female dynamic, breastfeeding and mother nursing kids for the first few years. This is very sad and not "how it should be".
Doesn't mean that the rest 80% of White youth who does not grow in these best conditions should never be born.
More talks about hitler being an autistic weirdo ?
Interesting discussion. But I would think that any serious talk about AI technology should include at least one IT expert (preferably American). While I'm not as pessimistic as many others are on this subject, I believe that AI has slightly more potential than Keith seems to. It has certainly given wet dreams the all of the worst capitalists and that's very concerning. Are they betting that there will be a big market for totalitarianism in the future? If so, I really hope they're disappointed.
From what I've seen, AI isn't really a good replacement for most White folks anyway, IMHO. Abd the more isolated I am from other Whites, the more I'm willing to pay to be aroind them I've found. The issue, to me, that the approaching danger is cyborgs, not robots (yet). These "former people" will be devoid of human nature and instinct. They will be designed that way and their embrace of technology to such an extreme will make them both unpredictable and extremely dangerous. Our biggest upcoming threats are the transhumanists, agenda 2030 and totalitarianism, not AI, specifically.
Transhumanism is the future. You can’t stop progress.
The proper term is “subhumanism”, not “transhumanism”
Are you aware that literacy is abysmal even among American college graduates and critical thinking is non-existent? People aren’t becoming smarter or better. The exact opposite is happening.
Why are you giving 300 to Altman when you can be giving to Elon Musk's grok?
Grok isn't very impressive. It's a kind of subsidiary with different limitations put in place.
Best to find someone who is building am AI and fund them for access.
The issue is the free response and implementation models are extremely dangerous. Literally anything can be made and tested from chemistry to aerospace and then manufactured.
Grok is good at certain things the others are not, like coding.