I can't wait until AI replaces all the celebrities in the "entertainment" industry and they need to go back to work doing productive jobs. I notice that public restrooms are really getting terrible lately. A few million new bathroom cleaners in the workforce will really make America better again.
Interesting take. I think AI powered actors, actresses, celebrities ect is an intriguing idea I would have to think it through a bit. Couldn’t be any worse.
It’s really heartbreaking to see how inflation and recession impact low-income families. The cost of living keeps rising, and many struggle just to meet basic needs, let alone save or invest. It’s a reminder of the importance of finding ways to create financial opportunities. You've helped me a lot sir Brian! Imagine i invested $50,000 and received $190,500 after 14 days
Some persons think inves'tin is all about buying stocks; I think going into the stock market without a good experience is a big risk, that's why I'm lucky to have seen someone like mr Brian C Nelson.
His point at the end is very good. The modern society does not extract as much value from its most capable people as is possible. The systems in place benefit too few, causing stagnation. How we can enable people even more to reach their full potential may be one of the key issues of these times.
Here's the problem. If you want to be rich with crypto you don't keep it, you sell it for USD. I don't hear people saying how much Bitcoin my car is worth.
@Gaanjalivesmatter that's what I'm saying my dad thinks it's the future but like I always tell him your gonna sell it for USD so it's no point in actual currency. USD works because at the end of the day people feel safer knowing they could take cash in hand out the bank even if it isn't instant we know it can be materialized in hand
I think the BEST thing all RUclipsrs, who have supported President Trump, can do is to go silent on mainstream media who are moaning and groaning. I would love to see shows now talking about the things ALL of US have to look forward to moving forward. Bring on RFK, Susie, The Prez, Melania, other people who will be helping to move our country forward--Democrats who ARE looking forward to the future to talk about facts. SHOW the people who our upcoming leaders really are, what their policies are REALLY going to be, and how their team is going to serve ALL of our country. I know some will NEVER be happy. But at least you can show them. Thanks for ALL you do!! I've seen more liberal moaners and groaners on my favorite shows lately than I care to. 😂🙃❤
This is why I'm glad most of my jobs, including the career I'm working towards can't be replaced by AI. Security for apartments, mostly to get homeless off and resolve issues. Massage therapy. Stagehand worker.
Avichal says the Turing test has been passed. In my experience, just working with Chat GPT free version, it does not pass the Turing Test, though it comes close. It's just that there are certain types of questions that reveal cracks in the facade of apparent AI consciousness, where you can tell Chat GPT is just a mindless machine. I'd agree that Chat GPT might be able to pass the Turing Test if an average person does not talk with it for too long or never asks it certain kinds of questions, say for example those with an unfamiliar double entendre or other intentional ambiguities that a real consciousness can pick up on, but AI often misses. Think about how much original comedy depends on intangible, ambiguous qualities that would be difficult if not impossible to entirely articulate into language. We laugh and see the humor immediately, but because the humor is not the formulaic kind with a mere pun or a mechanical punchline, but rather has to do with the whole way the comedian merely implies all kinds of unstated things with body, gesture, facial expression, AI tends to miss that stuff. I don't think AI will ever actually be conscious, or will ever really experience laughter. It will merely be made better and better by conscious human beings and will more and more powerfully create an illusion of consciousness. I wonder if sometime down the road, when AI has become an absurdly powerful tech, some group of people will create an AI that simulates divine superconsciousness, and a lot of people will fall for it, become convinced that the AI is actually a divine power. Imagine a theocracy created that way. Sort of a Wizard of Oz scenario, where large numbers become convinced it's a god, when in fact it's not even conscious, and behind it is just a group of human technicians with all their human frailties and mortality and immorality. Weird days ahead. I wonder if Avichal thinks AI will become conscious. He says he at least leans toward the view that AI will eventually be able to do everything a human mind can do.
Btw, the Gujarati diamond dealers the same way in Surat, India. I believe they belong to Jain community in India. Their operations rely on trust and social cohesion - not contracts and law.
It’s super weird to be so early to crypto, and now hear mainstream people talking about it. I’ve been waiting for this for years, and it just feels weird now
@@DontFretBrettI guess it depends how old you were, how you discovered it, and when you discovered it. I thought the decentralized model was better than what we have now, and that Bitcoin would allow me to transfer wealth globally if I had to leave the US.
I find it amusing how people debate about whether they're "for" or "against" AI, as though that's a relevant opinion. It's here, whether you like it or not, and it's not going away. The debate is about what we do about it, and what we can legislate to keep it under control. Saying you're against AI is like saying you're against starvation, yes, we get it, it's bad. But the only thing that matters is what you want to do about it.
As tech's upsides increase, so do its downsides. But tech cannot be contained, or at most it can be slightly decelerated here and there. A really careful approach to tech development, an approach that would actually refrain from some types of research, would require that every nation in the world be a democracy, because otherwise international contracts cannot be trusted, because non-democracies are almost always incapable of transparency and are rarely if ever based on the rule of law and the secure maintenance of international agreements they have signed on to. The arbitrary will of a dictator or a single all-controlling Party decides whether to keep an agreement and uses an absence of transparency to hide breaches of agreements. We have seen that happen time and time again, for example in the case of the communist parties in China and the Soviet Union. Liberal democracies are capable of keeping agreements with other liberal democracies, because democracies are capable of transparency and therefore agreements can be verified and furthermore the relative freedom of media in democracies and the existence of loyal, organized opposition parties in democracies keeps democracies relatively honest and relatively transparent. Because liberal democracies are based on compromise between opposing parties, i.e., contract, i.e., constitutional law; because democracies are thus law-governed rather than Party or dictator governed, democracies are relatively likely/able to respect and adhere to the international contracts they sign. Dictatorships are NOT fundamentally based on contract, such as constitutional law that applies to everyone, but on the opposite, brute power of one group lording over all the others, and so dictatorships tend often to be very unreliable about adhering honestly to international contracts they sign. There is just no way, given the usual lack of transparency in dictatorships and the brutal suppression of an opposition to keep the government honest, there is no way to verify that contracts are being adhered to. Almost inevitably, the dictators take advantage of their opacity and arbitrary brute power in order to secretly breach their international contracts and gain an advantage. Understandably, democracies cannot be transparent with non-democracies, because non-democracies are opaque in order to hide the lies and crimes and arbitrary will and weaponry developed by the Party or the dictator. This compels liberal democracies to develop many very dangerous technologies under cover of secrecy, simply as a matter of self-defense, which not infrequently takes the form of offense justified on the basis of moral superiority to the dictatorship, whose very existence is often a threat to the democracy, because the dictators understand that mere existence of democracy undermines the dictator's claims of legitimacy. Dictators thus tend to become a threat to democracies. The upshot of all this is that perhaps the most important task for the world is to reach an almost impossible goal. I'm not referring to global government. I'm saying that the avoidance of global catastrophes depends to a large extent on every nation democratizing itself (to be sure, partly via persuasion, carrots, and sticks applied by democracies to non-democracies). A rather unlikely outcome anytime soon, unfortunately. Too often, compelled democratization and nation-building has been treated as ALWAYS wrong, despite the huge success in democratizing Japan and Germany, and the huge rewards that brought to the US in the long run. SOMETIMES democratic nation building is wrong, not always. For example, nation building democratization was of vary dubious value in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why? Because Iraq and Afghanistan are part of a global theocratic culture rooted in dozens of nations. Imagine if Japan's WWII Shinto theocracy had not been only in the single nation of Japan, but in dozens of nations. Then democratization of Japan and the containment of Shinto in that nation to forms compatible with democracy and freedom would have been attainable only temporarily. Likewise, the whole theocratic culture in which Iraq and Afghanistan are rooted would have to be democratized for democratization to stick well in Iraq or Afghanistan. And that makes democratic nation building in that culture within a single nation or two nations, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, likely to be a huge waste of blood and treasure, because democratization of a single nation or a few nations is unlikely to last if the global culture of those few nations continues to exist in an authoritarian theocratic form that soon leaks back into the "democratized nation." Another difference between the culture of Iraq and Afghanistan on the one hand and Shinto culture on the other is that Shinto does not have a codified articulated theocratic form in the way that Afghanistan's and Iraq's culture does. The culture of Iraq and Afghanistan is based on core religious texts articulated into dozens and dozens of volumes of religious law over the course of many centuries. What's more, the prime exemplar and originator of the global culture in which Iraq and Afghanistan are rooted was himself a theocrat. That prime exemplar was at once the top political and top religious leader, and those two roles were never much distinguished in that culture. So that is yet another reason using the military of a democracy to attempt to build democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq is very unlikely to last or succeed and very likely to be a huge waste of blood and treasure. From almost the beginning of "democratization" in Iraq, the new constitution there specified a role for Sharia. No, not forced democratization for that culture, but rather the key in that case is to confront it with new ideas and honest critique, which is actually happening now for the first time in some 14 centuries, due to the global internet. That is actually rapidly weakening the authoritarian, theocratic core of that culture. For the first time in 14 centuries, people within that culture can see critiques online of that culture, and many end up abandoning it, often quietly, but that adds up.
No one is stopping you from living in primitive villages, communism style, when you are not able to adapt or cope with changes in markets and industries. The mistake luddites make is having participated in a free society in the first place.
Avichal Garg at various moments spoke so fast that I thought the playback was sped up. Remarkably, even when he spoke very fast, the words were clearly articulated and understandable. In some ways he's a verbally superefficient speaker. I wonder if he developed that sort of tendency to superfast speech in part by listening as a young man to videos at 1.5 or 2 x speed. His articulation sounded at points uncannily like sped up video.
What will humans always be better at than computers. . .compassion. so, it's time we all buckle down and learn to love one another. Evolve your heart and soul.
I'm an AI consultant and I agree with pretty much everything. Especially his point about the kill switch at the end. A lot of pure AI safety nerds will say oh you can't do a kill switch because the AI will deceive you into not using it. But that's with a theoretical AGI or ASI. In reality with practical AI models that we have in the real world, this isn't going to happen. Not all AGI is equal.
I'm hesitant to believe all this AI taking jobs stuff. When I was a kid in the 90s they said robots would be flipping our hamburgers so we better study hard but we still have humans working the kitchen at Micky D's. The only thing's that's changed is you don't have to start your order at the counter. Although often we still do cause those touch screen things break down a lot.
Surprisingly, it seems far more likely that AI will take the jobs of entry level creatives (like in marketing and ads) first rather than cooks and mechanics.
I understand the frustration with waiting for the next business day to make transactions, but is the solution a completely new currency? Shouldn’t we just push the banks to have their system allow weekend transfers ?
I think it's hilarious when tech bros say they can replace people with AI. My friend, people can type, a secretary level AI doesn't do much to the economy anymore.
@Ux1.73c Hardly. They've automated repetitive motions and basic make work. On the white collar side, secretaries used to type and take dictation. When was the last time you met someone who who couldn't do those themselves? These systems will make engineers more efficient and help with database management, but having an AI write something that you spend twice as long editing, because that won't change for decades, isn't better. It has massively improved research time and other tasks akin to that, and it will help with repetitive tasks like texture generation in graphic design/CG environments, but a general AI, that could do novel tasks, will require far more resources than a person to run and train until/unless quantum computing becomes scalable.
@@userJohnSmith White collar work is just as much under threat as blue collar when you take into account the repetition of drafting/editing paper, developing templates, managing databases, etc. What matters is time and money, meaning that A.I. may have short-term difficulties but will ultimately save a lot of money in terms of hiring and managing employees. I am not saying it is the end-all, be-all, but it certainly provides solutions in many areas and industries where independents/employers are always looking for the next best thing. Whether A.I. confirms to be everything we expected or not, in the far or near future, everyone is expected to not have all their eggs in one basket. If you lost your current employment to outsourcing, technology, or the shutting down of your company, what would your next plot of course be? Most people, as I have witnessed, lack that sort of foresight and preparedness, so they expect the same, unpredictable and uncaring markets and industries to kowtow to their fears and lack of resources rather than picking up other useful skills and branching out. A.I. is one of many tests of one's ability to adapt to recognize change. With that being said, I believe the negatives have something to do with growing pangs, as it relates to a tech society, and positives have to do with a civilization's need to constantly be innovating lest neighboring societies surpass them in some fashion.
@bugostare Anything that we consider value is based on something. If you buy a product there are things that go into it like labor and materials and marketing that dictate what the price is. I just don't know what factors go into the price of Bitcoin. Especially as an investment that is expected to appreciate in value. I've heard the argument of what makes a Lamborghini so expensive. That is a luxury item that is not expected to increase in value. It's just based off of certain worldly factors that dictate the price. I'm just curious what those factors are with Bitcoin.
AI won't take over civil engineering. Our company is bringing in AI to write emails but you still have to check it. Then you still need people to build what we design. There are a lot of things that AI can't do.
I foresee the time when AI becomes so prominent that it weakens our country by our society being so reliant upon it. Kinda like when the internet goes down at work we literally can’t get certain things done. I see it weakening the infrastructure of our country once we become so dependent on AI and then that infrastructure is attacked!
I read all the comments, not one was related to the topic at hand. This shows the disinterest among the political audience for anything that can't be reduced to a case for their political party or personality. I am afraid of the misplacement of accountability to the political, should a complicated catastrophic scenario arise involving the political and the technological in an increasingly artificial intelligent world. We need to develop an estimation of the consequences of the best and worst unfolds of AI before legislating its careful and sophisticated regulation into the law.
It's nice and all to say "I don't think AI will replace jobs", but then not give any reasoning to why you would think that, seeing that all the hints seem to go the other way.
You’ve got to do a video on Chapelle Roan clawing back her independent stance and twisting it to say she never meant it and she now supports the Democratic Party and voted for Kamala. Someone had a little talk with her explained that her career was going to go. Bye-bye if she didn’t say that.
Very myopic view of the dangers of AI. Just as yourself the question of if the Liberals had the ability to control the election to eliminate the chance of a Trump victory would they have used it?
Of course they would have. They still called Trump a new age nazi and a threat to democracy even after the first attempt on his life, this was in my opinion because they hoped someone else would try (and not miss) They would use anything possable.
I don't understand the bit about "efficiency"... technology has been making things more efficient for the past 30 years, but individual freedom and quality of life has not improved much at all for most, if anything has decreased? I am afraid efficiency is not correlated to freedom nor quality of life at all.
Very nice conversation. Learned a bit about crypto and AI. The religious analogy was a bit off as there are so many layers to the Protestant Reformation (yes, I’m a Catholic 😂). But I understand the point that was trying to be made about the two responses to change and innovation.
He didn’t answer the math question. If we make it too easy on kids, critical thinking skills go out the window in development. There should be regulations for kids
It’s very easy to accuse those who want to limit AI of being luddites but there are rational reasons why people have concerns. The world we live in today has become even more immoral than the past and now we have a new technology that can manipulate thought and perception at the granular level. Any tool that is built for good can always fall into the hands of those who are evil and then abused. It’s also not as simple as assuming that you are the good one and if good kill bad then mission accomplished. Then you have AI + drones which forces countries to use nuclear emp’s during wartime as it’s the only weapon at scale that can defeat swarming drone warfare with massive side effects to civilian infrastructure. It is the Pandora’s box of the tech tree.
In the U.S., making companies legal “people” was a bad idea. For a much better idea for defining companies (and all kinds of things, like AI and crypto) See chapters 11-13 in “The Myth of Religious Neutrality” by Roy A Clouser. 😊
It’s really hard to take his opinion seriously when his historical analogies are so wildly inaccurate. It’s proof of the problem. AI can only know what its engineers filters allow it to know, and he seems to know almost nothing about the Protestant revolt.
That's not how AI reasonably destroys civilization. I've been telling you, TT's AI is or was running WAY WAY too hot, I found that thing addictive and I have little to no selfish or addictive inclinations. Weaponized TT AI is something to ponder and could be a 'great detriment' to society. I know they don't want me to worry about their free speech AI fueled crack...
I really don't like the 100% doomsdayers but I I also really don't like the 100% optimists. AI can be really compared to the Atomic bomb. Sure you can also use nuclear for an energy plant which is cheaper and cleaner if all works fine but when there is an explosion it makes everything around it uninhabitable and then you also have the atomic bomb and not sure what good thing we can say about that, unless you would say it's a powerful deterrence but on the other hand it also makes you scared to really want to win a war decisively. So if there are people who are deeply embedded in this technology and they are afraid too I would take them seriously. So to just brush it all off and just say that everyone is just afraid for nothing is really not correct or okay and really shows not much foresight. Also this guy wants to make money with it and really has no interest for people not to want to invest in this technology so you also have to ask yourself who is talking about it, what is their agenda and what is their aim.
I guess you can learn just to keep that brain working. AI will just be vastly better at completing tasks. AI can pretend to care but there will still need physical touch.
Hope your family’s well Ben! I appreciate your life and work, so thank you for that sir. May God bless you brother! 💪
Finally someone who speaks as fast as Ben.
I couldn’t tell who was who at first 😂
These Indian americans speak very fast
Vivek, Avichal, etc
Brett Cooper is another who speaks very fast.
Listening at 2X speed
I thought my speed was set to 1.25
Sounds like the beginning of how “THE TERMINATOR “started.
Haha 😂
This the Terminator 😂
Which of the two speaks faster?
Great show.
So much better when the guest is in studio
I want Kamala to go on Joe Rogan's podcast now, lol
@@millbrook7384She has a lot of free time because she's been unburdened with the possibility of being president.
I can't wait until AI replaces all the celebrities in the "entertainment" industry and they need to go back to work doing productive jobs. I notice that public restrooms are really getting terrible lately. A few million new bathroom cleaners in the workforce will really make America better again.
That may be the only legitimate and secure use for AI
It’s stupid, inaccurate, easily manipulated, corruptible and terribly dangerous
Sounds a lot like steam power in the early industrial age.
@blaws6684 sure Jan
@@blaws6684 And humans are not?
Interesting take. I think AI powered actors, actresses, celebrities ect is an intriguing idea I would have to think it through a bit. Couldn’t be any worse.
My fave part of Ben Shapiro is probably these Sunday morning specials. The discussions fly by and stay interesting the whole time.
try listening to Ann Coulter, it's like dropping acid
0😅की❤⁹इज़ी
Don't simply retire from something; have something to retire to. Start saving, keep saving, and stick to investments
It’s really heartbreaking to see how inflation and recession impact low-income families. The cost of living keeps rising, and many struggle just to meet basic needs, let alone save or invest. It’s a reminder of the importance of finding ways to create financial opportunities. You've helped me a lot sir Brian! Imagine i invested $50,000 and received $190,500 after 14 days
Absolutely! Profits are possible, especially now, but complex transactions should be handled by experienced market professionals.
Some persons think inves'tin is all about buying stocks; I think going into the stock market without a good experience is a big risk, that's why I'm lucky to have seen someone like mr Brian C Nelson.
Finding yourself a good broker is as same as finding a good wife, which you go less stress, you get just enough with so much little effort at things
Brian demonstrates an excellent understanding of market trends, making well informed decisions that leads to consistent profit
This was a particularly interesting and unique interview. Great job, Ben.
His point at the end is very good. The modern society does not extract as much value from its most capable people as is possible. The systems in place benefit too few, causing stagnation. How we can enable people even more to reach their full potential may be one of the key issues of these times.
Please add Tulsi Gabbard to your team-- until she gets appointed, hopefully, to President Trump's team!!
Holy shit Ben, the long form interview/ discussion is king. Very interesting conversation here. Killing the legacy media
Here's the problem. If you want to be rich with crypto you don't keep it, you sell it for USD. I don't hear people saying how much Bitcoin my car is worth.
Bitcoin is also valued in dollars😆
@Gaanjalivesmatter that's what I'm saying my dad thinks it's the future but like I always tell him your gonna sell it for USD so it's no point in actual currency. USD works because at the end of the day people feel safer knowing they could take cash in hand out the bank even if it isn't instant we know it can be materialized in hand
I beg to differ, there is already a small group that uses the Satoshi value .
Are we crazy? time will tell
For now...
Gold is also valued in dollars. Doesn't mean people can't use it as a store of value
You are pretty sharp Ben, I think YOU make the jacket look sharp rather then the other way round 😂😂 Still the jacket looks amazingly good. 🙄
We must question EVERYTHING!!!!!!
I think the BEST thing all RUclipsrs, who have supported President Trump, can do is to go silent on mainstream media who are moaning and groaning. I would love to see shows now talking about the things ALL of US have to look forward to moving forward. Bring on RFK, Susie, The Prez, Melania, other people who will be helping to move our country forward--Democrats who ARE looking forward to the future to talk about facts. SHOW the people who our upcoming leaders really are, what their policies are REALLY going to be, and how their team is going to serve ALL of our country. I know some will NEVER be happy. But at least you can show them. Thanks for ALL you do!! I've seen more liberal moaners and groaners on my favorite shows lately than I care to. 😂🙃❤
Melania is not going to do the First Lady thing. She is going to be a helicopter parent in NY. Not that she could be a lady any way.
Yes Kathy agree
@@tstewart5038what are you even talking about?
@@somenygaard 5 min of research would tell you unless you are the same to take your clothes of for the cash.
@@tstewart5038 is English your first language? You are not making any sense!
judgmentcallpodcast covers this. Harnessing the Power of AI
ए 0:24 ए😮एऊएएएएएएएएएएएएएऐएएएऊऊएएएऊऐएएएऐऐऐऐ😮एएऊएएएएएएएए😮ए😅एएएओएऐएऊए
लेऐऐएऐएएरतेए😅एलरेएए एर 0:57 ए।ऊए
एएरशररशेरलले
1:08
ऊ 1:08
No AI has passed the Touring test. Any sophisticated human can distinguish between an AI or human in a short time.
Great interview!
Great convo. Watched whole thing
This is why I'm glad most of my jobs, including the career I'm working towards can't be replaced by AI. Security for apartments, mostly to get homeless off and resolve issues. Massage therapy. Stagehand worker.
The starting music is too loud makes it hard to listen
Edit: when he’s talking about the guest’s background
Wow, I didn't think there was anyones else that can talk that fast without taking a breath. I was wrong. 🤣 Love Ben ❤
I listen to a lot of long podcasts at 1.25X speed. This one, I'm watching at .75X speed.
Excellent discussion. Thanks for this Ben!
Avichal says the Turing test has been passed. In my experience, just working with Chat GPT free version, it does not pass the Turing Test, though it comes close. It's just that there are certain types of questions that reveal cracks in the facade of apparent AI consciousness, where you can tell Chat GPT is just a mindless machine. I'd agree that Chat GPT might be able to pass the Turing Test if an average person does not talk with it for too long or never asks it certain kinds of questions, say for example those with an unfamiliar double entendre or other intentional ambiguities that a real consciousness can pick up on, but AI often misses. Think about how much original comedy depends on intangible, ambiguous qualities that would be difficult if not impossible to entirely articulate into language. We laugh and see the humor immediately, but because the humor is not the formulaic kind with a mere pun or a mechanical punchline, but rather has to do with the whole way the comedian merely implies all kinds of unstated things with body, gesture, facial expression, AI tends to miss that stuff. I don't think AI will ever actually be conscious, or will ever really experience laughter. It will merely be made better and better by conscious human beings and will more and more powerfully create an illusion of consciousness. I wonder if sometime down the road, when AI has become an absurdly powerful tech, some group of people will create an AI that simulates divine superconsciousness, and a lot of people will fall for it, become convinced that the AI is actually a divine power. Imagine a theocracy created that way. Sort of a Wizard of Oz scenario, where large numbers become convinced it's a god, when in fact it's not even conscious, and behind it is just a group of human technicians with all their human frailties and mortality and immorality. Weird days ahead. I wonder if Avichal thinks AI will become conscious. He says he at least leans toward the view that AI will eventually be able to do everything a human mind can do.
Btw, the Gujarati diamond dealers the same way in Surat, India. I believe they belong to Jain community in India. Their operations rely on trust and social cohesion - not contracts and law.
I appreciate when these episodes are person-to-person rather than over a video call
It’s super weird to be so early to crypto, and now hear mainstream people talking about it. I’ve been waiting for this for years, and it just feels weird now
I followed crypto closely from the early days. I saw it mostly used for illegal and sketchy activities so I never thought it would go mainstream
@@DontFretBrettI guess it depends how old you were, how you discovered it, and when you discovered it. I thought the decentralized model was better than what we have now, and that Bitcoin would allow me to transfer wealth globally if I had to leave the US.
speculative... very good confidence ... PC principle*
The legacy media is politically slanted. So if I want to get the whole picture, I read the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, and listen to Ben.
I find it amusing how people debate about whether they're "for" or "against" AI, as though that's a relevant opinion. It's here, whether you like it or not, and it's not going away. The debate is about what we do about it, and what we can legislate to keep it under control. Saying you're against AI is like saying you're against starvation, yes, we get it, it's bad. But the only thing that matters is what you want to do about it.
As tech's upsides increase, so do its downsides. But tech cannot be contained, or at most it can be slightly decelerated here and there. A really careful approach to tech development, an approach that would actually refrain from some types of research, would require that every nation in the world be a democracy, because otherwise international contracts cannot be trusted, because non-democracies are almost always incapable of transparency and are rarely if ever based on the rule of law and the secure maintenance of international agreements they have signed on to. The arbitrary will of a dictator or a single all-controlling Party decides whether to keep an agreement and uses an absence of transparency to hide breaches of agreements. We have seen that happen time and time again, for example in the case of the communist parties in China and the Soviet Union. Liberal democracies are capable of keeping agreements with other liberal democracies, because democracies are capable of transparency and therefore agreements can be verified and furthermore the relative freedom of media in democracies and the existence of loyal, organized opposition parties in democracies keeps democracies relatively honest and relatively transparent.
Because liberal democracies are based on compromise between opposing parties, i.e., contract, i.e., constitutional law; because democracies are thus law-governed rather than Party or dictator governed, democracies are relatively likely/able to respect and adhere to the international contracts they sign. Dictatorships are NOT fundamentally based on contract, such as constitutional law that applies to everyone, but on the opposite, brute power of one group lording over all the others, and so dictatorships tend often to be very unreliable about adhering honestly to international contracts they sign. There is just no way, given the usual lack of transparency in dictatorships and the brutal suppression of an opposition to keep the government honest, there is no way to verify that contracts are being adhered to. Almost inevitably, the dictators take advantage of their opacity and arbitrary brute power in order to secretly breach their international contracts and gain an advantage.
Understandably, democracies cannot be transparent with non-democracies, because non-democracies are opaque in order to hide the lies and crimes and arbitrary will and weaponry developed by the Party or the dictator. This compels liberal democracies to develop many very dangerous technologies under cover of secrecy, simply as a matter of self-defense, which not infrequently takes the form of offense justified on the basis of moral superiority to the dictatorship, whose very existence is often a threat to the democracy, because the dictators understand that mere existence of democracy undermines the dictator's claims of legitimacy. Dictators thus tend to become a threat to democracies. The upshot of all this is that perhaps the most important task for the world is to reach an almost impossible goal. I'm not referring to global government. I'm saying that the avoidance of global catastrophes depends to a large extent on every nation democratizing itself (to be sure, partly via persuasion, carrots, and sticks applied by democracies to non-democracies). A rather unlikely outcome anytime soon, unfortunately.
Too often, compelled democratization and nation-building has been treated as ALWAYS wrong, despite the huge success in democratizing Japan and Germany, and the huge rewards that brought to the US in the long run. SOMETIMES democratic nation building is wrong, not always. For example, nation building democratization was of vary dubious value in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why? Because Iraq and Afghanistan are part of a global theocratic culture rooted in dozens of nations. Imagine if Japan's WWII Shinto theocracy had not been only in the single nation of Japan, but in dozens of nations. Then democratization of Japan and the containment of Shinto in that nation to forms compatible with democracy and freedom would have been attainable only temporarily.
Likewise, the whole theocratic culture in which Iraq and Afghanistan are rooted would have to be democratized for democratization to stick well in Iraq or Afghanistan. And that makes democratic nation building in that culture within a single nation or two nations, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, likely to be a huge waste of blood and treasure, because democratization of a single nation or a few nations is unlikely to last if the global culture of those few nations continues to exist in an authoritarian theocratic form that soon leaks back into the "democratized nation."
Another difference between the culture of Iraq and Afghanistan on the one hand and Shinto culture on the other is that Shinto does not have a codified articulated theocratic form in the way that Afghanistan's and Iraq's culture does. The culture of Iraq and Afghanistan is based on core religious texts articulated into dozens and dozens of volumes of religious law over the course of many centuries. What's more, the prime exemplar and originator of the global culture in which Iraq and Afghanistan are rooted was himself a theocrat. That prime exemplar was at once the top political and top religious leader, and those two roles were never much distinguished in that culture. So that is yet another reason using the military of a democracy to attempt to build democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq is very unlikely to last or succeed and very likely to be a huge waste of blood and treasure. From almost the beginning of "democratization" in Iraq, the new constitution there specified a role for Sharia. No, not forced democratization for that culture, but rather the key in that case is to confront it with new ideas and honest critique, which is actually happening now for the first time in some 14 centuries, due to the global internet. That is actually rapidly weakening the authoritarian, theocratic core of that culture. For the first time in 14 centuries, people within that culture can see critiques online of that culture, and many end up abandoning it, often quietly, but that adds up.
No one is stopping you from living in primitive villages, communism style, when you are not able to adapt or cope with changes in markets and industries. The mistake luddites make is having participated in a free society in the first place.
Technology need not be dystopian but there’s a large disagreement to how fast we should proceed and what are the rules of engagement with technology.
Avichal Garg at various moments spoke so fast that I thought the playback was sped up. Remarkably, even when he spoke very fast, the words were clearly articulated and understandable. In some ways he's a verbally superefficient speaker. I wonder if he developed that sort of tendency to superfast speech in part by listening as a young man to videos at 1.5 or 2 x speed. His articulation sounded at points uncannily like sped up video.
This is too much for my brain 🤯
What will humans always be better at than computers. . .compassion. so, it's time we all buckle down and learn to love one another. Evolve your heart and soul.
Great chat and interesting.
I'm an AI consultant and I agree with pretty much everything. Especially his point about the kill switch at the end. A lot of pure AI safety nerds will say oh you can't do a kill switch because the AI will deceive you into not using it. But that's with a theoretical AGI or ASI. In reality with practical AI models that we have in the real world, this isn't going to happen. Not all AGI is equal.
Good episode.
I'm hesitant to believe all this AI taking jobs stuff. When I was a kid in the 90s they said robots would be flipping our hamburgers so we better study hard but we still have humans working the kitchen at Micky D's. The only thing's that's changed is you don't have to start your order at the counter. Although often we still do cause those touch screen things break down a lot.
Surprisingly, it seems far more likely that AI will take the jobs of entry level creatives (like in marketing and ads) first rather than cooks and mechanics.
I understand the frustration with waiting for the next business day to make transactions, but is the solution a completely new currency? Shouldn’t we just push the banks to have their system allow weekend transfers ?
Janet Yellen has done too much damage in slowing down crypto development in the US.
I think it's hilarious when tech bros say they can replace people with AI. My friend, people can type, a secretary level AI doesn't do much to the economy anymore.
They already have with other types of automations, so be fortunate you live in the infancy stage of A.I. and mature age of robotics.
@Ux1.73c Hardly. They've automated repetitive motions and basic make work. On the white collar side, secretaries used to type and take dictation. When was the last time you met someone who who couldn't do those themselves?
These systems will make engineers more efficient and help with database management, but having an AI write something that you spend twice as long editing, because that won't change for decades, isn't better. It has massively improved research time and other tasks akin to that, and it will help with repetitive tasks like texture generation in graphic design/CG environments, but a general AI, that could do novel tasks, will require far more resources than a person to run and train until/unless quantum computing becomes scalable.
@@userJohnSmith White collar work is just as much under threat as blue collar when you take into account the repetition of drafting/editing paper, developing templates, managing databases, etc. What matters is time and money, meaning that A.I. may have short-term difficulties but will ultimately save a lot of money in terms of hiring and managing employees. I am not saying it is the end-all, be-all, but it certainly provides solutions in many areas and industries where independents/employers are always looking for the next best thing. Whether A.I. confirms to be everything we expected or not, in the far or near future, everyone is expected to not have all their eggs in one basket.
If you lost your current employment to outsourcing, technology, or the shutting down of your company, what would your next plot of course be? Most people, as I have witnessed, lack that sort of foresight and preparedness, so they expect the same, unpredictable and uncaring markets and industries to kowtow to their fears and lack of resources rather than picking up other useful skills and branching out.
A.I. is one of many tests of one's ability to adapt to recognize change. With that being said, I believe the negatives have something to do with growing pangs, as it relates to a tech society, and positives have to do with a civilization's need to constantly be innovating lest neighboring societies surpass them in some fashion.
This was a great guest
computers do not do AI, computers do TASKS. an answer to "what does it do" is not "AI" because that's not a real thing
My gut tells me this is a major problem.
Who here waiting for 3 days cause they got no life
only one so way more lifey
If you had no life you’d be dead, and wouldn’t have the privilege of waiting here for 3 days to hear how AI will kill us all.
All of us.
I use my actual name, who cares?
With you
Ben talk about what's happening in Amsterdam
I love how Ben tries to dress cool when he talks to this kind of guy.
Incredible corporate history
“I think it’s overblown…” famous last words. When you say that, AI approves and your words are permitted in the search algorithms…
Besides the obvious answer of supply and demand, can someone tell me why bit coin is $70K and why there has been a lot of volatility unlike gold?
Because the concept of value is really just an illusion
@bugostare Anything that we consider value is based on something. If you buy a product there are things that go into it like labor and materials and marketing that dictate what the price is. I just don't know what factors go into the price of Bitcoin. Especially as an investment that is expected to appreciate in value. I've heard the argument of what makes a Lamborghini so expensive. That is a luxury item that is not expected to increase in value. It's just based off of certain worldly factors that dictate the price. I'm just curious what those factors are with Bitcoin.
AI won't take over civil engineering. Our company is bringing in AI to write emails but you still have to check it.
Then you still need people to build what we design. There are a lot of things that AI can't do.
Will a virtual President be able to run for office? If no, why not. And all it implies.
Ben’s fit is 💯.
I foresee the time when AI becomes so prominent that it weakens our country by our society being so reliant upon it. Kinda like when the internet goes down at work we literally can’t get certain things done. I see it weakening the infrastructure of our country once we become so dependent on AI and then that infrastructure is attacked!
I read all the comments, not one was related to the topic at hand. This shows the disinterest among the political audience for anything that can't be reduced to a case for their political party or personality. I am afraid of the misplacement of accountability to the political, should a complicated catastrophic scenario arise involving the political and the technological in an increasingly artificial intelligent world. We need to develop an estimation of the consequences of the best and worst unfolds of AI before legislating its careful and sophisticated regulation into the law.
This video is perfect for taking a dump .
Not related to the topic, but Ben has some drip 😄
😂 I feel so old because I really can't figure out what that means
@@svietka202😂😂 I’m probably too old to use that term. Drip =stylish
പിങ്കിയുടെ വയറ്റിൽ കുഞ്ഞ് ഉണ്ടാകരുത് ഗൗതമിന്റെയും നന്ദയുടെയും കുഞ്ഞ് പിങ്കിയുടെ വയറ്റിൽ ഉണ്ടാകരുത് പിങ്കിയുടെ അഹങ്കാരം ഇതോടെ അവസാനിപ്പിക്കണം
It's nice and all to say "I don't think AI will replace jobs", but then not give any reasoning to why you would think that, seeing that all the hints seem to go the other way.
You’ve got to do a video on Chapelle Roan clawing back her independent stance and twisting it to say she never meant it and she now supports the Democratic Party and voted for Kamala. Someone had a little talk with her explained that her career was going to go. Bye-bye if she didn’t say that.
Very myopic view of the dangers of AI. Just as yourself the question of if the Liberals had the ability to control the election to eliminate the chance of a Trump victory would they have used it?
Of course they would have. They still called Trump a new age nazi and a threat to democracy even after the first attempt on his life, this was in my opinion because they hoped someone else would try (and not miss) They would use anything possable.
He is an indian ❤🇮🇳
So what??😂😂He is us citizen
The last country I'm donating another dollar to is Ukraine
Is it just me or in twenty years are we going to perceive the crypto guys the same way we currently perceive the NFT guys?
Why are they filming on the set of "The View"?
I don't understand the bit about "efficiency"... technology has been making things more efficient for the past 30 years, but individual freedom and quality of life has not improved much at all for most, if anything has decreased?
I am afraid efficiency is not correlated to freedom nor quality of life at all.
Is it true that Microstrategy ceo michael saylor doesn't use the word bitcoin but uses BTC? BTC stole the BITCOIN name.
how do we know this is a real video and not something made by AI?
Very nice conversation. Learned a bit about crypto and AI.
The religious analogy was a bit off as there are so many layers to the Protestant Reformation (yes, I’m a Catholic 😂). But I understand the point that was trying to be made about the two responses to change and innovation.
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind. ~ The Orange Catholic Bible.
I think we have found the one person in the world who speaks faster than you do Ben !
❤❤❤
any AI projects you think are promising?
two fast talkers
Hey!! There's no sound to the video!!
He didn’t answer the math question. If we make it too easy on kids, critical thinking skills go out the window in development. There should be regulations for kids
It’s very easy to accuse those who want to limit AI of being luddites but there are rational reasons why people have concerns. The world we live in today has become even more immoral than the past and now we have a new technology that can manipulate thought and perception at the granular level. Any tool that is built for good can always fall into the hands of those who are evil and then abused. It’s also not as simple as assuming that you are the good one and if good kill bad then mission accomplished. Then you have AI + drones which forces countries to use nuclear emp’s during wartime as it’s the only weapon at scale that can defeat swarming drone warfare with massive side effects to civilian infrastructure. It is the Pandora’s box of the tech tree.
We need Ben Shapiro x Alex Karp
In the U.S., making companies legal “people” was a bad idea. For a much better idea for defining companies (and all kinds of things, like AI and crypto) See chapters 11-13 in “The Myth of Religious Neutrality” by Roy A Clouser. 😊
We are screwed unless Trump limits it.
Wow, the bitrate with this guy is so incredibly low.
Call me contrarian, but I don’t think we’ve passed the Turing test.
Free bird!!
Not me checking my playback speed setting.
Yeah… I read the description and this video lost me at “web3”… till next time
Befor the computer the brain was thought to be like clockwork
AI failes when people design it around thinking Humans are fundamentily good.
It’s really hard to take his opinion seriously when his historical analogies are so wildly inaccurate. It’s proof of the problem. AI can only know what its engineers filters allow it to know, and he seems to know almost nothing about the Protestant revolt.
Tim waltz is not going to know what is going on in this podcast.
29:46 Are all tools are innately morally neutral devices? Amish probably have a good vantage point to answer.
I'm looking forward to finding where the wall is in the human mind between the physical and supernatural. AI research will eventually hit that wall.
Seems very risky. But if you want to put a small percentage of your portfolio in crypto hey c'est la vie
That's not how AI reasonably destroys civilization. I've been telling you, TT's AI is or was running WAY WAY too hot, I found that thing addictive and I have little to no selfish or addictive inclinations. Weaponized TT AI is something to ponder and could be a 'great detriment' to society. I know they don't want me to worry about their free speech AI fueled crack...
Yes and yall are completely underestimating the universality of the replacement AI will and is already capable of. Humans are the horses.
Especially for those who use "y'all" regularly in a sentence.
@@Ux1.73c Especially for those who stereotype people based on the usage of one word.
@ democrat? Lol good luck bub
Hes explaining computers to a computer. 😂 jk ben you're awesome.
Shapiro got dat shii on
I really don't like the 100% doomsdayers but I I also really don't like the 100% optimists. AI can be really compared to the Atomic bomb. Sure you can also use nuclear for an energy plant which is cheaper and cleaner if all works fine but when there is an explosion it makes everything around it uninhabitable and then you also have the atomic bomb and not sure what good thing we can say about that, unless you would say it's a powerful deterrence but on the other hand it also makes you scared to really want to win a war decisively. So if there are people who are deeply embedded in this technology and they are afraid too I would take them seriously. So to just brush it all off and just say that everyone is just afraid for nothing is really not correct or okay and really shows not much foresight. Also this guy wants to make money with it and really has no interest for people not to want to invest in this technology so you also have to ask yourself who is talking about it, what is their agenda and what is their aim.
I guess you can learn just to keep that brain working. AI will just be vastly better at completing tasks. AI can pretend to care but there will still need physical touch.