1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,637
The thing that I want to just double
click on before we play this uh general

2
00:00:02,720 --> 00:00:05,677
AI clip is that he talks about how just

3
00:00:05,760 --> 00:00:07,917
more compute is not going to get us

4
00:00:08,000 --> 00:00:10,717
there. And I think that that's become

5
00:00:10,800 --> 00:00:14,477
less of a commonly held view in the

6
00:00:14,560 --> 00:00:17,997
let's get the newest Nvidia chips
and get 20,000 of them in one building and

7
00:00:18,080 --> 00:00:21,517
then push really hard. Meta in particular,
XAI in particular, have been

8
00:00:21,600 --> 00:00:25,597
investing a lot in building up their
compute power as a way to create more

9
00:00:25,680 --> 00:00:28,877
intelligent systems. So, it's funny
to hear him here say that that's not going

10
00:00:28,960 --> 00:00:30,317
to get us all the way to the mountain top.

11
00:00:30,400 --> 00:00:34,397
>> What a a helpful thing. That made
me feel less crazy because I feel like

12
00:00:34,480 --> 00:00:38,797
sometimes there is that assumption
that we don't need to like code things

13
00:00:38,880 --> 00:00:41,277
anymore. We just need to put enough

14
00:00:41,360 --> 00:00:46,237
chips in a room and then they will
figure it out for us. And to me, that's

15
00:00:46,320 --> 00:00:50,317
always I'm not a programmer, folks.
So, like maybe that's how it'll work. But

16
00:00:50,400 --> 00:00:52,317
that always felt very counterintuitive

17
00:00:52,400 --> 00:00:54,397
to me. like every other piece of

18
00:00:54,480 --> 00:00:57,677
software ever, we a human had to like

19
00:00:57,760 --> 00:01:01,597
figure out how it was going to work. And
now we're suddenly coming with this idea

20
00:01:01,680 --> 00:01:05,917
that well, if you just put enough
compute power together, it'll take care

21
00:01:06,000 --> 00:01:09,677
of all of that for us. And I've never
really bought that. So, it was it was

22
00:01:09,760 --> 00:01:14,557
nice to hear a technologist agree with me
in that way, like, oh, I'm not crazy.

23
00:01:14,640 --> 00:01:16,557
This is a big assumption for us to make.

24
00:01:16,640 --> 00:01:19,357
>> It'd be fun to hear what he has to
think about this now, but here's Alexander

25
00:01:19,440 --> 00:01:21,197
Wang. >> You believe
in general AI that we'll hit

26
00:01:21,280 --> 00:01:24,877
that at some point? AI that is just
generally smart can do anything a human

27
00:01:24,960 --> 00:01:28,477
can. >> I believe in some sense.
I believe in the sense that like for most

28
00:01:28,560 --> 00:01:31,997
technological things that humans can
conceive of that aren't physically

29
00:01:32,080 --> 00:01:34,717
impossible if humans survive they'll
happen at some point. Like I think

30
00:01:34,800 --> 00:01:38,637
humans are like infinitely creative,
infinitely ingenious, etc. I think it's

31
00:01:38,720 --> 00:01:42,637
very overblown the timelines that people
are talking about general AI happening.

32
00:01:42,720 --> 00:01:45,437
There's a lot of things that are wrong
about like the common arguments. One of

33
00:01:45,520 --> 00:01:49,117
which is people say that if Moore's
law keeps going then we'll have all this

34
00:01:49,200 --> 00:01:52,077
exponential compute. it's only a matter
of time before we produce these general

35
00:01:52,160 --> 00:01:55,997
AI morals laws is going to be dead and
then quantum computing is very far away

36
00:01:56,080 --> 00:01:59,677
despite recent press releases etc.
I think that leg of the argument is not

37
00:01:59,760 --> 00:02:02,557
actually that strong and then I also
think it's not even clear that if you

38
00:02:02,640 --> 00:02:05,917
have infinite compute you'll be able
to produce general AI. I think that's very

39
00:02:06,000 --> 00:02:10,077
unclear. So infinite compute helps
narrow AI because you're doing a number

40
00:02:10,160 --> 00:02:15,117
of scenarios and playing out every
scenario in go the the game many more

41
00:02:15,200 --> 00:02:18,157
permutations than poker many more
permutations than chess which is a

42
00:02:18,240 --> 00:02:20,797
finite data set. So yeah, more compute

43
00:02:20,880 --> 00:02:23,517
power on those things certainly gets you

44
00:02:23,600 --> 00:02:27,917
quicker ability or even just throwing
people into a random video game like

45
00:02:28,000 --> 00:02:32,237
open AI is sure >> definitely >>
but general AI taking somebody who

46
00:02:32,320 --> 00:02:36,397
mastered chess and then saying master
go and then master impressionist painting

47
00:02:36,480 --> 00:02:39,117
it's different >> it's very
different one of the arguments

48
00:02:39,200 --> 00:02:42,877
goes that once you have enough compute
you can create artificial life by

49
00:02:42,960 --> 00:02:45,837
basically simulating evolution
one of the more vogue arguments

50
00:02:45,920 --> 00:02:50,557
>> you have so much compute power that you
can say start with this tiny piece of

51
00:02:50,640 --> 00:02:54,157
bacteria, whatever, then grow it
and grow and grow an entire evolutionary

52
00:02:54,240 --> 00:02:58,477
system to the point at which there
is a human-like species and then grow that

53
00:02:58,560 --> 00:03:02,077
humanlike species in whatever number of
scenarios with a big brain into whatever

54
00:03:02,160 --> 00:03:04,557
comes after us. >> Even if
you just grow the humanlike

55
00:03:04,640 --> 00:03:06,957
species that's as intelligent,
then you're that's kind of good.

56
00:03:07,040 --> 00:03:08,957
>> That would be general
AI as well, right?

57
00:03:09,040 --> 00:03:11,517
Because general AI would normally most
people would define general AI as not

58
00:03:11,600 --> 00:03:14,237
even being smarter than us, but being
as smart. But somebody would have to code

59
00:03:14,320 --> 00:03:17,117
that and program that and build the
systems to do that. It's not just going

60
00:03:17,200 --> 00:03:20,077
to magically happen, right?
It's very unclear if that's even possible.

61
00:03:20,160 --> 00:03:21,997
>> That's an argument.
>> I honestly think that's the most

62
00:03:22,080 --> 00:03:25,117
plausible argument. It's very much so
science fiction in the sense that we're

63
00:03:25,200 --> 00:03:29,357
not close to being able to even validate
the hypothesis. So, I don't believe in

64
00:03:29,440 --> 00:03:33,357
general AI anytime soon. >> AI,
like everything else, the old saying

65
00:03:33,440 --> 00:03:35,517
is so true. Garbage in, garbage out.

66
00:03:35,600 --> 00:03:39,197
Without the right training data, you're
not going to get great results. But my

67
00:03:39,280 --> 00:03:43,037
pals at Uber, they're now working
with enterprises all over the world to

68
00:03:43,120 --> 00:03:47,757
source, label, evaluate, and scale
highquality real data for your startup.

69
00:03:47,840 --> 00:03:50,797
Uber is one of my favorite companies
on the planet because they demonstrated

70
00:03:50,880 --> 00:03:54,877
their ability to scale and to build
great products first in the ride share

71
00:03:54,960 --> 00:03:59,357
market. Then they figured out Uber Eats
and then they moved on to autonomous

72
00:03:59,440 --> 00:04:03,437
driving. And all of this was only
possible because of a deep understanding

73
00:04:03,520 --> 00:04:08,157
of how to collect, label, understand,
and analyze data. Now with Uber AI

74
00:04:08,240 --> 00:04:12,157
solutions, you can put the team
and tools that turned Uber into one of the

75
00:04:12,240 --> 00:04:13,997
world's best companies to work for you.

76
00:04:14,080 --> 00:04:18,477
partnering with top talent and experts
from Uber's global network. What better

77
00:04:18,560 --> 00:04:20,317
partner to help you scale your business

78
00:04:20,400 --> 00:04:25,837
than the company that organizes over 36
million rides every single day? Book a

79
00:04:25,920 --> 00:04:32,280
demo right now by going to uber.com/twist.
That's u ber.com/twist.