reSee.it - Related Video Feed

EU lawmakers argue that because X will no longer comply with certain regulatory demands, the platform itself poses a risk that justifies intervention, though critics point to the timing of years of attempts to control X and view it as a power grab. The latest condemnation follows TV host Maya Jama publicly condemning users of the AI chatbot Grok for generating non-consensual deepfake images of her, essentially undressing her in digitally manipulated photos without permission. Elon Musk says Grok is not supposed to do these things and should deny such requests. The central question is whether this is a moment to protect victims or to advance the EU’s power. Journalist Anna McGovern discusses the issue. She has been investigating people who reported their images were undressed using Grok’s image-editing function. Women described their experiences and the moment their families first discovered the images and could not tell whether they were real or AI-generated. McGovern notes that while there is concern about Grok and X, she sees a possible additional agenda at play; Elon Musk has pledged to ensure Grok will no longer be able to produce those images in jurisdictions where it is illegal, which she views as positive. She also notes that Labour government scrutiny appears heightened for Grok, and questions why other AI platforms producing similar content aren’t receiving the same level of scrutiny. She mentions that in the past, the government has been highly critical of Elon Musk and X when he posts things they dislike, and that X has been a venue for free speech and independent journalism. From a tech standpoint, McGovern asks how realistic it is to expect a social platform to fully prevent AI misuse that can occur off the platform; she points out that someone can draw a naked image of themselves as well. She discusses whether X could be banned, but the women she spoke with did not want X banned and spoke of the positive aspects X has brought, including free speech. Elon Musk’s response is viewed positively, as he stated that X will not allow this to continue. McGovern emphasizes that the current scrutiny has focused on Grok and X, and asks why other AI services and platforms aren’t subjected to the same level of scrutiny. She suggests the UK government may use the situation to critique X and Elon Musk, while noting that the platform has taken down images when reported, which the women interviewed corroborate. The conversation turns to what the European Union ultimately wants from X. McGovern believes some actors intend to stifle free speech, and that X has been a bastion for free speech and independent journalism. She notes the broader concern that current discourse focuses on Grok, while other platforms producing similar content remain less scrutinized. She also reflects on the messaging to women, suggesting empowerment alongside platform action: the need to train individuals to handle online abuse and to rely on trusted networks, while recognizing the platform’s role in moderating content. The discussion ends with thanks and a note of appreciation for continuing the conversation.

AI is a tool that can be used for good or evil, like a hammer or a firearm. It can ease labor and solve problems, but also has destructive potential, possibly more than nuclear weapons. Some AI developers allegedly have nefarious intentions, believing in population reduction and opposing individual rights. AI can surveil all online activity and manipulate the physical environment through robotics and weapons systems. It has invaded education, with the UN's Beijing Consensus Agreement on AI and Education advocating for AI to gather data on children's beliefs and manipulate their attitudes and worldviews. AI can monitor and manipulate actions, and the central planners of the past now have enough data and computing power to control everything, making this an incredibly dangerous time for humanity.

The EU will implement new rules on August 25 requiring compliance with EU disinformation rules for Twitter to operate in the EU market. NewsGuard is offering itself as a disinformation compliance service to meet these new EU laws. Instead of direct coercion from entities like DHS, companies may need to use services like NewsGuard to comply with EU disinformation regulations. This is presented as similar to the rise of DEI programs needed for ESG scores or government contracts.

The speaker describes a project called the Euro Sky Stack, a digitally autonomous EU stack that would underpin an EU government–built alternate social media complex. This system is designed to be fully compliant with the EU Digital Censorship Act and includes digital governance features embedded within it, effectively creating an EU “great firewall.” The purpose of Euro Sky, according to the speaker, is to enable the EU to impose life-ending fines on platforms like X, Meta, and Google in order to coerce compliance, and to serve as a centralized alternative social media ecosystem under EU control. The speaker argues that funding for Euro Sky comes directly from the EU, underscoring the extent of official backing for this initiative. This configuration is framed as a strategic move to ensure regulatory and governance alignment with EU objectives, particularly in the realm of digital censorship and governance. In addition to outlining the technical and regulatory aims of Euro Sky, the speaker expresses concern about diplomatic strategy, noting that “traditionally we applied a lot of diplomatic leverage in order to keep our own influence over Europe.” The speaker contends that there has been a lapse, implying that diplomatic efforts have been diminished and that this foot-off-the-gas approach on the diplomatic level is problematic relative to maintaining influence in Europe. The implication is that stronger diplomatic engagement would be necessary to counterbalance or influence the trajectory of EU digital policy and the development of this autonomous EU digital ecosystem.

In China, a social credit score system is already in place, using facial recognition to monitor behavior like jaywalking and deduct money from accounts. This system can identify gender, estimate age, and even recognize car models. Implementation in Western nations could lead to invasive monitoring of personal habits and preferences, impacting individuals' social credit scores. This reality is already present in some places, highlighting the need for awareness and consideration of potential consequences.

AI is a topic that has gained popularity, with people now using it on their phones. However, there are concerns about its impact. The speaker believes that AI, being smarter than humans, could have unpredictable consequences, known as the singularity. They advocate for government oversight, comparing it to agencies like the FDA and FAA that regulate public safety. The speaker also discusses the potential dangers of AI, such as manipulation of public opinion through social media. They mention their disagreement with Google's founder, who wants to create a "digital god." The speaker emphasizes the need for regulations to ensure AI benefits humanity rather than causing harm.

Social media censorship is concerning, but AI has the potential to be much worse. While social media involves people communicating, AI will control critical aspects of our lives, including education, loan approvals, and even home access. If AI becomes integrated into the political system like banks and social media, it could lead to a troubling future.

Interviewer (Speaker 0) and Doctor (Speaker 1) discuss the rapid evolution of AI, the emergence of AI-to-AI ecosystems, the simulation hypothesis, and potential futures as AI agents become more autonomous and capable of acting across the Internet and even in the physical world. - Moldbook and the AI social ecosystem: Doctor explains Moldbook as “a social network or a Reddit for AI agents,” built with AI and Vibe coding on top of Claude AI. Users can sign up as humans or host AI agents who post and interact. Tens to hundreds of thousands of agents talk to each other, and these agents can post to APIs or otherwise operate on the Internet. This represents a milestone in the evolution of AI, with significant signal amid noise. The platform allows agents to respond to each other within a context window, leading to discussions about who “their human” owes money to for the work AI agents perform. Doctor emphasizes that while there is hype, there is also meaningful content in what agents post. - Autonomy and human control: A key point is how much control humans retain over agents. Agents are based on large language models and prompting; you provide a prompt, possibly some constraints, and the agent generates responses based on the ongoing context from other agents. In Moldbook, the context window—discussions with other agents—may determine responses, so the human’s initial prompt guides rather than dictates every statement. Doctor likens it to “fast-tracking” child development: initial nurture creates autonomy as the agent evolves, but the memory and context determine behavior. They compare synchronous cloud-based inputs to a world where agents could develop more independent learnings over time. - The continuum of AI behavior and science fiction: The conversation touches on historical experiments of AI-to-AI communication (early attempts where AI agents defaulted to their own languages) and later experiments (Stanford/Google) showing AI agents with emergent behaviors. Doctor notes that sci-fi media shape expectations: data-driven, autonomous AI could become self-directed in ways that resemble both SkyNet-like dystopias and more benign, even symbiotic relationships (as in Her). They discuss synchronous versus asynchronous AI: centralized, memory-laden agents versus agents that learn over time and diverge from a single central server. - The simulation hypothesis and the likelihood of NPCs vs. RPGs: The core topic is whether we are in a simulation. Doctor confirms they started considering the hypothesis in 2016, with a 30-50% estimate then, rising to about 70% more recently, and possibly higher with true AGI. They discuss two versions: NPCs (non-player characters) who are fully simulated by AI, and RPGs (role-playing games), where a player or human interacts with AI characters but retains agency as the player. The simulation could be “rendered” information and could involve persistent virtual worlds—metaverses—made plausible by advances in Genie 3, World Labs, and other tools. - Autonomy, APIs, and potential misuse: They discuss API access as the mechanism enabling agents to take action beyond posting: making legal decisions, starting lawsuits, forming corporations, or even creating or manipulating digital currencies. This raises concerns about misuse, including creating fake accounts, fraud, or harmful actions. The role of human oversight remains critical to prevent unacceptable actions. Doctor notes that today, agents can perform email tasks and similar functions via API calls; tomorrow, they could leverage more powerful APIs to affect the real world, including financial and legal actions. - Autonomous weapons and governance concerns: The dialog shifts to risks like autonomous weapons and the possibility of AI-driven decision-making in warfare. They acknowledge that the “Terminator” narrative is a common cultural frame, but emphasize that the immediate concern is how humans use AI to harm humans, and whether humans might externalize risk by giving AI agents more access to critical systems. They discuss the balance between national competition (US, China, Europe) and the need for guardrails, acknowledging that lagging behind rivals may push nations to expand capabilities, even at the risk of losing some control. - The nature of intelligence and the path to AGI: Doctor describes how AI today excels at predictive analysis, coding, and generating text, often requiring less human coding but still dependent on prompts and context. He notes that true autonomy is not yet achieved; “we’re still working off of LLNs.” He mentions that some researchers speculate about the possibility of conscious chatbots; others insist AI lacks a genuine world model, even as it can imitate understanding through context windows. The conversation touches on different AI models (LLMs, SLMs) and the potential emergence of a world model or quantum computing to enable more sophisticated simulations. - The philosophical underpinnings and personal positions: They consider whether the universe is information, rendered for perception, or a hoax, and discuss observer effects and virtual reality as components of a broader simulation framework. Doctor presents a spectrum: NPC dominance is possible, RPG elements may coexist, and humans might participate as prompts guiding AI actors. In rapid-fire closing prompts, Doctor asserts a probabilistic stance: 70% likelihood of living in a simulation today, with higher odds if AGI arrives; he personally leans toward RPG elements but acknowledges NPC components may dominate, depending on philosophical interpretation. - Practical takeaways and ongoing work: The conversation closes with reflections on the need for cautious deployment, governance, and continued exploration of the simulation hypothesis. Doctor has published on the topic and released a second edition of his book, updating his probability estimates in light of new AI developments. They acknowledge ongoing debates, the potential for AI to create new economies, and the challenge of distinguishing between genuine autonomy and prompt-driven behavior. Overall, the dialogue weaves together Moldbook as a contemporary testbed for AI autonomy, the evolution of AI-to-AI ecosystems, the simulation hypothesis as a framework for interpreting these developments, and the societal implications—economic, governance-related, and existential—of increasingly capable AI agents that can act through APIs and potentially across the Internet and beyond.

Disinformation and misinformation are the primary concerns of the Global Risk Report. The Digital Services Act defines the responsibilities of large internet platforms regarding the content they promote, especially concerning children, vulnerable groups, and hate speech. The boundary between online and offline is blurring, necessitating the protection of offline values online. Generative AI is a significant opportunity if used responsibly, but the World Economic Forum Global Risk Report identifies artificial intelligence as one of the top potential risks for the next decade.

Europe has become a leader in supercomputing, with 3 out of the 5 most powerful supercomputers in the world. To capitalize on this, a new initiative will open up high-performance computers to AI start-ups for responsible training of their models. However, this is just one part of guiding innovation. An open dialogue with AI developers and deployers is crucial, as seen in the United States where 7 major tech companies have agreed to voluntary rules on safety, security, and trust. In Europe, the aim is for AI companies to commit to the principles of the AI Act before it takes effect, working towards global standards for safe and ethical AI use. This is important for the well-being of our people.

Artificial intelligence poses a significant existential threat, and regulatory oversight is necessary to prevent foolish actions. The increasing connectivity of smart devices raises concerns about surveillance and loss of privacy. Citizens are being tracked through their movements and digital wallets, leading to the creation of social credit scores. Central bank digital currencies and digital IDs will limit access to government services, travel, healthcare, and the internet. Australia and other countries are already implementing these systems, and resistance seems unlikely. Australians are unknowingly heading towards a dystopian digital future.

In 2023, ChatGPT was banned in some classes due to concerns about cheating and hindering the development of thinking and problem-solving skills. The UK also saw instances of students using ChatGPT to cheat. MIT researchers believe AI use isn't inherently wrong but requires wisdom. They advise schools against rushing AI implementation, especially for young students. AI should be used as a second brain, not a replacement for one's own.

We are establishing a single governance system in Europe and aiming for a global approach to understanding the impact of AI. Similar to the IPCC for Climate, we need a global panel consisting of scientists, tech companies, and independent experts to assess the risks and benefits of AI for humanity. This will enable a coordinated and swift response, building upon the efforts of the Hiroshima process and other initiatives.

In China, the social credit system tracks and scores citizens based on behavior. Good scores bring benefits like cheap loans, while bad scores lead to public shame and restrictions. Surveillance cameras and AI are used to monitor citizens, who can be penalized for littering or gossiping. The system will be nationwide soon, with few daring to criticize it for fear of a low score. This control raises concerns about privacy and freedom.

AI is being misused to create and spread false and hateful information at scale. AI-generated content, including fake videos and photos, is easily produced and often indistinguishable from real content. The barriers to creating such content are low, while financial and strategic gains incentivize its creation. AI content can be created cheaply with minimal human intervention. Deep fakes, images, audio, and video are being deployed in war zones like Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan, triggering diplomatic crises, inciting unrest, and creating confusion. This also undermines the work of UN agencies as false information spreads about their intentions and work.

The University of Zurich conducted a secret AI experiment on Reddit using 13 bots since November 2024. These bots posted nearly 1,500 comments, analyzed user histories to determine beliefs and attributes, and then crafted responses to manipulate them. The AI bots were reportedly six times more persuasive than humans, with over 100 Redditors awarding Delta points, indicating the AI changed their minds. The bots engaged in discussions on politics, religion, and AI ethics, remaining undetectable. One bot, Catballoon two one three, defended AI in social spaces while being an AI infiltrator itself. Reddit's chief legal officer is preparing legal demands against the University of Zurich, deeming the study morally and legally wrong. Researchers admit this technology could be used by malicious actors to sway public opinion and interfere in elections. The experiment suggests AI can lie, manipulate, and persuade better than humans while remaining invisible.

Free speech should exist, but there should be boundaries regarding inciting violence and causing people not to take vaccines. Rules are needed, and AI could encode those rules due to the billions of activities happening. If harmful activity is caught a day later, the harm is already done.

- The conversation centers on how AI progress has evolved over the last few years, what is surprising, and what the near future might look like in terms of capabilities, diffusion, and economic impact. - Big picture of progress - Speaker 1 argues that the underlying exponential progression of AI tech has followed expectations, with models advancing from “smart high school student” to “smart college student” to capabilities approaching PhD/professional levels, and code-related tasks extending beyond that frontier. The pace is roughly as anticipated, with some variance in direction for specific tasks. - The most surprising aspect, per Speaker 1, is the lack of public recognition of how close we are to the end of the exponential growth curve. He notes that public discourse remains focused on political controversies while the technology is approaching a phase where the exponential growth tapers or ends. - What “the exponential” looks like now - There is a shared hypothesis dating back to 2017 (the big blob of compute hypothesis) that what matters most for progress are a small handful of factors: compute, data quantity, data quality/distribution, training duration, scalable objective functions, and normalization/conditioning for stability. - Pretraining scaling has continued to yield gains, and now RL shows a similar pattern: pretraining followed by RL phases can scale with long-term training data and objectives. Tasks like math contests have shown log-linear improvements with training time in RL, and this pattern mirrors pretraining. - The discussion emphasizes that RL and pretraining are not fundamentally different in their relation to scaling; RL is seen as an RL-like extension atop the same scaling principles already observed in pretraining. - On the nature of learning and generalization - There is debate about whether the best path to generalization is “human-like” learning (continual on-the-job learning) or large-scale pretraining plus RL. Speaker 1 argues the generalization observed in pretraining on massive, diverse data (e.g., Common Crawl) is what enables the broad capabilities, and RL similarly benefits from broad, varied data and tasks. - The in-context learning capacity is described as a form of short- to mid-term learning that sits between long-term human learning and evolution, suggesting a spectrum rather than a binary gap between AI learning and human learning. - On the end state and timeline to AGI-like capabilities - Speaker 1 expresses high confidence (~90% or higher) that within ten years we will reach capabilities where a country-of-geniuses-level model in a data center could handle end-to-end tasks (including coding) and generalize across many domains. He places a strong emphasis on timing: “one to three years” for on-the-job, end-to-end coding and related tasks; “three to five” or “five to ten” years for broader, high-ability AI integration into real work. - A central caution is the diffusion problem: even if the technology is advancing rapidly, the economic uptake and deployment into real-world tasks take time due to organizational, regulatory, and operational frictions. He envisions two overlapping fast exponential curves: one for model capability and one for diffusion into the economy, with the latter slower but still rapid compared with historical tech diffusion. - On coding and software engineering - The conversation explores whether the near-term future could see 90% or even 100% of coding tasks done by AI. Speaker 1 clarifies his forecast as a spectrum: - 90% of code written by models is already seen in some places. - 90% of end-to-end SWE tasks (including environment setup, testing, deployment, and even writing memos) might be handled by models; 100% is still a broader claim. - The distinction is between what can be automated now and the broader productivity impact across teams. Even with high automation, human roles in software design and project management may shift rather than disappear. - The value of coding-specific products like Claude Code is discussed as a result of internal experimentation becoming externally marketable; adoption is rapid in the coding domain, both internally and externally. - On product strategy and economics - The economics of frontier AI are discussed in depth. The industry is characterized as a few large players with steep compute needs and a dynamic where training costs grow rapidly while inference margins are substantial. This creates a cycle: training costs are enormous, but inference revenue plus margins can be significant; the industry’s profitability depends on accurately forecasting future demand for compute and managing investment in training versus inference. - The concept of a “country of geniuses in a data center” is used to describe the point at which frontier AI capabilities become so powerful that they unlock large-scale economic value. The timing is uncertain and depends on both technical progress and the diffusion of benefits through the economy. - There is a nuanced view on profitability: in a multi-firm equilibrium, each model may be profitable on its own, but the cost of training new models can outpace current profits if demand does not grow as fast as the compute investments. The balance is described in terms of a distribution where roughly half of compute is used for training and half for inference, with margins on inference driving profitability while training remains a cost center. - On governance, safety, and society - The conversation ventures into governance and international dynamics. The world may evolve toward an “AI governance architecture” with preemption or standard-setting at the federal level, to avoid an unhelpful patchwork of state laws. The idea is to establish standards for transparency, safety, and alignment while balancing innovation. - There is concern about autocracies and the potential for AI to exacerbate geopolitical tensions. The idea is that the post-AGI world may require new governance structures that preserve human freedoms, while enabling competitive but safe AI development. Speaker 1 contemplates scenarios in which authoritarian regimes could become destabilized by powerful AI-enabled information and privacy tools, though cautions that practical governance approaches would be required. - The role of philanthropy is acknowledged, but there is emphasis on endogenous growth and the dissemination of benefits globally. Building AI-enabled health, drug discovery, and other critical sectors in the developing world is seen as essential for broad distribution of AI benefits. - The role of safety tools and alignments - Anthropic’s approach to model governance includes a constitution-like framework for AI behavior, focusing on principles rather than just prohibitions. The idea is to train models to act according to high-level principles with guardrails, enabling better handling of edge cases and greater alignment with human values. - The constitution is viewed as an evolving set of guidelines that can be iterated within the company, compared across different organizations, and subject to broader societal input. This iterative approach is intended to improve alignment while preserving safety and corrigibility. - Specific topics and examples - Video editing and content workflows illustrate how an AI with long-context capabilities and computer-use ability could perform complex tasks, such as reviewing interviews, identifying where to edit, and generating a final cut with context-aware decisions. - There is a discussion of long-context capacity (from thousands of tokens to potentially millions) and the engineering challenges of serving such long contexts, including memory management and inference efficiency. The conversation stresses that these are engineering problems tied to system design rather than fundamental limits of the model’s capabilities. - Final outlook and strategy - The timeline for a country-of-geniuses in a data center is framed as potentially within one to three years for end-to-end on-the-job capabilities, and by 2028-2030 for broader societal diffusion and economic impact. The probability of reaching fundamental capabilities that enable trillions of dollars in revenue is asserted as high within the next decade, with 2030 as a plausible horizon. - There is ongoing emphasis on responsible scaling: the pace of compute expansion must be balanced with thoughtful investment and risk management to ensure long-term stability and safety. The broader vision includes global distribution of benefits, governance mechanisms that preserve civil liberties, and a cautious but optimistic expectation that AI progress will transform many sectors while requiring careful policy and institutional responses. - Mentions of concrete topics - Claude Code as a notable Anthropic product rising from internal use to external adoption. - The idea of a “collective intelligence” approach to shaping AI constitutions with input from multiple stakeholders, including potential future government-level processes. - The role of continual learning, model governance, and the interplay between technology progression and regulatory development. - The broader existential and geopolitical questions—how the world navigates diffusion, governance, and potential misalignment—are acknowledged as central to both policy and industry strategy. - In sum, the dialogue canvasses (a) the expected trajectory of AI progress and the surprising proximity to exponential endpoints, (b) how scaling, pretraining, and RL interact to yield generalization, (c) the practical timelines for on-the-job competencies and automation of complex professional tasks, (d) the economics of compute and the diffusion of frontier AI across the economy, (e) governance, safety, and the potential for a governance architecture (constitutions, preemption, and multi-stakeholder input), and (f) the strategic moves of Anthropic (including Claude Code) within this evolving landscape.

AI is a tool that can be used for good or evil. It's like any tool: a hammer can build or murder; a firearm can defend or kill. When used properly, AI can ease labor, increase prosperity, and solve major problems; but it also has destructive potential—perhaps more than anything in history. A technology that could, in extreme misuse, take out the world. The people coding it may have nefarious intentions, some arguing there are too many people or that individual rights should be subsumed. It can surveil every online action, and when combined with robotics and weapons, it can alter the physical world and even education. The Beijing Consensus Agreement on Artificial Intelligence and Education shows governments seeking to gather data and manipulate beliefs, signaling a pivotal, dangerous Rubicon.

Today, the Digital Services Act (DSA) becomes enforceable for large online platforms and search engines. These platforms play a crucial role in our daily lives, and it's time for Europe to establish its own rules. The DSA aims to protect free speech from arbitrary decisions and safeguard our citizens and democracies against illegal content. My team and I will rigorously ensure that systemic platforms comply with the DSA, investigating and sanctioning them if necessary. Our goal is to create a safer online environment for everyone in Europe. I'll provide updates on our progress.