reSee.it - Related Video Feed

China controls the algorithm of TikTok, showing positive content to its users in China, such as achievements, social enterprise, and success in various fields. However, in other countries like the US and UK, China sends a different algorithm that focuses on nonsense like dancing, pranks, and other funny videos. This is done to manipulate the minds of the younger generation and make them believe that these things are what life is about. In contrast, China doesn't allow their children to think this way.

In this video, the speaker discusses their experience on Twitter while searching for information about Sequoia China. They mention that despite posting about it an hour ago, they cannot find any recent tweets about it. They suspect that Twitter and Elon Musk may be trying to erase the existence of Sequoia China. The speaker notes that while the information still shows up in the top search results, it is not visible in the latest search option. They conclude that someone is definitely suppressing the information.

On May 15th, Xi Jinping visits San Francisco and Elon Musk tries to impress him. However, there seems to be a problem with posts related to Neil Shen and Sequoia Capital on Twitter. When searching for Neil Shen, there are no results in the latest posts. Even Sequoia Capital's latest posts are limited to only three hours. The same issue occurs when searching for Sequoia China. Only a few posts are available, with the last one being 21 hours ago. It is clear that Sequoia China and Neil Shen's presence on Twitter has been wiped out. This happens at a time when the China Committee is investigating funding for weapons.

A founder's group at Peking University developed source code for typing Chinese characters, which was seized by the Chinese intelligence bureau. They inserted a backdoor into apps that allow Chinese typing, potentially compromising them for surveillance by the Chinese Communist Party and military. WeChat is just one of many apps that could be used for this purpose. While not everyone will be targeted, the CCP has the resources to monitor US cell phones, especially if they believe someone can be of assistance to them.

Snapchat exists to cater to the desires of children, providing them with a platform where photos vanish after 24 hours. In the past, to reach kids, one had to appeal to their parents who controlled the media they consumed. However, with direct access to technology, kids now have a direct line of communication with tech companies. This creates a hidden dialogue between these companies and children, unbeknownst to their parents.

Hey, friends. Steve Baldwin here to share important tech info about Elon Musk and Twitter. It's not a glitch; everything Twitter does is intentional. There are no glitches, just actions influenced by Elon Musk, the government, and other forces.

- The conversation opens with concerns about AGI, ASI, and a potential future in which AI dominates more aspects of life. They describe a trend of sleepwalking into a new reality where AI could be in charge of everything, with mundane jobs disappearing within three years and more intelligent jobs following in the next seven years. Sam Altman’s role is discussed as a symbol of a system rather than a single person, with the idea that people might worry briefly and then move on. - The speakers critique Sam Altman, arguing that Altman represents a brand created by a system rather than an individual, and they examine the California tech ecosystem as a place where hype and money flow through ideation and promises. They contrast OpenAI’s stated mission to “protect the world from artificial intelligence” and “make AI work for humanity” with what they see as self-interested actions focused on users and competition. - They reflect on social media and the algorithmic feed. They discuss YouTube Shorts as addictive and how they use multiple YouTube accounts to train the algorithm by genre (AI, classic cars, etc.) and by avoiding unwanted content. They note becoming more aware of how the algorithm can influence personal life, relationships, and business, and they express unease about echo chambers and political division that may be amplified by AI. - The dialogue emphasizes that technology is a force with no inherent polity; its impact depends on the intent of the provider and the will of the user. They discuss how social media content is shaped to serve shareholders and founders, the dynamics of attention and profitability, and the risk that the content consumer becomes sleepwalking. They compare dating apps’ incentives to keep people dating indefinitely with the broader incentive structures of social media. - The speakers present damning statistics about resource allocation: trillions spent on the military, with a claim that reallocating 4% of that to end world hunger could achieve that goal, and 10-12% could provide universal healthcare or end extreme poverty. They argue that a system driven by greed and short-term profit undermines the potential benefits of AI. - They discuss OpenAI and the broader AI landscape, noting OpenAI’s open-source LLMs were not widely adopted, and arguing many promises are outcomes of advertising and market competition rather than genuine humanity-forward outcomes. They contrast DeepMind’s work (Alpha Genome, Alpha Fold, Alpha Tensor) and Google’s broader mission to real science with OpenAI’s focus on user growth and market position. - The conversation turns to geopolitics and economics, with a focus on the U.S. vs. China in the AI race. They argue China will likely win the AI race due to a different, more expansive, infrastructure-driven approach, including large-scale AI infrastructure for supply chains and a strategy of “death by a thousand cuts” in trade and technology dominance. They discuss other players like Europe, Korea, Japan, and the UAE, noting Europe’s regulatory approach and China’s ability to democratize access to powerful AI (e.g., DeepSea-like models) more broadly. - They explore the implications of AI for military power and warfare. They describe the AI arms race in language models, autonomous weapons, and chip manufacturing, noting that advances enable cheaper, more capable weapons and the potential for a global shift in power. They contrast the cost dynamics of high-tech weapons with cheaper, more accessible AI-enabled drones and warfare tools. - The speakers discuss the concept of democratization of intelligence: a world where individuals and small teams can build significant AI capabilities, potentially disrupting incumbents. They stress the importance of energy and scale in AI competitions, and warn that a post-capitalist or new economic order may emerge as AI displaces labor. They discuss universal basic income (UBI) as a potential social response, along with the risk that those who control credit and money creation—through fractional reserve banking and central banking—could shape a new concentrated power structure. - They propose a forward-looking framework: regulate AI use rather than AI design, address fake deepfakes and workforce displacement, and promote ethical AI development. They emphasize teaching ethics to AI and building ethical AIs, using human values like compassion, respect, and truth-seeking as guiding principles. They discuss the idea of “raising Superman” as a metaphor for aligning AI with well-raised, ethical ends. - The speakers reflect on human nature, arguing that while individuals are capable of great kindness, the system (media, propaganda, endless division) distracts and polarizes society. They argue that to prepare for the next decade, humanity should verify information, reduce gullibility, and leverage AI for truth-seeking while fostering humane behavior. They see a paradox: AI can both threaten and enhance humanity, and the outcome depends on collective choices, governance, and ethical leadership. - In closing, they acknowledge their shared hope for a future of abundant, sustainable progress—Peter Diamandis’ vision of abundance—with a warning that current systemic incentives could cause a painful transition. They express a desire to continue the discussion, pursue ethical AI development, and encourage proactive engagement with governments and communities to steer AI’s evolution toward greater good.

The UK government could potentially restrict access to Twitter if the platform continues to spread misinformation and pose a danger to citizens. This has been done in other countries with apps like TikTok. Additionally, Twitter could face being banned from the App Store for violating policies, which would greatly impact their business.

The speaker asks Mr. Chu about China's National Intelligence Law and whether ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, is subject to it. Mr. Chu confirms that ByteDance is subject to the law, but mentions that TikTok is not available in mainland China. The speaker then questions whether the law compels people to lie to protect national intelligence secrets. Mr. Chu avoids commenting on that and reiterates that TikTok is not available in mainland China. The speaker expresses disbelief, stating that TikTok promotes different content in China compared to the United States, including educational videos versus self-harm and anti-Israel propaganda.

When I took over Twitter, I released the Twitter files to show the wrongdoings that had occurred. We believe in transparency and want people to be able to recreate the results they see on Twitter using the algorithm. We recently discovered a hidden layer of censorship from 2012 that suppressed certain words, like "suck," by de-amplifying them. We want to bring everything to light and ensure there are no hidden layers. Transparency is crucial for people to trust us in the future.

I've been developing an editor for a year, but it's complex. WeChat in China is amazing, used for everything. Why not copy WeChat? Twitter could do it.

I used to be on Twitter, but it has become toxic and not worth my time. I'm trying to find an alternative to it. Social media needs a code of conduct to address issues like spreading false news and racism. The power of social media platforms should be reflected upon by society. The policy of the owner of X is also problematic. This is a problem that future society needs to address, focusing on ethics in social media.

Experiment to see what people want! I believe it's less about free speech and more about choosing how algorithms program us, because they definitely are. It's hard to predict what algorithms will do, and that's risky. But, imagine an algorithm store instead of an app store, where I choose algorithms to filter my content. This gives me more control and creates a healthier relationship with technology. This applies beyond Twitter, to YouTube and financial tech too. Algorithms know our preferences better than we do, and this will only increase. We need to increase individual agency by choosing different algorithms, turning them off, or even creating our own.

Right now, Democrats are too focused on Elon Musk. He's popular and controls the largest platform, X, formerly Twitter. We're missing an opportunity here. Instead of pathetically trying to fight against something that's clearly overpowering us, we should join in. By participating, we could actually influence the strategy instead of being steamrolled.