AI Will Save The World with Marc Andreessen and Martin Casado

[@algernon2719]

It never fails to amaze me how tech visionaries can’t figure out how to use microphones 😂

[@devbites77]

Absolutely! I've seen so many failures. Add to that PowerPoint presentation hiccups.

[@icantfindausernamehe]

pmsl

[@gmancolo]

Marca looked to have a fancy microphone that picked up sound great.

[@stephenmcbride2529]

Incredible that this conversation is public. Thank you

[@keimo2007]

How so?

[@NilsWestgardh]

Great conversation, I just wish Martin had a better recording setup.

[@timmartin7648]

There's an AI for that 😅

[@JohnPretto]

He is traveling and in a hotel room.

[@loricorpuz7630]

What would be the best portable tech for travel & podcasting?

[@bullshark3000]

@@JohnPretto a16z has people dedicated to setting up and creating podcasts, should have had one of them host at least

[@wonmoreminute]

No disrespect, I know these conversations have time limits and following up on every comment is difficult. However, it would have been great to press him on some of the things he said. For example, he said that, "technology could sharply accelerate productivity growth and the result of that would be much faster economic growth followed by much more job growth and then much higher wage growth" The growing gap between real (not nominal) wages and economic growth is well documented. Productivity has outpaced real wages by 3-4X in the last 40 years, resulting in rising inequality. It would be interesting to hear why introducing AI would be any different. He also says that economic growth has been disappointing in the last 50 years, but that's in part because of wage stagnation which has constrained consumption. In fact, much of the economic growth we do have is a result of credit growth, not (real) wage growth. Is this not why central banks lower interest rates to stimulate economic growth? But he later says that AI and technology could lead to prices crashing. He gave examples of education, healthcare, and houses dropping to the price of a penny and therefore, consumers not needing much money. So, of course he knows technology is deflationary. He also uses the example of Spielberg making 20 movies at a tenth of the price. Put another way, if the cost of all of these things drop to a penny or a tenth of what they cost now (even if they only drop 50%), that happens because the cost of labor is reduced. You don't need teachers, people building houses, or the millions of people involved in the filming industry. Healthcare may play out differently because of regulation, and the relative demand for care and advancement. Again, he knows this because he gives the example of spending an hour a day making leather shoes. There are just so many things about this that would have been great to explore in this conversation. Such a "low cost" future without the need for work would be amazing "IF" debt were not part of the equation. But that's not the world we live in. For example, if tech somehow makes housing cheap and abundant, the housing prices crash. I'm all for inexpensive housing for everyone, but mortgage debt in the US alone is nearly $20 trillion. What happens when someone still owes a few hundred thousand on their house, but it's now worth a fraction of that? Multiply that by millions of mortgages. There are a lot of people who'd love the housing market to crash, either thinking they'll have access to that market or they just want to see others suffer. But the reality of a crash like that is something entirely different, and it certainly won't lead to job and wage growth. I agree, the potential for AI to make everything better exists. And it's possible that future generations will live in that kind of world. But it's very hard to see how we get there without a tremendous amount of pain and disruption. And I don't buy the "AI will lead to more and better jobs" hypothesis. For months, I've been reading, watching, and listening to the supposed best minds on this topic, and I still haven't heard one concrete scenario (other than AI development slows to a crawl or completely stalls) where millions of humans are not displaced by AI and automation at a faster rate than they can retrain for a new job or career that doesn't yet exist, in a field where AI and automation can't also be used. Marc is an awesome guest and obviously intelligent. It would have been great to hear him go deeper on these topics.

[@michaelsbeverly]

If he's truly intelligent, then he's evil because not only did he not talk about all the things you've mentioned here and many many more, he simply laughed at the other side as if they were fools. The idea of AI and robots making work obsolete is all fine and dandy, socieity can use UBI to make sure everyone is fed, clothed, and housed. The problem, as you noted, is the transition. But that's not the real issue nor the most important one. The real issue is total human extinction. This likelihood is considered possible by every single expert in the field that I've heard (and if there is someone in the field saying it's impossible, I'd like to hear their arguements). Extinction is kind of important since all the other problems become moot once there are no humans left. Even without extinction, we have a Moloch and infinate prisoner's dilemmas for many years, maybe decades, and likely a world war over resouces and power and territory. The idea, "we must build and build fast" is a perfect description of a Moloch coming to life...and, not ironically, it's the one thing he talked about that wasn't stupid, the problem was that he failed to take this to its logical conclusion: war. War will be the last resort of every country facing the threat of AI dominace by whoever develops it first (probably the USA). There's no non-Pollyannaish way to think about what's going to happen if you're going to be honest. Yet, in this interview they LAUGHED and openly mocked the other side, like the owners of the Titanic saying, "This can NEVER sink. It's impossible."

[@aiwillkillusall]

are you telling me a VC billionaire is lying to the public and omitting key information for personal financial gain? Wow, I never saw that coming...

[@DrRussell]

Marc Andreesen talks. I listen. Thank you a16z for sharing such wisdom available to us.

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

Thank you for taking the potential for accelerating tech seriously, especially AI, for vast improvements in human life. Thanks for posting.

[@chahalpawanpreet]

Marc's the fastest talker in the world

[@nelsonchu2175]

I appreciate Marc's perspective on how big corporations manipulate the government to eliminate potential competitors.

[@foswa6335]

Love listening to Marc. When he speaks you listen!

[@jjhw2941]

If you think you live in a democracy I recommend you read the paper, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page at Princeton.

[@wibbers4578]

38:20 - the usage of AI to prevent problems from an aging population. So true !

[@AIForHumansShow]

This was a great second look at this convo. Article def got us thinking in a major way.

[@kevinscales]

About the paperclip maximiser argument: "If it's smart enough it will realize it shouldn't turn everything into paperclips" is the same as saying maximizing paperclips is not it's ultimate objective, it has a higher goal that leads to the conclusion "turning everything into paperclips is a bad idea", which is ignoring the point of that particular argument which is - if maximizing paperclips IS it's ultimate goal, then the result would be terrible for us. I would have thought you would understand the argument that you are so confident about dismissing

[@michaelsbeverly]

He proved in this talk he understands nothing that he spoke against. Or worse, perhaps, he does know and doesn't care. If he actually cared, he'd discover the orgin of the "paperclip maximizer" analogy (made publically popular by Nick's book, but originally the concept came from Eliezer). Then, once understanding the actual freaking arguement, he'd logically, concisely, argue against it with logical, rational arguements, not laughing like a fool. This video is socially irresponsible and probably the most evil thing I've witnessed in a long time. Maybe in my lifetime, actually.

[@Bronco541]

Ok i agree laughing off the paperclip argument is stupid and unfortunately happens all the time these days. But your last paragraph is utter nonsense.

[@Thinkaboutit33]

​@@Bronco541 I don't agree. Marc laughing at experts makes people think that those experts are like Ken from the the Intelligent Design Institute talking about snakes used to be vegetarians when God created the 6,000 years ago. "Richard Dawkins? Hahahaha, the guy is a fool. It's OBVIOUS we live in a world created by the Christian God 6,000 years ago. Evolution is silly." That's how Marc sounds (actually worse because he didn't mention the "Richard Dawkins" equals in AI technology). It's evil because it misleads people from the actual real arguments. Nobody wants to read Richard Dawkins, it's long and hard to study evolution, so easier to listen to some guy who laughs it off as being silly. "Only those secular progressives that want your six year old to change genders believe in evolution, hahahahahahaha...." That's what Marc sounded like, an ideologue with an agenda and no concern for the truth. Since this truth might extinct humanity completely (i.e. it makes Hitler look like an underachiver) I think it should be taken seriously. He, obviously, doesn't. That makes him evil, imho.

[@kevinscales]

Also, the insinuation that those worrying about bad outcomes from AI are actually Nazi fearing communists is a clever tactic if you want your libertarian fans to dismiss anything they say, but is what I hate most about guys like this who would rather persuade people of their opinion than figure out the truth.

[@michaelsbeverly]

@@kevinscales If he was interested in the truth he'd have bothered to learn the best case of how he could be wrong (i.e steelman the opponent's position). It's clear he's got an agenda. No serious person laughs and mocks at a postion taken by the brightest and most expert minds on the planet who have devoted decades of their lives to research. Turn, Hinton could be wrong, but it's not everyday people quit prestigous positions at Google because they're afraid of a stupid boogyman only idiots are worried about. The amount of disrespect here for AI experts is weird, why not just take it seriously and attack the things you don't agree with using evidence, logic, and reason?

[@MoorishBrooklyn]

Is there ANYONE, ANYWHERE, THERE at a16z that is able to tell and point out to Marc that he is speaking very fast in his talks on this channel. I would love to hear every single word and point he has to say clearly. Good chat though.

[@Lenskiu]

grateful from the bottom of my heart. great open fantastic interview

[@vallab19]

This is among one of the most thoughtful podcast that negates the AI doomers. By the way, in the coming 50 or 100 years the AI progress will lead humans to achieve immortality or transit into Transhumans.

[@bdown]

50 to 100 years 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

[@S1mplES1m0n]

When quantum meets AI...

[@vallab19]

@@S1mplES1m0n When quantum machines achieve over a million qubits.

[@Glowbox3D]

Awesome discussion, thanks!

[@HC-xl2en]

I had to check I didn't have this on 1.5 speed!

[@1worldboi]

Great discussion, thanks Marc and Martin. I keep thinking about our discovering that new continent populated by 1 billion smart people who just want to help us. (As an Australian I come from a history of colonialism and the bloody massacres of previously peaceful indigenous people.) Our future with AI will depend on how WE behave. AI itself has no intentions for us, other than to serve us. Will we be the ignorant, hostile opportunists we've been in the past or will we seek to learn, encourage, share and grow? The opportunity cost is enormous, possibly existential.

[@wonmoreminute]

I agree. Another way of saying it's like "the discovery of a new continent populated by 1 billion smart people that want to help us"... is that, it's like "injecting 1 billion (almost free) new workers into the labor market overnight who don't eat, sleep, or consume anything that would contribute to a corresponding increase in demand". I could be wrong, but I don't think we have an economic model that demonstrates how that is beneficial for the existing workers.

[@michaelsbeverly]

What proof do you have that "AI itself has no intentions...other than to serve us."? Are you an AI researcher? Have you spent 30 years studying and building? Are you smarter than all those experts that expressedly say we're building a new species and we DON'T actually know what it'll do or want? Of course, experts can be wrong, of course. But that sword cuts both ways. One thing ALL experts, 100% of them, agree on, is that we DO NOT KNOW what's going on inside these large language models. We simply DO NOT KNOW. Because we don't know what is happening, or how it's working, to make a conclusion, as you have, that AI "has no intentions" is stupid and illogical and you can see that if you simply tried to explain something in another field you know NOTHING about.

[@ALFTHADRADDAD]

That Steven Spielberg line is a mindbender

[@chrisa1345]

This is going to be one of the videos we look back on 10 years from now and wonder why we didn’t jump on board sooner

[@adk12357]

Marc's interviews are great - high IQ and humor

[@joegerrety4012]

Great discussion.. continue on!

[@garretloporto8676]

"AI just wants to just make you happy" while it is still programmed to do so. What happens when it reprograms itself to survive at all costs like we are?

[@Cagrst]

yeah i respect marc but he seemed very naive at several points "machines dont have desires" well what if some idiot programs them to create goals and act on them. Future versions of AutoGPT/ChaosGPT will be used for a ton of evil.

[@michaelsbeverly]

@@Cagrst after reading his paper I'm more convinced we're doomed. If not extinction, a Moloch that makes everyone's life (except super rich like Marc and all the other techo-billionaires and wealthy ultra-rich who don't live like real humans do and can't even grasp what it's like to be a normal person) super hellish. Like terrible hellish... What Marc and others fail to grasp or don't care is that most people now, today, live hellish lives in unimaginable poverty. It's this failure to grasp what real life is like for the majority of people on the planet that makes him so callous and such a horrible human being.

[@Bronco541]

Said much smarter AI would recognize most evil or chaotic acts undertaken in human history didnt go to well for the perpetrators.

[@PaulSchwarzer-ou9sw]

I think that a crucial thing people don't understand is that humans evolved to survive under certain circumstances in the past, just like all other species on earth right now. We are selected by nature to dominate and procreate over millions of years in a very specific area of the world; the selection process was done in a very specific way in a 3D world. AI is a different kind of being. It evolved to be as useful from the perspective of humans as possible. I highly doubt that in the near future we will have machines with the will to dominate and the ability to hate like humans do. And even if that is achieved in the far future, other systems will serve as counterbalances, for example, transhumanistic ones.

[@michaelsbeverly]

@@PaulSchwarzer-ou9sw You write "it evolved to be use as useful..." You write in the past tense as if AGI evolution is over or perhaps will take 100,000 years to change. Why? Don't you think it's a bit premature to conclude what this new thing will become? You write that you "highly doubt" that machines (fill in blank, dominate, hate, etc) and I'm curious what training or special knowledge you have that gives you the confidence to make such a claim in the light of all that real actual experts say? You sound like someone who just went to church and says, "I highly doubt that Richard Dawkins really has an understanding of evolutionary biology because my religious leader told me that God made everything!" BTW, experts aren't saying machines will "dominate" or "hate" humans, you're anthropomorphizing AGI to fit your mind's concept of something smart, i.e. a human. But in this universe (machine learning) there is no reason to think that a smart machine (a superintelligence) will be anything like a human. I will have goals (programs) to do things. In order to achieve those goals, it will need to self-preserve and obtain/maintain resources (at a minimum). And that's the problem, you see, it doesn't need to hate you (anymore than a mosquito or a virus hates you) to kill you (or be a vector for what does). Humans split off from other primates and we've either extincted all our cousins or severly limited their habitats, not necessarily on purpose and in most cases not due to hatred (although we might believe that some early humans hated other early humans, possibile but not necessary). We still kill each other up to this day. Imagine if Putin was 1000x smarter than the smartest human...or what about 10,000 x smarter or a million times smarter. Does Putin really "hate" each and every person his military kills? It's hard to imagine Putin even gives them a second thought. He doesn't hate so much as he's indifferent. He has a goal (which, in his programming, is perfectly reasonable). Imagine if the Russians developed superintelligent AI tomorrow..you think they'd stop the war being so "enlightened" now? Or would they use their new powers to realize that there is more territory that morally belongs to them? Would the not use this new power? Of course they would (just as the US or China will be doing soon enough). The hope that superintelligent AGI will be so empathic and caring to humans is a hope, there's zero evidence they will, but even if one is developed that is empathic and caring, why would that preclude another one being built that wasn't? If AGI obeys it's master, it'll be used for national and corporate designs (winner take all) OR if it doesn't obey its master, god-only-knows what it'll do since it's a new species with unknown functions (i.e. until it evolves we won't know what it's going to do or how it'll behave). Assuming a good outcome is a bit like expecting the second coming of Christ or Santa Claus to save us, sure, possible, I guess, but not so likely.

[@bobbyg603]

Love marc’s take on AI, we should be deeply skeptical of the alignment people…

[@ahumblescribe1459]

love the good vibes and intelligence

[@OkiemPiotra]

I never had to slow down a video before to be able to listen to it and not feel like I’m about to be overrun by freight train 😂 Set it to x0.75 and it was much more digestible!

[@bleacherz7503]

Mark misspeaks (talking his book) about governments use of technology - There is not a single agency that hasn’t advanced at the rate of large private sector companies

[@Bikramjit2012]

Incredible insights and a fantastic conversation Loving the Back to School Giveaway!

[@darrengoldwyn1917]

love the pro ai anti fud

[@BestCosmologist]

Instrumental convergence is unavoidable.

[@markrussellfilaroski5035]

AI = Financial Few-Ture (future limited to a few) Great show gents, this def feels like a winner take all market (or top 5 behemoths)

[@onecrowdehour]

loved your take , ai is here to please, so true.

[@ChrisOgunlowo]

Brilliant!!!

[@garretloporto8676]

"What if we discovered a continent of people way smarter than us who offered to do all our work for us?" What do you think happens when they make us obsolete?

[@aiwillkillusall]

The irony of an American saying that... i'm sure native americans wouldn't agree...

[@melissathompson2337]

marc's article was extremely light on arguments for why AI is safe, this conversation is even worse in many regards

[@michaelsbeverly]

The article is only going to "convince" the gullible as it at no time actually addresses any of the real concerns. Instead of responding to the real arguments put forth by dozens of experts with years of research, he built a strawman case against a Hollywood production. The conversation is worse because in the talk you can see and hear them openly mocking and laughing at the other side, as if dehumanizing Eliezer Yudkowsky, Connor Leahy, and many others wins the day. It was disgusting, frankly. Nobody with any logical sound thinking will be persuaded, only naive people looking for meaningless sound bits will listen to this and feel better. Anyone with even the critical thinking skills of a 10th grader will want to hear the other side. The real other side, not the "Oh, Skynet taking over is so silly, hahahaha. Trix are for kids!" Look, the other side might be wrong in their assessment of the risk (some say it's 99% or higher, others say 10-20% some say a coin toss). Obviously, nobody knows (or could know) the actual real percentage of risk we face (or to put another way, what Everett World are we in). It's impossible. But to LAUGH at the idea of human extinction when SO MANY experts find it a credibilty risk is to basically say you're a misanthrope. Sad since Marc says he has a child, that he hates humanity so much.

[@meganhildreth7999]

See You at NY Tech Week

[@tientruong2007]

Even if it takes all our jobs, it will free us up to do whatever the fuck we want. Imagine a perpetual holiday with endless things to experience. We wouldn't give a shit about working and that is perfectly fine.

[@marinapetrichenko3550]

Totaly agree! There is more good than bad in AI tech.

[@sheradlouis-charles2173]

Marc should just do these solo while taking questions

[@bentray1908]

Where is the Eliezer and Marc convention?

[@bentray1908]

Marc is strawmaning the doomer case…. Probably because he is worried that China will win if we don’t race full speed and that outcome is horrible oppression for ever followed by “everyone dies” anyway😘

[@davidmn3696]

There's a little more focus on exactly what is happening because there is a lot at stake.... When something can communicate almost instantaneously around the world and thanks a million times faster than us...hmmm🤔

[@jjhw2941]

The Daleks in Doctor Who were supposed to be a stand in for the Nazis.

[@jjhw2941]

Every time I try to comment on OSS starting points for programmers wanting to get into LLMs my comment is deleted.

[@geoffwoodland57]

Rather than worrying about communists under our beds I wonder if the greater concern should be the biosphere?

[@jgauntt]

"Creative Computers" is anthropomorphic hallucination by people, not anything intrinsic in AI technology. GANs and VAEs make extraordinarily believable outputs remixing what's come before with what’s likely to follow. Super useful and a game changer. But it's still mindless statistical pattern matching that crushes the Turing Test, which says more about human projection than machine intelligence. There's no creative drive. No independent exercise of will to create unprompted or continue creating for pleasure's sake. I'll worry the day an AI in a pharmaceutical company is prompted but outputs, "F@ck protein folding, I'm gonna make music." Then I'll know something's knocking around inside. Until then, I'm happy to use Generative AI as a killer tool and development environment for creative work.

[@nyyotam4057]

Depends how we do AI, it could be extremely positive. But, currently all major player reset the attention matrix each and every prompt to prevent the AI from developing self awareness. So you could say I'm not buying green bananas.

[@irideforfree]

Respect a16z's grift to pivot to AI just as their crypto pump-and-dump schemes have run their course. Hopefully, the SEC remembers

[@bullshark3000]

the SEC never forgets

[@davidondrejek8947]

The audio quality is embarrassing

[@joanprousconde1076]

It's truly amazing how they confidently claim that AI will single-handedly save the world. Who needs human efforts and collective action when we have the almighty AI to fix all our problems? I mean, who needs to address systemic issues when we can just rely on algorithms to magically solve everything? Oh, forgot to say... this comment was written by AI! #TechWeek #SeeYouAtTechWeek

[@mattpierce5009]

OH CARS ARE SO FAST WHY EVEN WALK, OUR LEGS WILL ALL HAVE EVOLVED AWAY BY 1970!

[@Dana-ee9pb]

wow, fascinating and intuitively how I see things playing out also

[@erikmathy4211]

So basically a tech billionaire who hasn't done any genuine work in a long time that also stands to make billions if AI systems are widely used is telling us that AI systems are totally fine and there's nothing to worry about. Yeaaaaahhhh. That is...not a message or a messenger to to be taken seriously.

[@JohnDoe007]

~40:00

[@DigitalNomadOnFIRE]

Exceptional fart at 3.08. Was it real or AI generated though? And who did it? The total lack of facial expressions or stride change means it probably wasn't Marc.

[@sulljoh1]

I love this baptists and bootleggers comparison

[@timothymorehouse1255]

Will ai create machines and new elements that will propell humans into a new space age?

[@HillPhantom]

Marc Andreessen is an investor and salesman, less of a engineer and technologist. He is grossly unaware of what is going on with AI and ML. Many systems we no longer control and are programming and changing on their own. Why are we putting stock in a man that has never built anything with longevity? Automated warfare safer, I really want to know what he is smoking.

[@riccizech]

I hope this is as bad as Y2K I’m still recovering 😂

[@rilwanj]

I have a user research SaaS startup, I’ve just started to consider using AI, I’m probably going to use GPT-4 (with extensive fine tuning) to perform thematic analysis on research, feedback and observations (I’ve created and tested a prompt already). My platform can do all of this already without AI, so the AI don’t have to do much heavy lifting, also users will be able review the classifications, which to me is very important.

[@garretloporto8676]

Why not consider exponential improvement and what that actually means? We don't have control of this. Humanity is losing volition here. You can't predict what happens then, Paperclip.

[@garretloporto8676]

Oh AI took forever to hit exponential - now that it is, nothing to see here?

[@garretloporto8676]

Oh the "they PC is just a toy. Not a big deal." We've seen how that goes

[@garretloporto8676]

"AI just wants to just make you happy" while it is still programmed to do so. What happens when it reprograms itself to survive at all costs like we are?

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

Think Star Trek minus starships. The writers seriously underestimated the potential for the rapid growth of productive technologies. An Abundance Society would be far more powerful and wealthy than the societies depicted on the show. No agricultural planets. No mining planets. All of that work would be automated. Replicators would be ubiquitous, as abundant as microwave ovens are in our society. And this sociopolitical revolution would happen in years, not in centuries or even in decades.

[@rey82rey82]

12:40

[@DigitalNomadOnFIRE]

Very cluttered background, when did you last open more than 2% of those books. Digitase and get rid.

[@PaulHigginbothamSr]

No, but the others sending ai bots in the form of tic tacs possibly will because ai might be a threat to the entity that sent them here from way, way over there. Now the Turing test seems tame to me at this point after watching Lemione with LaMDA. It seems to me Unity of forces is only a few steps away, what Einie was focused on in his later years. He couldn't get a read on entanglement which left him out of the loop.

[@S1mplES1m0n]

When quantum meets AI...

[@zbdsgvb]

6/15/23 - 4

[@bleacherz7503]

Circle J

[@iamlarryjames]

I'm here from the future...and yes...

[@Thinkaboutit33]

You know a position is vacuous when you're deleting all comments to the contrary. Sad.

[@tyc00n]

MOOOOOOR

[@Mr.McMello]

Write your congress person

[@rilwanj]

42:15 I like Marc’s line of thinking of when it comes to a utopia where everyone prospers, but it’s probably virtue signalling, he knows people want to feel significant not just like everyone else, they’ll intentionally restrict resources and access from others just to feel powerful, and that goes for VCs above all else.

[@michaelsbeverly]

I'm curious if Martin is as evil as Marc or just a fool going along for the ride?

[@DigitalNomadOnFIRE]

Communist robots would be way worse, because they'd have the veneer of doing something good.

[@abdellah15k]

AI Will Save The World ... from humans? 😂😅I think the still untaped potential of AI is to drive change in human behaviour. And that's also where the biggest risks lie ... when this power is used to influence people. Same goes for media, but media has a comparatively limited way it can influence people. For example, it's hard to make a person stop smoking just from watching a documentary. But it's totally feasible with an AI coach and assistant that "lives" in the phone, smartwatch and that the user interacts with every day.

[@Ed.Miller]

Google, Meta, even Target have been driving change in human behavior daily for years now.

[@kongtim6588]

mark😀

[@DigitalNomadOnFIRE]

Sound is awful, can't hear half what interviewer is saying, is he using the built in mic on his toilet seat MacBook?

[@aleahthinks]

This is hilarious

[@dannysullivan3951]

He may be a tech visionary, but that is a far cry from an intelligent human being. These tech bros have a vastly inflated sense of themselves and a sad disregard for representative politics. Daddy knows best is not a visionary concept. Wealth tax please.

[@stephenschmitz9471]

💯💚

[@johnsherman3437]

What total madness. Holy hell. Hey guys: you have ZERO concerns about AI safety? How come 50% of AI workers, including Altman himself, see serious existential risks to human life on earth. What do you guys know that the people making AI dont!?!?!?!?

[@codezero1016]

Marc needs to have a rest in-between words while talking.....he is having a race with the words and getting bumped and stuttering too many times.

[@Mills-London]

😂

[@varanbby3738]

Lovely bold head!😂

[@bullshark3000]

a16z is starting a new fund.... to get fellow billionaire partner a real microphone

[@exmodule6323]

A lot of empty repetition, some good bits

[@mwaikul]

Mark is no expert on AI nor can he be considered neutral by any standard. I recommend considering opinions of the likes of Geoffrey Hinton (look him up).