I remember reading an article on him in Wired forever ago. Was on my mind of late. Glad to see him still part of the conversation. He makes some truly salient points.
a note about the CC subtitles: what is written is "Providence," but Jaron Lanier is actually saying "Provenance" - in the framework of Data Provenance. not sure if it was pointed out in comments, and just in case someone needs clarity there, because this is probably the most important point Jaron Lanier is making.
I've followed Jaron since the mid 80's because of his ability to make the extremely complex easy to understand, and his stance on technology oversight for transparency and fairness. I think if tech had more people like him, we'd likely be a lot further advanced than we already are with considerably more useful technology benefiting society, which has always been his aim.
I was thinking the same. Especially given how vast the topic is and how much Lanier is covering, they did an excellent job of grabbing certain moments for further clarity or followups.
Well, in fact it is on some independent podcasts where you could find the best hosts for interviewing the smartest people, and within a much longer format.
Why is this guy so likeable? The way he speaks, the explanations, they're so engaging, made me want to hear more and learn about such a new topic like AI. What an amazing session.
What, you mean the guy who wrote a book called “Ten Reasons to Delete Your Social Media Accounts Right Now” might be less than ideal for the interests of social media companies? 😂 (Great book btw!)
The reason why you do not know him from the media is his looks. How many people like him do you usually see in the media? It's our superficiality. We want to see nice, lean people in a suit or sports outfit coming right from the hair dresser, so that's what we (usually) get to see. Google has 1M results for "Jaron Lanier" and 64M for "Bill Gates". If you take into account what I just wrote then 1:64 ratio is not that bad… if you accept a google search result count as a measurement. Someone can only be valued if what (s)he says is known to people. Now he and what he said/wrrote is not known that much becuase .
It’s underrated just how much he can dumb down these topics for us regular people. I’m sure when geniuses talk to each other in private, it sounds like another language.
@@oabh1808 What was this insult for? I did understand. I have a higher than normal attention span. And I protect it at all costs. I paid attention to every.single.word. And rewinded if I didn't grasp something. You probably THINK you understood 😂
@@kevinsedwards I hope you just misread the comment. There's no way you think people on the edge of technology are speaking in simple terms like this when working on problems behind the scenes..He's speaking with the listeners in mind here.
@@thanos879 the big ogre ghoul is just getting himself on the camera cause he has a big ego, he's feeding into the hype train so he keeps getting more money to feed his burger addiction
he's a rare genius and I have followed him long enough that his speeches turn out to be extremely prophetic. He's like a hippy version of Ray Kurzweil.
The way he smoothly glided into declaring that open source = monopoly and then using Google as an example of open source demonstrated that he is not working for Google but a competitor, and no, that observation is neither correct nor accurate in any way. It was a slick try but it didn't pass muster. Google itself is not open source GNU/ Linux, Firefox, Gimp , VLC etc are open source. He avoided the real examples With his pedigree that was on purpose. So be wary...
When I lived in the Bay Area in the 80s I remember Jaron being a big deal in the hobbyist computer world when he was really pushing the boundaries of the limited tech that was available then. I really appreciate that he’s still at it today and is great at taking that 30,000 ft view of the coming revolution.
What revolution? You're talking about algorithms performing regular tasks? You're talking about the staged google performances from 5 years ago? You're talking about the "ai" being actually just indians performing basic image recognition tasks? Which part of that is a technological revolution exactly?
Holy cow! This guys looks like he would be speaking well above your head, but man, he speaks plainly and in a way that a regular person can understand. He’s got a very great skill in this.
The interesting thing is that Microsoft hired him to be an independent dissenting voice (so he told me). Much like Minsky, they actively want to engage in the argument. That is encouraging to me.
Jaron Lanier is a legend; he has some great books and I cannot recommended them enough as he's just such a thoughtful, insightful dude. A particular favourite of mine is "Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now". The title, you would think, says it all but that book is so full of amazingly erudite observations and suggestions. It changed my life in the sense that it framed for me the acerbic toxicity of social media so succinctly that I never looked back on abandoning every single shred of social media interaction in my life.
I’ve read that book and subsequently deleted all my social media and I can say that that has been one of the best decisions I’ve done for myself and my well-being in a long time. I can actually see clearly, looking back and in the present, how social media has had such a negative impact on my life in many ways. I can actually look back and see how manipulated I was, how addicted I was to those platforms, how much it controlled my life and my thoughts, it’s scary to even think about now! Anyway, anytime I see someone who’s read Jaron’s book or talk about how they have deleted their social media it makes me more hopeful.
I'm a little confused by what you said.............this isn't meant as sarcasm or to be disrespectful but isn't TH-cam a form of social media, and if not why don't you think so?
I have social media, but I don't really look at it. I have one real friend. But I like things like discord cause talking to strangers, international is something special to me. Things like tiktok or insta on other hand are a mirror of the society and an indicator for how important real education is.
"The Critic is the True Optimist" - this defines my entire career (and my success in it). Being brave enough to point out (and then fix) problems is critical for tech. Great interview.
Jaron Lanier's contributions and perspectives are particularly relevant in the current scenario for several reasons: 1. Ethical AI Development and Use: In an era where AI is becoming increasingly integrated into various aspects of our lives, Lanier's insights remind us of the importance of ethical considerations in AI development. His emphasis on data dignity, where individuals are recognized and compensated for their contributions to AI training, is crucial for ensuring fair and ethical use of personal data. 2. Critical Evaluation of Technological Advancements: Lanier's role as a critic, despite being a pioneer in the field, is essential. In a time when technological advancements are rapidly evolving, having a voice that not only celebrates these developments but also critically evaluates their impact on society is invaluable. His perspectives help in balancing the excitement around AI with a necessary caution about its potential negative impacts. 3.Advocacy for Transparency and User Empowerment: Lanier advocates for transparency in AI systems and empowering users by making them aware of how their data is used. This is particularly important in an age where issues of privacy and data misuse are prevalent. His views encourage a shift towards more user-centric models in technology, promoting greater trust and accountability. 4. The Future of Work and Society: Lanier’s ideas about compensating individuals for their data contributions tie into larger discussions about the future of work and the economy in the AI age. As automation and AI continue to transform the job market, his proposals offer alternative ways to think about economic participation and the value of human contributions in a digital world. If we do not heed Lanier's insights and warnings, we risk developing and deploying AI technologies without fully considering their ethical implications, societal impacts, and the need for equitable data practices. This could lead to increased issues of privacy infringement, unequal power dynamics in the digital economy, and the perpetuation of systems that prioritize corporate benefits over individual rights and societal welfare. Lanier’s contributions offer a path towards more responsible and beneficial AI development, emphasizing the need for a balance between technological innovation and human-centered values.
I think his argument about open source falls completely flat simply because closed source has lead to the very thing he suggests open source would do. I'd much rather live in a world where everything is hyper centralized and open source than hyper centralized and closed source.
What a gold nugget this guy is! Reminds me of an old friend of mine.. Anyways, from the get go "Criticism is the true face of optimism" that centence alone has more wisdom in it than like anything I've heard or read this year so far. Thank you Octopusman!
Interesting interview but an improvement for next time would be to have at least one interviewer who understands on a technical level how different models work. Recommender systems are not at all the same thing as large language models, like saying cardiology and pediatrics are the same thing because they are both "medicine".
I remember him from my Mondo2000 days, true pioneer who would have steered computing in the right direction if it had not been high jacked by capitalist
I was at the screening of Minority Report with Jaron. And had set his virtual reality headset on my head ten years before that. And, like you, I was in the Mondo 2000 bubble.
I wish they had a more refined discussion on the question of open source. the interviewers didn't seem to fully understand the arguments for and against it and didn't ask him to clarify his stance in a meaningful way. eg, the question of what's going on in the "black box" of AI is not the argument for open sourcing it. it's about control over and knowledge of the training data and output. with fully proprietary closed AI models, censorship becomes a much bigger problem.
Every time i hear Jaron speak I wonder how he managed to roll nat 20s on Wisdom, Intelligence AND charisma. I think hes a benevolent matrix agent insert.
Businesses want regulation for a simple reason, it differentiates legal operations from illegal ones. This allows the company to take legal actions without being exposed to lawsuits. They can say "The law allows this, if you don't like the outcome, change the law." As a result, they don't get fines and don't go to jail and can creatively get as much money as possible. Given their expectations about what the legislators will do, this is a recipe for making an infinite amount of money in their minds.
The comment you've provided touches upon a complex and nuanced aspect of business and regulatory dynamics, especially in the context of technology and AI. Regulation as a Differentiator: It's true that clear regulations can help differentiate legal from illegal operations. For businesses, especially in rapidly evolving fields like AI, having a clear regulatory framework can provide guidelines for compliance and reduce uncertainties. This helps companies navigate their operations within the bounds of the law. Legal Shielding: The statement that businesses can deflect responsibility by pointing to the law has some merit. If a company's practices are legally compliant, they can defend themselves against lawsuits by citing adherence to existing regulations. This doesn't necessarily absolve them of ethical responsibilities but does provide a legal basis for their actions. Avoidance of Penalties: Operating within the law naturally helps businesses avoid fines and legal repercussions. This is a basic principle of business operations - compliance with the law is fundamental to maintaining a company's legal and operational standing. Financial Motivations: The idea that businesses view regulation as a pathway to "make an infinite amount of money" is an oversimplification. While it's true that companies aim to maximize profits, this is a broad and not always accurate characterization of their motivations. Many businesses also consider factors like innovation, customer satisfaction, social responsibility, and long-term sustainability. Legislative Expectations: Your comment suggests a degree of cynicism about the relationship between businesses and legislators. While there are instances where companies may try to influence legislation to their advantage, it's a complex interplay. The legislative process involves multiple stakeholders, including public interest groups, industry experts, and the general public, which can counterbalance corporate interests. In conclusion, while your comment raises valid points about the motivations of businesses in seeking regulation, it's important to consider the broader context. Regulatory frameworks serve not only to define legal boundaries but also to protect consumers, promote fair competition, and ensure ethical practices. The relationship between businesses, regulation, and legislators is multifaceted and subject to various influences and checks and balances.
I thought I wasn't going to like this guy, that he was not what he's being paid to be. But then at the 12 minute mark I realized this guy's a genius! Geniuses really do have weird personalities - it's just a fact.
I love that Jaron is still involved in a meaningful way in industry. It would be a shame if he were to throw up his hands in despair and leave entirely due to frustration with [insert any typical reason here that creative types leave big companies]. So much better to see someone like this trying to guide things from inside.
His book 'Dawn of the New Everything' is incredible and prescient (published in 2017). He is one who eschews social media but I try to share his work in VR and thoughts on AI and tech whenever I can.
Yes! Lanier has it right - Provenance of content - especially photos and audio/video recordings of real events, attested to on a blockchain (or functional equivalent) where anyone can see the original from which content is claimed to be derived AND verify that it matches a hash on the chain along with author info and their attestation of HOW the content was created. The current idea of watermarking AI generated images is obviously doomed to fail from the starting gate, but if something is claimed to be a representation of a real event, we should be able to check that at least the author claims that and takes responsibility for the truth of that statement. And hold any fraudsters who make false claims accountable by penalty of law. For really dangerous information (things authorities will want to keep hidden for example), authors should probably get digitally signed attestations by witnesses of the event represented in their content. Ideally in a way that witnesses can remain anonymous until they are called upon to verify their witnessing in a court.
A photo is never enough in a legal setting. Like all evidence it has to come with a chain of custody, i.e. we need to know how it came into existence and then into the possession of the court. That's already covered under current law.
the trouble with extreme provenance is that it is the antithesis of privacy. Do you want every single thing you ever did or said to be traceable back to you as part of a permanent record? Would you be willing to accept that anything you did online - anything - could come back to haunt you in 50 years time, in an unpredicted era of novel attitudes? It would be the end of personal freedom and of the 'right to be forgotten' - which is a little ironic, seeing as Jaron said he worked on GDPR.
@@RandomButBeautiful um... How do you get from "content creators record and certify their creations as done by them and attest to their veracity" to "every thing I ever do on the internets will be recorded"?
@@tomcraver9659 You are quoting me as quoting something that was never written. So long as you are fully at choice and do not lose your right to be forgotten, which is a real thing already encoded into the very law which Lanier has worked on..... do you understand? Waltonchain has been working for several years on provenance in global product distribution. And then there are NFTs of course which can be used to create a unique signature for a digital file. Those things already exist. As to whether there is a way to track content and potentially block it from being used to train a model, that is only going to work if it is legally required for models to declare their sources. I don't see how any of them could be incentivized to take that burden on voluntarily.
@@RandomButBeautiful Sorry, I assumed you'd realize I was paraphrasing your comment, not quoting it, just as I paraphrased my own previous comment. You seem to be talking about a bunch of things that simply aren't related to my comment, which focused on solving the "fake content" issue, not issues of privacy or being forgotten or preventing the use of content to train models.
I've been following Jaron just to hear his thoughts on social media and AI. He was always spot on and provides great insight into the problems with them.
Can somebody explain to me his argument that open source leads to hyper-centralization. He said its due to mathematics and that there are numerous examples but he didn't explain the math or mention an example. "Releasing the code supports emergent monopolies"
That struck me as weird too- but ultimately more revealing about his worldview than anything. I’m guessing he means that psychopaths like the ones at Microsoft will weaponize people’s altruism against them by acting in a zero-sum fashion. Probably because he works at Microsoft and knows the mindset well, lol. This interview was scarier
Had me confused as well. So I asked ChatGPT & its answer makes sense to me. It's up to you to dig deeper and weigh its validity, but it's a starting point to explain what you asked. Here's what it wrote: Jaron Lanier's argument about open source leading to hyper-centralization is a complex and somewhat controversial perspective. The basic idea is that while open source is intended to democratize software development by allowing everyone access to the code, in practice, it can sometimes lead to a few dominant entities controlling a technology or market. Here's a simplified breakdown of the argument: 1. Open Access to Code: Open source software (OSS) is freely available for anyone to use, modify, and distribute. This theoretically allows for a wide range of contributors and innovators. 2. Skill and Resource Disparity: In practice, though, contributing to and effectively using OSS requires significant skill, resources, and time. This means that while everyone has access to the code, not everyone is equally equipped to use it or contribute to it effectively. 3. Dominance by Few Entities: As a result, entities (like large tech companies) with abundant resources and skilled personnel can dominate the development and direction of key OSS projects. They are better equipped to contribute significant improvements, maintain the software, and build infrastructure around it. 4. Dependency and Control: This dominance can lead to a situation where a majority of the market becomes dependent on a few entities. They essentially control the technology despite its open-source nature, leading to a form of hyper-centralization. 5. Mathematical Basis: The mathematical aspect Lanier refers to might be related to network effects and power law distributions, common in digital and networked economies. In such systems, small advantages can compound over time, leading to a situation where a few players hold a disproportionate amount of power or market share. While this perspective is subject to debate, it highlights an interesting paradox in the digital economy: initiatives aimed at decentralization and democratization can sometimes inadvertently lead to increased centralization.
Btw, OpenAI started as a small open source out fit, but the road it's taking, it is showing signs of an emergent monopoly. It is well on its way to becoming Big Tech.
@@kamu747He seems to be mingling distribution of source-code with distribution of power (I think those two should be though of as separate). In linux power is centralized on Linux Tovalts. Although his project is open source he retains control over it (I think the community yields to him out of respect). Lanier's argument doesn't fully hold. There are many Linux distros. There are many browsers based on Mozilla code. OpenAI is showing signs of emergent monopoly because it abandoned its open source nature to retain power. I think when Linus Tovalts passes away I say the tower of babel syndrome will play out (due to a power vacuum) and Linux will start to fragment.
@@kamu747Its like the failure of communism. Wealth and power as two separate forces. Communist believe in common prosperity by supposedly allowing everyone to share the resources, sharing the wealth. But what communism governments end up doing is horde power. Communist countries have a large power gap between the haves and the have-nots. hence the imbalance, hence their problems. Capitalism is sorta different. Capitalism promotes hording wealth but democratic governments tend to better distribute power with the people. Share the power. Its better to have power then wealth.
Jaron's notion that human generated data will continue to be relevant to AI training as AI models progress, presumes that it is not possible to transition to AI self training in some way similar to the step between AlphaGo and Alpha*. That may turn out to be true for some time to come, but the mere existence of organic intelligence suggests that those days are numbered. Once a general AI architecture no longer relies on humans to generate training data, the shift of human workers toward a service economy (even including things like Etsy) will overtake all of us. At that point the only way to keep pace with AI super-intellect will be to hybridize yourself so that you are no longer bound to human intellectual limitations. I think the only way to avert massive levels of poverty and desperation - without essentially eliminating humanity - will be to offer a generous UBI, paid for by the hopefully dramatic increase in productivity that automation brings. This is NOT just another Industrial Revolution. A hundred years ago, vast numbers of blacksmiths retrained as auto mechanics, but that revolution was not about people. It was about physical work. Horsepower. And virtually all the horses very quickly lost their jobs. It's going to be a wild, scary ride. And we're already boarding.
Most of the top-of-the-leaderboard smaller language models are trained using synthetic data created by GPT-4 and have seen massive performance improvements. It’s already happening.
Yes, a very nice conversation, I especially liked the idea of a strong legislative structure being able to actually facilitate innovation, having never thought of it that way. The other lovely part was about humans liking to make things which others wil buy, because in order for one to buy, one has to be willing to give up a part of one's living (as in 'making a living').
Criticism is the ultimate face of optimism. What a brilliant observation. So true and sadly actively avoided by most due to our modern day sensitivities. Would have liked him to delve more into the mathematical issue with open source creating hypernodes. Not sure i agree.
im frequently critical of many aspects of our society to the point that im seen as a "negative nancy" by others. hearing him equate criticism to the purist form of optimism made me learn something about myself. complacent people ("stop whining") are the real negative nancies, as they lack the imagination to see a better world than the one weve got.
Jaron is a legit genius in this space. He's a VERY unheard voice that should be heard everywhere. Would love for him to get on Joe Rogan just to get some big big reach.
Jaron as always on peak form. Love everything this guy says. But I really have to call out the presenters, they couldn't have been better at engaging with him!
at time 17:23 providence is NOT the only way to detect fakes, also common sense, and face checking! (which Jason seems to have little of) but in paintings and other things maybe the hardest and ultimate way to check
Its unfortunate to have a brilliant scientist being interviewed and only getting a small snippet of what he’s trying to say, the interviewers are veering back and forth between their pre-prepared questions without engaging the topics that he’s bringing to the table - would love to see the full raw unedited video.
Understanding Jaron Lanier's perspective on the potential for open source projects to lead to hyper-centralization requires a nuanced view of how technology and market dynamics interact. While the open source movement is fundamentally about collaboration and accessibility, the reality of how these projects evolve in a competitive market can lead to unexpected outcomes, such as a few projects gaining disproportionate influence and dominance. The phenomenon of network effects plays a critical role here. As certain open source projects grow in popularity and usage, they naturally attract more contributors and users. This can create a self-reinforcing cycle where these projects become so established and integral to certain areas of technology that they overshadow smaller or newer projects. Consequently, despite the open and collaborative nature of open source, we can witness a form of centralization where the vast majority of development and usage revolves around a handful of projects. It's important to note that this centralization isn't necessarily about monopolistic practices or exclusionary tactics. Rather, it's an emergent property of how open source projects can grow and interact within the broader technology ecosystem, often amplified by the backing of large companies. In essence, Lanier's argument invites us to think critically about the broader implications of open source beyond its immediate benefits of collaboration and sharing. It highlights the need for awareness and thoughtful engagement in how we contribute to and use open source projects, ensuring that the spirit of diversity and decentralization in the open source community is maintained. It's helpful to view open source not just as a collection of projects but as part of a larger ecosystem where various forces, including market dynamics and network effects, play a significant role. Understanding these forces can provide a more holistic view of the open source movement and its impact on the technology landscape. Peace ;)
"a few projects gaining disproportionate influence and dominance" -> you mean Linux or open source projects such as Kubernetes that provides a software-defined networking layer that can be used to create a cloud-agnostic network for your application? I agree we need to always think critically. This is why I am advising all coders to leave Microsoft GitHub for GitLab.
sounds like a question about what rules the movements is operating by. Of course if it is just random directionless collaboration where competing interests are allowed to absorb resources without restrictions or perserved direction regarding transparency, beneficiaries, openness and participation, this is exactly what happens. Still not an argument against open sourced organisation models for development and UBI for example
Totally agree with the paying people to enhance AIs. Think about what happens if we don't... All content is created by AI, all AI is trained by content, and eventually there's literally nothing new... at all. If AI isn't going to start inventing new ideas, then we have to keep feeding it our creativity.
I'm trying to understand this idea of open-source, hyper-centralization, and the exchange of information being the monopoly. I think what he is saying is that without monitization and market forces, there is no competition. That's what creates the monopoly. Really that's brilliant.
Yep, because the market itself doesn't create monopolies, windows is one of the long list of closed source operating systems pc can use... I don't know how is this brilliant
3:32 to be an optimist you have to have the courage to be a fearsome critic! it's the critic who believes things can be better. The critic is the true optimist.
Excellent speaking about complex issues we all face in the current and rapidly changing tech world. I do disagree about one specific item he mentioned though: I don't share as generous an opinion about Sam Altman's "altruistic" action of urging the government to regulate tech and AI. In my view it's much more likely that he would be doing that to gain a more advantageous position by leveraging the power of already being the big fish in the pond, because the most likely effect of increased regulation would be further inhibition of any competition to OAI and the other main Big Tech companies.
"I think opening things leads to decentralisation is false. It leads to hyper centralisation". "HUH? OK.... why" "Mathematics". LOL. "Mathematics" is not a magic word which makes what you said right. You didn't explain that at all.
"The mechanism of paying for it is not the manipulation of you" So many ways to unpack this clear minded insightful statement.... But as a thought, what to do if you are unable to pay? Most people under 16 are unable to pay .... The numbers on Suicide and Mental problems because of the manipulation of our youth speak for them self.
4:55 in a perfect world. But I have a feeling these companies will STILL collect and exploit our data to the fullest even while we’re paying a subscription. Maximize profits.
![PASULOL รามเกียรติ์ ตอนที่ 4 นนทกพบรัก [Ramakien Ep.4: Nonthok in love]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tMUQgmZzf_A/mqdefault.jpg)
"One needs to be a critic in order to be truly hopeful." A great insight.
Misquote
He is one of those people who not enough people have heard of, but who will be remembered as one of the greats. Well done for having him.
Right. Overappreciated.
I remember reading an article on him in Wired forever ago. Was on my mind of late. Glad to see him still part of the conversation. He makes some truly salient points.
a note about the CC subtitles: what is written is "Providence," but Jaron Lanier is actually saying "Provenance" - in the framework of Data Provenance. not sure if it was pointed out in comments, and just in case someone needs clarity there, because this is probably the most important point Jaron Lanier is making.
I've followed Jaron since the mid 80's because of his ability to make the extremely complex easy to understand, and his stance on technology oversight for transparency and fairness. I think if tech had more people like him, we'd likely be a lot further advanced than we already are with considerably more useful technology benefiting society, which has always been his aim.
I agree.
You mean business had more people like him? Tech people generally just do what they're paid for.
@@ericcricket4877 Both Businesses and tech people. If there were more tech people like him, there would be more businesses that think like him (IMO).
I'm so impressed with the hosts! Both are so smart, thinking and responding on the fly, and engaged. Great interview
I was thinking the same. Especially given how vast the topic is and how much Lanier is covering, they did an excellent job of grabbing certain moments for further clarity or followups.
Well, in fact it is on some independent podcasts where you could find the best hosts for interviewing the smartest people, and within a much longer format.
The hosts are great actors. Lanier does well, but still gives off the vibe of someone trying to explain something to Elmo's less intelligent cousins.
Is this satire? I'm 3 mins in and the host has already interrupted him - 3:27
The hosts really pressed him on some important points. That was very impressive
Why is this guy so likeable? The way he speaks, the explanations, they're so engaging, made me want to hear more and learn about such a new topic like AI. What an amazing session.
Because he smiles and speaks in a friendly tone. Typical human easy to manipulate
cause he's a musician
you learn how to never sound boring practicing music, its a very very useful 'hobby', it levels up every aspect of your life
If you like listening to him, I highly recommend his book, You Are Not A Robot.
Because he knows the cameras are rolling.
There were cameras? Where? I didn't notice any. @@Nutmegsyourman
Jaron Lanier is an underrated voice (probably because his message would cost Social Media companies a lot of money!)
They'll cost themselves a lot of money if they're not careful.
He is indeed an underrated voice, but the conversation was somehow pretty short and I would love to have watched more
What, you mean the guy who wrote a book called “Ten Reasons to Delete Your Social Media Accounts Right Now” might be less than ideal for the interests of social media companies? 😂 (Great book btw!)
The reason why you do not know him from the media is his looks. How many people like him do you usually see in the media? It's our superficiality. We want to see nice, lean people in a suit or sports outfit coming right from the hair dresser, so that's what we (usually) get to see.
Google has 1M results for "Jaron Lanier" and 64M for "Bill Gates". If you take into account what I just wrote then 1:64 ratio is not that bad… if you accept a google search result count as a measurement.
Someone can only be valued if what (s)he says is known to people. Now he and what he said/wrrote is not known that much becuase .
It’s underrated just how much he can dumb down these topics for us regular people. I’m sure when geniuses talk to each other in private, it sounds like another language.
Geniuses don't talk in another language, this is a sign of fooling someone. You assume they are so advanced, when they are not.
@@oabh1808 What was this insult for? I did understand. I have a higher than normal attention span. And I protect it at all costs. I paid attention to every.single.word. And rewinded if I didn't grasp something. You probably THINK you understood 😂
@@kevinsedwards I hope you just misread the comment. There's no way you think people on the edge of technology are speaking in simple terms like this when working on problems behind the scenes..He's speaking with the listeners in mind here.
@@thanos879 the big ogre ghoul is just getting himself on the camera cause he has a big ego, he's feeding into the hype train so he keeps getting more money to feed his burger addiction
Bring this man here again, and each time will be unique and full of freshness.
Well done Jaron!
he's a rare genius and I have followed him long enough that his speeches turn out to be extremely prophetic. He's like a hippy version of Ray Kurzweil.
The way he smoothly glided into declaring that open source = monopoly and then using Google as an example of open source demonstrated that he is not working for Google but a competitor, and no, that observation is neither correct nor accurate in any way. It was a slick try but it didn't pass muster. Google itself is not open source GNU/ Linux, Firefox, Gimp , VLC etc are open source. He avoided the real examples
With his pedigree that was on purpose. So be wary...
He is a snake and should be treated as such.
Yes, he works for Microsoft@@hitmusicworldwide
@@kwimms OK I'll bite...why do you say this? (I don't know much about him so it's interesting to hear another POV)
I love Jaron every time I hear him talk and always end up feeling enriched
Same! His views are always unique and very well defined.
I think he counts on math so much and I intend to do the same in my studies.
I recommend reading his book ten arguments for deleting your social media accounts right now 👌🏻👌🏻
When I lived in the Bay Area in the 80s I remember Jaron being a big deal in the hobbyist computer world when he was really pushing the boundaries of the limited tech that was available then. I really appreciate that he’s still at it today and is great at taking that 30,000 ft view of the coming revolution.
What revolution? You're talking about algorithms performing regular tasks? You're talking about the staged google performances from 5 years ago? You're talking about the "ai" being actually just indians performing basic image recognition tasks? Which part of that is a technological revolution exactly?
Holy cow! This guys looks like he would be speaking well above your head, but man, he speaks plainly and in a way that a regular person can understand. He’s got a very great skill in this.
The interesting thing is that Microsoft hired him to be an independent dissenting voice (so he told me). Much like Minsky, they actively want to engage in the argument. That is encouraging to me.
Jaron Lanier is a legend; he has some great books and I cannot recommended them enough as he's just such a thoughtful, insightful dude. A particular favourite of mine is "Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now". The title, you would think, says it all but that book is so full of amazingly erudite observations and suggestions. It changed my life in the sense that it framed for me the acerbic toxicity of social media so succinctly that I never looked back on abandoning every single shred of social media interaction in my life.
nice! to learn there a book like this. i’ve ditched the digital socialization (other than YT i suppose) and haven’t missed it much!
I’ve read that book and subsequently deleted all my social media and I can say that that has been one of the best decisions I’ve done for myself and my well-being in a long time.
I can actually see clearly, looking back and in the present, how social media has had such a negative impact on my life in many ways.
I can actually look back and see how manipulated I was, how addicted I was to those platforms, how much it controlled my life and my thoughts, it’s scary to even think about now!
Anyway, anytime I see someone who’s read Jaron’s book or talk about how they have deleted their social media it makes me more hopeful.
I'm a little confused by what you said.............this isn't meant as sarcasm or to be disrespectful but isn't TH-cam a form of social media, and if not why don't you think so?
I have social media, but I don't really look at it. I have one real friend.
But I like things like discord cause talking to strangers, international is something special to me.
Things like tiktok or insta on other hand are a mirror of the society and an indicator for how important real education is.
"The Critic is the True Optimist" - this defines my entire career (and my success in it). Being brave enough to point out (and then fix) problems is critical for tech.
Great interview.
People who know there is no black and white are great. I like these kinds of interviews. Regulation is very important.
Jaron Lanier's contributions and perspectives are particularly relevant in the current scenario for several reasons:
1. Ethical AI Development and Use: In an era where AI is becoming increasingly integrated into various aspects of our lives, Lanier's insights remind us of the importance of ethical considerations in AI development. His emphasis on data dignity, where individuals are recognized and compensated for their contributions to AI training, is crucial for ensuring fair and ethical use of personal data.
2. Critical Evaluation of Technological Advancements: Lanier's role as a critic, despite being a pioneer in the field, is essential. In a time when technological advancements are rapidly evolving, having a voice that not only celebrates these developments but also critically evaluates their impact on society is invaluable. His perspectives help in balancing the excitement around AI with a necessary caution about its potential negative impacts.
3.Advocacy for Transparency and User Empowerment: Lanier advocates for transparency in AI systems and empowering users by making them aware of how their data is used. This is particularly important in an age where issues of privacy and data misuse are prevalent. His views encourage a shift towards more user-centric models in technology, promoting greater trust and accountability.
4. The Future of Work and Society: Lanier’s ideas about compensating individuals for their data contributions tie into larger discussions about the future of work and the economy in the AI age. As automation and AI continue to transform the job market, his proposals offer alternative ways to think about economic participation and the value of human contributions in a digital world.
If we do not heed Lanier's insights and warnings, we risk developing and deploying AI technologies without fully considering their ethical implications, societal impacts, and the need for equitable data practices. This could lead to increased issues of privacy infringement, unequal power dynamics in the digital economy, and the perpetuation of systems that prioritize corporate benefits over individual rights and societal welfare. Lanier’s contributions offer a path towards more responsible and beneficial AI development, emphasizing the need for a balance between technological innovation and human-centered values.
This was written by Chat GPT?
@@realfarmerdelatorre sure reads like it
@@SR-fx5sm It does, and yet i find it to be a valuably pertinent reflection / contribution (was glad I read it).
Jaron Lanier is a splendid human. A decent man, a brilliant thinker and a precise communicator.
Jaron was correct on every point in this interview. And the interviewers were on the ball, and actually listened.
I think his argument about open source falls completely flat simply because closed source has lead to the very thing he suggests open source would do. I'd much rather live in a world where everything is hyper centralized and open source than hyper centralized and closed source.
What a gold nugget this guy is! Reminds me of an old friend of mine.. Anyways, from the get go "Criticism is the true face of optimism" that centence alone has more wisdom in it than like anything I've heard or read this year so far. Thank you Octopusman!
Interesting interview but an improvement for next time would be to have at least one interviewer who understands on a technical level how different models work. Recommender systems are not at all the same thing as large language models, like saying cardiology and pediatrics are the same thing because they are both "medicine".
I remember him from my Mondo2000 days, true pioneer who would have steered computing in the right direction if it had not been high jacked by capitalist
I have faith he’s pushing envelope from the inside.
I was at the screening of Minority Report with Jaron. And had set his virtual reality headset on my head ten years before that. And, like you, I was in the Mondo 2000 bubble.
I was skeptical of Jaron, but he has mostly sold me that he is one of the few people who understand the real issues.
why were you skeptical? Are you just now learning who he is? Dude has been one of the most truly knowledgeable tech people for 30 years
@@humanbeing5300 Because plenty of knowledgeable techies are either corrupt, confused, or most often both when it comes to the real issues in ethics.
@@konberner170 we need more Jaron’s and people like him that’s for sure
@@humanbeing5300 In my view, the fact Microsoft has him is a solid +1 for them.
Jaron has been a pioneering voice on tech for decades.
Thanks for Jaron and the 2 hosts for this interview, it gives me hope to see humans working on the future ways forward
Criticism is the true face of optimism, and courage is the true face of criticism. Live with a backbone.
The conversation was spread too thin I think. Some depth on specific topics is what I came for.
Thanks for having him on! A true pioneer and voice of reason
I like how he says "we" when taking about big tech. It helps remind me of potential bias but also the viewpoint he is coming from.
Its so nice to hear brilliant ppl like him.
I wish they had a more refined discussion on the question of open source. the interviewers didn't seem to fully understand the arguments for and against it and didn't ask him to clarify his stance in a meaningful way. eg, the question of what's going on in the "black box" of AI is not the argument for open sourcing it. it's about control over and knowledge of the training data and output. with fully proprietary closed AI models, censorship becomes a much bigger problem.
Wow, a MSM interview where the interviewers actually did some research!! Very nice.
This is a hilarious interview. They ask him a question and he just goes off in a completely different direction (over and over again).
He seems to be there to try to justify the closed source nature of Microsoft
Thank you for your insights, hostile Chatbot!
Not really. He seems to answer the questions.
It's called being evasive.
I agree. He seems actually not so clear making his points.
I had dinner with Lanier back in 1986. He was the Godfather of VR. Crazy night.
Every time i hear Jaron speak I wonder how he managed to roll nat 20s on Wisdom, Intelligence AND charisma. I think hes a benevolent matrix agent insert.
Businesses want regulation for a simple reason, it differentiates legal operations from illegal ones. This allows the company to take legal actions without being exposed to lawsuits. They can say "The law allows this, if you don't like the outcome, change the law." As a result, they don't get fines and don't go to jail and can creatively get as much money as possible. Given their expectations about what the legislators will do, this is a recipe for making an infinite amount of money in their minds.
The comment you've provided touches upon a complex and nuanced aspect of business and regulatory dynamics, especially in the context of technology and AI.
Regulation as a Differentiator: It's true that clear regulations can help differentiate legal from illegal operations. For businesses, especially in rapidly evolving fields like AI, having a clear regulatory framework can provide guidelines for compliance and reduce uncertainties. This helps companies navigate their operations within the bounds of the law.
Legal Shielding: The statement that businesses can deflect responsibility by pointing to the law has some merit. If a company's practices are legally compliant, they can defend themselves against lawsuits by citing adherence to existing regulations. This doesn't necessarily absolve them of ethical responsibilities but does provide a legal basis for their actions.
Avoidance of Penalties: Operating within the law naturally helps businesses avoid fines and legal repercussions. This is a basic principle of business operations - compliance with the law is fundamental to maintaining a company's legal and operational standing.
Financial Motivations: The idea that businesses view regulation as a pathway to "make an infinite amount of money" is an oversimplification. While it's true that companies aim to maximize profits, this is a broad and not always accurate characterization of their motivations. Many businesses also consider factors like innovation, customer satisfaction, social responsibility, and long-term sustainability.
Legislative Expectations: Your comment suggests a degree of cynicism about the relationship between businesses and legislators. While there are instances where companies may try to influence legislation to their advantage, it's a complex interplay. The legislative process involves multiple stakeholders, including public interest groups, industry experts, and the general public, which can counterbalance corporate interests.
In conclusion, while your comment raises valid points about the motivations of businesses in seeking regulation, it's important to consider the broader context.
Regulatory frameworks serve not only to define legal boundaries but also to protect consumers, promote fair competition, and ensure ethical practices.
The relationship between businesses, regulation, and legislators is multifaceted and subject to various influences and checks and balances.
Another reason: regulatory capture can enable the crafting of laws that limit competition, especially from upstarts.
I thought I wasn't going to like this guy, that he was not what he's being paid to be. But then at the 12 minute mark I realized this guy's a genius! Geniuses really do have weird personalities - it's just a fact.
wow, blown away by his intelligence and great questions from the hosts picking up on things said and extrapolating on that.
Awesome conversation ! We want more Jaron !
I love that Jaron is still involved in a meaningful way in industry. It would be a shame if he were to throw up his hands in despair and leave entirely due to frustration with [insert any typical reason here that creative types leave big companies]. So much better to see someone like this trying to guide things from inside.
His book 'Dawn of the New Everything' is incredible and prescient (published in 2017). He is one who eschews social media but I try to share his work in VR and thoughts on AI and tech whenever I can.
This was a great conversation, would have loved to see Jaron on some longer form podcasts. This shouod be watched by more.
Yes! Lanier has it right - Provenance of content - especially photos and audio/video recordings of real events, attested to on a blockchain (or functional equivalent) where anyone can see the original from which content is claimed to be derived AND verify that it matches a hash on the chain along with author info and their attestation of HOW the content was created.
The current idea of watermarking AI generated images is obviously doomed to fail from the starting gate, but if something is claimed to be a representation of a real event, we should be able to check that at least the author claims that and takes responsibility for the truth of that statement. And hold any fraudsters who make false claims accountable by penalty of law.
For really dangerous information (things authorities will want to keep hidden for example), authors should probably get digitally signed attestations by witnesses of the event represented in their content. Ideally in a way that witnesses can remain anonymous until they are called upon to verify their witnessing in a court.
A photo is never enough in a legal setting. Like all evidence it has to come with a chain of custody, i.e. we need to know how it came into existence and then into the possession of the court. That's already covered under current law.
the trouble with extreme provenance is that it is the antithesis of privacy. Do you want every single thing you ever did or said to be traceable back to you as part of a permanent record? Would you be willing to accept that anything you did online - anything - could come back to haunt you in 50 years time, in an unpredicted era of novel attitudes? It would be the end of personal freedom and of the 'right to be forgotten' - which is a little ironic, seeing as Jaron said he worked on GDPR.
@@RandomButBeautiful um... How do you get from "content creators record and certify their creations as done by them and attest to their veracity" to "every thing I ever do on the internets will be recorded"?
@@tomcraver9659 You are quoting me as quoting something that was never written. So long as you are fully at choice and do not lose your right to be forgotten, which is a real thing already encoded into the very law which Lanier has worked on..... do you understand?
Waltonchain has been working for several years on provenance in global product distribution. And then there are NFTs of course which can be used to create a unique signature for a digital file. Those things already exist. As to whether there is a way to track content and potentially block it from being used to train a model, that is only going to work if it is legally required for models to declare their sources. I don't see how any of them could be incentivized to take that burden on voluntarily.
@@RandomButBeautiful Sorry, I assumed you'd realize I was paraphrasing your comment, not quoting it, just as I paraphrased my own previous comment. You seem to be talking about a bunch of things that simply aren't related to my comment, which focused on solving the "fake content" issue, not issues of privacy or being forgotten or preventing the use of content to train models.
I am in awe with Jaron Lanier outlooks and perspective.
I've been following Jaron just to hear his thoughts on social media and AI. He was always spot on and provides great insight into the problems with them.
Can somebody explain to me his argument that open source leads to hyper-centralization. He said its due to mathematics and that there are numerous examples but he didn't explain the math or mention an example.
"Releasing the code supports emergent monopolies"
That struck me as weird too- but ultimately more revealing about his worldview than anything.
I’m guessing he means that psychopaths like the ones at Microsoft will weaponize people’s altruism against them by acting in a zero-sum fashion. Probably because he works at Microsoft and knows the mindset well, lol.
This interview was scarier
Had me confused as well. So I asked ChatGPT & its answer makes sense to me.
It's up to you to dig deeper and weigh its validity, but it's a starting point to explain what you asked. Here's what it wrote:
Jaron Lanier's argument about open source leading to hyper-centralization is a complex and somewhat controversial perspective. The basic idea is that while open source is intended to democratize software development by allowing everyone access to the code, in practice, it can sometimes lead to a few dominant entities controlling a technology or market.
Here's a simplified breakdown of the argument:
1. Open Access to Code:
Open source software (OSS) is freely available for anyone to use, modify, and distribute. This theoretically allows for a wide range of contributors and innovators.
2. Skill and Resource Disparity:
In practice, though, contributing to and effectively using OSS requires significant skill, resources, and time. This means that while everyone has access to the code, not everyone is equally equipped to use it or contribute to it effectively.
3. Dominance by Few Entities:
As a result, entities (like large tech companies) with abundant resources and skilled personnel can dominate the development and direction of key OSS projects. They are better equipped to contribute significant improvements, maintain the software, and build infrastructure around it.
4. Dependency and Control:
This dominance can lead to a situation where a majority of the market becomes dependent on a few entities. They essentially control the technology despite its open-source nature, leading to a form of hyper-centralization.
5. Mathematical Basis:
The mathematical aspect Lanier refers to might be related to network effects and power law distributions, common in digital and networked economies. In such systems, small advantages can compound over time, leading to a situation where a few players hold a disproportionate amount of power or market share.
While this perspective is subject to debate, it highlights an interesting paradox in the digital economy: initiatives aimed at decentralization and democratization can sometimes inadvertently lead to increased centralization.
Btw, OpenAI started as a small open source out fit, but the road it's taking, it is showing signs of an emergent monopoly. It is well on its way to becoming Big Tech.
@@kamu747He seems to be mingling distribution of source-code with distribution of power (I think those two should be though of as separate). In linux power is centralized on Linux Tovalts. Although his project is open source he retains control over it (I think the community yields to him out of respect). Lanier's argument doesn't fully hold. There are many Linux distros. There are many browsers based on Mozilla code. OpenAI is showing signs of emergent monopoly because it abandoned its open source nature to retain power. I think when Linus Tovalts passes away I say the tower of babel syndrome will play out (due to a power vacuum) and Linux will start to fragment.
@@kamu747Its like the failure of communism. Wealth and power as two separate forces. Communist believe in common prosperity by supposedly allowing everyone to share the resources, sharing the wealth. But what communism governments end up doing is horde power. Communist countries have a large power gap between the haves and the have-nots. hence the imbalance, hence their problems. Capitalism is sorta different. Capitalism promotes hording wealth but democratic governments tend to better distribute power with the people. Share the power. Its better to have power then wealth.
'Either the customer is you, or it's someone who wants to manipulate you.' - YES x 1000
Jaron's notion that human generated data will continue to be relevant to AI training as AI models progress, presumes that it is not possible to transition to AI self training in some way similar to the step between AlphaGo and Alpha*. That may turn out to be true for some time to come, but the mere existence of organic intelligence suggests that those days are numbered.
Once a general AI architecture no longer relies on humans to generate training data, the shift of human workers toward a service economy (even including things like Etsy) will overtake all of us. At that point the only way to keep pace with AI super-intellect will be to hybridize yourself so that you are no longer bound to human intellectual limitations. I think the only way to avert massive levels of poverty and desperation - without essentially eliminating humanity - will be to offer a generous UBI, paid for by the hopefully dramatic increase in productivity that automation brings.
This is NOT just another Industrial Revolution. A hundred years ago, vast numbers of blacksmiths retrained as auto mechanics, but that revolution was not about people. It was about physical work. Horsepower. And virtually all the horses very quickly lost their jobs.
It's going to be a wild, scary ride. And we're already boarding.
Most of the top-of-the-leaderboard smaller language models are trained using synthetic data created by GPT-4 and have seen massive performance improvements. It’s already happening.
The privilege that you can create a position for yourself in a company you work and name it in a way that it is funny! Awesome!
Yes, a very nice conversation, I especially liked the idea of a strong legislative structure being able to actually facilitate innovation, having never thought of it that way. The other lovely part was about humans liking to make things which others wil buy, because in order for one to buy, one has to be willing to give up a part of one's living (as in 'making a living').
Jaron Lanier is superchill! And the hosts did their homework well.
"We don't want to mess up society. We depend on society for business."
If only the hosts would stop interrupting his answers to their questions, we could learn so much more.
Bloomberg did amazing with this interview
I have *Great Respect* for Jaron Lanier ... As a pioneer of augmented and virtual reality filmmaking, Jaron was the OG.
Criticism is the ultimate face of optimism. What a brilliant observation. So true and sadly actively avoided by most due to our modern day sensitivities. Would have liked him to delve more into the mathematical issue with open source creating hypernodes. Not sure i agree.
im frequently critical of many aspects of our society to the point that im seen as a "negative nancy" by others. hearing him equate criticism to the purist form of optimism made me learn something about myself. complacent people ("stop whining") are the real negative nancies, as they lack the imagination to see a better world than the one weve got.
Wow. Did not know of him. It has been a long time since I have heard thoughtful, knowledgeable answers.
Great conversation. Thank you for sharing.
Jaron is a legit genius in this space. He's a VERY unheard voice that should be heard everywhere. Would love for him to get on Joe Rogan just to get some big big reach.
Amen. Agree wholly.
His point about paying for things is really important!
Most insightful talk I heard for a while.
Jaron has way too much faith in politicians not infringing upon civil liberties. But he is a gem. Always respect his unique perspective and humor.
I would argue that corporations infringe civil liberties WAY more than governments do.
@@LeftistatthepartyIt's a joint enterprise. Companies bribe or threaten govs and govs are permissive toward corporations due monetary incentives.
Computer people have always had a blindspot when it comes to politics. They tend to be easily manipulated
"politicians not infringing upon civil liberties" is an oxymoron. Concur with your assessment, but that is a vast understatement.
He's up to his bulging eyeballs in banking mafia blood money.
Jaron as always on peak form. Love everything this guy says. But I really have to call out the presenters, they couldn't have been better at engaging with him!
I love this guy. Jaron is very impressive.
He’s like a real life wizard …
at time 17:23 providence is NOT the only way to detect fakes, also common sense, and face checking!
(which Jason seems to have little of) but in paintings and other things maybe the hardest and ultimate way to check
What a wonderful, knowledgeable and pleasant person. Loved the interview
Its unfortunate to have a brilliant scientist being interviewed and only getting a small snippet of what he’s trying to say, the interviewers are veering back and forth between their pre-prepared questions without engaging the topics that he’s bringing to the table - would love to see the full raw unedited video.
Understanding Jaron Lanier's perspective on the potential for open source projects to lead to hyper-centralization requires a nuanced view of how technology and market dynamics interact. While the open source movement is fundamentally about collaboration and accessibility, the reality of how these projects evolve in a competitive market can lead to unexpected outcomes, such as a few projects gaining disproportionate influence and dominance.
The phenomenon of network effects plays a critical role here. As certain open source projects grow in popularity and usage, they naturally attract more contributors and users. This can create a self-reinforcing cycle where these projects become so established and integral to certain areas of technology that they overshadow smaller or newer projects. Consequently, despite the open and collaborative nature of open source, we can witness a form of centralization where the vast majority of development and usage revolves around a handful of projects.
It's important to note that this centralization isn't necessarily about monopolistic practices or exclusionary tactics. Rather, it's an emergent property of how open source projects can grow and interact within the broader technology ecosystem, often amplified by the backing of large companies.
In essence, Lanier's argument invites us to think critically about the broader implications of open source beyond its immediate benefits of collaboration and sharing. It highlights the need for awareness and thoughtful engagement in how we contribute to and use open source projects, ensuring that the spirit of diversity and decentralization in the open source community is maintained.
It's helpful to view open source not just as a collection of projects but as part of a larger ecosystem where various forces, including market dynamics and network effects, play a significant role. Understanding these forces can provide a more holistic view of the open source movement and its impact on the technology landscape.
Peace ;)
"a few projects gaining disproportionate influence and dominance" -> you mean Linux or open source projects such as Kubernetes that provides a software-defined networking layer that can be used to create a cloud-agnostic network for your application? I agree we need to always think critically. This is why I am advising all coders to leave Microsoft GitHub for GitLab.
sounds like a question about what rules the movements is operating by. Of course if it is just random directionless collaboration where competing interests are allowed to absorb resources without restrictions or perserved direction regarding transparency, beneficiaries, openness and participation, this is exactly what happens. Still not an argument against open sourced organisation models for development and UBI for example
I absolutely adore this man.
Immortality of monism through the the perspective of computing experts.
Great video! Please more from Jaron Lanier!
Totally agree with the paying people to enhance AIs. Think about what happens if we don't... All content is created by AI, all AI is trained by content, and eventually there's literally nothing new... at all. If AI isn't going to start inventing new ideas, then we have to keep feeding it our creativity.
Wow... what a great talk. Like I'm glad I watched this.
Will eventually come to ask is this interview real or AI generated?
So interesting to have Jaron’s point of view
11:35 I agree with that actually, what the AI should be 'doing' IS the referencing. a) for attribution. b) to connect information.
I'm trying to understand this idea of open-source, hyper-centralization, and the exchange of information being the monopoly. I think what he is saying is that without monitization and market forces, there is no competition. That's what creates the monopoly. Really that's brilliant.
Yep, because the market itself doesn't create monopolies, windows is one of the long list of closed source operating systems pc can use... I don't know how is this brilliant
2:06 What a great f****** question! Can’t wait to hear his answer! 💪✊🔥
This is the most coherent I've ever seen Jason. Great to see.
3:32 to be an optimist you have to have the courage to be a fearsome critic! it's the critic who believes things can be better. The critic is the true optimist.
Excellent speaking about complex issues we all face in the current and rapidly changing tech world. I do disagree about one specific item he mentioned though: I don't share as generous an opinion about Sam Altman's "altruistic" action of urging the government to regulate tech and AI. In my view it's much more likely that he would be doing that to gain a more advantageous position by leveraging the power of already being the big fish in the pond, because the most likely effect of increased regulation would be further inhibition of any competition to OAI and the other main Big Tech companies.
Jaron's got the quirkiest mannerisms lol
This dude is quite insightful on a variety of topics
Thanks for the open and honest expressions.
Did not know he worked for Nadella. so much for any honesty.
Love listening to him speak. Fantastic.
He's so unique and awkward but it's likeable cuz he's passionate
After many days, Jaron
Jaron is a hidden gem 💎
You can tell that dude knows that world and knows how to do his job
He looks like a badass character from the Matrix or something
Has he been on Rogan before? I think Rogan Snowden and Jaron plus maybe Elon would be an amazing podcast.
Who would have thought you would hear Gang-slang such as 'O.G' on Bloomberg? 😂
Brilliant interviewers!
"I think opening things leads to decentralisation is false. It leads to hyper centralisation".
"HUH? OK.... why"
"Mathematics".
LOL. "Mathematics" is not a magic word which makes what you said right. You didn't explain that at all.
Great interview, thx for making it👍
A summative assessment of tech culture if there ever was one: "They are notoriously closed off. They don't have people who speak."
"The mechanism of paying for it is not the manipulation of you" So many ways to unpack this clear minded insightful statement....
But as a thought, what to do if you are unable to pay? Most people under 16 are unable to pay .... The numbers on Suicide and Mental problems because of the manipulation of our youth speak for them self.
Well... the current answer is "consume ads". Perhaps a better future answer would be "contribute beneficially"?
4:55 in a perfect world. But I have a feeling these companies will STILL collect and exploit our data to the fullest even while we’re paying a subscription. Maximize profits.