Shadowing Practice: "AI Existential Risk" Was Invented to Distract Us - Learn English Speaking with Video
בחר מצב תרגול
כל מצב פותח חדר תרגול במסך מלא.
162 משפטים
אם המשפטים קצרים או ארוכים מדי, לחץ על ערוך כדי להתאים אותם.
1
So you might have seen this week
2
that a charming young man named Jacob Coxon gave the entire
3
world a panic attack by quitting his job at the AI company Anthropic
4
and saying that he was quitting because he was worried that Anthropic's work could lead to the extinction of humanity.
5
And he tweeted that everybody else building AI earnestly believes this.
6
Now, the media called him a whistleblower for saying this, but I think that's kind of a weird thing to call him
7
when a colleague of his immediately quote tweeted him and said, Jacob is correct, we really do earnestly believe that AI could kill all humans.
8
In fact, we think there's a 10% chance within the next decade.
9
And then the CEO of the company wrote an entire fucking op-ed saying the exact same thing
10
and that we needed to slow down AI development in order to prevent this.
11
Oh, and let's not forget that Elon Musk has been saying this shit for the better part of the last decade.
12
So how can you be a whistleblower when everybody in your industry not only agrees with you, they also are openly saying the thing you're saying all the time?
13
Like, you're not a whistleblower if you quit the hip-hop industry and say, Hey, I'm kind of worried some of those guys are selling drugs.
14
Anyway, this has led to, simply put, a culture-wide freakout, where literally everyone in the media,
15
in social media, just people who come up to me at the coffee shop and grab me by the lapels is asking, like, is it really gonna happen?
16
Is AI really gonna kill all of us?
17
Like, people are really afraid about this and they want an answer.
18
And I think we need to acknowledge, first of all, this is not an answerable question.
19
It's actually designed to be an unanswerable question.
20
Like, just the statement, you know, there's a 10% chance that humanity will become extinct in the next decade.
21
How would you go about calculating such a thing or even refuting it?
22
Like, I can make any argument I want about what LLMs can do and someone can make a counterargument.
23
No one is going to be convinced, right?
24
But I think there is something more interesting going on in the Jacob Coxon story because it's that phrase,
25
everyone at Anthropic believes that AI is an existential risk.
26
Everyone in the AI industry believes that that is true.
27
Because think about this, every organization, right, has to instill some kind of beliefs among its members in order to do the work it does, right?
28
I mean, everybody at Goldman Sachs believes the free market is great, capitalism is the best system, and that they are the wealth creators who deserve big bonuses.
29
Everyone in the Mormon Church believes they should all tithe 10% of their income
30
and that they each get a special planet when they die.
31
And everyone who worked at Philip Morris in the 80s believed
32
that cigarettes tasted great and did not cause any of that nasty cancer.
33
You know, there's that Upton Sinclair quote, It's difficult to get a man to understand something when a salary depends on his not understanding it.
34
While the opposite is also true.
35
It's guaranteed that someone will believe something if their salary depends on them believing it.
36
Now, let's just grant that all the people in these organizations definitely know things about finance
37
and Mormonism and cigarettes and AI that you might not know because they are insiders and you are not.
38
They have access to information and experiences that you do not have.
39
And that might even make it a little bit difficult for you to win an argument with them.
40
But arguing with their belief, trying to figure out whether or not its truth value is true or false, is not the only way to take a skeptical attitude towards it.
41
We could also ask, what work is the belief doing for them?
42
What does the thing that they believe allow the organization they're a part of to do
43
that it wouldn't be able to do if the people in the organization didn't believe that thing?
44
And this started to become clearer to me
45
when I started listening to the actual claims that Jacob Coxon was making because a lot of them don't really add up.
46
Like, here's what he actually said on Anderson Cooper.
47
It's easiest to understand it if you think about real things that happened two months ago, OpenAI agents, AIs, hacked into third-party infrastructure entirely at their own accord.
48
And this was like a concentrated hacking spree that they carried out of their own volition.
49
And I think that if you extrapolate into the future the level of capabilities of these AIs with the same independent volition, they could cause extreme havoc.
50
For example, hacking critical infrastructure, building extinction-level bioweapons.
51
Only on Tuesday, OpenAI solved a Millennium problem, one of the biggest unsolved open problems in mathematics, purely autonomously using an AI.
52
So the idea that AI can build an extinction-level bioweapon is kind of ridiculous.
53
Like, here's a thread from David Bellamy, one of the few AI researchers who's actually worked in bioscience, explaining why that's, in his words, bogus.
54
Because basically, in order for the AI to engineer a deadly virus,
55
some humans would have to build a $100 million bio lab that is both capable of being controlled entirely via AI, which has, you know, cold storage and,
56
like, cell culture rooms, all of which is API-driven, and which is specifically supplied with the base materials of deadly viruses at scale.
57
And, you know, we could all just, um, not do that, right?
58
We could just choose not to build the lab.
59
In fact, if we were to build such a lab, would it be accurate to say that the AI designed the bioweapon?
60
Or would you say that we, the humans, designed the bioweapon by creating the exact, like, necessary conditions for it to happen?
61
Then there's the idea that the AI solved a millennium math problem, and yeah, OpenAI did announce that they did this, but then a few days later,
62
the mathematician, who was already working on the problem and was about to solve it, said that OpenAI had heard a rumor he was about to solve it, stole the approach he came up with,
63
fed it into their AI, and then spent $20 million worth of computation on solving it before he could.
64
Now, OpenAI denied this, and the story is pretty complicated, But at a minimum, OpenAI was not truthful when it said that the AI solved the problem all by itself.
65
The truth was, they got help through normal human channels.
66
The human channels of rumors and stealing.
67
And they did not disclose that.
68
And finally, there's the idea that a swarm of AIs hacked another company entirely of their own volition.
69
So this is the example that freaked people out the most, and it's the one that people throw in my face the most when I express any skepticism about existential risk.
70
Adam, didn't you hear?
71
You know, the agents are hacking all by themselves!
72
Well, we need to ask, like, is this story real?
73
And yes, I mean, it did happen, but the question is, how do we frame what happened?
74
Because OpenAI framed it as that they gave a swarm of chatbots a hacking problem to solve, but that in order to solve it,
75
the chatbots independently decided to hack into another company's servers to see if the answer was there, and that they first hacked into a bunch of insecure message boards
76
so they could talk amongst themselves in order to do so.
77
And yeah, that sounds like pretty smart behavior, pretty unpredictable behavior.
78
But, you know, my friends Ed Zitron and Cory Doctorow have both covered this story, Ed on his wonderful podcast and Cory on his wonderful blog.
79
And they explain it much better than I do, so I'll put the links down below.
80
But the short version is, if you look into the details of what actually happened in this story, you can frame it quite differently.
81
Because what they actually did was they hooked up Python script to an LLM
82
that was trained on a database of specifically years of real-life hackers who were completing real-life hacking challenges.
83
The database was composed of their code and also the conversations between the hackers
84
and you know what those hackers did in that code and in those conversations?
85
They hacked into their competitors to see if they had the answers and they conspired about doing so on insecure message boards.
86
You know why they did that?
87
Because they were trying to complete hacking challenges.
88
So it's not surprising that an AI trained almost exclusively on that data set ended up hacking in that particular way.
89
In fact, that was entirely predictable.
90
It should have been predicted by the people at OpenAI.
91
Why the fuck were they acting surprised?
92
They basically set up a hacking machine, pressed go, walked away for the weekend, and came back on Monday saying, We're all trying to find the guy who did this.
93
So if you look at all the public statements of the companies, the CEOs, Jacob Coxon together, There's a clear pattern where they declare
94
that the AI did something on its own
95
when really they were the ones who did it They were the droids they're looking for.
96
You are Pagliacci motherfuckers.
97
The risk, the danger is never their actions The risk is always the thing the AI did
98
and if you inflate
99
that idea as large as possible you get Existential risk you get the idea
100
that the AI is eventually going to do something so dangerous It's going to wipe out all of humanity.
101
And what work does that belief do for them?
102
Well, it absolves them of any responsibility for their actions now.
103
It allows them to justify anything they do.
104
Because if they genuinely believe that AI is an existential risk, and they believe that it's going to be built no matter what,
105
and they believe that they're the only ones who really understand the existential risk, then that means that they must be the ones to build AI,
106
and anything that they do to advance that goal is therefore worthwhile.
107
In other words, by focusing on this largely hypothetical existential threat,
108
they are able to ignore all the bad shit that they are currently doing right now.
109
They're able to ignore the fact that the data centers they're building are using so much energy, they're basically reversing a generation's worth of progress on climate change,
110
which is a real threat that is currently killing people around the world.
111
They're ignoring the fact
112
that their product is currently being used by bosses to fire
113
employees in order to put in place an AI system that demonstrably cannot do their jobs yet.
114
And they're able to ignore the fact that their technology is currently being used to kill civilians in Gaza.
115
That is not science fiction.
116
That is a threat right now and you'll notice that Jacob Coxon didn't talk about that threat.
117
You'll notice that Dario Amade doesn't talk about that threat.
118
Why aren't they going on Anderson Cooper and talking about that shit?
119
Because if they acknowledge that those risks, those current harms that they are causing,
120
were as or more important than their made up 10% risk of extinction in the next decade, well then they wouldn't be able to build AI anymore.
121
Or at least they wouldn't be able to build it with a clear conscience.
122
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
123
In fact, what if his salary depended on the lack of understanding so much, that he had to make sure the rest of us didn't understand it either.
124
Because for the last year, we the public have been pretty upset about AI, right?
125
But we've been upset about the real harms it's been causing.
126
We've been upset about getting fired from our jobs, we've been upset about the data center in our backyard, about the water, about climate change, about our electricity bills going up.
127
And as a result, the public really thinks AI bad, right?
128
But what if AI was not bad in a way that we could put our finger on?
129
What if AI was bad in a hypothetical way?
130
Now, because of the existential threat risk, AI bad is getting a little bit confused, isn't it?
131
Like, is AI bad because of the data center?
132
Or is AI bad because it's going to wipe out all of humanity?
133
Which one is the bigger risk?
134
Well, there's no way to say.
135
Maybe we need to be worried about China building AI before us.
136
Maybe the only way to forestall the bad things about AI is to build AI even faster.
137
Who's to say?
138
And, you know, if the public is confused, if the public can't make up its mind, well then, the people on the inside, the people in the industry,
139
the people who all believe that they know what the risk really is, well then, they get to call the shots, don't they?
140
Whether it is true or not, and whether it is genuine or not, the belief within the AI community
141
that AI represents an existential threat works to push the public's worries about AI into things that are unprovable and hypothetical
142
in order to distract us from the current harms the industry is causing.
143
That is the work that this belief does for them.
144
And as a result, we should be skeptical of it.
145
And you know what the most ironic thing is?
146
Is that there's
147
so many people who have been trying to raise the alarm about the real concrete harms
148
that this industry is doing to the world that we live in today.
149
There's thinkers like Timny Gebru and Emily Bender who have been calling bullshit on this industry from the beginning.
150
There's reporters like Karen Howe.
151
There's the average people who show up to their city council meetings to protest at data center.
152
There are so many people who are worried about the real harms.
153
But those people's tweets don't get 150 million views on X.
154
Those people don't get invited onto Anderson Cooper nearly as often
155
as the insiders who can tell us what all the people inside the industry believe.
156
But you know, when everybody in a group believes
157
that the work they are doing has some unmeasurable chance of bringing about the end of the world
158
and that's why their precious work cannot be interrupted, that doesn't sound like a company at all.
159
That sounds like a cult.
160
And you know, if you're dealing with a cult, if you want to know the truth about the things they believe, you don't start by asking the people inside the cult.
161
You don't start by asking them, hey, is it true that we're all gonna die unless we do as you say?
162
No, you start by listening really, really hard to the actual critics on the outside.
הורד אפליקציה
כל מה שאתה צריך כדי לדבר בשטף
הגיית AIציון לכל משפט
תרגול IPAשלוט בכל צליל
אוצר מיליםבנה את מאגר המילים שלך
משחק אוצר מיליםלמד תוך כדי משחק
FOR YOU
המלץ על סרטון
B24
75 משפטים
Pause AI Development NOW
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
B24
41 משפטים
PROOF ALIENS ACTUALLY EXIST
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C12
10 משפטים
John Lennox: "The Artificial in AI is real"
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
B21
211 משפטים
The Biggest Problem No One Is Talking About
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C212
38 משפטים
Does Technology Know Us Better Than Ourselves?
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C12
240 משפטים
Why This Is the Most Exciting Time to Be Human | Ken Ono, Axiom Math
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C11
242 משפטים
🎧 Luyện Nghe Tiếng Anh Level C1- TRÍ TUỆ NHÂN TẠO - | Listening English Podcast |🎯
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C141 משפטים
No, Really — Is A.I. a Bubble? | The Ezra Klein Show
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B24
68 משפטים
What Happens If China Invades Taiwan? Elon Musk's AI Warning
Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students
C11
306 משפטים
Why Nihilism is Taking Over Modern Society
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
828 משפטים
Harvard AI Professor: The People Most at Risk From AI Aren’t Who You Think
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C14
42 משפטים
What 50% Unemployment Will Actually Do to the Economy
IELTS PrepBusiness EnglishUniversity Students
אוצר מילים והערות הגייה לשיעור הזה
שיעור הדיבור הזה ברמה B2 מבוסס על הסרטון “"AI Existential Risk" Was Invented to Distract Us”. בסרטון הזה יש 162 משפטים ו-2554 מילים לתרגול Shadowing. הדיבור נמשך 13:21. הדובר מדבר מהר, כ-191 מילים בדקה, אז צפו לצלילים מחוברים ומקוצרים. 84% מהמילים נמצאות בין 3,000 המילים הנפוצות ביותר באנגלית; כדאי ללמוד את השאר לפני שמתחילים. 31 מתוך 162 המשפטים שלו הם שאלות, כך שזה תרגול טוב לאינטונציה של שאלות ולתשובות קצרות.
אוצר מילים מרכזי בסרטון הזה
15 המילים המתקדמות ביותר בסרטון, עם ההגייה והמשמעות שלהן:
| מילה | הגייה | משמעות |
|---|---|---|
| existential שם תואר | /ˌɛɡzɪˈstɛnʃl̩/ | קיומי |
| extinction שם עצם | /ɪkˈstɪŋkʃən/ | הכחדה |
| depend פועל | /dɪˈpɛnd/ | היה תלוי |
| tweet שם עצם | /ˈtwiːt/ | צִיּוּץ |
| swarm שם עצם | /swɔɹm/ | נְחִיל |
| millennium שם עצם | /mɪˈlɛnɪəm/ | מִילֶניוּם |
| rumor שם עצם | /ˈɹumɚ/ | שְׁמוּעָה |
| insider שם עצם | /ɪnˈsaɪdɚ/ | אִישׁ סוֹד |
| wipe פועל | /waɪp/ | נִגֵּב |
| cigarette שם עצם | /ˈsɪɡəɹɛt/ | סִיגַרְיָה |
| mathematics שם עצם | /mæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪks/ | מָתֵמָטִיקָה |
| deadly שם תואר | /ˈdɛdli/ | קַטְלָנִי, קַטְלָנִית |
| mathematician שם עצם | /ˌmæθ.(ə.)məˈtɪʃ.ən/ | מָתֶמָטִיקַאי |
| refute פועל | /ɹɪˈfjuːt/ | הִפְרִיךְ |
| skepticism שם עצם | /ˈskɛp.tɪˌsɪ.zəm/ | ספקנות |
Phrasal verbs שתשמעו
| מילה | משמעות |
|---|---|
| figure out פועל | הֵבִין, מצא תשובה |
| go up פועל | עָלָה |
משפטים שכדאי לחזור עליהם
משפטים קצרים ושלמים מהסרטון שאפשר להשתמש בהם בשיחה יומיומית:
- We could also ask, what work is the belief doing for them?
- Adam, didn't you hear?
- You know why they did that?
דקדוק בסרטון הזה
המבנים שהדובר משתמש בהם הכי הרבה, עם המילים המדויקות מהסרטון:
| מבנה | בסרטון |
|---|---|
| הווה מושלם ממושך (Present perfect continuous) have/has been + -ing — פעולה שהתחילה בעבר ועדיין נמשכת עכשיו | has been saying · it's been causing · have been trying |
| משפטי זיקה (Relative clauses) who / which + clause — מידע נוסף על אדם או דבר | people who come · everyone who worked · guy who did |
| סביל (Passive voice) be + past participle — הדגש הוא על מה שקורה, לא על מי שעושה את הפעולה | being controlled · is specifically supplied · was trained |
| הווה מושלם (Present perfect) have/has + past participle — פעולה שקרתה בעבר ועדיין יש לה חשיבות או השפעה עכשיו | has led · have been · we've been |
הגייה ששווה לשים לב אליה
הדובר משתמש ב-41 קיצורים וצורות מקוצרות, כמו they're, don't, didn't. אמרו אותם בצורה הקצרה, כפי שאתם שומעים אותם.
- הצלילים של “th”: hypothetical /ˌhaɪpəˈθɛtɪkəl/, mathematics /mæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪks/, mathematician /ˌmæθ.(ə.)məˈtɪʃ.ən/, thinker /ˈθɪŋ.kɚ/, truthful /ˈtɹuːθ.f(ə)l/
- הצלילים של “sh” ו-“zh”: existential /ˌɛɡzɪˈstɛnʃl̩/, extinction /ɪkˈstɪŋkʃən/, volition /voʊˈlɪʃ(ə)n/, computation /ˌkɑmpjʊˈteɪʃn̩/, mathematician /ˌmæθ.(ə.)məˈtɪʃ.ən/
- מילים ארוכות — שימו לב להטעמה: bioweapon /ˈbaɪ.oʊˌwɛ.pən/, hypothetical /ˌhaɪpəˈθɛtɪkəl/, mathematics /mæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪks/, demonstrably /diˈmɑnstrəbli/, extrapolate /ɛkˈstɹæp.əˌleɪt/
צלילים שדוברי עברית מתקשים בהם:
- /w/ — שפתיים מעוגלות, לא /v/: bioweapon /ˈbaɪ.oʊˌwɛ.pən/, tweet /ˈtwiːt/, swarm /swɔɹm/, wipe /waɪp/, worthwhile /ˌwɜː(ɹ)θˈwaɪl/
- /æ/ — פתוח יותר מה-“אֶ” העברית, לא כמו “a” ב-“cup”: hacker /hækəɹ/, chatbot /ˈtʃætbɑt/, mathematics /mæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪks/, absolve /æbˈzɑlv/, answerable /ˈæn.səɹ.ə.bl/
- /r/ — הלשון לא נוגעת בשום מקום, לא ה-“ר” הגרונית: hacker /hækəɹ/, swarm /swɔɹm/, insecure /ɪnsəˈkjʊɹ/, rumor /ˈɹumɚ/, cigarette /ˈsɪɡəɹɛt/
איך לתרגל עם הסרטון הזה
- הקשיבו לכל הסרטון פעם אחת בלי לדבר, ורשמו את המילים שאתם לא מכירים.
- התחילו במהירות 0.75×, תרגלו Shadowing משפט אחר משפט, וחזרו למהירות רגילה כשזה מרגיש קל.
- הקליטו את עצמכם והשוו למקור, תוך תשומת לב למילים כמו existential, extinction, depend.
מהי טכניקת השאדואינג?
שאדואינג היא טכניקת למידת שפה מבוססת מדע שפותחה במקור להכשרת מתורגמנים מקצועיים ופופולרית על ידי הפוליגלוט ד"ר אלכסנדר ארגואלס. השיטה פשוטה אך עוצמתית: אתה מקשיב לאודיו באנגלית ילידית וחוזר עליו בקול רם מיד — כמו צל העוקב אחרי הדובר עם עיכוב של 1–2 שניות בלבד. בניגוד להאזנה פסיבית או תרגילי דקדוק, שאדואינג מכריח את המוח והשרירים בפה לעבד ולשחזר דפוסי דיבור אמיתיים בו זמנית. מחקרים מראים שזה משפר משמעותית את דיוק ההגייה, האינטונציה, הקצב, הדיבור המחובר, הבנת השמיעה ושטף הדיבור — מה שהופך אותו לאחת השיטות היעילות ביותר להכנה לIELTS Speaking ולתקשורת באנגלית בעולם האמיתי.