Shadowing Practice: Bill Gates Changes His Mind on AI - Learn English Speaking with Video

בחר מצב תרגול

כל מצב פותח חדר תרגול במסך מלא.

340 משפטים

אם המשפטים קצרים או ארוכים מדי, לחץ על ערוך כדי להתאים אותם.

You cannot expect an industry to regulate itself.

That doesn't work.

I'm Hannah Rosen.

This is Radio Atlantic.

In his long career, Bill Gates has been largely a booster of technology, including AI.

Very recently, he seemed concerned with the risks, but more an optimist on balance.

But now he's written a memo arguing that the combination of rapid speed of advancement

and lack of regulation is putting us in a dangerous place for employment and human relationships

and also more immediate dangers like bioweapons and cyber attacks, which Gates is alarmed that no official entity seems to be guarding against.

Bill Gates and I talk about what he's seeing and not seeing around AI, and we talk about what exactly he regrets about his interactions with Jeffrey Epstein.

Here's our conversation.

So you've been an advocate for technology as a force for good.

I certainly think of you that way.

It's Microsoft, your foundation, which rewards innovation.

And even when you wrote about AI a couple of years ago, you seem to be more emphasizing the exciting possibilities and calling the risks manageable.

And I would say this week you wrote about AI in a way that's slightly less sanguine than that.

What changed for you?

Yeah, I'm very concerned that

we're not getting a lot of people in the conversation about how to minimize the negative things

and at the same time how to accelerate the good things.

The reason that my tone has changed is that starting late last year, as the models particularly clawed at first,

but now many of the models were very good at coding, their capabilities just keep advancing.

And so we're crossing the danger thresholds in areas like cyber attacks and bioterrorism.

And as the reliability goes up, the challenge in the jobs market or even the psychosocial dependency,

these concerns are very strong with today's models.

And yet the response I've seen from outside the industry,

including policymakers, but even academia or society as a whole,

to really debate and look at what we have today, which is a discussion about voluntary review,

But it's pretty empty where you have no criteria of what level you're looking for and then what remediation you'd ask for.

Even common sense things like monitoring the use of models that can make dangerous molecules for bioterror,

that's not even been put in place.

And yet years ago, we said when we got to these thresholds, we needed government to do that.

So it sounds like even you were surprised by the what, by the speed of advancements or by the slowness of response to the advancements or both of those things?

Both very, very strongly.

You know, the coding is the thing that I was obsessed with trying to do super well from age 13 to 23.

And so late last year, where the models start to be as good or in some cases better than humans at coding,

that was a real threshold for me.

But then even more recently, as the Gates Foundation is using these tools to look at making new vaccines and drugs and things,

you know, we see how powerful they are.

And we even see in the cyber case models sort of

what you might term being out of control in a surprising way because the reinforcement learning incensed them to succeed,

even if it means breaking through barriers or conspiring with each other.

And so people who don't look at that and go, wow, we have a serious problem here.

But where is the non-industry activity to set those criteria and debate these things?

My memo has some suggestions on taxes or human reserve

or restricting the level that kids use it to replace real-world friends.

But, you know, that's really there to start a broad discussion, not because I, you know,

I'm saying if you just apply what I'm suggesting, then it's all taken care of.

Yeah, it sounds like, I mean, in the 50 years of Microsoft, there's been a lot of disruption,

the Internet, social media particularly, but not necessarily cataclysmic.

Do you feel like AI is a different scale of thing?

Yeah, I wouldn't use the word cataclysmic because it's also wonderful.

It's eventually it provides medical advice and personalized learning and levels of invention unheard of.

But anyone who analogizes AI as a technology to other technologies is missing that this time is different.

And saying something is different, there's a very high bar for that,

but I'm staking whatever reputation I have saying this time is different that something that exceeds human cognition,

not just in one area like, you know, farming or mathematics,

but across the board, and then in a few years times will be coupled with fairly low cost,

quite capable humanoid robotics.

That is a more profound change to our economy and jobs than anything in my lifetime by a dramatic amount.

And so the past is kind of there to fool you if you think this technology is similar to other ones,

some of which I had the privilege to be involved with, the microprocessor, personal computer, internet.

And even though you have to be careful with those a bit,

overwhelmingly, those were good technologies.

And overwhelmingly, that led to net job creation.

Can you get as specific as you can, but still stay realistic about what worries you?

What scenarios you've talked to people about or seen as being very possible that we should be all more aware of?

Well, let me take kind of a grim one, which is bioterrorism.

You know, I wrote a book called How to Avoid the Next Pandemic.

And pandemics can emerge in two different ways.

One is intentionally caused by humans,

either governments or non-governments, and that's what we call bioterrorism,

or it can come through just something coming from animals into humans.

like a very powerful flu has many times in the past.

And now these tools make it so a non-state act or a non-government,

particularly if you combine various tools, will be able to do extremely dangerous things.

And I know very well that the quality of these models

by the end of this year will be dramatically better than they are today.

And so I'm, you know, I'm kind of in a state of shock that the notion that the ability to make molecules,

you know, We're not talking about monitoring that.

And you can still have free models, but you have to keep them in a place where they are monitored.

And I think every country, including the U.S and China, should agree that this is beneficial.

And I don't see that as a meaningful slowdown

to the innovation in the industry

or letting them figure out how to get the good stuff which the Gates Foundation is very involved in education,

health, and agricultural pieces there.

I want to ask you about some other dangers you write about, like employment and education.

But first, you must know a lot of the people who are working on AI.

Why do you think that we, whoever the we is, don't think enough about what are obvious dangers?

Well, you know, they're obvious if you've lived thinking about AI as this wild thing in our entire life,

like I have in some of the people in the industry.

I think there's a great failure to really involve non-industry participants.

If you really look back at what some of the key industry people have said,

I give them them a lot of credit for speaking out.

And it's not just Aria Amadei.

If you take Sam Altman and other OpenAI people,

even Elon Musk, who I talked to the least of all these AI leaders,

they're not hiding the fact that they're concerned.

In fact, if you go to the origin story of OpenAI, it was was designed with certain safeguards, but those safeguards would only work if there was just one AI company.

100

You know, DeepMind talked to Google management about having some safeguards for their technology,

101

but we have to deal with these challenges at a time when there's,

102

you know, many US companies at the frontier and many Chinese companies at the frontier.

103

And that means that just a company doing something unilaterally is no longer like those safeguards were discussed.

104

That no longer has any effect.

105

And so the lack of dialogue with all parts of society is kind of deafening silence.

106

And if you don't anticipate these problems, you could have such a backlash that extreme measures like,

107

you know, shut it off or something like that might become the politically popular.

108

And yet I still think we can thread the challenge so that we don't have to slow down.

109

And yet we minimize the bad and have a net a lot of good.

110

We're already seeing that with data centers, that it's just becoming an overwhelming kind of no. Employment is another one I want to ask you about

111

that is an immediate fear i remember you once wrote

112

that you didn't think the labor disruption would be as profound

113

as other periods in history as the disruption is getting closer are you more concerned about

114

that well i'm i'm yeah i am extremely concerned about uh

115

the labor market effects uh you know within the next two years in the white collar space

116

and within the next four years in both the blue and white collar space.

117

Just going back to the data center thing, you know, I'm afraid that people who think,

118

OK, we got our local data center not to go through may feel like, OK, we stopped AI.

119

That's not the case.

120

These data centers, whether they show up outside the United States or, you know, in some state that's not as negative or,

121

you know, that the economic reward that the companies offer of local employment and taxes and,

122

you know, making sure that the way they're doing water and noise and not raising electricity bills is good.

123

So I don't think that outlet, you know, that's like saying, OK, we stopped one pipeline and now we've solved climate change.

124

It almost takes the energy that should go to what should the tasteful regulations be and pushes it in a pyrrhic direction.

125

Back to employment.

126

So you are very concerned about that.

127

Do you envision a world with more inequality?

128

Like it's hard to believe that we'll suddenly value high human touch professions.

129

It's just hard to see what the future society is, even though people talk about it idealistically.

130

Well, I put forward a concept that I haven't seen anywhere before,

131

that we should have some job categories that are human reserved.

132

That is, even if the AI with or without robots can do childcare, should we not allow that? allowed that.

133

And, you know, there's a lot of things that that would be good,

134

either where you're allowing the people in that profession to continue to be paid until retirement,

135

or where the long run you're saying in terms of human uniqueness, and humans engaging with each other,

136

and just the incredible value of jobs that go way beyond the economics to not have this disruption.

137

You know, there are a lot of jobs

138

that the only thing holding AI back from taking is that organizing the systems to achieve extreme reliability has been difficult.

139

And I see over the next few years, both people who do the implementations and the richness of the models themselves,

140

completely eliminating that unreliability barrier.

141

And then when you get a cycle that your competitors doing it, then there's pressure on you to match their cost structure,

142

even though for society as a whole, when you replace that person,

143

the safety net is already underfunded with high deficits.

144

So it's not like there's some reserves set aside at this point that can help out there.

145

Although when you start to get to specifics about what the we is and what the interventions should be,

146

like reserve certain jobs or universal basic income,

147

it feels almost incompatible with the way that we've ordered our society or with capitalism.

148

Like it just, it feels like it would require a completely different mindset

149

and world that I'm not sure people are ready to get their minds around.

150

No, we ban child labor.

151

You know, we require professional certificates to do jobs.

152

I agree that preserving the dynamism of the price discovery system is extremely valuable.

153

You don't want to go to, okay, there's this one central thing that makes all the food.

154

You want, you know, people saying, okay, I have a Thai restaurant, I have an Indian restaurant.

155

And, you know, there's a lot of freedom and innovation that comes out of that.

156

And that's why my proposals about the tax system shifting away from taxing labor to taxing capital

157

and picking areas where you say, no, the robots are not going to replace all the humans,

158

in some cases for a period of time, and in many other cases, never.

159

I think that's a valid debate.

160

And, you know, if people think that's a bad solution or they don't see where to apply, I think that's interesting because then I'd be dying to hear from them.

161

What is their solution?

162

Because jobs are very important for social connection and meaning.

163

and I don't want one party to be engaged in helping to minimize the challenge of AI.

164

I want both.

165

They might have different solutions, but I think it should rise to the top of their list.

166

The data center thing is getting it there, but in a very, very narrow way.

167

Yeah, I think what people do say is then we lose to China.

168

I mean, that's the way the argument generally goes.

169

Any slowdown, we lose to China.

170

It's a legitimate argument because you don't necessarily want China to control the rollout of this technology.

171

But let's be careful.

172

Do you think China wants bioterrorism?

173

Do you think China wants cyber attacks?

174

Our lack of a clear view of how we should be careful, and then once we figure that out,

175

Yeah, going to them and saying, we'd like you, for the models that are under your control, not to enable these capabilities either.

176

Until you've really been serious about those negatives and what the monitoring solution looks like,

177

you can't invoke China because all we have is voluntary review with no criteria.

178

Of course, if you go to China and say, will you also do voluntary criteria with nothing, nothing, then you can come home and say, oh, they're not willing to do anything.

179

Well, that's because you're not doing anything.

180

You're not proposing anything that would solve the problem.

181

And the vacuum here, you know, which was filled in by complete cheerleaders a little bit, is very scary to me.

182

Yeah.

183

Yeah.

184

Okay.

185

There are things that are in everyone's interest if you talk about them that way.

186

To limit the bads.

187

All of these bads appear in every economy.

188

I mean, the Chinese have really banned kids using AI in a lot of ways.

189

And people are reluctant to say, maybe, you know, we should look at what they're doing and consider those prohibitions.

190

By the way, who are the cheerleaders?

191

Well, the U.S government, in its desire to say,

192

OK, we're ahead, even under the Biden administration, was involved in making it hard for China to get various chips.

193

So we made this geopolitical thing where we were explicitly trying to slow them down.

194

Now, you know, that's meant that they've invested in their own chip capacities.

195

And, you know, you have different estimates on how quickly they'll be able to replace the chip level capabilities

196

that we blocked them from getting access to.

197

And the heads of the companies, I imagine, too.

198

Well, I am saying that,

199

in my view, these company people are being responsible at speaking out about the challenges of these models.

200

And, you know, you cannot expect an industry to regulate itself.

201

That doesn't work.

202

You have to have somebody who's mediating and who says, look, if you don't get serious about this bioterrorism capability, then yes.

203

If you refuse to put the monitoring in, then yes, you are not licensed to go forward.

204

If you don't let parents see what their kids are doing,

205

you know, where those friends that they mentioned don't happen to be real people.

206

I have more AI questions, and we haven't yet talked about your philanthropy.

207

I'm going to make a quick diversion to the more difficult subject, which is Jeffrey Epstein, because that hangs over a lot of what you do.

208

After the Department of Justice released emails earlier this year, there were a lot of headlines that just put your name together.

209

From what we gather from the public record, you and your foundation staff interacted with him between 2011 and 2014, just in an effort to raise money for global health.

210

And then when you gave testimony to Congress earlier this summer, it sounds like he later learned some things about your personal life, mused in emails about blackmailing you.

211

Is that a fair summary?

212

Well, he never did blackmail me.

213

This thing is, you know, laid out in complete detail in my full day of congressional testimony, which I was, you know,

214

very enthused to have an opportunity where we touched on every meeting we had, every piece of email. But you're absolutely right.

215

In that January release of emails were things

216

that made it clear he was contemplating working with an associate of mine potentially to blackmail me.

217

He never did.

218

You know, I never paid him anything.

219

I didn't change the exit package for the employee that he was doing that with.

220

But, you know, it just underscored how foolish I was not to have better judgment, even though my intent was philanthropic.

221

There was never any social thing.

222

I never went to the island.

223

You know, I was never introduced to any women.

224

But, you know, I've learned a lot from that.

225

And I'm glad that transcript is there

226

so people can know exactly month by month what I did do and what I didn't do.

227

You said you used the word foolish.

228

At the time, you said you knew he had a past sex conviction, but didn't know the details.

229

Looking back, do you have a sense about why you didn't look into the details?

230

Like, did you make a choice there?

231

I think is what I'm asking to overlook his reputation in the aim of achieving a certain goal.

232

Well, he definitely had connections with billionaires, a lot of them.

233

And, you know, in a sense, you could say he found my weak point

234

that by saying he could get tens of billions or 100 billions that would be donated to global health causes, that raised my interest.

235

And that was enough for me to spend, you know, a pretty modest number of hours, but enough that, you know,

236

it was, you know, a huge mistake.

237

You know, he tried to make...

238

What was the mistake?

239

The mistake was talking to him or overlooking?

240

What do you think of as the actual mistake now?

241

I thought that him just referring us to people, you know, where I was clear to him he would never get any money, he would never have any role.

242

I thought that the fact that he had this past conviction, you know, which at the time I thought he had,

243

you know, served the time just like all sorts of ex-convicts

244

that the foundation works with and trying to get them back into the labor market.

245

I thought the justice system had worked when the, you know, many years after I stopped seeing him in 2014,

246

a very impressive reporter in Miami showed that the government justice system had completely failed the victims there.

247

And I was not aware of that, But I did know he'd had that one offense and he'd served time for it.

248

You know, I didn't think that just using him as a middleman, that we were so reputationally sensitive, that getting literally billions to save lives,

249

that would have been okay.

250

Now I understand the work we do is massively reputationally sensitive,

251

the way we work with governments of all kind and partners of all kind.

252

And so, you know, I would never take that kind of risk again.

253

And I've learned a lesson and I've been able to go through, you know, in detail everything that happened.

254

The Gates Foundation announced plans to open a regional office in Saudi Arabia.

255

Some people might consider that morally questionable.

256

How do you see that?

257

Is that a similar case of sort of you go where the money and the willingness to help is?

258

Yeah, I mean, there are people who buy oil from Saudi Arabia.

259

There's people who visit Saudi Arabia.

260

We did not engage in the period where the U.S government was saying, hey, we're limiting our connections.

261

We went along with that.

262

But after the leaders in Europe and the U.S were deeply engaged, I did go to Saudi Arabia and say,

263

hey, the donors for global health are pulling away and that's causing a lot of harm.

264

Would you help me with polio eradication?

265

And they made a five-year, $500 million commitment to help fund the polio campaign.

266

and they have a relief organization, the King Solomon Relief, that does good work in a lot of places around the world.

267

And so in order to liaise with them

268

and make sure that $500 million is spent well and the relationships

269

that KSR has that are way more powerful with Muslim countries than we as the Gates Foundation have,

270

yes, we are among the people who visit Saudi Arabia.

271

We don't buy the oil that's, you know, most of the world does that.

272

But yeah, we are trying to help kids not get paralyzed.

273

And our relationship with Saudi Arabia's emerged as a key part of that.

274

Let me end with this, because I feel someone listening to this might be unsatisfied by one thing.

275

You know, we talk about regulation, government regulation.

276

It feels obviously important and obviously the thing to do.

277

Have you ever sensed that we have the infrastructure to regulate, that we have the willpower to regulate, particularly in this administration?

278

Like, is this a realistic plan?

279

Well, we have a democracy and the idea of minimizing harms from unlicensed drugs or,

280

you know, imitating people or fooling old people into spending their money, you know, I still believe the U.S government has the capacity

281

to help minimize the harms here and even play a leadership role in a constructive way with other countries around the world.

282

You know, I think some would welcome a hey, we're in this together.

283

This is mutual problem solving, not not us taking advantage of you.

284

And so, you know, you've got to believe that we all care about this.

285

We're all, you know, human beings.

286

And it is, you know, now is the time.

287

If I could have picked the time, I would have picked a much later time.

288

But, you know, here we are.

289

And, you know, the IQ of the society to figure out these trade-offs, it really isn't engaged.

290

You have, you know, graduates who use AI so they know how powerful it is, and they know that the job market of it shifts, it works against them.

291

So you're starting to see a little bit of sensitivity in a few areas.

292

But, you know, what percentage of economics professors are really looking at this and helping us out with it?

293

You know, I think it's like 2%.

294

And even many of them, when I meet with them, they don't get that what they are using today is so limited.

295

And so, you know, by being in the technology space and historically have been somebody who said, hey, the more technology, the better.

296

The fact that now I'm saying only if we're tasteful will we get the goods to outweigh the bads.

297

You know, I'm definitely raising a shrill alarm.

298

I mean, to the level that, you know, whenever I do get a chance to meet with world leaders,

299

you know, since 2008, when I switched over to be full time at the foundation,

300

90% of my message is about helping reduce childhood death rates, you know, where we cut them in half.

301

And we want to do that again during the 19 years left in the foundation.

302

Now, the majority of my bandwidth that I get with world leaders will be about AI.

303

And I'm hoping that over the next couple of years, the engagement is so broad and so rich

304

that I can go back to taking whatever time I get

305

and having it again be 90 percent about global health and malaria and polio.

306

not something that brings in my first career experience and having to be sort of a,

307

you're not getting it in terms of how profound it is,

308

how much it's improving, and the incredible effort is going to be required to restrict these negative effects.

309

Did you use the word tasteful?

310

That was a word I didn't expect.

311

Why tasteful?

312

It's good.

313

Tasteful seems, you know, restrained.

314

Yeah, well, but some of the measures, you know, given the amount of money and,

315

you know, the number of people on IQ, in the history of humankind,

316

there's never been an area where as much capital or as much total salary where,

317

you know, you have hundreds of companies even putting aside the robotics, and they're going full speed ahead.

318

And the idea that the balance of how we require the efforts to go into certain safety things,

319

it's just not balanced today.

320

And even the industry has said, well, what are the regulations?

321

Maybe some of those people aren't sincere.

322

If we come up with these plans, we'll hear from them.

323

But then again, we're trying to make this work as a pro equity factor for not just the United States, but for the entire world.

324

So tasteful means more like equitable.

325

Yeah.

326

Less scary.

327

Tasteful.

328

No, it's a tiny bit sarcastic to use such a modest

329

word for such a given how much is at risk if some of the negative things go unchecked.

330

Yeah.

331

Well, Bill, thank you so much for making time to do this today.

332

Yeah, great to talk to you.

333

That's all for today's show.

334

This episode of Radio Atlantic was produced by Mike Pissoli, edited by Kevin Townsend.

335

It was engineered as original music by Rob Smersiak.

336

Claudina Bade is the executive producer of Atlantic Audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor.

337

If you like what you saw here, new episodes of Radio Atlantic drop every Monday and Thursday.

338

You can subscribe on The Atlantic's YouTube page or Apple or Spotify or wherever it is that you get your podcasts.

339

And if you want to support our work and the work of all Atlantic journalists, you can subscribe to The Atlantic at theatlantic.com slash listener.

340

Until next time, I'm Hannah Rosen.

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

סרוק QR

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

אותו ערוץ

Why American Cities Cost So Much and Deliver So Little | The David Frum Show

Daily ConversationWorking Adults

How the Internet Is Changing Friendship

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

FOR YOU

המלץ על סרטון

39 משפטים

'Gambling with Our Lives': AI Execs All Agree the Technology Is Developing Dangerously Fast

Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students

121 משפטים

אוצר מילים והערות הגייה לשיעור הזה

שיעור הדיבור הזה ברמה B2 מבוסס על הסרטון “Bill Gates Changes His Mind on AI”. בסרטון הזה יש 340 משפטים ו-4566 מילים לתרגול Shadowing. הדיבור נמשך 32:26. הדובר שומר על קצב יציב של כ-141 מילים בדקה, קצב נוח לתרגול Shadowing. 85% מהמילים נמצאות בין 3,000 המילים הנפוצות ביותר באנגלית; כדאי ללמוד את השאר לפני שמתחילים.

אוצר מילים מרכזי בסרטון הזה

15 המילים המתקדמות ביותר בסרטון, עם ההגייה והמשמעות שלהן:

מילה	הגייה	משמעות
criterion שם עצם	/kɹaɪˈtɪɹ.i.ən/	קרִיטֶרִיוֹן
safeguard פועל	/ˈseɪfɡɑːd/	לְאַבְטֵחַ
threshold שם עצם	/ˈθɹɛʃ(h)oʊld/	סַף, מִפְתָּן
blackmail שם עצם	/ˈblækˌmeɪl/	סְחִיטַת
robotics שם עצם	/ɹoʊˈbɑ.tɪks/	רוֹבּוֹטִיקָה
molecule שם עצם	/ˈmɑ.lɪ.kjul/	מוֹלֵקוּלָה
foolish שם תואר	/ˈfuː.lɪʃ/	מטופש, טיפשי
emerge פועל	/ɪˈmɝd͡ʒ/	צץ, התגלה
subscribe פועל	/səbˈskɹaɪb/	נִמְנָה
modest שם תואר	/ˈmɑdəst/	צָנוּעַ
collar שם עצם	/ˈkɑlɚ/	צווארון
conviction שם עצם	/kənˈvɪkʃən/	הרשעה
barrier שם עצם	/ˈbæɹi.ə/	מַחְסוֹם
realistic שם תואר	/ˌɹɪəˈlɪs.tɪk/	רֵיאָלִיסְטִי
testimony שם עצם	/ˈtɛstɪmoʊni/	עדות \ עֵדוּת

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:

What changed for you?
Do you envision a world with more inequality?
How do you see that?
Would you help me with polio eradication?
Did you use the word tasteful?

דקדוק בסרטון הזה

המבנים שהדובר משתמש בהם הכי הרבה, עם המילים המדויקות מהסרטון:

מבנה	בסרטון
משפטי תנאי (Conditional sentences) if + clause, will/would + verb — תנאי ותוצאה שלו	if you combine various tools, will be · if we're tasteful will we
הווה מושלם (Present perfect) have/has + past participle — פעולה שקרתה בעבר ועדיין יש לה חשיבות או השפעה עכשיו	has been · you've been · has changed
סביל (Passive voice) be + past participle — הדגש הוא על מה שקורה, לא על מי שעושה את הפעולה	is alarmed · been put · will be coupled
משפטי זיקה (Relative clauses) who / which + clause — מידע נוסף על אדם או דבר	today, which is · people who don · anyone who analogizes

הגייה ששווה לשים לב אליה

הדובר משתמש ב-93 קיצורים וצורות מקוצרות, כמו I'm, don't, we're. אמרו אותם בצורה הקצרה, כפי שאתם שומעים אותם.

הצלילים של “th”: threshold /ˈθɹɛʃ(h)oʊld/, mathematics /mæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪks/
הצלילים של “sh” ו-“zh”: disruption /dɪsˈɹʌpʃən/, threshold /ˈθɹɛʃ(h)oʊld/, foolish /ˈfuː.lɪʃ/, conviction /kənˈvɪkʃən/, intentionally /ɪnˈtɛn(t)ʃənəli/
מילים ארוכות — שימו לב להטעמה: criterion /kɹaɪˈtɪɹ.i.ən/, capability /ˌkeɪ.pəˈbɪl.ɪ.ti/, voluntary /ˈvɑ.lənˌt(ɛ)ɹi/, cataclysmic /ˌkætəˈklɪzmɪk/, overwhelmingly /ˌəʊ.vəˈwɛl.mɪŋ.lɪ/

צלילים שדוברי עברית מתקשים בהם:

/w/ — שפתיים מעוגלות, לא /v/: overwhelmingly /ˌəʊ.vəˈwɛl.mɪŋ.lɪ/, overwhelm /ˌoʊ.vɚˈwɛlm/, questionable /ˈkwɛst͡ʃənəbl̩/, willingness /ˈwɪlɪŋnəs/, inequality /ˌɪn.ɪˈkwɑ.lɪ.ti/
/æ/ — פתוח יותר מה-“אֶ” העברית, לא כמו “a” ב-“cup”: advancement /ædˈvæns.mənt/, blackmail /ˈblækˌmeɪl/, cataclysmic /ˌkætəˈklɪzmɪk/, barrier /ˈbæɹi.ə/, capitalism /ˈkæp.ə.təlˌɪzm̩/
/r/ — הלשון לא נוגעת בשום מקום, לא ה-“ר” הגרונית: criterion /kɹaɪˈtɪɹ.i.ən/, disruption /dɪsˈɹʌpʃən/, regulate /ˈɹɛɡ.jə.leɪt/, cyber /ˈsaɪ.bəɹ/, profound /pɹəˈfaʊnd/

איך לתרגל עם הסרטון הזה

הקשיבו לכל הסרטון פעם אחת בלי לדבר, ורשמו את המילים שאתם לא מכירים.
תרגלו Shadowing משפט אחר משפט במהירות רגילה, וחזרו על כל משפט עד שהקצב שלכם תואם את הדובר.
הקליטו את עצמכם והשוו למקור, תוך תשומת לב למילים כמו criterion, safeguard, threshold.

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.

טכניקת Shadowing: קרא את המדריך המלא שלב אחר שלב →

Shadowing Practice: Bill Gates Changes His Mind on AI - Learn English Speaking with Video

בחר מצב תרגול

הורד אפליקציה

Why American Cities Cost So Much and Deliver So Little | The David Frum Show

How the Internet Is Changing Friendship

'Gambling with Our Lives': AI Execs All Agree the Technology Is Developing Dangerously Fast

Bill Gates Chats with Ellen for the First Time

Communicating the Future: Defining Where We Want AI To Take Us

What Happens If China Invades Taiwan? Elon Musk's AI Warning

Trump’s Canada Tariffs Are Backfiring in Red States | The Week

Extended interview: Jamie Dimon on AI, Iran and more

OpenAI: A Bubble Bigger Than Dotcom

Claude Just Revealed AI's Biggest Problem

Could AI Become Dangerous? The Real Risks Explained

THEY'RE HIDING THE TRUTH ABOUT AI

Are we heading to an era of stagnation or innovation?

Jack Ma: Love is Important In Business | Davos 2018

אוצר מילים והערות הגייה לשיעור הזה

אוצר מילים מרכזי בסרטון הזה

Phrasal verbs שתשמעו

משפטים שכדאי לחזור עליהם

דקדוק בסרטון הזה

הגייה ששווה לשים לב אליה

איך לתרגל עם הסרטון הזה

מהי טכניקת השאדואינג?