Luyện nói tiếng Anh bằng Shadowing qua video: Building Anthropic | A conversation with our co-founders
Đang tạo bài học...
1
Why are we working on AI in the first place?
2
I'm just going to arbitrarily pick Jared.
3
Why are you doing AI at all?
4
I mean, I was working on physics for a long time, and I got bored, and I wanted to hang out with more of my friends, so.
5
Yeah, I thought Dario pitched you on it.
6
I don't think I explicitly pitched you at any point.
7
I just showed you results of AI models
8
and was trying to make the point that they're very general and they don't only apply to one thing, and then just at some point after I showed you enough of them, and you were like, oh,
9
yeah, that seems like it's right.
10
How long have you been a professor when you started?
11
I think like six years or so.
12
I think I helped recruit Sam.
13
I talked to you, and you were like, I think I've created a good bubble here.
14
My goal is to get Tom to come back, and then it worked.
15
And did you meet everyone through Google when you were doing the interpretability stuff, Chris?
16
No. So I guess I actually met a bunch of you when I was 19, and I was visiting the Bay Area for the first time.
17
So I guess I met Dario and Jared then, and I guess they were postdocs, which I thought was very cool at the time.
18
And then I was working at Google Brain and Dario joined and we sat side by side actually for a while.
19
We had desks beside each other and I worked with Tom there as well.
20
And then of course, I got to work with all of you at OpenAI when I went there.
21
So I guess I've known a lot of you for like more than a decade, which is kind of wild.
22
If I remember correctly, I met Dario in 2015
23
when I went to a conference you were at
24
and I tried to interview you
25
and Google PR said I would have read all of your research papers that you needed to.
26
Yeah, I think I was writing Concrete Problems in AI Safety when I was at Google.
27
I think you wrote a story about that paper.
28
I did.
29
I remember right before I started working with you, I think you invited me to the office to come chat and just tell me everything about AI,
30
and you explained.
31
I remember afterwards being like, oh, I guess this stuff is much more serious than I realized, and you were probably explaining the big blob of compute
32
and parameter counting and how how many neurons are in the brain and everything.
33
I feel like Dario often has that effect on people.
34
This is much more serious than I realized.
35
Yeah, I'm the bringer of happy tidings.
36
But I remember when we were at OpenAI, where there was the scaling law stuff and just making things bigger, and it started to feel like it was working.
37
And then it kind of kept on eerily working on a bunch of different projects, which I think is how we all ended up working closely together,
38
because it was first GPT -2 and then scaling laws and GPT -3, Yeah, we're the plop of people that were making things work.
39
Yeah, that's right.
40
I think we're also excited about safety because in that era, there was sort of this idea that AI would become very powerful,
41
but like potentially not understand human values or not even be able to communicate with us.
42
And so I think we were all like pretty excited about language models as a way to kind of guarantee
43
that AI systems would have to understand kind of implicit knowledge that...
44
And RL for human feedback on top of language models, which was the whole reason for scaling these models up was that, you know, we couldn't do,
45
we couldn't, the models weren't smart enough to do RLHSF on top of.
46
So that's the kind of intertwinement of safety and scaling of the models that we, you know, still believe in today.
47
I think there was also an element of like the scaling work was done as part of the safety team
48
that Dario started at OpenAI because we thought
49
that forecasting AI trends was important to be able to have us take them seriously and take safety seriously as a problem.
50
Correct.
51
Yeah, I mean, we took, I remember being in some airport in England sampling from GPT -2
52
and using it to write fake news articles and slacking Dario and being like, oh, this stuff actually works and might have like huge policy implications.
53
I think Dario said something like, yes.
54
It's a typical way.
55
But then we worked on that a bunch, as well as the release stuff, which was kind of wild.
56
Yeah, I remember the release stuff.
57
I think that was when we first started working together.
58
That was a fun time, the GPT -2 launch.
59
But I think it was good for us, because we did a kind of slightly strange, safety -oriented thing all together.
60
And then we ended up doing Anthropic, which is a much larger, slightly strange, safety -oriented thing altogether.
61
So I guess just, like, going back to the concrete problems, because I remember, so I joined OpenAI, like, 2016, like, one of the first 20 employees or whatever with Udario.
62
And I remember at that time, the, like, concrete problems in AI safety seemed like it was, like, the first, like, mainstream, like, AI safety paper.
63
I guess I don't really know if I ever asked you what the story was for, like, how that came about.
64
Chris knows the story because he was involved in it.
65
I think, you know, we were both at Google.
66
I forget what other project I was working on, but like with many things, it was my attempt to kind of procrastinate from whatever other project I was working on
67
that I've now completely forgotten what it was.
68
But I think it was like Chris and I decided to write down.
69
what are some open problems in terms of AI safety
70
and also AI safety usually talked about in this very kind of abstruse, abstract way.
71
Can we kind of ground it in the ML that was going on at the time?
72
I mean, now there's been like six, seven years of work in that vein, but there was almost a strange idea at the time.
73
Yeah, I think there's a way in which it was almost a kind of political project where at the time, a lot of people didn't take safety seriously.
74
So I think that there was sort of this goal to collate a list of problems
75
that sort of people agreed were reasonable, often already existed in literature,
76
and then get a bunch of people across different institutions who are credible to be authors.
77
And I remember I had this whole long period where I
78
just talked to 20 different researchers at Brain to build support for publishing the paper.
79
In some ways, if you look at it in terms of the problems and a lot of things it emphasized, I think it hasn't held up that well in that I think it's not really the right problems.
80
But I think if you sort of see it instead as a consensus -building exercise, that there's something here that is real and that is worth taking seriously,
81
then it was a pretty important moment.
82
I mean, you end up in this really weird sci -fi world where I remember at the start of Anthropic, we were talking about constitutional AI.
83
And I think Jared said, oh, we're just going to write like a constitution for a language model and that'll change all of its behavior.
84
And I remember that sounded like incredibly crazy at the time.
85
But why did you guys think that was going to work?
86
because I remember that was one of the first early big research ideas we had at the company.
87
Yeah, I think Dario and I had talked about it for a while.
88
I think simple things just work really, really well in AI.
89
I think the first versions of that were quite complicated, but then we whittled away into just use the fact
90
that AI systems are good at solving multiple choice exams and give them a prompt that tells them what they're looking for.
91
That was what we needed.
92
Um, and then we were able to just write down these principles.
93
I mean, it goes back to like the big blob of computer, the bitter lesson or the scaling hypothesis.
94
If you can identify, you know, something that you can give the AI data for, and that's kind of a clear target, you'll get it to do it.
95
So like, here's this, here's this set of instructions.
96
Here's this set of principles.
97
AI language models can like read that set of principles
98
and they can like compare it to the behavior that they themselves are engaging in.
99
So like you've got your training target there.
100
So once you know that, I think my view and Jared's view is there's a way to get it to work.
101
You just have to fiddle with enough of the details.
102
Yeah.
103
I think it was always weird for me, especially in these early eras, because I was in physics and then coming from physics.
104
And I think now we forget about this because everyone's excited about AI.
105
But I remember talking to Dario about concrete problems and other things.
106
And I just got the sense that AI researchers were very, very kind of psychologically damaged by the AI winter,
107
where they just kind of felt like having like really ambitious ideas or ambitious visions was like very disallowed.
108
And that's kind of how I imagine it was in terms of talking about safety.
109
In order to care about safety, you have to believe that AI systems could actually be really powerful and really useful.
110
And I think that like there was kind of a prohibition against being ambitious.
111
And I think one of the benefits is that physicists are very arrogant.
112
And so they're constantly doing really ambitious things and talking about things in terms of grand schemes.
113
And so, yeah.
114
I mean, I think that's definitely true.
115
Like, I remember in 2014, it was like there were just like, I don't know, there were just like some things you couldn't say, right?
116
But I actually think it was kind of an extension of problems that exist across academia, other than maybe theoretical physics,
117
where they've kind of evolved into very risk -averse institutions for a number of reasons
118
and even the industrial parts of AI had kind of transplanted or forklifted that mentality.
119
And it took a long time.
120
I think it took until 2022 to get out of that mentality.
121
There's a weird thing about what does it mean to be conservative and respectful, where you might think one version you could have is
122
that what it means to be conservative is to take the risks
123
or the potential harms of what you're doing really seriously and worry about that.
124
But another kind of conservatism is to be like, taking an idea too seriously and believing that it might succeed is sort of like scientific arrogance.
125
And so I think there's like kind of two different kinds of conservatism or caution.
126
And I think we were sort of in a regime that was very controlled by that one.
127
I mean, you see it historically, right?
128
Like
129
if you look at the early discussions in 1939 between people
130
involved in nuclear physics about whether nuclear bombs were sort of a serious concern,
131
you see exactly the same thing with like Fermi resisting these ideas because it just seemed kind of like a crazy thing.
132
And other people like Zillard or Teller are taking the ideas seriously because they were worried about the risks.
133
Perhaps the deepest lesson that I've learned in the last 10 years, and probably all of you have learned some form of it as well,
134
is there can be this kind of seeming consensus, these things that kind of everyone knows.
135
that, I don't know, seem sort of wise, seem like they're common sense,
136
but really they're just kind of herding behavior masquerading as maturity and sophistication.
137
And when you've seen, the consensus can change overnight.
138
And when you've seen it happen a number of times, you suspected, but you didn't really bet on it.
139
And you're like, oh man, I kind of thought this, but what do I know?
140
How can I be right and all these people are wrong?
141
You see that a few times, then you just start saying, nope, this is the bet we're going to make.
142
I don't know for sure if we're right, but just ignore all this other stuff, see it happen.
143
And I don't know, even if you're right 50 % of the time, being right 50 % of the time contributes so much.
144
You're adding so much that is not being added by anyone else.
145
And it feels like that's where we are today with some safety stuff, where there's a consensus view that a lot of this safety stuff is unusual or doesn't naturally fall out of the technology.
146
And then at Anthropic, we do all of this research where weird safety misalignment problems fall out as a natural dividend of the tech we're building.
147
So it feels like we're in that counter consensus view right now.
148
But I feel like that has been shifting over the past, even just like 18.
149
We've been helping.
150
We've definitely been.
151
Publishing and doing research.
152
Constant force.
153
But I also think just like world sentiment around AI has shifted really dramatically.
154
And, you know, it's more common in the user research that we do to hear just customers,
155
regular people, say, I'm really worried about what the impact of AI on the world more broadly is going to be.
156
Sometimes that means jobs or bias or toxicity, but it also sometimes means, is this just going to mess up the world?
157
How is this going to contribute to fundamentally changing how humans work together, operate, which I wouldn't have predicted that, actually.
158
For whatever reason, it seems like people in the ML research sphere have always
159
been more pessimistic about AI becoming very powerful than the general public.
160
Maybe it's a weird form of humility or something.
161
When Daria and I went to the White House in 2023, in that meeting, Harris and Raimondo and stuff basically said,
162
paraphrase, but basically said, we've got our eye on you guys.
163
AI is going to be a really big deal and we're now actually paying attention, which is...
164
And they're right.
165
They're absolutely right.
166
But I think in 2018, you wouldn't have been like, the president will call you to the White House to tell
167
you they're paying close attention to the development of language models yeah it's just like a crazy one thing
168
that i think is interesting too just uh is like i
169
guess like all of us kind of got into this
170
when it didn't seem like there was like like we thought like we thought we thought
171
that it could happen
172
but yeah it was it was like like fair me being
173
like skeptical of the atomic bomb it was like he had he was just a good scientist
174
and like there was some evidence that it could happen
175
but there also was a lot of evidence against it happening
176
and he I guess decided that it would be worthwhile because
177
if it was true then it would be a big deal
178
and I think for all of us it was like yeah like 2015, 2016, 2017 like there was some evidence and increasing evidence
179
that this might be a big deal
180
but like I remember in 2016 like talking to all my advisors
181
and I was like I've done startup stuff like I want to help out with the with like AI safety
182
but like I'm like not great at math I like don't
183
know don't know how to don't exactly know how i can do it um
184
and i think at the time people were like either were
185
like well you need to be super good at like decision theory in order to help out
186
and i was like that's probably not gonna work
187
or they were like uh like it doesn't really seem like we're gonna get some crazy ai thing um
188
and so i had uh only a few people basically
189
that were like like yeah okay
190
that seems like a good thing to do i remember in 2014 making graphs of image net results over time
191
when i was a journalist and trying to like get stories published about them
192
and people thought i was completely mad
193
and then i remember in 2015 trying to persuade bloomberg to let me write a story about nvidia
194
because every ai research paper had started mentioning the use of gpus
195
and they said that was completely mad and then in 2016
196
when i left journalism to go into ai i had these
197
emails saying you're making like the worst mistake of your life which i now occasionally look back on
198
but it was like it was seemed crazy at the time from like any many perspectives to go and take this seriously, that scaling was going to work,
199
and something was maybe different about the technology paradigm.
200
You're like Michael Jordan and that coach that didn't believe in him in high school.
201
How did you actually make the decision though?
202
Did you feel torn or was it obvious to you?
203
I did a crazy counter bet where I said, let me become your full -time AI reporter and double my salary, which I knew that they wouldn't say yes to.
204
Then I went to sleep and then I woke up and resigned.
205
It was all fairly relaxed.
206
You're just a decisive guy.
207
In that instance, I think it's because I was like going to work, reading archive papers and then printing archive papers off and coming home and reading archive papers,
208
including like Dario's papers and from the Baidu stuff and being like something like completely crazy is happening here.
209
And at some point I thought you should bet with conviction, which I think everyone here has done in their careers is just betting with conviction that this is.
210
gonna work.
211
Yeah.
212
I definitely, I definitely was not as decisive as you.
213
I spent like six months like, like flopping, like, okay, like, should I, should I do it?
214
Like, should I try to do a startup?
215
Should I try to do this thing?
216
But I also feel like back then there were, there wasn't as much talk of engineers and the impact that an engineer can have in AI, right?
217
That feels so natural to us now.
218
And we're at the same sort of talent raise for engineers of all different types.
219
But at the time it was like, you're a researcher and that's the only people that can work on AI.
220
So I don't think it was crazy that you were spending time thinking about that.
221
Yeah, yeah.
222
And I think that that was basically the thing that got me to join OpenAI was, like, I, like, I messaged the people there and they were, like, yeah, we actually think that you can help out by doing engineering work.
223
Yeah.
224
And, like, that you can help out with AI safety in that way, which I think there hadn't really been an opportunity for that.
225
So that was what got me there.
226
That's right.
227
You were my manager at OpenAI.
228
I was.
229
That's right.
230
I think I joined after you'd been there for a while.
231
A little bit.
232
I was at Brain for a bit.
233
Yeah.
234
I don't know if I ever asked you like what it was that got you to join.
235
Yeah.
236
So I had been at Stripe for about five and a half years and I knew Greg.
237
He had been my boss.
238
He was my boss at Stripe for a while.
239
And I actually introduced him and Dario because I said when he was starting OpenAI, I was like the smartest person that I know is Dario.
240
You should, you would be really lucky to get him.
241
So Dario was at OpenAI.
242
I had a few friends from Stripe that had gone there too.
243
And I think sort of like you, I'd been thinking about what I wanted to do after Stripe.
244
I had gone there just because I wanted to get more skills after working in, you know, nonprofit and international development.
245
And I actually thought I was going to go back to doing that.
246
Like essentially, I had always been working.
247
I was like, I really want to help people that have, you know, less than I do.
248
But I didn't have the skills when I was doing it before Stripe.
249
And so I looked at going back to public health.
250
I thought about going back into politics very briefly.
251
But I was also looking around at other tech companies and other sort of ways of having impact.
252
And OpenAI at the time felt like it was a really nice intersection.
253
It was a nonprofit.
254
They were working on this really big lofty mission.
255
I really believed in sort of the AI, you know, potential because, I mean, I know Dario a little bit.
256
And so he was - They needed management help.
257
They definitely needed management help.
258
That is a fact.
259
And so there was, I think that felt, it felt very me -shaped, right? i was like oh there's this non -profit
260
and they like there's all these really great people with these like really good intentions
261
but it seems like they're a little bit of a mess um
262
and that was that was that felt really exciting to me to get to come in
263
and even you know just i was i was such a utility player right i was running like people
264
but i was also running some of the technical teams yeah the scaling
265
or i worked on the language team i took over i
266
worked on policy we worked on some policy stuff i worked with chris
267
and i felt like there was just so much goodness in
268
so many the employees there and i felt a very strong desire to come
269
and sort of just try to help make the company a
270
little more functional i remember towards the end after we've done
271
gpt free you were like have you guys heard of something called trust
272
and safety yes i said you know i used to run some trust
273
and safety teams at stripe there's a thing called trust
274
and safety that you might want to consider for a technology like this
275
and it's funny because it sort of is the intermediary step between, you know, AI safety research,
276
right, which is how do you actually make the model safe to something just much more practical.
277
I do think there was a value in saying, you know, this is going to be a big thing.
278
We also have to be doing this sort of practical work day to day to build the muscles for
279
when things are going to be a lot higher stakes.
280
That might be a good transition point to talk about things like a responsible scaling policy
281
and how we came up with that or why we came up with it and how we're using it now, especially given how much trust and safety work we do on today's models.
282
So whose idea was the RSP?
283
Yeah, it was me and Paul first talked about it in late, Paul Cristiano in late 2022.
284
First, it was like, oh, should we cap scaling at a particular point until we've discovered how to solve certain safety problems?
285
And then it was like, well, it's strange to have this one place where you cap it, and then you uncap it.
286
So let's have a bunch of thresholds.
287
And then at each threshold you have to do certain tests to see
288
if the model is capable and you have to take increasing safety
289
and security measures originally we had this idea
290
and then the thought was just look like you know this will go better
291
if you know
292
if it's done by some third party like we shouldn't we
293
shouldn't be the ones to do it right it shouldn't come from one company
294
because then other companies are less likely to adopt it so paul actually went off and designed it and and you know, many, many features of it changed.
295
And we were kind of on our side, working on how it should work.
296
And, you know, once Paul had something together, then pretty much immediately after he announced the concept, we announced ours within a month or two.
297
I mean, many of us were heavily involved in it.
298
I remember writing at least one draft of it myself, but there were like several drafts of it.
299
There were so many drafts.
300
I think it's gone through the most drafts any doc
301
which makes sense right it's like like i feel like it is in the same way that like the U .S.
302
treats, like, the Constitution as, like, the holy document, which, like, I think is just a big thing that, like, strengthens the U .S.
303
Yes.
304
And, like, we don't expect the U .S to go off the rails in part because just, like, every single person in the U .S is, like, the Constitution is a big deal, and if you tread on that, like, I'm mad.
305
Yeah.
306
Like, I think that, like, the RSP is our, like, it holds that thing.
307
It's, like, the holy document for Anthropic, so it's, like, worth doing a lot of iterations getting it right.
308
Some of what I think has been so cool to watch about the RSP, like development at Aetheropic too, is it feels like it has gone through so many different phases
309
and there's so many different skills that are needed to make it work, right?
310
There's like the big ideas, which I feel like Dario and Paul and Sam and Jared and so many others are like, what are the principles?
311
Like, what are we trying to say?
312
How do we know if we're right?
313
But there's also this very like operational approach to just iterating where we're like, well, we thought that we were going to see this at this, you know, safety level and we didn't.
314
So should we change it so that we're making sure that we're holding ourselves accountable?
315
And then there's all kinds of organizational things, right?
316
We just were like, let's change the structure of the RSP organization for clearer accountability.
317
And I think my sense is that for a document that's as important as this, right?
318
I love the constitution analogy.
319
It's like, there's all of these bodies and systems
320
that exist in the U .S to like make sure that we follow the constitution, right?
321
There's the courts, there's the Supreme Court, there's the presidency, there's the you know the both houses of of you know congress
322
and they do all kinds of other things of course
323
but there's like all of this infrastructure
324
that you need around this like one document
325
and i feel like we're also learning
326
that lesson here i think it sort of reflects a view we a lot of us have about safety which is
327
that it's it's a solvable problem it's just a very very hard problem that's going to take tons
328
and tons of work yeah all these institutions
329
that we need to build up like there's there's all sorts
330
of institutions built up around like automotive safety build up over many, many years.
331
But we're like, do we have the time to do that?
332
We've got to go as fast as we can to figure
333
out what the institutions we need for AI safety are
334
and build those and try to build them here first but make it exportable.
335
It forces unity also because if any part of the org is not kind of in line with our safety values,
336
it shows up through kind of the RSP, right?
337
The RSP is going to block them from doing what they want to do.
338
And so it's a way to remind everyone over and over again, basically to make safety a product requirement, part of the product planning process.
339
And so, like, it's not just a bunch of kind of like bromides that we repeat.
340
It's something that you actually, if you show up here and you're not aligned, you actually run into it.
341
And, like, you either have to learn to get with the program or it doesn't work out.
342
The RSP has become kind of funny over time because we spend thousands of hours of work on it.
343
And then I go and talk to senators and I explain the RSP and I'm like, we have some stuff that means it's hard to steal what we make and also that it's safe.
344
And they're like, yes, that's a completely normal thing to do.
345
Are you telling me not everyone does this?
346
And you're like, oh, okay, yeah.
347
It's the exact truth that not everyone does this.
348
But that kind of, it's amazing.
349
We've and so much effort on it here.
350
And when you boil it down, they're like, yes, that sounds like a normal way.
351
Yeah, that sounds good.
352
That's been the goal.
353
Like Daniela was saying, like, let's make this as boring and normal.
354
Like, let's make this a finance thing.
355
Yeah, imagine it's like an audit.
356
Yeah, yeah.
357
No, boring and normal is what we want.
358
Certainly in retrospect.
359
Well, also, Dario, I think in addition to driving alignment, it also drives clarity because it's really, it's written down what we're trying to do
360
and it's legible to everyone in the company
361
and it's legible externally what we think we're supposed to be aiming towards from a safety perspective.
362
It's not perfect.
363
We're iterating on it.
364
We're making it better.
365
But I think there's some value in saying like, this is what we're worried about.
366
This thing over here, like you can't just use this word to sort of derail something in either direction, right?
367
To say, oh, because of safety, we can't do X or because of safety, we have to do X.
368
We're really trying to make it clearer what we mean.
369
Yeah.
370
You can't, it prevents you from worrying about every last little thing under the sun, right?
371
Because it's actually the fire drills that damage the cause of safety in the long run.
372
I've said, like, if there's a building and, you know, the fire alarm goes off every week, like, that's a really unsafe building.
373
Because when there's, like, actually a fire, you're just going to be like, oh, it just goes off all the time.
374
So it's very important to be calibrated.
375
Yeah.
376
A slightly different frame that I find kind of clarifying is
377
that I think the RSP creates healthy incentives at a lot of levels.
378
So I think internally, it aligns the the incentives of every team with safety, because it means that if we don't make progress on safety, we're going to block.
379
I also think that externally, it creates a lot of healthier incentives than other possibilities, at least that I see, because it means that, you know, if we at some point have to take some kind of dramatic action,
380
like if at some point we have to say, you know, our model, we've reached some point and we can't yet make a model safe, it aligns that with sort of the point where there's evidence that supports that decision.
381
And there's sort of a pre -existing framework for thinking about it and it's legible.
382
And so I think there's a lot of levels of which the RSP, I think in ways that maybe I didn't initially understand when we were talking about the early versions of it.
383
It creates a better framework than any of the other ones that I've thought about.
384
I think this is all true, but I feel like it undersells how challenging it's been to figure out what the right policies
385
and evaluations and what the lines should be.
386
I think that we have and continue to iterate a lot on that.
387
I think there is a question also that's difficult.
388
You can be at a point where it's very clear something's dangerous or very clear that something's safe, But with some technology that's so new, there's actually like a big gray area.
389
And so I think that has been like all the things that we're saying were things that made me really, really excited about the RSP at the beginning and still do.
390
But also, I think, enacting this in a clear way
391
and making it work has been much harder and more complicated than I anticipated.
392
Yeah, I think this is exactly the point.
393
The gray areas are impossible to predict there's
394
so many of them like until you actually try to implement
395
everything you like don't know what's going to go wrong
396
so what we're trying to do is go and implement everything
397
so we can see as early as possible what's going to go wrong
398
so yeah you have to you have to do three
399
or four passes before before you really you really get it right like iteration is just very powerful
400
and you know you're not going to get it you're not going to get it right on the first time
401
and so you know
402
if the stakes are increasing you want to get your iterations
403
in early you don't want to get them in light you're also building the for like internal institutions
404
and processes so the specifics might change a lot
405
but building the muscle of just doing it is the really
406
valuable thing i'm i'm responsible for like compute at anthropic that's important
407
so thank you so like i think
408
that like for me for me like i guess we have
409
to deal we have to deal with external folks yeah
410
and different external folks kind of are on different spectrums of
411
the like how fast do they think stuff is going again
412
and like I think that's also been a thing where like I started out like not thinking stuff would be
413
that fast and have changed over time and
414
so I have some I have sympathy for that and
415
so I think the RSP has been extremely useful for me in communicating with people who think
416
that things might take longer
417
because then we have a thing where it's like we don't
418
need to do extreme safety measures until stuff gets really intense
419
and then we can be like
420
that they might be like I don't think stuff will get intense for a long time
421
and then I'll be like okay yeah we don't have to do extreme safety measures, and so that makes it a lot easier to communicate with other folks externally.
422
Yeah, yeah, it makes it like a normal thing you can talk about, rather than something really strange.
423
Yeah.
424
How else is it, like, showing up for people?
425
Evals, evals, evals.
426
Good.
427
It's all about evals.
428
Everyone's doing evals.
429
Like, the training team is doing evals all the time.
430
We're trying to figure out, like, has this model gotten enough better that it has the potential to be dangerous?
431
So, how many teams do we have that are evals teams?
432
Frontier red team, there must be, I mean, there's a lot of people.
433
Every team produces evals, basically.
434
And that means you're just measuring against the RSP, like measuring for certain signs of things that would concern you or not concern you.
435
Exactly.
436
Like it's not, it's easy to lower bound the abilities of a model, but it's hard to upper bound.
437
So we just put tons and tons of research effort into saying, can this model do this dangerous thing or not?
438
Maybe there's some trick that we haven't thought of, like chain of thought or best event
439
or some kind of tool use that's going to make it so it can help you like do something very dangerous?
440
It's been really useful in policy
441
because it's been a really abstract concept what safety is and
442
when I'm like we have an eval which changes whether we deploy the model
443
or not and then you can go and calibrate with policymakers
444
or experts in national security or some of these CBRN areas
445
that we do to actually help us build evals that are well calibrated and that counterfactually just wouldn't have happened otherwise.
446
But once you've got the specific thing, people are a lot more motivated to help you make it accurate.
447
So it's been useful for that.
448
The RRSP shows up for me for sure.
449
Often.
450
I actually think the, weirdly, the way that I think about the RRSP the most is like what it sounds like.
451
Just like the tone.
452
I think we just did a big rewrite of the tone of the RRSP
453
because it felt overly like technocratic and even a little bit adversarial.
454
I spent a lot of time thinking about how do you build a system
455
that people just want to be a part of, right?
456
It's so much better if the RSP is something that everyone in the company can walk around and tell you, just like with OKRs like we do right now, what are the top goals of the RSP?
457
How do we know if we're meeting them?
458
What AI safety level are we at right now?
459
Are we at ASL 2?
460
Are we at ASL 3?
461
That people know what to look for because
462
that is how you're going to have good common knowledge of if something's going wrong, right?
463
If it's overly technocratic and it's something that only particular people in the company feel is accessible to them.
464
It's just like not as productive, right?
465
And I think it's been really cool to watch it sort of transition into this document where I actually think most, if not everybody at the company,
466
regardless of their role, could read it and say, this feels really reasonable.
467
I want to make sure that.. we're building AI in the following ways
468
and I see why I would be worried about these things.
469
And I also kind of know what to look for if I bump into something, right?
470
It's almost like, make it simple enough that if you are working at a manufacturing plant and you're like, huh, it looks like the safety seatbelt on this should connect this way,
471
but it doesn't connect that you can spot it.
472
And that there's just like healthy feedback flow between leadership
473
and the board and the rest of the company and the people that are actually building it.
474
Because I actually think the way this stuff goes wrong in most cases is just like the wires don't connect
475
or like they get crossed.
476
And that would just be like a really sad way for things to go wrong, right?
477
It's just all about operationalizing it, making it easy for people to understand.
478
Yeah, the thing I would say is none of us wanted to found a company.
479
We felt like it was our duty, right?
480
I felt like we had to.
481
Like we have to do this thing.
482
This is the way we're going to make things go better for the AI.
483
Right.
484
Like, that's also why we did the pledge.
485
Right.
486
Yeah.
487
Because we're like, the reason we're doing this is feels like our duty.
488
I wanted to invent and discover things in some kind of beneficial way.
489
That was that was how I came to it.
490
And that led to working on AI and AI required a lot of engineering and eventually AI required a lot of capital.
491
But what I found was that if you don't do this in a way where you're setting the environment,
492
where you set up the company, then a lot of it gets done.
493
A lot of it repeats the same mistakes that I found so alienating about the tech community.
494
It's the same people.
495
It's the same attitude.
496
It's the same pattern matching.
497
And so at some point, it just seemed inevitable that we need to do it in a different way.
498
When we were hanging out in graduate school, I remember you had kind of this whole like program of
499
trying to figure out how to do science in a way that would sort of advance the public good.
500
And I think I think that's like pretty similar to how we we think about this.
501
Maybe you had like this like Project Vannevar or something to do that.
502
I was a professor.
503
I think basically I just looked at the situation and I was convinced that AI was on a very,
504
very, very steep trajectory in terms of impact didn't seem like because of the necessity for capital that as a physics professor, I could continue doing that.
505
I wanted to work with people that I trusted in building an institution to try to make AI go well.
506
But yeah, I would never recommend founding a company or really want to do it.
507
I mean, yeah, I think it's just a means to an end.
508
I think that's usually how things go well, though.
509
If you're doing something just to enrich yourself or gain power, you have to to actually care about accomplishing a real goal in the world,
510
and then you find whatever means you have to.
511
Well, something I think about a lot is just a strategic advantage for us.
512
It sounds really funny to say, but just how much trust there is at this table, right?
513
I think that's not—Tom, you were at other startups.
514
I was never a founder before, but it's actually really hard to get a big group of people to have the same mission.
515
Right.
516
And I think the thing that I feel like the happiest about
517
when I come into work and probably the most proud of at Anthropic is how well
518
that has scaled to a lot of people.
519
It feels to me like in this group and with the rest of leadership, everyone is here for the mission and our mission is really clear.
520
And it's it's very pure.
521
Right.
522
And I think that is something that I don't see as often to Dario's point in sort of the tech industry.
523
It feels like there's just a wholesomeness to what we're trying to do.
524
I agree.
525
None of us were like, let's just go found a company.
526
I felt like we had to do it.
527
It just felt like we couldn't keep doing what we were doing the place we were doing it.
528
We had to do it by ourselves.
529
It felt like with GPT -3, which all of us had touched or worked on, and scaling laws and everything else, we could see it in front of us in 2020.
530
It felt like, well, if we don't do something soon altogether, you're going to hit the point of no return.
531
You have to do something to have any ability to change
532
the environment i i think building up danielle i do i do think
533
that um there's just like a lot of trust in this group i think like each of us knows
534
that we we got into this
535
because we want to help out with the world yeah um
536
we did the like 80 like the 80 pledge thing and
537
that was like i think
538
that everybody everybody was just like yes obviously we're going to do this it was it was
539
and yeah i i yeah i i do think that the
540
that the the trust thing is a special thing that's that's
541
extremely rare yeah i credit daniella with like keeping the keeping
542
the bar high i i credit you with the fact
543
that we scaled people say how nice people are here
544
which is actually uh a wildly important thing i think anthropic is really low politics
545
and of course we all have a different vantage point than average
546
and i try to remember it's because of low ego but But it's low ego, and I do think our interview process and just the type of people who work here, there's almost an allergic reaction.
547
to politics and unity unity unity is so important the idea
548
that the product team the research team the trust
549
and safety team you know the go -to -market team the policy team like
550
that this the safety folks they're all trying to contribute to
551
kind of the same goal the same mission of the company right i think it's i think it's dysfunctional
552
when different parts of the company are are think they're trying to accomplish different things think the company is about different things,
553
or think that other parts of the company are trying to undermine what they're doing.
554
And I think the most important thing we've managed to preserve is, and again, things like the RSP drive it, this idea that it's not,
555
you know, there's some parts of the company causing damage and other parts of the company trying to repair it, but that there are different parts of the company doing different functions,
556
and they all function under a single theory of change.
557
Extreme pragmatism, right?
558
But, you know, the reason I went to OpenAI in the first place, you know, it was a nonprofit.
559
It was a place where I could go and focus on safety.
560
And I think over time, you know, that maybe wasn't as good a fit.
561
And there were some difficult decisions.
562
And I think in a lot of ways, I really trusted Dario and Danielle on that.
563
But I didn't want to leave.
564
That was like something that I think I was actually like pretty reluctant to go along with.
565
Because I think, for one thing, I didn't know that it was good for the world to have more AI labs.
566
And I think it was something that I was pretty reluctant for.
567
And I think, as well, when we did leave, I think I was reluctant to start a company.
568
I think I was arguing for a long time that we should do a nonprofit instead and just focus on safety research.
569
And I think it really took pragmatism and confronting the constraints
570
and just being honest about what the constraints implied for accomplishing that mission that led to Anthropic.
571
I think just a really important lesson
572
that we were good about early on is like make less promises and keep more of them, right?
573
Like try to be calibrated,
574
be realistic, confront the trade -offs because trust and credibility are more important than any particular policy.
575
It is so unusual to have what we have and watching like Mike Krieger defend safety things of,
576
like, reasons why we shouldn't ship a product yet, but also then to watch Vinay sort of say, like, okay, we have to do the right thing for the business.
577
Like, how do we get this across the finish line?
578
And to hear, you know, people, like, deep in the technical safety org talking about how it's also important
579
that we build things that are practical for people and hearing, you know, engineers on inference talk about safety, that's amazing.
580
Like, I think that is, again, one of the most special things about working here is everybody with that unity is prioritizing the pragmatism, the safety, the business.
581
That's wild.
582
I think about it as spreading the trade -offs from just the leadership of the company to everyone, right?
583
I think the dysfunctional world is like, you have a bunch of people who only see a big, you know, safety is like, we always have to do this.
584
And product is like, we always have to do this.
585
And research is like, you know, this is the only thing we care about.
586
And then you're stuck at the top.
587
You're stuck at the top.
588
You have to decide between.
589
You don't have as much information as either of them.
590
That's the dysfunctional world.
591
The functional world is when you're able to communicate to everyone.
592
There are these trade -offs we're all facing together.
593
The world is a far from perfect place.
594
There's trade -offs.
595
Everything you do is going to be suboptimal.
596
Everything you do is going to be some attempt to get the best of both worlds that that, you know, doesn't work out as well as you thought it was.
597
And everyone is on the same page about confronting those trade -offs together.
598
And they just feel like they're confronting them from a particular post, from a particular job as part of the overall job of confronting all the trade -offs.
599
It's a bet on race to the top, right?
600
It's a bet on race to the top.
601
Like it's not a pure upside bet.
602
Things could go wrong.
603
But like, we're all aligned on like, this is the bet that we're making.
604
And markets are pragmatic.
605
So if the more successful and profit becomes as a company, the more incentive there is for people to copy the things that make us successful.
606
And the more that success is tied to actual safety stuff we do,
607
the more it just creates a like gravitational force in the industry that will actually get the rest of industry to compete.
608
And it's like, sure, we'll like build seatbelts and everyone else can copy them.
609
That's good.
610
It's like good world.
611
Yeah, this is the race to the top, right?
612
But if you're saying, well, we're not going to build the technology, you're not going to build it better than someone else,
613
that in the end, that just doesn't work because you're not proving that it's possible to get from here to there.
614
Where the world needs to get, never mind the industry, never mind one company, is it needs to get us successfully through from this technology does, doesn't exist.
615
to the technology exists in a very powerful way and society has actually managed it.
616
And I think the only way that's going to happen is
617
that if you have at the level of a single company and eventually at the level of the industry, you're actually confronting those trade -offs.
618
You have to find a way to actually be competitive, to actually lead the industry in some cases, and yet manage to do things safely.
619
And if you can do that, the gravitational pull you exert is so great.
620
There are
621
so many factors from the regulatory environment to the kinds of
622
people who want to work at different places to even sometimes the views of customers
623
that drive in the direction of if you can show that you can do well on safety without sacrificing competitiveness, right?
624
If you can find these kind of win -wins, then others are incentivized to do the same thing.
625
I think that's why getting things like the RSP right is so important, because I think that we ourselves,
626
seeing where the technology is headed, have often thought, oh, wow, we need to be really careful of this thing.
627
But at the same time, we have to be even more careful not to be crying wolf, saying that innovation needs to stop here.
628
We need to find a way to make AI useful,
629
innovative, delightful for customers, but also figure out what the constraints really have to be
630
that we can stand behind that make systems safe, so that it's possible for others to think that they can do that too, and they can succeed, they can compete with us.
631
We're not doomers, right?
632
We want to build the positive thing.
633
We want to build the good thing.
634
And we've seen it happen in practice.
635
A few months after we came out with our RRSP, the three most prominent AI companies had one, right? interpretability research, that's another area we've done it.
636
Just the focus on safety overall, like collaboration with the AI safety institutes, other areas.
637
Yeah, the Frontier Red team got cloned almost immediately, which is good.
638
You want all the labs to be testing for very, very scary risks.
639
Export the seatbelts.
640
Well, Jack also mentioned it earlier, but customers also really care about safety, right?
641
Customers don't want models that are hallucinating.
642
They don't want models that are easy to jailbreak.
643
They want models that are helpful and harmless, right?
644
And so a lot of the time what we hear in customer calls is just we're going with Claude
645
because we know it's safer.
646
I think that is also a huge market impact, right?
647
Because our ability to have models that are trustworthy and reliable, that matters for the market pressure that it puts on competitors, too.
648
Maybe to unpack something that Dario said a little bit more.
649
I think there's this narrative or this idea that maybe the virtuous thing is to almost like nobly fail, right?
650
It's like you should go and like put safety, you should go and put things, you should sort of demonstrate like in an impragmatic way so
651
that you can sort of demonstrate your purity to the cause or something like this.
652
And I think if you do that, it's actually very self -defeating.
653
For one thing, it means
654
that you're going to have the people who are making decisions be self -selected for being people who don't care
655
and for people who aren't prioritizing safety and who don't care about it.
656
And I think on the other hand, if you try really hard to find the way to align the incentives
657
and make it so that if there are hard decisions, they happen at the points where there is the most force to go
658
and support making the correct hard decisions and where there's the most evidence, then you can sort of start to trigger this race to the top that Dario is describing,
659
where instead of going and having the people who care get pushed out of influence, you instead pull other people to have to go and follow.
660
So what are you all excited about when it comes to the next things we'll be working on?
661
I think there's a bunch of reasons you can be excited about Interpreal.
662
One is obviously safety.
663
But there's another one that I think I find at an emotional level, you know, equally exciting or equally meaningful to me,
664
which is just that I think neural networks are beautiful.
665
And I think that there's a lot of beauty in them that we don't see.
666
We treat them like these black boxes that we're not particularly interested in the internal stuff.
667
But when you start to go and look inside them, they're just full of amazing, beautiful structure.
668
You know, it's sort of like if people looked at biology and they were like, you know, like evolution is really boring.
669
It just like it's a simple thing that goes and like runs for a long time and then it makes animals.
670
And like instead, it's like actually, you know, each one of those animals that evolution produces
671
and I think that it's an optimization process like training a neural network.
672
They're full of incredible complexity and structure and we have an entire sort of artificial biology inside of neural networks.
673
If you're just willing to look inside them, there's all of this amazing stuff and I think
674
that we're just starting to slowly unpack it and it's incredible and there's so much there.
675
But it's just.. so much to be discovered there.
676
We're just starting to crack it open.
677
And I think it's going to be amazing and beautiful.
678
And sometimes I imagine, you know, like a decade in the future, walking into a bookstore and buying, you know, the textbook on neural network interpolability, or really like on the biology of neural networks
679
and just the kind of wild things that are going to be inside of it.
680
And I think that in the next decade, we're going to, in the next couple of years even, we're going to go and start to go in and really discover all of those things.
681
And it's to be wild and incredible.
682
It's also going to be great that you get to buy your own textbook.
683
I'm excited that a few years ago, if you had said governments will set up new bodies to test
684
and evaluate AI systems and they will actually be competent and good, you would have not thought that was going to be the case, but it's happened.
685
It's like governments have built these new new embassies almost to deal with this new kind of class of technology
686
or like thing that Chris studies.
687
And I'm just very excited to see where that goes.
688
I think it actually means that we have state capacity to deal with this kind of societal transition.
689
So it's not just companies.
690
And I'm excited to help with that.
691
I'm already excited about this to, you know, to a certain extent today.
692
But I think just imagining the future world of what AI is going to be able to do for people is, it's impossible to not feel excited about that.
693
Dario talks about this a lot, but I think even just the sort of glimmers of Claude being able to help with,
694
you know, vaccine development and cancer research and biological research is crazy, like just to be able to watch what it can do now.
695
But when I fast forward, you know, three years in the future or five years in the future, imagining that Claude could actually solve so many of the fundamental problems
696
that we just face as as humans just even just from a health perspective alone even
697
if you sort of take everything else out feels really exciting
698
to me just like thinking back to my international development times it would be amazing
699
if Claude was responsible for helping to do a lot of the work
700
that I was trying to do a lot less effectively when I was like 25.
701
I mean I guess similarly I'm excited to build Claude for
702
work like I'm excited to build like I'm excited to build Claude into the company
703
and into companies all over the world i guess i'm excited
704
just for uh i guess like personally like i like using
705
claude a lot like i definitely uh there's been increasing amounts
706
of like home times with like me just like chatting with
707
john claude about stuff um i think the biggest recent thing
708
has been um uh code where like six months ago like
709
i didn't use claude to do any coding work like our teams didn't really use Claude
710
that much for for coding
711
and now it's like just face difference like i i gave a talk at yc like uh week before last
712
and at the beginning i just asked like okay
713
so like how many how many folks here use Claude for for coding now
714
and literally 95 of hands like all the hands in the room
715
which just like is totally different than how it was four months ago
716
or whatever yeah so when i think about what i'm excited about i think about places where, like I said before, where there's this consensus that,
717
again, seems like consensus, seems like what everyone wise thinks, and then it just breaks.
718
Places where I think that's about to happen and it hasn't happened yet.
719
One of them is interpretability.
720
I think interpretability is both the key to steering and making safe AI systems, and we're about to understand.
721
And interpretability contains insights about intelligent optimization problems and about how the human brain works.
722
I've said, and I'm really not joking, Chris Ola is going to be a future Nobel medicine laureate.
723
I'm serious.
724
I'm serious because a lot of these, I used to be a neuroscientist, a lot of these mental illnesses, the ones we haven't figured out, right?
725
Schizophrenia or the mood disorders, I suspect there's some higher level system thing going on and
726
that it's It's hard to make sense of those with brains
727
because brains are so mushy and hard to open up and interact with.
728
Neural nets are not like this.
729
They're not a perfect analogy, but as time goes on, they will be a better analogy.
730
That's one area.
731
Second is related to that, I think, just the use of AI for biology.
732
Biology is an incredibly difficult problem.
733
People continue to be skeptical for a number of reasons.
734
I think that consensus is starting to break.
735
We saw a Nobel Prize in chemistry awarded for alpha fold, remarkable accomplishment.
736
We should be trying to build things that can help us create 100 alpha folds.
737
And then finally, using AI to enhance democracy.
738
We worry about if AI is built in the wrong way, it can be a tool for authoritarianism how can AI be a tool for freedom and self -determination.
739
I think that one is earlier than the other two, but it's going to be just as important.
740
Yeah.
741
I mean, I guess two things that at least connect to what you were saying earlier.
742
I mean, one is I feel like people frequently
743
join Anthropic because they're sort of scientifically really curious about AI
744
and then kind of get convinced by AI progress to sort
745
of share the vision of the need not just to advance the technology, but to understand it more deeply and to make sure that it's safe.
746
And I feel like it's actually just sort of exciting to have people that you're working with,
747
like kind of more and more united in their vision for both what AI development looks like
748
and the sort of sense of responsibility associated with it.
749
And I feel like that's been happening a lot due to a lot of advances that have happened in the last year, like what Tom talked about.
750
Another is that, going back really to concrete problems, I feel like we've done a lot of work on AI safety up until this point, a lot of it's really important.
751
But I think we're now, with some recent developments, really getting a glimmer of what kinds of risks might literally come about from systems that are very,
752
very advanced so that we can investigate and study them directly with interpretability, with other kinds of safety mechanisms,
753
and really understand, like, what the risks from very advanced AI might look like.
754
And I think that that's something that is really going to allow us to sort of further the mission in a, like, really deeply scientific empirical way. And
755
so I'm excited about sort of the next six months of
756
how we use our understanding of what can go wrong with advanced systems to characterize
757
that and figure out how to avoid those pitfalls.
758
Perfect.
759
Finn.
760
I did it.
761
Good job.
762
This is the only time we ever get to catch up.
📺 Cùng kênh
B23
Translating Claude’s thoughts into language
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C18
When AIs act emotional
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
Introducing Claude Fable 5
University StudentsWorking Adults
C111
The different levels of how Claude thinks
University StudentsWorking Adults
C13
Lesson 3: AI as a learning partner | AI Fluency for students
Business EnglishInterview EnglishUniversity Students
✨ Video gợi ý
B21
521 câu
How Sam Altman Actually Uses AI to Run OpenAI and His Life
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
346 câu
Trust the Process: How to Design Teams That Actually Work
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
747 câu
MIT Introduction to Deep Learning | 6.S191
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C14
638 câu
Jensen Huang: The Mindset That Built NVIDIA
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
105 câu
AI Governance Explained: Ethical, Transparent & Accountable AI for the Future
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
201 câu
Cleo Abram Answers The Web's Most Searched Questions | WIRED
Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students
C11
402 câu
FULL DISCUSSION: Google's Demis Hassabis, Anthropic's Dario Amodei Debate the World After AGI | AI1G
IELTS PrepBusiness EnglishUniversity Students
C15
182 câu
How to Become an AI Product Manager in 2026 | Ex-Google, Microsoft
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B21
190 câu
This 25-Year-Old Built a 2-Year Moat Nobody Can Bet Against | Corgi, Nico Laqua & Emily Yuan
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
182 câu
We Let $200 GPT-Pro Think for 7 Days on Unsolved Math
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
126 câu
How I use AI as a senior software engineer and 5 principles of AI explained in 10 minutes
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
Từ vựng và ghi chú luyện nói cho bài học này
Bài luyện nói trình độ C1 này dựa trên video “Building Anthropic”. Video này có 762 câu và 10613 từ để luyện shadowing. Phần lời nói dài 51:48. Người nói nói nhanh, khoảng 205 từ mỗi phút, nên sẽ có nhiều chỗ nối âm và nuốt âm. 86% số từ nằm trong 3.000 từ tiếng Anh thông dụng nhất; phần còn lại nên xem trước khi luyện.
Từ vựng quan trọng trong video
12 từ khó nhất trong video, kèm phiên âm và nghĩa:
| Từ | Phiên âm | Nghĩa |
|---|---|---|
| nonprofit tính từ | phi lợi nhuận, bất vụ lợi | |
| ambitious tính từ | /æmˈbɪʃ.əs/ | có hoài bão, có tham vọng |
| legible tính từ | /ˈlɛd͡ʒəbl/ | dễ đọc |
| analogy danh từ | /əˈnæləd͡ʒi/ | loại suy |
| reluctant tính từ | /ɹɪˈlʌktənt/ | miễn cưỡng |
| bore động từ | /boɹ/ | khoan, đục |
| archive danh từ | /ˈɑɹˌkaɪv/ | trung tâm lưu trữ, kho tàng |
| conservatism danh từ | /kənˈsɜːvətɪzəm/ | chủ nghĩa bảo thủ |
| iteration danh từ | /ˌɪt.əˈɹeɪ.ʃən/ | phép lặp |
| mentality danh từ | /mɛnˈtæləti/ | tư duy, tư tưởng |
| textbook danh từ | /ˈtɛkst.bʊk/ | sách giáo khoa |
| researcher danh từ | /ˈɹiˌsɝ.t͡ʃɚ/ | nhà nghiên cứu |
Cụm động từ bạn sẽ nghe
| Từ | Nghĩa |
|---|---|
| write down động từ | viết ra, ghi xuống |
| come back động từ | trở lại, trở về |
| go back động từ | trở lại |
| open up động từ | mở |
Những câu đáng luyện lại
Các câu ngắn, trọn ý trong video mà bạn có thể dùng lại khi giao tiếp hằng ngày:
- How did you actually make the decision though?
- Should I try to do this thing?
- How do we know if we're right?
- Are you telling me not everyone does this?
- How do we know if we're meeting them?
Ngữ pháp trong video
Những cấu trúc người nói dùng nhiều nhất, kèm đúng cụm từ trong video:
| Cấu trúc | Trong video |
|---|---|
| Thì hiện tại hoàn thành tiếp diễn have/has been + -ing — việc bắt đầu từ trước và vẫn đang tiếp tục | has been shifting · We've been helping |
| Câu điều kiện if + mệnh đề, will/would + động từ — điều kiện và kết quả | if it was true then it would be · if you had said governments will set |
| “Used to” used to + động từ — thói quen hoặc tình trạng trong quá khứ nay không còn | used to run · used to be |
| Thì hiện tại hoàn thành have/has + quá khứ phân từ — việc đã xảy ra nhưng còn liên quan đến hiện tại | I've created · I've known · hasn't held |
Phát âm cần chú ý
Người nói dùng 226 dạng rút gọn, ví dụ we're, you're, don't. Hãy nói theo dạng ngắn đúng như bạn nghe.
- Âm “th”: anthropic /ænˈθɹɒp.ɪk/, altogether /ɔl.tuˈɡɛð.ɚ/
- Âm “sh” và “zh”: ambitious /æmˈbɪʃ.əs/, gravitational /ˌɡɹævɪˈteɪʃənəl/, iteration /ˌɪt.əˈɹeɪ.ʃən/, optimization /ˌɑptəmaɪˈzeɪʃən/, accomplish /əˈkɑm.plɪʃ/
- Từ dài — đặt trọng âm cho đúng: pragmatism /ˈpɹæɡmətɪzəm/, analogy /əˈnæləd͡ʒi/, conservatism /kənˈsɜːvətɪzəm/, gravitational /ˌɡɹævɪˈteɪʃənəl/, iteration /ˌɪt.əˈɹeɪ.ʃən/
Những âm người Việt thường gặp khó:
- Cụm phụ âm cuối — đọc đủ từng âm, đừng nuốt âm cuối: confront /kənˈfɹʌnt/, constraint /kənˈstɹeɪnt/, legible /ˈlɛd͡ʒəbl/, reluctant /ɹɪˈlʌktənt/, orient /ˈɔɹ.iˌɛnt/
- Âm /tʃ/, /dʒ/ và /ʒ/ — tiếng Việt không có, đừng đọc thành “ch” hay “gi”: legible /ˈlɛd͡ʒəbl/, analogy /əˈnæləd͡ʒi/, researcher /ˈɹiˌsɝ.t͡ʃɚ/, pledge /plɛd͡ʒ/
- Âm /æ/ — mở miệng rộng hơn âm “e”: anthropic /ænˈθɹɒp.ɪk/, eval /ˈiː.væl/, ambitious /æmˈbɪʃ.əs/, calibrate /ˈkæl.ɪ.bɹeɪ̯t/, pragmatism /ˈpɹæɡmətɪzəm/
Cách luyện với video này
- Nghe hết video một lần, chưa cần nói, và ghi lại những từ bạn chưa biết.
- Bắt đầu ở tốc độ 0,75×, nói đuổi từng câu, rồi quay lại tốc độ bình thường khi đã quen.
- Ghi âm giọng mình rồi so với bản gốc, chú ý các từ như nonprofit, ambitious, legible.
Phương Pháp Shadowing Là Gì?
Shadowing là kỹ thuật học ngôn ngữ có cơ sở khoa học, ban đầu được phát triển cho chương trình đào tạo phiên dịch viên chuyên nghiệp và được phổ biến rộng rãi bởi nhà đa ngôn ngữ học Dr. Alexander Arguelles. Nguyên lý cốt lõi đơn giản nhưng cực kỳ hiệu quả: bạn nghe tiếng Anh của người bản xứ và lặp lại to ngay lập tức — như một "cái bóng" (shadow) đuổi theo người nói với độ trễ chỉ 1–2 giây. Khác với luyện ngữ pháp hay học từ vựng bị động, Shadowing buộc não bộ và cơ miệng phải đồng thời xử lý và tái tạo ngôn ngữ thực tế. Các nghiên cứu khoa học xác nhận phương pháp này cải thiện đáng kể phát âm, ngữ điệu, nhịp điệu, nối âm, kỹ năng nghe và độ lưu loát khi nói — đặc biệt hiệu quả cho người luyện IELTS Speaking và muốn giao tiếp tiếng Anh tự nhiên như người bản ngữ.