
English: 
Haleh I have a question for you, you're an expert in AI right. When do you think there will be human level a eyes?
Hi, Jade, so usually videos on my channel in French. How's your French?
Je ne parle pas français
Okay
Well
Since you're such a great science youtuber, I'll do an exception for you for today
I'll be speaking in English. Even if it means every one of my viewers mocking my French accent. Thanks lis
So what do you think a human level a is possible? Could an AI ever?
Outperform a hearin at all tasks and for lower costs and if so why when could all of this happen these are fascinating?
Questions and it's extremely tempting to have a strong opinion about such controversial topics
But it's extremely important to first note that predicting
The future is an extremely challenging task
Especially given how complex the modern world is and how fast it is changing in particular

French: 
Salut Lê, j'ai une question pour toi
Tu es un expert en IA, non?
Quand y aura-t-il des IA de niveau humain?
Salut Jade, d'habitude mes vidéos sont en français.
Je ne parle pas français
OK...
 
Vu que t'es une superbe YouTubeuse scientifique, je vais faire une exception
Je vais parler en anglais
Même si ça veut dire que tous mes viewers vont moquer mon accent français.
Merci Lê. Et donc ?
Qu'en penses-tu? Une IA de niveau humain est-elle possible?
Les IA peuvent-elles nous surpasser à toute tâche à moindre coût ?
Et si c'est le cas. Quand ?
Ce sont des questions fascinantes
Et si c'est tentant d'avoir une opinion tranchée
mais prenez note d'abord que prédire le futur est très dur
Surtout vu la complexité du monde moderne
Et la vitesse à laquelle il évolue

English: 
My big advice would be don't trust your guts and don't trust my guts either
Okay, sure, but it's still an important question. I mean a human level a eyes would imply such huge changes to the world?
How can we build up more of an informed answer? Well, even if no individual can be said to be reliable
It's often the case that the opinion of a community of experts yields more reliable answers
Yeah
So I found this article of the MIT Technology Review and it says that AI
Experts don't think that human-level AI is a threat to humanity. Wait. Did you see that?
There was a follow up to this article look at the bottom of the article
Yeah, that's what's weird. The follow-up article says the exact opposite. So what's going on here?
I guess that a key takeaway is that there are big disagreements among experts and that there are even
disagreements about what the agreements of the experts are
it's a big mess and unfortunately many AI experts are not helpful and

French: 
En particulier, mon grand conseil serait : n'écoutez votre intuition !
Et n'écoutez pas mon intuition non plus!
OK... Mais ça reste une question importante.
Une IA de niveau humain changerait tant de choses !
Comment peut-on construire une opinion informée?
Et bien, même si aucun expert n'est fiable,
Il arrive souvent que
l'avis d'une communauté d'experts donne des réponses plus fiables
Oui et j'ai trouvé cet article
qui dit que les experts en IA ne pensent pas
que l'IA de niveau humain soit une menace pour l'humanité
Attends... T'as vu le follow-up?
Regarde en bas
oui c'est bizarre !
L'article en lien dit l'exact opposé !
Que se passe-t-il ?
il y a des désaccords entre experts
et même des désaccords
sur ce que sont les accords entre experts
C'est le bordel !
et malheureusement les experts en IA n'aident pas
ils préfèrent souvent présenter leur vision du futur de l'IA

French: 
ainsi que leur vision du consensus entre experts
mais il y a aussi une cause plus profonde et subtile
du désaccord entre les deux articles
Tu vois ce à quoi je fais référence ?
Ça a à voir avec comment penser les risques
je crois que je vois ce que tu veux dire
Le 1e article parle d'un sondage où on demande aux experts quand il y aura une IA de niveau humain
alors que le 2nd article parle de probabilités pour une date donnée
et il est possible que
presque tous les experts pensent qu'il n'y aura pas d'IA de niveau humain en 2050
tout en pensant qu'il y a 10% de chances qu'il y ait une IA de niveau humain en 2020.
Exactement !
Et quand on parle de risques, il est crucial de parler de façon probabiliste.
Typiquement, une centrale nucléaire qui ne va probablement pas exploser
n'est pas nécessairement une central nucléaire rassurante

English: 
Prefer to present their own views on the future of AI as well as their own views on the consensus of the experts of AI
But there's also a more subtle and more fundamental reason why the two articles disagree. Do you see what I'm hinting at?
It's about how to think about risks I think I get or you're saying in the survey discussed in the first article
They asked AI experts to say when they thought there would be human-level AI
Whereas the survey discussed in the second article gave specific dates and asked AI experts to say the probabilities
They thought that there would be human-level AI by that time so it might be the case that nearly all AI
experts think that there won't be human level AI by
2050 but at the same time they think there's around a 10% probability that there will be human-level AI by 2020
Exactly, and when we discuss risks, it's crucial to think in such probabilistic terms indeed a nuclear plant
That is more likely not to explode is not necessarily a reassuring nuclear plant

English: 
definitely, even if it has a 1% probability of exploding I'd argue that that's still cause for concern and we should still prepare for the
Worst yes, and we should not give too much importance to surveys that only ask about most likely scenarios
it's important to consider surveys that discuss how likely different scenarios are and
fortunately for us in 2015 ai expert from the two main a AI conferences were surveyed that way and out of
1600 34 of them
352 accepted to answer the questions of the survey. You should check it out Jade. Let me see
Wow this survey asked AI experts to plot on a graph for any given date how likely they thought it would be that human level
A eyes would have arrived by that date
And here's what the curves of different experts look like
Also here in red is an aggregate of the predictions of the experts
When crucial thing to note when looking at the graphs is how much AI experts

French: 
Clairement !!
Même si la probabilité d'explosion est de 1%
je dirais qu'il faut quand même s'en préoccuper
et il faudrait se préparer au pire
et en particulier, il ne faudrait pas donner trop d'importances à des sondages qui demandent uniquement les scénarios les plus probables
Et par chance, en 2015, les experts en IA
ont été sondés avec des questions probabilistes
Et parmi 1364, 352 ont accepté de répondre
Tu devrais aller voir ça, Jade !
Wow ! Ce sondage demande aux experts de dessiner un graphe
pour chaque date, il demande la probabilité
d'une IA de niveau humain avant cette date
Et voici à quoi ressemblent les courbes de différents experts (en fin)
Et en rouge, on a là un aggrégat des avis des experts
Une chose importante à observer est à quel point les experts sont en désaccord

French: 
Du coup, aucun expert ne peut être représentatif de l'ensemble des experts
En particulier, il y a un énorme biais de sélection
à chaque fois qu'on donne de l'importance à un expert donné
Regardons donc l'aggrégat des experts
Selon lui, il y a 50% de chances pour une IA de niveau humain avant 2061
Donc on a le temps de voir venir
selon les experts, l'IA de niveau humain dans plusieurs décennies est le scénario le plus probable
mais en termes de risques, on devrait aussi s'intéresser aux scénarios moins probables
ils disent aussi qu'il y a 10% de chances d'une IA de niveau humain avant 2025 !
Lê, c'est très bientôt !
Oui ! Et 10%, c'est tout sauf négligeable !
Encore une fois, une centrale nucléaire avec 10% de chances d'exploser
ne devrait clairement pas être construite !
Et pourtant, une IA de niveau humain pourrait être encore plus explosive !
Comme on en a longuement parlé sur ma chaîne
et comme Robert Miles le fait sur la sienne
l'IA de niveau humain pose des risques existentiels pour l'humanité

English: 
Disagree, this is important to note since it means that no expert is representative of all experts in particular
There is a huge selection bias whenever you give great importance to one single expert. So let's look at the aggregate
according to the expert there's a
50% chance that by the Year 2060 one human level AIS will have arrived so we probably have a bit of time
According to experts human-level AI in a few decades away is the more likely scenario
But in terms of risks we should also care about less likely scenarios
They also say that there's a 10% chance of human level a eyes by 2025 lay, that's so soon
Yes, it is and 10% is far from being negligible again the nuclear plans with a 10% chance of exploding should
Definitely not be built yet
human-level AI may be even more explosive than a nuclear plant as we've discussed it in length on my channel and as Robert Mars does

French: 
À moins d'investir massivement dans la sécurité des IA
l'IA de niveau humain pourrait bien détruire l'humanité
Ou du moins, il y a un argumentaire solide par Nick Bostrom dans son livre "Superintelligence"
qu'il faut voir la destruction de l'humanité comme le scénario par défaut qui fait suite à une IA de niveau humain
OK... Mais 10% c'est l'avis des experts.
Peut-on leur faire confiance ?
les experts ne se sont-ils pas trompé par le passé ?
Oui. Clairement.
Par exemple, Marvin Minsky pensait que l'IA de niveau humain serait là dès les années 1970.
il avait surestimé la vitesse du progrès
mais les erreurs de prédiction n'ont pas toujours été causées par une surestimation du progrès
En fait, ces derniers temps, il semble que l'inverse soit davantage vrai
Par exemple, dans le sondage de 2015,
les experts ont prédit qu'il faudrait 12 ans pour qu'une IA surpasse les humains au Go
mais AlphaGo battit Lee Sedol quelques mois plus tard
À supposer qu'ils se trompent tout autant pour l'IA de niveau humain
ceci suggère qu'on ne peut pas exclure la possibilité

English: 
On his human level a I possess existence of risks for mankind unless we massively invest on AI safety
Human-level AI may well destroy humanity
At least there is a strong case made by Nick Bostrom in his super intelligence book that we should regard the destruction of
Mankind as the default scenario if AI becomes superhuman
Okay, but 10% is the prediction of the experts. How likely is it that they're right about this?
I mean having experts made very earnest predictions in the past
they have they definitely have for instance Marvin Minsky famously thought that human-level AI would be there by the
1970s he had overestimated
The speed of progress but prediction errors would not always due to our estimation of future progress. In fact lately
It seems that the opposite holds more often for instance in the 2015 survey
Experts predicted that we take 12 years for a eyes to outperform humans at the game of go
But alphago beat lee sedol a few months later
Assuming that they are equally wrong about human-level AI

English: 
This suggests that we cannot rule out the possibility that a eyes will reach human level within a couple of years
I see I guess the unreliability of experts should be regarded as added uncertainty if the
Distribution of expert predictions for human-level AI looks like a bell curve. Then this added uncertainty should flatten the curve
but look this means that the probability of extreme events increases
Yes, indeed because experts are unreliable
we should in fact be even more concerned about the possibility of human level AI in a near future and
instead of a 10% probability of human level AI by
2025 we might consider a 10% probability of human-level AI by say
2022 okay
But this is very hard to imagine to reach human level wouldn't a eyes need some kind of real intelligence or consciousness?
And what about energy consumption?
The human brain is very efficient can computers really be as efficient as the human brain
There are definitely huge hurdles to get to human-level AI

French: 
qu'une IA atteigne le niveau humain d'ici quelques années
Je vois...
le manque de fiabilité des experts doit être vu comme un ajout d'incertitude
si la distribution des prédictions des experts est une courbe en cloche alors cette incertitude additionnelle devrait écraser la courbe
mais regardez !
ça veut dire que la probabilité des cas extrêmes devrait augmenter
oui, parce que les experts sont souvent en excès de confiance
on devrait être d'autant plus préoccupé
par la possibilité d'IA de niveau humain dans un futur proche.
Au lieu de 10% pour 2025
on pourrait considérer 10% pour 2022.
OK... Mais tout ça est très dur à imaginer
L'IA n'aurait-elle pas besoin d'une "vraie" intelligence ou conscience ?
Et quid de la consommation d'énergie ?
Les machines peuvent-elles faire aussi bien que le cerveau humain ?

English: 
But research is progressing at an impressive pace both in terms of hardware and software
In terms of hardware for instance the so called Akuma's law suggests that the energy consumption of a single computation is dropping
exponentially as it is divided by two every 18 months and
Innovations in paralyzed if not decentralized computing and data storage may allow this trend to carry on
So then what about the software side don't we need some kind of major breakthrough?
Probably it's hard to tell to understand the software challenge
It's useful to get back to an insurance 1950 paper in these paper
He suggested that a large part of the complexity of the human brain is critical to reach human level intelligence
Yet the human brain has around a million billion synapses
If 1,000 of them are essential for human level intelligence
It suggests that an AI will need to be of size at least one terabyte to which human level

French: 
Il y a clairement d'énormes obstacles pour atteindre l'IA de niveau humain
mais la recherche avance à un rythme impressionnant
à la fois en hardware et en software
en termes de hardware
la loi de Koomey suggère que le coût énergétique d'un calcul décroît exponentiellement vite
et est divisé par 2 tous les 18 mois
Et des structures de stockage et de calcul parallélisés, voire décentralisés,
pourrait permettre à cette tendance de se poursuivre
Et quid du software ? A-t-on besoin d'une énorme innovation ?
Probablement... C'est dur à dire.
mais pour comprendre les défis software
c'est pas mal de revenir à l'article de Turing de 1950
il y suggère qu'une grande portion de la complexité du cerveau humain
est critique pour atteindre l'intelligence humaine
mais le cerveau humain a environ 10^15 synapses
si 1% d'entre eux sont indispensables pour l'intelligence de niveau humain
ça suggère qu'une IA de niveau humain devra faire au moins 1 TeraOctets

French: 
aujourd'hui, les grandes IA font souvent quelques Gigaoctets
et les plus grandes se rapprochent du Teraoctet
Ceci suggère qu'en termes de complexité
on pourrait bientôt atteindre ce qui est nécessaire pour l'intelligence de niveau humain
Ça reste dur d'imaginer que ceci suffise pour atteindre l'IA de niveau humain
n'a-t-on pas besoin d'entraîner ces IA?
oui. Mais beaucoup des données nécessaires
sont possiblement déjà disponibles !
pour atteindre le niveau humain, une grande IA bien conçue
pourrait lire Wikipedia encore et encore, et regarder le YouTube scientifique
c'est une chose d'être exposé à ces données
mais l'IA pourra-t-elle apprendre des données ?
ceci pourra-t-il conduire à une "vraie" intelligence?
encore une fois, c'est dur à dire
mais j'insiste dessus : c'est dur à dire
beaucoup semblent penser que, parce que l'IA ne fait que des opérations mécaniques,
elles ne peuvent pas atteindre le niveau humain
mais le truc, c'est que de longs calculs mécaniques sont plein de surprises !

English: 
Today the size of large areas is usually of the order of Giga bytes and the largest AIS
Seem to slowly reach one terabyte this suggests that in terms of complexity
We may soon which what's necessary for human level intelligence
Still it's hard to imagine that this is sufficient to reach human level a eyes
I mean don't we still need to train those a eyes? Yes indeed
but much of the necessary data is arguably already out there to reach human level large enough and well designing of a I
Could read Wikipedia again and again and watch science youtube videos
It's one thing to be exposed to this data, but could an AI actually learn from this data
Could it lead to a real intelligence again?
it's hard to tell but it's
Important to note that it is hard to tell it seems that many people believe that since AIS are just doing mechanical operations
They cannot compete humans. But the thing is that long the mechanical operations are actually full of surprises

English: 
They can lead to results that we humans cannot predict not because the operations are complicated
In fact, each operation is extremely simple. However, a is performed a huge number of such simple operations
This is something that our brains cannot do and this is why our brains cannot predict the outcome of a eyes computations
Which means that they will lead to results that surprised us
Alan Turing put it brilliantly
He wrote the view that machines cannot give rise to
Surprises is do I believe to a fallacy to which philosophers and mathematicians are particularly subject
This is the assumption that as soon as a fact is presented to a mind all consequences of that facts bring into the mind
Simultaneously with it. It is a very useful assumption under many circumstances
but one too easily forgets that it is false a
natural consequence of doing so is that one Lynne assumes that there is no virtue in the mere working out of
consequences from data and general principles

French: 
ils conduisent à des résultats que nous autres humains ne pouvons pas prédire !
Pas parce que les calculs sont compliqués.
En fait chaque calcul est ultra simpliste
mais les IA font un très grand nombre de ces calculs
voilà une chose que nos cerveaux ne peuvent pas faire
et c'est pour ça que nos cerveaux ne peuvent pas prédire le résultat des calculs des IA
ce qui veut dire que ces calculs donneront des résultats qui vont nous surprendre
Alan Turing l'a parfaitement expliqué
L'idée que les machines ne peuvent pas donné lieu à des surprises est due, je pense
à un sophisme fallacieux auxquels les philosophes et mathématiciens ont particulièrement sujets.
C'est l'hypothèse selon laquelle
dès qu'un fait est présenté à un esprit
toutes les conséquences de ce fait sautent simultanément à l'esprit
c'est une hypothèse très utile dans bien des cas
mais on oublie trop vite qu'elle est fausse
Une conséquence naturelle de cela est que
on suppose alors qu'il n'y a pas de vertu
dans le simple calcul des conséquences de données et de principes généraux

French: 
Exactement!
Et donc on ne devrait pas être en excès de confiance concernant ce qu'on pense qu'une IA peut faire
Leurs longs calculs vont probablement nous surprendre
En fait, si vous avez suivi l'actualité de l'IA
vous avez sans doute été surpris
par les images photoréalistes de NVIDIA, les sous-titres automatiques de YouTube
et les appels téléphoniques de Google Duplex
Bonjour
Bonjour, je voudrais réserver une table pour mercredi 7
pour 7 personnes ?
C'est pour 4 personnes
4 personnes ? Quand ?
Aujourd'hui ? Ce soir ?
Mercredi prochain à 18h
En fait, les réservations sont pour 5 personnes ou plus.
Pour 4 personnes, pas de réservation
Quelle est l'attente?
Quand? Demain ? Le week-end?
Pour mercredi prochain, le 7.

English: 
Exactly and thus we should not be overconfident about what we think that huge eyes can do their long
Computations will likely surprise us
well
in fact
If you've been following the recent developments of a guy you should probably have been surprised by invidious photorealistic images
YouTube's automated captioning and Google duplexes phone calls
You know me who you hi, I'd like reserve a table for Wednesday the 7th
for seven people
It's for four people well people win
Wednesday at 6 p.m. Oh
Actually really sir for like up were like a 5 people for you for below you can come
How long is the way usually to be seated fuck when tomorrow?
For next Wednesday the 7th. Oh

English: 
No, it's not too easy. You can call me back. Okay?
Oh
I got you bang
Again that was real call with many of these examples where the calls quite don't go as expected
But the assistant understands the context to nuance it new tasks for wait times in this case and handle the interaction
Gracefully, yes
We should be prepared for potential surprising developments in AI that would give them human level reasoning abilities in
particular given all we've discussed I would claim that there is a strong case for saying that human-level AI by
2025 should be given a probability larger than 1% and come to think of it
1% is huge. Especially given how disruptive this human-level AI would be

French: 
Il n'y a pas trop de monde. Vous pouvez venir, ok?
Oh ! Compris ! Merci !
C'était un vrai appel !
Bien souvent, les appels ne vont pas comme prévu
mais notre IA comprend le contexte, les nuances
et gère l'interaction avec grâce !
Oui ! Et donc, il faut s'attendre à d'autres avancées surprenantes en IA
peut-être jusqu'à leur donner des facultés de raisonnement de niveau humain
Et vu tout ce qu'on a vu, je dirais qu'il y a un argumentaire solide
pour dire qu'une IA de niveau humain avant 2025, ça a une probabilité supérieure à 1%
Et à y réfléchir, 1%, c'est énorme !
surtout sachant à quel point ce serait disruptif !

French: 
C'est pour ça que je prétendrais que la menace d'une IA de niveau humain devrait vraiment être prise au sérieuse !
Et investir massivement en sécurité des IA
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
This is why I would argue that we should really take the threat of human-level AI seriously and invest massively on AI
safety
Hey, I hope you've enjoyed this video a big. Thank you to
Jade from an item
I highly recommend her YouTube channel is one of the greatest things out there and of course her videos about physics
Which is her background are really really good, but I strongly recommend even more her videos about computer science ideas
Particle, there's one on the singularity and there also videos about machine learning overfitting or the optimal stopping problem
I highly recommend these videos and also we just did a video on Jade's channel
It's about a pragmatic solution to implementing value loading by simulating a virtual democracy on extrapolated versions of ourselves
for self-driving cars faced with the trolley problem
Before coming back to the comments of the previous video
I want to highlight again the article that I've written about how to handle a human level AI and in particular how to load values
Into a which is a very very very difficult problem

French: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
I strongly recommend
anyone who's a bit interested by these ideas to go and have a read of these paper as I think it is the most
Important thing that I would have ever written my life - about the komono
Opinion ticket is a sweet la Vida solution automatic
So our kuhmo about the mission poor isn't what they plan to the heat as a Muto here Samuel Genesee endless
Possibilities because Veronica qf9 hace. Una she'll go eight. No, this one here is a
Upon what did they seem pretty fancy algae off non-apology on due to tech community particular
Individual so in so high-pass seed if your could you to visit the floor if not a section. Oh boy. Yeah
Somos de cuisine no a/c power finish here
Sacramento mucho to mom to come you, so I would say some people Sentinel - Kevie
Christoph Michelle a general doesn't miss a video. So you're a fat killer the pugilist underwater if I'm the

English: 
sequester would improve achieve easy the pan you ate if you will it's
Really cool did you get a shock?
media more character
Yeah, I said this position for young fillies in seven men you say what you owe him some clearly just a partial body to
oppose him because
There was no education
Draconian was too early flame
duties as from pass on
Duty to numeric. Ooh, patently burns X naught open or short 1finity parafoil a shell Gribble a addition individual
But I was molten sick on citizens on extermo MPG
severely unique cupola water indication keyword
talented
computer from restitution pacified UK so national
Say cash whiskey no me some bleep
Job. Yes coupon. Just hold on a
Kinnaman back guarantee Domini it shows

French: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
There as you go sniff get you more Benishek become or reduce it radically befell the reform education national
past gives ya beaucoup to the person role a case where this you know our
Foursome. Oh they make them talk a
situation Symington toe
Through inequity prison some coupons not fulfilled decision when you go to a PTA is our phone book with the time P suppose
you know senior
subs a necessity given would not canola for the
11 new CEO days. No senior. It's a demonic with Danone will be J. But
2005 tracking PK a so source qtz the technology come
later, go eternal combination 205 Jean pong world, you know educativa precook toka - ah,
she actually let you guys know soon I'd say so I've
Shown to computers. If you ask a busy effective nopon. Do you read the ones he also said no Appa action action or limit a

French: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
Computer you just go come on - on YouTube potato. I'm wonderful book. Mucho gusto. Oh come on the video youtube poop world
even on beyond today detection revealed a
Formula walk you ma'am. Yeah the YouTube phenomenon city on wax. Yeah - total net. It's a travesty that one IKEA single tonight a
dictum like stone
Ain't no
Fuckin simple super here. They come to go to school a dick on Facebook
They come to a tweet a link to youtube if you really want to step on
Your paws on Martinez on the meritorious to the envy job with Ricky Satya a calico Simon
We said you could clowns in yet and you know, you know
It's like a public here to
The clean air you could divine your presence WebP is important corrupt because most popular group
Do you know if you have to screw a cool content? I suppose fun options, you know
seppuku mija
Individual each week like only cumin Kentucky beyond

French: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

French: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
supplement pass a predict into Bitcoin you would
speculate on growth a
CL facade vicinity hot Louis acting modem. We know dude Jenny do a dramatic sir adversely girl who a girl motivation illegality
Cool Sean tonight yet to see is to other do anthem. We are typical
Wet if you put a needle on it on Queenie new up like the men would also no
Dooku won't pay Lincoln, you know, please professor that left leg on the shell exploit a $25 for Turkey
Yo you so especially complicated owner happy mom, you know? Yeah, they're a party Alice muna
lost his notebook is
On bullshit is human profile is actual manual computer. Mafia
He continually repelled alpha don't say domain Pau Zotoh a Malloy Siana kotelnyk wah-wah
Looking older the track also su sitio de tousser on trophies
hell
yeah, see a

French: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
Vortex monsoon more enormous you're associating media and pull on silly word boy after you tell your concern
I'll prove expertise into an empty wave. Holy fire audition - a
necessity upon Hotel hotel decision wife in Yeldon even
more one more one more, you know a
Lugano Jamison confesses
Calculus was gonna be chiefly octopi accurately soonish near Houma hide of God who in nuna's
man, she seemed to pretty to myself what choice -
-41 in the pros - pawn years, especially in Europe in short quite develop a lead Kazuma
You cooperate - you applied also - Yahoo!
element array at
The Met compress this is same a Popeye's don't exterminate humanity
Well, no more power ratios and to all don't permit episode which must include replica some - computer by secure
Massage video passage knee pad champion Pasi wife. Yeah Dyneema. Sofia one more flippy. I

French: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
Just gotta save a miss a video clip conclude offer last year. He sewer nothing else athlete is yet
No confuse Joey do not give I'm on fire optimist a I'm effectively promote Dante Joseph failure
Didn't we know I'm all taken a favor by more and more people
He or she turns up a secular powerful 9u probability can only media blowed up at Machpelah
You can hold your new society. Don't assign your Ania mmm
Does he add a description very Monica Civic psychopathically your Jean who receives focus even a very competent specialist University
Electricity Rhodesia job isn't Eliza question 20. No Zelda
Nagumo suppose Vermont will feature your humanity 800 me a soy sauce and former persecuted videos Philip Oakey needs
learning portion
Idaho courage Palmer don't give me something to pathology modify behavior from back on
overtake hiddenville City FL disagree parallel
Vince you of the basin is a common possum terminus attitude from some Bergamo and inject crucial

English: 
For be impossible induce a generic problem. See come home. They defeat room by the waterfront a record amount in you a
Routine-use knock knock I did okay for food. Well, how did I say to say they feel differently music?
So how Lucia the lot Jose the Videocon over there a key right for come home you develop a special consequence if I'm unlucky
Oracle robbery we welcome the key a
secondary super cool do confusion a
Absalon fact is action
Camera mobility a decree for absent from color
I noticed the beauty but so sad you could attend the
rotisserie the linear portion survey miss Egidio
possibility a coma telepathic on suburban upon 22 episode now cheaper
Although he just Beckham Sevilla now pushing for the legendary mathematician John von
Neumann was the first to use this phrase to describe this
Lovely day when he said the ever accelerating progress of technology gives the appearance of approaching some essential

French: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
Singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs as we know them could not continue
70% of the AI experts
agree that this is at least a moderately important problem and how much to the AI experts think that society should
prioritize AI safety research
well
48% of them think we should prioritize it more than we currently are and only 11% think we should prioritize it less
so there we are AI experts are very unclear about what the future holds but they think the
Catastrophic risks are possible and that this is an important problem. So we need to do more AI safety research

French: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
