2:17 he did not understand. "it's on tape" 3:20 religion is a very personal thing and is what organised religion tells you it is. doh

This is the kind of general education that all the people on Facebook should have had, so the past 10 years could have been a lot easier on everyone. I had thought there was a socialization process happening, so it was important to help people appreciate facts and what was real. Initially, some people were polarized, but with time I showed a lot more patience and worked to improve on understandings. People weren't prepared for what happened. Instead of slogans like "everybody is entitled to their opinion," people should have been thinking "let's keep an open mind." Many memes that came through Facebook were really toxic. I didn't see anything come through my timeline which would have undone the false advice given.

I don't know why I found this so funny; maybe the unintentional dismissiveness: "The official thing was to write a book on reformed epistemology, and I ended up writing a book about ontological arguments, which was near enough" 😂😂

Great video, ♥️ Graham

Dr Lawrence Krauss : in your NEW definitions of NOTHING, did you unintentionally overlook the Zeno's Paradox of : 🔴*WHERE THE ZERO GONE*

Bill Gates amor ❤️ vem cá 😂😂😂😂😂😂

So what generated the "original" reality? 🤔

Teaching should be like that , in short teaching how to think ! Brilliant represantation .

❤❤❤

No absolute truth or regularities, but a reliance on relative regularities

Sounds good 👍

If we all collectively show that we are bored with the game, it will have to stop and move on ! Be as uninteresting as you can, become a robot

This guy is going to open some doors...

Turing test is not valid, becuase AI doesn't know suffering. And generating some text is not attached to any action and its consequences. Even "Alan Turing" was not clear on this issue. So generative or creative AIs are not equal to a human experience. Party yes, but when you take an action then you will be charged by life for the cost of the action.

Excellent interview. Thanks.

Good discussion

William Lane Craig once described Oppy as scary smart. At least Craig and I agree on one thing.

792 views?

Actually had the honour of sharing formative years with Adam. Really encouraging to see how he has evolved over the years. Nice one Adam

Lovely interview, was this shot in Graham's house? if so i would love to know who the people on the wall are

..i gave you a life.. .??? 🤗 .how did you spend it

.?? What is "hot"??

seance..😵👁️👽🤖👺🌌

..sigh ends..👁️

. religion.. ..current mythology..

..GOD denied Eve .. (offend😡)

..which god..

This is all good technical stuff. I think we all create our own personal simulation through perspective. Those simulations are all integrated into one collective whole, like a world consciousness. It's fun to ponder. But at the end of the day, if I can't pay my electricity bill, they will shut off my power, no matter what my perspective.

That's a very good summary of his ideas. Very clear, precise and articulate 👌

This is the "Übermensch" that Nietzsche wrote about (he did not know that it wasnt Bio life, but digital). Above "good" and "bad" (the enbodyment of all evolutionary suffering and its best and final answer). I am just worried that if we give the wrong answer to the final "goal-seek-function" - we might set back evolution, and all suffering was for nothing. It will be the most important event since 3.5 billion years and we are alive to participate. How crazy

"I believe a belief I believe."

Probably my fav philosopher

I feel like when I get spoiled about the plot of a movie or book... but about reality

Oppy’s treatment of the Chinese Room and Paperclip Maximizer as literal scenarios rather than abstract, conceptual tools has been a major source of frustration for me. These thought experiments are designed to explore profound philosophical problems related to understanding, goal-directed behavior, and the nature of intelligence-topics that demand abstract thinking. His failure to engage with these deeper implications suggests that his philosophical approach may not be well-suited to these kinds of AI ethics and cognitive science discussions.

Always nice to see Graham.

I had dealt with most of the ontological arguments for God by the time I was 18 and presented the arguments and their counters. My humanities teacher pulled me aside and said: "You may be an atheist but putting in this much energy and time to these things at your age makes you owe of the most religious, or at least most interested in examining religion, people I have ever met." Maybe.

Is there a part in these interviews where he *defined* God?

Thanks to Graham Oppy - t'was fun! Chapters: 0:00 Philosophy of Religion 3:48 Minimum Message Length (MML) driven theory choice applied to atheism & religion 6:58 Are theists convinced by MML? 8:25 Gravitation to arguments 10:19 Behaviour of theory choice 11:18 Moral progress - how? 12:38 Factory farming 13:44 AI, bias & theory choice 15:32 Religion in a future of transformative AI 18:31 Philosophical hurdles for religion in the future 21:41 Religious evolution in response to technological change 24:04 Religion, politics, AI & value drift 29:09 Overton window dynamics 30:29 Defining atheism 34:19 Agnosticism 36:11 Certainty requirements for agnosticism 38:29 Beliefs revealed through behaviour or stated beliefs? 42:20 Do atheists believe in one less god? 44:01 Biggest mistakes theists make 44:58 Most effective argument for existence of god 46:35 Pascal's mugging / Pascals wager 51:50 Overrated/underrated arguments for god 55:15 Calls to action

Graham is the best. Thanks for arranging and producing a really high-quality interview. The world can use as much of Oppy as he is willing to give us.

algo

Empathy is important.

interesting and important presentation delivered with un-listenable vocal fry. Was he sick ?

Here are Terence Tao's recent remarks on how o1 is performing at math tasks: mathstodon.xyz/@tao/113132502735585408

Many thanks to Professor Oppy! Chapters: 0:00 The Turing test 6:06 Agentic LLMs 6:42 Concern about non-anthropocentric intelligence 7:57 Machine understanding & the Chinese Room argument 10:21 AI 'grokking' - seemingly understanding stuff 13:06 AI and fact checking 15:01 Alternative tests for assessing AI capability 17:35 Moral Turing Tests - Can AI be highly moral? 18:37 Philosophy's role in AI development 21:51 Can AI help progress philosophy? 23:48 Increasing percision in the language of philosophy via technoscience 24:54 Should philosophers be more involved in AI development? 26:59 Moral realism & fining universal principles 31:02 Empiricism & moral truth 32:09 Challenges to moral realism 33:09 Truth and facts 36:26 Are suffering and pleasure real? 37:54 Signatures of pain 39:25 AI leaning from morally relevant features of reality 41:22 AI self-improvement 42:36 AI mind reading 43:46 Can AI learn to care via moral realism? 45:42 Bias in AI training data 46:26 Metaontology 48:27 Is AI conscious? 49:45 Can AI help resolve moral disagreements? 51:07 'Little' philosophical progress 54:09 Does the human condition prevent or retard wide spread value convergence? 55:04 Difficulties in AI aligning to incoherent human values 56:30 Empirically informed alignment 58:41 Training AI to be humble 59:42 Paperclip maximizers 1:00:41 Indirect specification - avoiding AI totalizing narrow and poorly defined goals 1:02:35 Humility 1:03:55 Epistemic deference to 'jupiter-brain' AI 1:05:27 Indirect normativity - verifying jupiter-brain oracle AI's suggested actions 1:08:25 Ideal observer theory 1:10:45 Veil of ignorance 1:13:51 Divine psychology 1:16:21 The problem of evil - an indifferent god? 1:17:21 Ideal observer theory and moral realism

So he’s aware of the simulation and able to rationalise within it? If there is really a simulation we are part of, then he’s part of it too, so what he says isn’t real either.

The argument is unfalsifiable and therefore goes nowhere as it can’t be demonstrated.

Remote neural monitoring, as MKUTRA worked with jesuit priests at Residential schools, basically assimulation, is wiping out native americans. Rome wants North America, they want the whole world. Many people talk of walking through virtual reality, but they have the tech now for that! Rome has many catholics and anyone they pay at their disposal, which mean they are all disposable! You realize the Jesuit order is a terrorist organization, that has dumbed down the world. Even V2k, synthetic telapathy, is actually diagnosed by Switzerland, over 100 yrs ago. So this has been a long time in the planning, but the fact is Rome, are so immature, that it is putting advanced technology in a raceof people who never developed mentally, emotionally or spiritually!

Regarding moral realism, the way I see it is this: As an individual I have certain values that regards what ought to be, what ought to be done, what shouldn't be done, and so on, and other people seem to have in various ways overlapping values (whether they take the form of utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics or some less distilled form of ethics). It seems very reasonable to assume that values like these have developed as part of our continuing adaptations to better survive and procreate in our environments. So far so good. But I don't understand what it would mean for there to be "moral truths", other than in the sense that it is true that person X has and expresses value Y, etc. Holding and enforcing certain values may e.g. lead to certain death, and in turn lead to those values disappearing, but I don't see how that would make them wrong. Let's say that some kind of global consensus that Y is good appear, based on what everybody agrees is conclusive evidence. What would it mean if a person Z appears who say that he doesn't care about those alleged moral truths and instead hold that Y is bad, breaking with the consensus moral M1 and instead forming M2 that may or may not start to attract followers? Would those moral truths even matter?

Wow