Yes. The events really happened.

There is a very important case of Lynn Crook she has a book called False Memories: The Deception That Silenced Millions By Lynn Crook. She criticizes the topic of "false memories", please investigate the case I mentioned above, it is very important since it demolishes several arguments that many people are believing, and that cause harm

Quick actions and irrational behaviour are more commonly linked…it’s usually when someone has something to prove or want to get a point across, and usually ain’t based on anything solid with no thought or solid decision making put into it.

I don't know whether or not Stephen King was the reason but at the very least Pennywise was still funny which I feel a lot of clowns in horror media and even in real life are lacking.

Ty for this

Leftism would dictate you kill the three people instead of one. Earth's over-population and all. On the other hand, you could be killing three Democrat voters and since they want power at all costs, might have to gamble on just killing the one. Keeping three alive instead of just one is worse for the Earth's fictional climate "crisis" but POWER is more important to them.

this video helps me so much with my linguistic assignments!

Love the video! But I do need your help to find a REAL WORLD example. Please and thank you!

Sir Please Slow Down Your Speaking In Videos Pls it's hard to grasp for non English speakers

okay, Moore's law (exponential progress) is really only relevant to computers. This is something Peter Thiel has pointed too. Chomsky has talked on how things have really plateaued. The changes we have now to 60 years ago aren't much. Antibiotics, phones, planes, electricity all existed back then. Now things have progressed, but not the massive changes from the 1800s to the 1900s, where they (in 1800s) had none of the forementioned inventions. Will we see massive technological advances in the next 20 years, not very likely. Think 20 years ago. People watched crap on TV, now they watch that crap on a phone. That's about it. Medical progress have actually gone backwards, we are more obese, than any other time in history. And thanks to antibiotic stewardship, people who should have been easily cured of disease are now being maimed and killed cause doctors refuse to do the one thing they can for a patient.

Am I the only one that has the brain to think. JUST USE THE FUCKING BRAKES. It’s not like a train that takes 100s of metres to brake.

Exxellent video.

Ich will mein Auto selbst steuern! In der Fliegerei haben die Autopiloten die meisten Erfahrungen. Und die haben es ja leicht: keine Fußgänger, keine Baustellen und Verkehrszeichen. Trotzdem stürzen sie ab. Ja, weil die Mensch-Piloten nicht mehr wissen wie es geht. Die werden nur noch auf die Bedienung der Computer trainiert. (Sully hat das Handwerk noch von der Pieke auf gelernt, nur darum hat er die Notwasserung auf dem Hudson hinbekommen) Das hat schon beim Auto mit der Einführung der Navis begonnen. Die Leute schauten nur aufs Navi, aber dass es zB. statt einer Brücke nur eine Fähre gab, führte sie in den Fluss. Was soll das Vorführen der Versuchsfahrt in Berlin? Nur auf der mittleren Spur fahren, hat der Autopilot Angst mal von der Straße abzukommen? Was hält der Autopilot vom Rechtsfahrgebot? Wenn nichts, dann brauchen wir nur noch einspurige Straßen (wäre wenigstens ein (Park-)Platzgewinn). Und was soll es Ultraschall-, Radar- und Lasersensoren einzusetzen? Wenn dereinst ALLE Autos diese Signale einsetzen, blenden die sich dann gegenseitig, wir wir uns heute schon mit Scheinwerfern? Ein Autofahrer schaut an der Kreuzung einem Anderen ins Auge und schon ist alles klar, der Autopilot such erst mal nach dem richtigen WLAN des Anderen, bis dahin ist der Stau perfekt. Etwa 50 Jahre nach der Einführung von Autos wurde erst der Sicheheitsgurt Pflicht. Was kommt nach 50Jahren Autopilot? Und wieviele sterben vorher? Vom verpassten Fahrspass nicht zu sprechen! ( Ich: 55 Jahre unfallfrei, keine Punkte, und das Auto stand nicht nur in der Garage und noch heute sind mir die meisten zu langsam, außerdem Fluglehrer. )

The gonna need something to save the world

Very nice video and explanation, but out of 15 images of people 12 were white males 1 was an Indian male and 2 were white females. Would be nice to see some more diversity.... Maybe the artist and author are not aware of their own cognitive bias. This is a wonderful project who lets you find out about your own bias :) implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html try the gender-science IAT.

Are you there?

HAHAHHAHAHAH 5:20

You are not required to put yourself in danger, let alone die, to save someone else. No matter who, what, or how many they are. That is the law now, why should it be different for the machines that transport us?

The exponential growth of technology is already slowing down

I have a "memory" from early childhood where I found out my parents weren't my real parents and I was kidnapped, on the search for my real parents. Sounds like a movie? LOL, Yes, but it feels so real.....

If you like moral dilemmas check out this true story: medium.com/@canguneri95/the-moral-dilemma-of-the-lifeboat-case-is-murder-necessary-2019894135a8

www.pdfdrive.com/thinking-fast-and-slow-d163614088.html

Well done.

There is a criticism on this in the internet. I read like repeating crisis or something like that. It mentions that the experiments cannot be repeated now. So it begs the questions can we hold true what this book says? Is it then outdated? Or is the whole book system 1 thinking? Even another case where the author admitted on the errors of writing this book. There is no dohnt the importance of system 1 and system 2 thinking but nothing to provide any advice to overcome it? Why take this book seriously with all its errors? What if one is aware of the thoughts then? Would that be a better way of thinking? Woukd that what system 1 thinking?

How does this differe from slomans two system theory?

Tell the people to get off the tracks smh

Hello, someone has the reference of the study with judges and prison sentences?

this made my pp hard

great video !

It is not science or "intelligence" at the root of this. Philosophical or moral algorithms cannot be implmented and actuated in sub-millisecond crash scenarios. As your "life values" example points out, these are table-driven systems. Once the line is crossed to flip automotive sensor systems from "driver assistance" over to "driver-replacement", it will have to be faceless government regulators and their lawyers who prescribe the life-death decision tables - men who make decisions for power and control. Men whose positions cannot be held liable for the consequences of their decisions. Your choice of orange man to represent racism and the oppression of other cultural values, proves just how easily propaganda and bias can override reason and critical thinking. "AI" and self-driving cars are not the dilemma here, just an age-old fatal human flaw: our willingness to surrender self-determination to those who rule us, in return for a perception of safety and security. The technology here changes nothing but our means to rationalize our flaw. The final result of relinquishing our liberties is always the same - slavery and tyranny.

Speak. Slower. Dammit. Thank you.

Very very interesting!

That's totally bullshit Everything we've built was imagined before long time and there are no new ideas left, so people let's get this over with and know our placement in this universe We need better "preset" for currently human race and it's possible if the politicians and companies stop being greedy, we may then have good satisfying life without all of this crap of new technology and new mind-blowing changes

I thought this video was interesting and informative, but when I tried to discuss it with others, we ended up talking about the references to "Paul is Dead" and "Orange Man Bad" instead of the philosophical issues raied. A shame since this was obviously well-researched

I'm 39 years of age and lately, I've been "remembering" a lot of events that I'm pretty sure Never happened!!! Are these memories of "dreams" or flights of fantasies???

Ironic that a vid about languages is so hard to understand. Im sorry mate. Im sure you had a lot to say. But I couldn't understand you. Captions would have been nice.

I was born in 1996! I had long recognized this concept of exponential future. Isn’t it mildly one-track-minded & materialistic though? When I realized how much society, technology, and consciousness had been shaken in the 20th century - and to great poetry! considering how it capped a millennium - I was brought to kneeling. I’ve envied those who witnessed it first... now I feel a mild humorous pity; it’s a lot to adapt to. Isn’t it a sort of expectation though more so? Much of the things we can conceive we already have, and the much more of what we don’t we can live without and still thrive grandly. Life seems “futuristic” to most of us - af least as per the philosophy & its depictions. But we live on a finite grid, through infinite consciousness. What can coexist to create a future we find agreeable and exhilarating, that doesn’t kill the joyful essences & undying virtues of times long, long bygone by it? This must be the answer the future continues to find, no? Beyond the ignited-metal contraptions that play god... a meditative space can still take place on wood; a proper opera singer can always fill several churches. Bach will always be seminal; the wheel will always work; life will always flow like a river. True war will always be over love, whether posed through the fist, guns, bombs, information, or The Algorithm. So what is truly next? What is truly past that we can truly dispense? Every space and time has its units, no?

One thing is certain. If my selfdriving car is going to sacrifise me, imma reprogram that bitch asap haha. edit: shit. i didnt watch the ending of the video yet XD. The whole point is that everybody thinks like me.

They cannot just accept that alot of us DO NOT WANT THESE CARS! Shoving these things down our throats and making out like WE are the problem! WE DON'T WANT THEM!!! WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM! THE ONES FORCING THIS DOWN OUR THROATS ARE!!!!

fucking hell....

you should program them to avoid harm to the person driving them at all cost.

my estimate was "less than 140 years"

Ray dalios Principle book brought me hear well he talks about this in his book i was fascinated by it so decided to look deeper. Once you get a good grasp on the concept and apply it your views on anything that comes your way changes and i believe for the better.

Interesting and mostly correct idea. But I have a nudge that reality is even more complicated than just a simple exponential growth. Seems like advances are even more highly non-linear: not only we advance faster than in the past, there are also periods of slower rate of advancements. One can use the ever popular example of communications: once landlines were invented the technology got only relatively incremental improvements until engineers managed to miniaturise components enough to make mobile phones which was a paradigm changing invention, then again progress was pretty incremental until Apple released Iphone and era of smartphones took off, and again since then they have become much better but at a pretty incremental rate, no new huge advances. So one can see how the rate of scientific progress looks more like periods of incremental improvements dotted with big advances. So 1000x improvement is probably pretty unrealistic because it doesn't account for the fact that big advances require moments of creative leaps and those are not happening at a steady rate.

It would be interesting to know what you think the typical system 1 and system 2 answers are to your initial questions. I am guessing system 1 would say $1, before...over 100 and 10% and system 2 would say "$1.05", "before"- "70/80ish", and "50%". Though the answers to 2 and 3 are actually almost certainly: " 'before' - if Ghandi (I assume this is a deliberate misspelling) is a human being but, if not, I need more information before answering this" and "78, assuming you mean Mahatma Gandhi" and "It depends on whether you are using a roulette wheel with 2 zeros or just one zero...Either way less than 50%..unless a) the wheel has a bias or b) what you actually mean is what are the chances or Black ever turning up (rather on the next turn) in which cases it is 100%."

Ah! The accent is much easier to follow than in the first video. And this Riddle is great.

I guess that narrator is also the reason you’ve only got 100 likes from the thousands of people who watched this....

I’m so grateful I’ve found this research, the topic fascinates me and there’s not much information online, but It’s extremely difficult to focus on the plot because of the absence of any pause or intonation. Is there any chance you could remake the video with a better narration? Thank you

would love another video on this topic. it was explained beautifully in this video.