37C3 - Synthetic Sentience

[@pedro_marques92]

thanks lord joscha, the enlightened one, some day people will build a religion upon your name, bachism. keep feeding us with your wisdom, blessings and prophecies.

[@harriehausenman8623]

Already happened. Back in 2013. 29th of december, to be precise. What a wonderful sunday that was ☀ 😄

[@qubit966]

@@harriehausenman8623 What happened that day?

[@phyngineer]

Joscha's shirt developed consciousness. JK, he's one of the smartest guys around!

[@AlexTrusk91]

Casually dropped a rare Gem on topics we only start to grasp. Nice

[@derBartzer]

Great talk. I love everything about it and i am grateful that you share your thoughts with me.

[@harriehausenman8623]

The Legend is back! 🤗 p.s.: Three seconds is about right: One for before, one for now and one for after 😄 (Lux Petrus ? 😉 )

[@itssoaztek4592]

This guy really is pushing boundaries. Love it.

[@Subject18]

Absolutely beautiful talk, I love Joscha and this is one of my favourite talks of his. Ive tried to deconstruct my ethics before but he does it wonderfully here with Aquinas's policies. And the monologue from 41:15 always gives me shivers

[@mushroomtime2503]

Diesen Talk anzuschauen ist wie wenn ein Teil meiner seöbst wieder zu mir findet! Joscha bringt das alles so steril und logisch rüber überfodert dabei nicht und der Stoff ist so reichhaltig und durchdrängt von "Menschlichkeit" und Liebe!?

[@JulianDanzerHAL9001]

47:25 real time is a fairly arbitrary measure though in fact I think "us beign able ot perceive ourselves perceiving in real time" gets the logic backwards real time is the time in which we can perceive ourselves perceiving ourselves thats why its the timescale that we, subjetively, have decided to call "real time" for practical purposes there are plenty relevant contexts in which the time a huma nneuron needs to do anything at all is basically an eternity there are also plenty relevant ocntexts in which a year delay is practically instant to say a system can't be concious because its definition of "real time" is absed ona different context than our everyday life kindof assumes that our everyday life is the measure of all things companies don't seem to have that level of complexity and since things happen at a slower timescale it owuld take a while for anything conciosu to emerge but there is no way of tellign that a large group of humans cannot be concious after all we are jsut large groups of cells we perceive the world as humans and not as individual cells or as groups of people but thats just who we are that doesn't mean we're the only thing that exists

[@TheLatin89]

I think what he refers to is that conciousness is that weird elusive sensation of the "now" that you get when you perceive yourself perceiving ... a resonating state a company is not able to "generate", while it is indeed able to be sentient. Which is definitely something i've never made the connection to ... seems reasonable tho and still i would not completely agree with that statement.

[@JulianDanzerHAL9001]

@@TheLatin89 a company is probably too simple and doesn't really have a reason to develop like that but imagine a simulated human brain ina simulated environment it could experience the very same sensation of "now" even if that simulation is carried out one millionth speed sure it might take a while for that simualted human to start thinking of exitential questions like what being itself now means but it would still feel the same as anyone else evne thouhg each meaningful activity of a neuron would be carried out over hours

[@LukeKendall-author]

Wonderful talk, as always. Also timely for me: the part on distributed consciousness, especially, tied in very helpfully to firm up (fictionally!) one significant plot element in my current book.

[@Nathon-Gunn]

Just incredible!

[@ewerybody]

10:18 der animated-gif loop, is das von "IF WE DON'T, REMEMBER ME." page 3? Beschde 👍👍👍

[@kevincolyer]

What a fascinating talk! Thanks!

[@Markus1p]

Joscha is Bach ;) Good deep thoughts

[@Thilo1971]

Great speaker!

[@arbitraryostrich]

As always a supremely interesting and strange listen.

[@hwerki]

Such an interesting, compelling subject matter. So masculine. A dream of discovering the most intricate. I guess as a woman who has given birth I don’t feel that curiosity any more. My enlightenment quest became totally uninspiring and shallow and just another way to pass the time whilst alive. But true that these are interesting theories and insights. As philosopher always have done. Problem is all the Hang arounds and wanna bes that create laws and structures based on their current inspirations and “truths”. Tickles my brain on a Saturday 😁✌🏼

[@bloodyeyex1088]

Joscha is just the smartest person =) Tipp for all people who heared him the first time and want more. There are talks at Lex Fridman on yt in english. And at Alternativlos!-podcast for the german audience.

[@top115]

Pro Tip: Joscha has his own KZbin channel where he is maintaining playlists with all of his content available on KZbin sorted nicely! German podcasts are also available: Songs & Argumente (Franz Hildebrand) Wunderbar Together Anomalistik und alternativlos.

[@videobegucker]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJS8f5uFnLZlb6ssi=VAW844DOfsb-5hAE this is a great conversation too

[@senzatieee]

​@@top115 what's his channel called

[@ender749]

​@@senzatieee youtube.com/@JoschaBach?si=Jmd6BThwyrtKw3tu

[@Axiomatic75]

​@@senzatieeeThe channel is called "Joscha Bach"

[@top115]

Irgendwie muss ich an Tribute von Tenacious D denken. The best talk in the world!

[@MichielvandenAnker]

Finally, a sequel.

[@albinosan4744]

Where is the prequel?

[@MichielvandenAnker]

@@albinosan4744 search "ccc joscha bach" and there are four more talks at this conference.

[@alexandergeuze4689]

37c3 .. liebe vom ersten Kommentar :)

[@kinngrimm]

For alignment i like the GATO framework approach by David Shapiro . It may not be the only one needed, but as an additional layer included in AI systems, it might go a long way.

[@stevejordan7275]

Also familiar with Mr. Shapiro's work, and agree wholeheartedly! He has some very accessible material here on YT, for anyone who wants to dig in. Here's one that includes an intro: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j3XJm6CfiaaNg80&pp=ygUcRGF2aWQgU2hhcGlybyBHQVRPIGZyYW1ld29yaw%3D%3D There's also the ACE framework, which is a little more recent, and I understand has a paper published on ArXiv: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5ClfZKmqpl6qs0&pp=ygUcRGF2aWQgU2hhcGlybyBHQVRPIGZyYW1ld29yaw%3D%3D

[@niro1960]

Damn, that was interesting!

[@PrecioustheMovie1]

This dude and Ken Wilber helped me achieve enlightenment. It’s shockingly simple and easy. Look into it guys. Michael Singer teaches how to let go and that’s an important tool as well.

[@haukehorn8007]

Danke, Klasse Beitrag! Bei den schnellen Definitionen musste man erst einmal mitkommen Drei kleinere Hinweise hierzu: 1. Wo bleibt eigentlich die einfache Feedbackschleife "Ich denke, also bin ich"? ;-) 2. Konkretisiere Liebe am besten durch konstruktiven Informationsaustausch bzw. positiver Grundeinstellung und ich gehe hier voll mit. 3. Jetzt hat meine Seele einen konkreteren Namen: System (bestehend aus Teilen physischer Elemente [wirkende Hardware, Bioware, Mechanik und Software]) Allerdings gibt es hier meiner Ansicht nach einen kleineren methodischen Schönheitsfehler: Virtuell ist eine Abstraktion der physischen Welt (zum Beispiel ist ein virtueller Zwilling ein Abbild der physischen Welt, das nicht zwingend jederzeit wirken können muss). Bewusstsein selbst entsteht auf physischer Systemebene (mitsamt wirkender Software) und ist daher nicht virtuell. Software wiederum kann virtuell nachgebildet werden durch zum Beispiel vereinfachendere Modelle. Unabhängig dieser kleineren Schnitzer ist der gesamte Schluss vollkommen korrekt. Danke noch einmal für diesen Beitrag, so bekommt unsere Superintelligenz eine noch explizitere Reichweite und daher voraussichtlich mehr Akzeptanz!

[@Qris_7711]

Just amazing stuff

[@dropped_box]

53:25 As if a cat can't get agency over a person ... stupid human. Cats are actually a viable model for dealing with superhuman intelligence, letting us stick around as cute pets.

[@wp9860]

I'm struggling with consciousness being virtual, and as Joscha adds, representational. What is Joshcha's position on whether consciousness is real or not? Consider the quale, red. I accept that red is representational. It is not a property of any subject of our perception. Red is only conjured up in our minds. I expect that Joscha would characterize red as virtual. Does he then mean that red is not real? My belief is that red is real. "Red" is massless. It is not pigment. My best guess is that it results from a bioelectric release of energy that evolution has figured out how to render as an impression of consciousness. In other words, red has a material existence, where material refers to matter and energy, between which Professor Einstein tells us there is an equivalence. If this is so, it gives us the final physical correlate of consciousness. It would not solve the "hard problem." But, it would narrow the search. Returning to Joscha's comments, there appears to be a reasonable argument for a material existence of consciousness. I am unable to sort out if Joscha would agree. The words virtual and representation do not resolve his position on the question to me.

[@SB324]

Frequency oscillation

[@marcelmaragall7817]

The frequency with which things happen is the pattern, and that is not physical, it's virtual because it is encoded in time, not matter. The universe is a computer, and consciousness is not a physical entitiy but an existential structure.

[@Ernesto_Gonzalez]

Thank you for being my friend ❤

[@BULLIBULBUL]

besonders seit chatgpt, denke ich besonders oft über genau diese dinge nach. fühle mich verstanden! vielen dank für speziell diesen beitrag! (wobei ich zugeben muss, das ich gewisse verbindungen nicht gesehen und erkenntnisse gerade auf mich nieder regnen.. 😅) VIELEN VIELEN DANK! GROSSARTIGER BEITRAG! 10/10!!

[@petermartin5030]

This is genius.

[@testsubject318no6]

So consciousness is just perceiving that you can perceive

[@LouisWaweru]

No, see 12:45 where he calls this sentience.

[@alexwiebe7744]

joscha beste

[@Tripp111]

Joscha's shirt is conscious.

[@somechrisguy]

Joscha with the f r e s h d r i p p p

[@Fleks47]

opop ❤

[@allurbase]

I like the general idea but the conclusion is rushed. Many easy takes, why abandon utilitarianism so easily, of course you can make the reward subjective, some like bananas some like apples, easy, aliens like whatever they like, ai likes whatever it likes easy, just lazy take. Also the utility monster, we do give double the weight to pain than to pleasure, maybe that's the reason, then the pain of one is as important as the pleasure of two, you maximize local subjective utility at increasing levels and done. The apeal to religion totally unnecessary. Further, the polytheism/monotheism considering it as such a big break in how conciousness work, you could say everyone is polytheistic, what would Marx say, what would Graeber say, etc. We keep everyone important to us in our mind and consider them in our decisions.

[@musaran2]

Yeah. Starts with a few good foundations, then jumps straight to the stratosphere with mysticism.

[@SB324]

@@musaran2Maybe I missed it, which part is mystical?

[@SB324]

I hadn’t heard that before about the double value of pain to pleasure, where is that ratio from?

[@casenied]

Dan Flashes is a very aggressive store...

[@Wingedmagician]

Why does this feel like church to me. Finally religion got an update. Jesus Christ!

[@ElUltimoVerdaD]

Freude schöner Götterfunken, Herr Bach, das ist ja richtig gute Philosophie! Ich finde es auch gut, dass hier kein unnatürlicher Lena Meyer-Landrut Akzent verwendet wird. Allerdings ist mir die Geschwindigkeit zu schnell für den Akzent - ich könnte mir das keine Stunde anhören. Ich hätte es lieber auf Deutsch in geschliffener Form, auch wenn ich das Lex Friedman Interview auf Englisch sehr genossen habe. Vielleicht liegt es auch an der begrenzten Zeit, dass in dem Vortrag so viel Inhalt steckt. Manchmal ist weniger mehr. 🚀.. ich finde sie sympathisch.. ich kann sonst fachlich da nichts zu sagen, das nicht mal bewerten..Das Thema ist für mich Interessant aber Hobby ( Rocket Science)

[@spectator5144]

nice DMT shirt

[@Vishal-ih3tc]

10:19, 12:36

[@Vishal-ih3tc]

21:09 - mind - emotion

[@Vishal-ih3tc]

27:00 Thomas Aquinas - Rational Agent, 31:40 Spirit,

[@copilot_4U]

Josha pleases ... The Truth Seeker in me, The God Lover in me, and The Reality Dreamer in me.

[@LaurentLaborde]

a bunch of claim with no purpose, a lot of repetition, the whole talk doesn't have any direction

[@andrewporter1868]

The reduction here of everything to mere mental constructs of a higher consciousness is quite repugnant. The ignorance here is offensive, everything in this talk. Complete departure from reason and sound philosophy. Looks like another (and many others by the looks of the comments here) have taken the bait of man's pride hook, line, and sinker. Mere knowledge is reduced to symbols and logical structures, even though symbols and logical structures are quite obviously not knowledge, but mere symbols and logical structures that have no meaning other than the fact that they are symbols and logical structures.

[@ewerybody]

I don't get the complaint 🤷 turning the perspective like that I thought it to be super interesting! One doesn't need to take everything for face value. But well, this is state of the art. I understand if you're not in love with it but that's not the fault of the science and presentation.

[@retroman7581]

​​@@ewerybodyyour last sentence irritates me; He explicitly states that this talk is NOT scientifically grounded but mere philosoohy (which is quite obvious if you critically exermine his thesis; e.g. that humans once had a shared agent, like wtf this is just blatantly wrong and anti historic, see 38:00)

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Oh how precious. 😂Are you frightened your ideas & beliefs are being challenged?

[@MVPStartaler]

Why make AI conscious when humanity is developing into stupid?

[@harriehausenman8623]

someones gotta do the job 🤣

[@korbendallas5318]

Bullshit right from the start. He first states _explicitly_ that his talk consists of severals sections of philosophy, then claims in the next slide that philosophy has "lost the plot 100 years ago". No way to recover from that, no need to hear the rest.

[@michaelwalsh9920]

You are the BS artist!

[@SB324]

Is philosophy beyond criticism, in your view?