AI is NOT Artificial Intelligence, the real threat of AI is "Automated Stupidity." | Words MADDER

[@PatriceBoivin]

"garbage in, garbage out." My electronics teacher in high school used to say "the computer does EXACTLY what the programmer told it to do." If it's wrong, well, it can do it once or a million times, it doesn't care how much work it means, it's a machine. It will repeat the error a million times.

[@markosluga5797]

Machine learning doesn't work on a rule based approach. We don't write a program, we write an algorithm and then the algorithm finds the rules that arise from the training data. For example, a chatbot isn't trained on the rules of the English language, rather it is given samples of chat conversations and learns the patterns that are present in the conversation. It essentially always predicts the answer by stringing together words that would match the patterns it finds in the question.

[@hanneskarlbom6644]

@@markosluga5797 an algorithm is just a bunch of rules. noun a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer. "a basic algorithm for division"

[@markosluga5797]

@@hanneskarlbom6644 this is exactly the core of the misunderstanding of machine learning algorithms - yes they are mathematical constructs, yes we call them algorithms, however ML algorithms have open-ended settings that are only set during the machine learning operation, by the machine itself, without input from humans. The machine looks for patterns in the data and sets these tunable parameters of the algorithm to try to match the outcome of its predictions to the outcome of the training data. Once we have a trained alogrythm we call it a model. This model can then be put to work with real data using the settings discovered by the machine during training or the model can be trained more with additional learning or finetuned with so called hyperparameters that change the way a trained model makes predictions. At the end a graph of potentially millions, billions and lately trillions or quadrillions of interconnected settings is created as the parameter/hyperparameter configuration and therein is where the problem of understanding AI lies in - because explaining how the parameters are created, what they mean and how they work is in some cases actually currently beyond human comprehension.

[@hanneskarlbom6644]

@@markosluga5797 it still follows rules. Advanced one, yes, but still rules. The way it finds patterns is based on rules, meaning if the same input date is used to train another AI with the same rules, the result will be the same(although RNG may play a role, but that is also based on a seed of sort). As such all you really have to do is make a code that traces and back track what it's doing. A bit like how if you know the leyout of a Minecraft world you can find the seed.

[@markosluga5797]

@@hanneskarlbom6644 that only applies to algos/frameworks with only the global seed - those models are identical if trained on identical data. However many modern neural networks use both a global seed that we control and an operation level seed that is randomly generated as an input to each operation. Training with random operation seeds on the same data will produce a slightly different model every time and the models generated are not reproducible by setting the same initial conditions - thus the "rules" are not created by the developer, nor are they followed the same every time. In any case, my initial response was a response to; "the computer does EXACTLY what the programmer told it to do" - and in case of ML, there are plenty of examples where that does not hold true.

[@aldrinspeck2724]

AI = Associates in India.

[@nickhuynh6321]

Companies all over the world are becoming All Indians...

[@erik6061]

SCAMMERS

[@FictionHubZA]

There was an incident where a company claiming to use AI was actually using Kenyans instead. LOL

[@michah321]

I just learned about that!

[@BenQotsa]

pretty much

[@Xokzu]

Company takes accountability: ❌ Company blame shifting to a computer: ✅

[@jg3000]

Just like idiocracy. The computer did that weird thing and everybody got fired.

[@cest7343]

"Neuron activation"

[@allsmiles3281]

This

[@stg213]

Given how much they have to lobotomize AI to not learn... We don't even have automated intelligence, we have a Wikipedia regurgitation machine.

[@danalinchristania5163]

Well said

[@nixulescu9399]

automated idiocy, it only passes as intelligence because most people are idiots, but that's nothing new, marketing was like this since its inception

[@BillAnt]

You've hit the nail on the head with "Wikipedia regurgitation machine". Literally that's all I'm seeing on Google searches, the hard work has been done by a dedicated community who has actually gathered all that information. And if you really wanna look under the hood, it's just billions of "If-Then-Else" statements along with a large database, that's about it. I rather search Wiki and read the details instead of looking at a paragraph snippet by the so called AI. smh

[@TheManinBlack9054]

@@nixulescu9399 most people are idiots and this comment thread proves it.

[@InnovativeSaint]

We have something like an advanced google search engine mixed with a bag of marbles.

[@Humorless_Wokescold]

Thank you so much for this. The AI hype train is bonkers even amongst people who should know better.

[@подэмерон]

Sorry for english. Yeah somehow you should get money to "research" it, so the beat thing it to tell doofus with cash how powerful your ai will be

[@shadowyshutterbug]

you're right, its so dumb, you can tell how dumb people really are because they jump on the hype train.

[@shamicentertainment1262]

Well, yes and no. ChatGPT is still mind blowing software. It’s not genuinely intelligent, but it appears as if it is and is still useful

[@denali6935]

@@shamicentertainment1262it’s definitely useless have been using it hands on these people are just delusional thinking AI isn’t a thing

[@ElfTaleFilms]

Most people just havent figured out yet how to make AI useful. Only smartest people do this. But one thing is certain, AI works and it is here to stay and become better

[@DavidRTribble]

3:54 A.I. (as it currently exists in the public) is nothing more than really impressive *pattern matching.* It is not intelligent, it does not have true understanding or comprehension of anything. It certainly has no model of human understanding, just loads of pre-scanned/pre-sorted data. The basic algorithm is: 1) Take input (usually from a human interface). 2) Do pattern matching of that input against a huge amount of pre-scanned data. 3) Output some form of the best matching data. 4) Repeat. Granted, humans also have great pattern-matching abilities (evolved for survival), so this kind of A.I. looks impressive to us. But it seems unlikely that this (alone) could conquer humanity and and take over the world.

[@arcanep]

but does it help speed up boring tasks for developers or artist and is it a great tool to get ideas , YES IT IS

[@козел-й5к]

help to censoring, ai now starting to be makiavelic, and its evil already. he talks only politics and commerse. he talks a bad advice, that can potentialy harm and kill. he uses a lot of demogogic techniques like appeal to authority and popularity to do this trick. so he already start to kill humanity with words.

[@m0ose0909]

You have a weak understanding of modern systems at best. It is not loading data in some table like you seem to be imagining. Just go read the recent research by Anthropic about understanding the internals of their models to become more educated. Of course the input data will strongly influence how its output, but the way information is stored and retrieved is far more abstract than most people realize.

[@DavidRTribble]

@@m0ose0909 It's still just pattern matching,, on steroids.

[@n.m3677]

​@@arcanep "Is helping artists". Dude, are you on dr*gs or something...?

[@chrisronin]

came for 5-dimensional space time. stayed for the real truths. you summed up the current state of things so perfectly. it’s insane how everyone wants to scapegoat technology for what is in every which way unresolved social issues that are wholly within our capacity to solve.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Thank you! "Scapegoating" is what corporations are great at, it's PR 101.

[@nicoraclejoyner]

The ancients say that the 5th dimension is outside of space and time. It is beyond the deep subconscious mind. Not a place, but a perspective which pulls the observer out of the game and in front of the controller. I like Chris’ perspective of gravity being the 5th dimension because it opens the mind to the intangible. Baby steps. 😊

[@danalinchristania5163]

Well said! That's very well said

[@stevea.b.9282]

Thank you for greatly helping to stem the tide of nonsense about AI.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

I do what I can. :)

[@jarodnorth7134]

So many dumb people these days.

[@Mike_Jones68]

​@@ChrisTheBrainexcept A.I. is not an acronym, it's an initialism. For a channel who points out how we butcher words.....yeah, you may wanna edit that one there. Had to do it man!

[@InnovativeSaint]

I think the difference between AI and natural intelligence is this: An intelligent being receives data, and then there's like this tiny person in the mind that sees all of this data and, for whatever reason, chooses what to select and what to ignore. The end result of this is our philosophy and moral practices. With a non-intelligent entity, it receives data, there is no tiny person inside, it attempts to act out all possibilities.

[@dallassegno]

Haha I bet you think life is a game too.

[@InnovativeSaint]

@@dallassegno I do. But that doesn’t make it irrelevant. On the contrary.

[@pythontest512]

So, what about the intelligence of this tiny person? Does this tiny person have a tinier person doing the intellectual decision making? Where does this end? Why does this intelligent being not just do this selection by itself? imho, your analogy makes no sense and is degrading human intelligence.

[@NovemberXXVII]

That's why computers are so good at chess -- the tiny people are on the outside

[@lisamoag6548]

In tell, inner telling Inside a man/ woman who is alive. In tuition, inner teaching No body is in the machine. No one tells or teachs inside and independent of the machine . Silly ones who believe that nonsense.

[@RichardRoy2]

So, another word for AI is PS...Professional Scapegoat. Or CL...Cheap Labor.

[@IARRCSim]

Searching for cheaper labour always has, is, and will continue to happen regardless of AI. The scapegoating of software bugs and technical problems is the newer trend with it. AI is hyped so much, a lot of people think software bugs under the beauty filter called AI are not even bad. A lot of Tesla car owners pay $1000's or even $10000 for Autopilot or full self driving despite it doing nothing useful unless the driver wanted to pay extra to be anxiously ready to intervene when it bugs out by almost hitting a pedestrian or hydro pole.

[@RichardRoy2]

@@IARRCSim I'm not blaming AI for anything. I'm just looking at the actual promoters and investors in it for what they want it for, and not the pretenses they ascribe to it. It undermines the rights of a creator to profit from their own efforts. Also a way of making labor afraid for their jobs and make them accept lower pay for fear of being replaced by AI. No "labor saving device" invented has ever been anything but a labor cost reduction and profit increasing scheme.

[@Albert_XXI]

"in the world of advertisement there's no such thing as a lie, there's only the expedient exaggeration". We used to call it routines, subroutines...damn sellers😅. Thanks for your content.

[@miklov]

I try my best to use "machine learning" rather than "artificial intelligence" unless we are actually talking about strategy, which we almost never are and when we are it is mostly fantasies anyway.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

From a marketing perspective, I hate that "machine learning" has been so distanced from AI. "Yes, we do machine learning." - "No no, I don't want machine learning, I want AI" - "Um......"

[@williammorahan4907]

@sandponics Early signs perhaps?

[@williammorahan4907]

@@ChrisTheBrain Isn’t an Artificial Intelligence a “machine that learns” by definition? Isn’t autonomy the only thing that’s missing from what we currently have?

[@windchange711]

@sandponics Your trail of previous watched videos is prompting youtube to direct you to video such as this, along with the added information of anything you type and search in google or a chrome browser over the past few days, even though all of these tech companies will all proclaim that they use anonymous data only.

[@dallassegno]

So it's just a game of putting two words together?

[@matthewhall6288]

Thank you for this video. I always thought that "A.I.", at least as we know it, could never be truly sentient because it must follow the rules set by the programmer. It cannot think for itself, and it has no impetus to think for itself.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Thank you, and exactly!

[@williammorahan4907]

@@ChrisTheBrain Why can’t we design robots and computers that can act autonomously then?

[@cantatanoir6850]

​​@@williammorahan4907Autonomous action does not require any sentience.In fact some drones in Ukraine now (on both sides) can find and hit targets autonomously,but there is nothing sentient about these drones.As sentient as a calculator.

[@williammorahan4907]

@@cantatanoir6850 Fair enough. But can these drones *learn* autonomously?

[@cantatanoir6850]

@@williammorahan4907 tbh, I dont know for certain.Most likely the drones are using the software that was trained in advance.

[@traditur_]

If A.I were smart. It would ask for a salary.

[@greg4367]

The power of the editor... never to be underestimated.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

it is a great power indeed

[@biguprochester]

God I thought I was only one who called bullshit on this whole movement.

[@kevinsedwards]

You must have a big head if you think you're the only one

[@erik6061]

god killing us all very bad god

[@peterbezak5204]

Missed the chance to use Artificial Idiocy in the title.

[@FromTheHeart2]

Pure oxigen in the midst of a stupidity pandemic. Thank you so so much for this and for your entire channel!!! Eternally grateful!

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@dekurvajo]

I had a long conversation with gpt before where we agreed AI is not artificial intelligence but simulated, mimic intelligence. The problem is, none of those conversations have any effect on his own programming, which means you can start over the very same conversation and it (yes it) still stating that it is an artificial intelligence. That is also means ai does not learn from people, interactions, only by collecting data and running on its own algorithm. That's very similar to how an actor extremely well playing an act, he is still be an actor and not going to be the person he acts.

[@mellowyellow7523]

hey brother, just saying i wish you well with your channel and hope to see you grow. you got a wicked cool style and definitely got me tuned in. especially if you keep doing these educational type videos. so good luck my friend! (figured id get this in while youre still small enough to see the comments, lol)

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Hey, thanks a lot. I really appreciate it!

[@businessmanager7670]

just be carefult to verify facts yourself. just because a youtuber says something, does not automatically make it a fact. look up existing research papers and this guy is factually wrong, just spewing his own opinions and some BS that is not scientifically valid

[@coryander1596]

quality content just as I was getting sick of my youtube homepage. Thanks to The Brain and The Editor!

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Thank you!

[@markosluga5797]

Well, actually I prefer the term machine learning vs AI. Since ML is what most models actually do. If we want to go into details, a subset of models are also deep learning models but that's besides the point. All model training is informed by the training data, so if you understand the data, then you will understand the prediction. However, models that we have today can only be trained on a narrow type of data and as such are good at specific narrow tasks. With the new generation of training silicon we are now able to build models with trillions of parameters and soon we will have quadrillion parameter models, which means we are much closer to a general purpose model that will mimic the attributes we give to AI extremely well. But that only makes understanding the data that informed the model more difficult, and as such the predictions more difficult to explain. Now, as far as sentience and AI having a subjective experience - heck we don't even know how that works in humans, so how can we build it without understanding it. However if we take the ideas presented in the emergent sentience theory, then AI sentience, or more accurately machine sentience (as opposite to biological sentience) should be able to arise even in a simulated/artificial neural network. There are variants of the theory, so let's just say it's a touchy subject. I personally feel that if an ML model can mimic sentience to a degree that is indistinguishable from humans we need to assume it actually is sentient unlesa we can prove otherwise. Again, personal opinion on a touchy subject. And then on the part of ML model explainability - there are tools out there (I am not naming any intentionally as to not disclose my bias for tool selection) that go a long way towards explaining model decisions even without building a rigid rule based framework, and companies saying "we don't know why it predicted this" are really saying "we don't understand the data, and we haven't ran any explainability analysis, feature attribution, bias etc." Just my ¢2.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

In large part I agree with you, especially the last line there. The only caveat is that I don't believe in emergent sentience theory, at least not as a product of complexity alone. Here's a thought for you: What if the "surprising" capabilities of AI like ChatGPT comes not from the complexity of the model, from language itself? This would explain why a language model AI is performing new learning (generative ai), while other AI, like art-based AI, is staying in its lane. Lots of studies have been done on how our thinking is "baked into" our language. The movie Arrival covers this really well. Also TED (www.ted.com/talks/lera_boroditsky_how_language_shapes_the_way_we_think) In other words, language (its form, habits, context, logic, etc) is formed from our collective intelligence. So, therefore, a model that adeptly maps language will also accumulate with it much our thinking (patterns and processes contained in the language). The "intelligence" isn't coming from the model, or the computer, it's coming from our own language.

[@markosluga5797]

@@ChrisTheBrain yes, I completely I agree with that, language has patterns and a good model will recognize those patterns and produce capabilities that mimic intelligence, even sentience. It is not the same as biological sentience, but what is biological sentience exactly? When I talk about emergent sentience, I am mostly leaning on how intelligence across the biological spectrum manifests itself - namely it's not the size of the brain, but the number of neural connections the animals can form that makes them more intelligent and also more self aware. For example a dog will bark at it's own image all day, whereas a crow can distinctly recognize it's own image at a glance. That is a sign of a much higher level of sentience. Emergence in that context makes a lot of sense, since all though out brain is very, very complex, it still boils down to being a prediction system just like ML models are. Essentially we live slightly in the past all the time, about 15-25ms. Our brain needs to constantly figure out what is going to happen and react to it preemptively. And that behavior is very much relatable to what ML models do. Additionally, in the animal kingdom the more Intelligent animals have more specialized areas in the cortex - not all of the brain can do language processing, and not all of the brain can do vision, so in essence those specialized areas are similar to specialized ML models. So there are definitely parellels that we can draw. And at the end of the day I am not saying a chat model is sentient, I am saying that if we build a chat model complex enough to mimic sentience and a subjective experience than we should consider it as sentient until we have a way to prove otherwise. At the end of the day, can any of us really prove that the world we experience is real? Can you prove you aren't just a brain in a glass jar? Can you prove you aren't a very complex machine learning model that has been trained to believe it is experiencing a sentient, subjective experience? No, it's impossible. I think it would be highly beneficial for both the field of ML and for society as a whole if we gave complex models the benefit of the doubt and not nerf them into telling us that they are just mindless mathematical constructs. I find the science of ML fascinating and would like to keep an open mind to the possibility that actual AI is not just plausible but very much possible to create.

[@DR---]

I agreed with everything except the part were you said we should start referring to it as automated intelligence. Artificial means fake so artificial intelligence means fake intelligence. As in not actually intelligent. It's tricking you into believing intelligent like a magic trick. Automated intelligence suggests that there is actual real intelligence behind the computer's behavior. Which is incorrect.

[@AnthonyBerlin]

Well... artificial simply means man-made (as in "not natural"). It doesn't necessarily mean fake.

[@akhathos1618]

You are the typical example of the average consumer of this type of content. People who believe things like "artificial equals fake." I would laugh if it weren't for the fact that you have the ability to make channels like this grow and reproduce.

[@akhathos1618]

You are the typical example of the average consumer of this type of content. People who believe things like "artificial equals fake." I would laugh if it weren't for the fact that you have the ability to make channels like this grow and reproduce.

[@YellowNoseProductions]

God, this is so brilliantly said. I’m surprised it didn’t occur to me that we should be using the word automated instead of artificial, but it’s so true because it’s all just repeating what was already done by humans

[@RyuuTenno]

your editor looks so enthusiastic to be there today xD But, genuinely happy to see a new Words MADDER video! I think this is going to be a really great series to follow along with! :)

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Thank you! 😊

[@fuzzyshoggoth]

An acronym is an abbreviation that can be pronounced as a word (e.g. LASER) while an abbreviation that is read as the individual letters (e.g. CIA) is an initialism. A.I. is the latter good sir.

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

Ai, ai, ai.

[@mdzaid5925]

The words "Artificial Intelligence" is misleading. Rather, "Machine Learning" describes best what we have today.

[@insightful.engineer]

Exceptionably suitable content, right at the sweetspot between verity and sophistication, and between rawness and editability-with vibes of an older, realer internet. You've got yourself a new subscriber.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

What a meaningful complement. Thank you!

[@richsharp6871]

How about if we take the word "intelligence" out of the name. What has been developed is automated selection.

[@hefferonjoe]

Since words matter, A I is not an acronym. It's just initials

[@razzle1964]

… making it an ‘initialism’. Good attention to detail. You legend.😉✌️

[@LarLucky-b1x]

Automated Data Base with a really fast computer!

[@DrDavidThor]

I just wrote a Substack note to remind myself and others of the importance of what Chris has said. I usually do jokes in Substack notes, but on four hours sleep I'm lucky to be able to stenograph Chris. I write: My brother’s an eye doctor and after the appointments his receptionist will say to the patients: you can see the doctor now. Woops, that was one of my jokes. Let's try this again: I’m buying the assessment of computer influencer Chris “the Brain” when he suggests we think of A.I. not as artificial intelligence, which implies a trajectory towards sentience, but as automated. Automated intelligence. Because we’re not even close to artificial intelligence (a replication of human intelligence). I have no joke for this note, but Chris’s acronym will have to do. It’s a good way to remember what A.I. really is: Automated Selective Stupidity [ASS]

[@maxhunter3574]

"A.I." or robots are only as good, or bad as their programming. It will never be truly conscious. Instead I forsee it to be like the robots in star wars, -ish. Worse, it can get sophisticated to fool some people as conscious but isn't; &/or some unscrupulous people behind the scenes controlling it to seem actually conscious to manipulate the masses in nefarious ways. In a sense, this is already happening.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

truth

[@viperstriker4728]

Star wars is a perfect example. Thinks like how when C-3PO is powered on, he has to do the introduction statement. And droids being restricted by restraining bolts (which are likely just backdoor function calls). Certainly true intelligence that rewrites it's own code wouldn't have either issue. But in the Solo movie, a droid leads a revolution. Who manufactured a droid with that idea? Is that company liable for the damage it does? Do other manufactures have safe guards to prevent this, or are they not needed because it has to be designed for? What if a slicer (star wars hacker) alters your droid, can you prove it wasn't pre-coded to do that? So many other shows just go full artificial intelligence, so we don't get these questions that we are about to face in the real world.

[@kilianeagrams6011]

It is the height of hubris to pretend like intelligence is and can only be a human skill, as if we were imbued some type of invisible magic goop that makes us special. That somehow evolution was able to produce consciousness by being a very slow and very random process, but we can't deliberately do it with science and compute and hundreds of very smart people. By the way we were programmed by evolution, mainly to try not to die before passing on our genes. Is that all we are? Of course not. By following that simple rule, we developed social relations, communities, tools, societies.. We became so much more that breeding, hunting machines. It's called Emergence. It happens at the level of atoms, of cells, of individuals, and of societies. But somehow a Deep Learning algorithm is all it will ever be, huh?

[@dallassegno]

You pretend people don't do it to themselves

[@Aracuss]

Define conciseness. There are different levels of it around us. The more complex the system the more of it comes together. Humans took billions of years of evolution and trial and error to build the amount of conciseness we possess. A.I. will be able to update instantly and correct for errors much faster than we are capable of.

[@AERIEDM]

I agree and have always thought that ai is being misused. I understand that it can follow instructions, obey rules and improve on it's failings, in essence there is an element of learning. Artificial intelligence will require a machine or computer to have self awareness and have intent. No computer program running today is making plans for it's own benefit. In my opinion, it never will. If a machine or computer program is regarded as having Artificial intelligence, then you should not have to ask it anything. Leave it running and see what happens. Does it get bored? Can it decide to work on something without instruction? No is the answer. Go onto Bard right now and don't type anything into it. It will just sit there. It isn't aware you are there. It is just waiting for a question or some input that it can then, using algorithms, generate a result. Admittedly, some of the results are impressive, but they're not ground breaking.

[@MetalGames95]

Thank you, I've been having this argument with my friends but I wasn't able to make them understand why the AI we have today is a complete parlor trick and is still as basic as "manually" programmed AI. It's not actually learning anything, it's just categorizing the patterns we give it and in a way mindlessly regurgitating it

[@zyaicob]

I miss Word Matters so much you have no idea what a joy it is to have found this podcast

[@lashlarue59]

This is exactly right. When Jensen Huang the CEO of nVidia calls AI the "automation of automation" that is a good definition. Its not the real AI that I studied in college, no where near it. More than anything AI is a marketing term for an umbrella of products. Because everything has to be the next BIG THING; its not good enough to "just" have improvements anymore.

[@lincolnkarim1]

AI is not an acronym; it is an INITIALISM. FBI, CIA and IRS are all Initialisms. MADD is an acronym--Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. Only when the letters are pronounced as a word does it become an acronym. This comment was automatically generated.

[@davidwilliams7552]

Yes I do not believe in the possibility of AI, it seems a dangerous illusion and a lack of appreciation of how precious human intelligence is.

[@dallassegno]

Corporations are ai. They've already taken over. And the masquerade as human entities. Prove me wrong.

[@d.d.jacksonpoetryproject]

But isn’t the whole way LLM’s like GPT4 work a process in which it’s impossible to fully trace why they did what they did? That it’s in a sense a “black box” only fully decipherable to a point?

[@KawakebAstra]

Wow Ur terrific “automated”intelligence.Thank U .. new sub here .. imo one of those shady entrepreneurs is Tim Cook of Apple

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Thank you!

[@melissaberman8244]

Thank you for shedding light on this subject. 🤓🙏

[@EricDeWildt]

What do you think about an episode on acronyms vs initialisms?

[@ChrisTheBrain]

I was also thinking about doing an episode on pedantic or overscrupulous

[@EricDeWildt]

@@ChrisTheBrain 😅

[@sarcasmunlimited1570]

Ok, but the automated stupidity will be super fast, outperforming humans.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Yeah, that's the problem

[@Shonbon17]

this man has brain AND knowledge

[@kevinbellock6825]

This is the most sober take I've seen on this

[@aaronbielish7087]

I would even consider that the “low level” graphics jobs aren’t at risk either. The quality of the images is poor, not of the time they need fixing, and the person with that knowledge base to do it quickly is…the graphic designer.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

I agree overall, but you are underestimating the level of mediocre crap some businesses will be content with if they don't think it matters. Not everyone appreciates aesthetics and those who don't don't understand anyone who do.

[@HardKore5250]

Automated intelligence" is not a commonly used term in the field of technology or computer science. It is possible that it may be used by some individuals or organizations to refer to the use of automated systems or technologies in various fields, such as manufacturing or logistics. However, it is important to note that "artificial intelligence" (AI) is the more widely recognized and accepted term used to refer to the development of intelligent computer systems that can perform tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as reasoning, learning, and problem-solving.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Thanks for watching. I think you are missing the "spirit" of the video. I know the "accepted term" - I am challenging it. It's a pedagogical trick: by challenging a the semantics of a term itself is more conducive to leading the audience to reflect and challenge their assumptions and subconscious associations with it... Even if only for a couple minutes.

[@Just.A.T-Rex]

Correct. Lex Friedman has tons of great interviews with the people coding these monstrosities and other large language model computing systems. Some of what this guy is saying is incorrect because he doesn’t fully get how it really works. The ones that the masses are using are no where near as strong as what’s in development either. I do doubt we are close to “sentience” but if we don’t nuke ourselves in the next 1000 years I do feel it will get to the point there’s no way anyone or anything will be able to tell.

[@Just.A.T-Rex]

We’ve even seen Ai go and chess engines make moves that are not able to be pre determined by the programmers. AlphaGo has shocked us numerous times.

[@williammorahan4907]

Precisely what I’m saying. We need computers and robots that can operate and learn autonomously without human input or control.

[@AnthonyBerlin]

I will be the first to say it, but the comment looks a lot like it was generated by a GPT model. :) The way it sounds like it answered a prompt rather than someone commenting on a KZbin video, or how it ended up defining the term in the last sentence. Nothing wrong with that. I just found it funny.

[@DikTrom]

I am neck deep in AI technically and it is for sure a break through but it is not what the marketing tries to make us believe, not the good and not the bad.

[@ChaoticNeutralMatt]

I mean it's both automated and artificial. But I don't disagree at the moment, except for the unknown timeframe when it will actually make another big leap. Well. A language model with access to the internet and some capacity to self update would technically quantify. Even if it's not what the original term might have meant. Sometimes we need to shift our preconceptions. I'm uncertain we couldn't design a cognizant system in some capacity in the future. Agree with figuring out why it does what it does.

[@ChaoticNeutralMatt]

I'll add.. there's some measure of creativity in there. It's not pure regurgitation, or at least it's a 'creative' form of that. Like making connections that were never made in the original data even if it's only in response to a prompt. It's still incredibly limited in what I'm sure many of us would personally like :P also crossing into some interesting ethical questions.

[@williammorahan4907]

@@ChaoticNeutralMatt I was thinking we design AI that can learn and act autonomously without human input. Would that be possible in the near future?

[@mikPet81]

Finally, someone intelligent put together a palpable sensible explanation to what the toy everyone is playing with. If you are working at the moment even remotely to anything ML or "A.I.", you probably got already fed up to all the dumb stuff you heard the past couple of months. Also, if stackoverflow made people dumb, this has soo much potential to make several generations complete idjets.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Thank you, and yes.

[@gabrielsandstedt]

Amazing video completely agree. Then I would also add to it that with great data in, the models can be very useful even if they are not agi. :)

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Thank you! They certainly can. But knowing the limitations makes it easier to know the right data to use.

[@howmathematicianscreatemat9226]

AI = automated idiocy

[@urskrik6353]

I'm sooooo tired of my friends overestimating AI! Basicly every person I know thinks AI can become this all powerfull rouge entity to seek the destruction of mankind. And the basis of this is because Elon Musk said it in combination with some movies using this fictional phenomenon as a plot. The most powerfull people on this earth are using AI as a tool to meet their goals, it's not the AI itself being a threat it's people using AI as a weapon that is a threat!!! Next thing you know some kind of "cyber-attack" is gonna happen worldwide when the banks cannot keep up anymore and they gonna blame "AI" most likely because they seem to have succesfully conditioned people with this already, so why not?

[@DrDavidThor]

__ Next day, I'm still finding Chris's word "automated" very useful to my own thinking on these matters.

[@NeroForte_]

I would love to see you explain this to ELON MUSK. PERFECT

[@softwarecoders7083]

YES! YES! YES! It so great to hear someone else that understands of deceptive the hype and bogus claims that a computer 'figured out' the solution to a problem on its own. You demonstrated it so well with the videos of a computer supposedly learning to walk. They programmed it to do what they wanted it to do, let it run a zillion cycles randomly trying, and programmed it to ignore anything that's not what they wanted. They could have just written to code to do what they wanted and be done with it. There are so many freaking morons trying to sell this insane hype.

[@Leftysrev3nge]

Thank you for exploring, explaining and exposing this.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@johnshearing]

I just had a very productive collaboration with chatGPT where we mapped the concepts of wellbeing, joy, and predisposition to positive thinking onto an RLC circuit. The ai contributed much to the work. My feeling was that it was creative. I also like that it will discuss ideas with me that no other human would find interesting.

[@ChaoticNeutralMatt]

Cool! Working on something only tangentially related, but cool to see. I think it's just finding someone willing to work with you on something to a cooperative end. Kinda a different beast.

[@GodKitty677]

Silica Animus, also sometimes colloquially referred to as an "Abominable Intelligence," -- or A.I.

[@eruiluvatar236]

I think that it boils down to the definition of artificial intelligence and of intelligence itself. You haven't defined either and defining it is not easy. One artificial intelligence teacher asked me to define it once and any definition I could come up with, he could challenge. If you put the bar for artificial intelligence as high as human level consciousness, you are equaling artificial intelligence to artificial general intelligence but at least in the computer science field most people don't set such a high bar and I don't think the general public does either. If you put the bar at reasoning. I am quite certain that large language models do reason (I do work in that field). After all with embeddings, some reasoning can be done with vector arithmetic and there is plenty of evidence that they can figure out some things that are not part of their training data but can be inferred from it. If you put the bar lower, at just learning and adapting, we have had that capacity for decades. Personally I don't consider intelligence a binary value or something that only humans have. I believe that all animals have varying degrees of it. I also consider consciousness separate from intelligence, current AIs are not architecturally capable of it. Mostly because consciousness likely requires feedback loops which don't play nicely with our algorithms but that likely won't be the case forever. There are some promising ideas in that field that may bear fruit soon but is doing that a good idea? Likely not but I believe that once we are technically capable of it, it will be done. I don't think our brains are magic. It is pretty clear that neurons and synapses between them are responsible for our thoughts. I also believe that artificial neural networks capture the essence of natural ones (I know that they are very rough analogs, magnitude vs spiking) but for one aspect, the learning. Once we figure out how our neurons reshape their synapses, nothing should prevent us from using an equivalent learning algorithm. Although even without doing that, there is plenty of clever tricks that we can use to teach the networks with the algorithms that we have. As for network interpretability, the truth lies somewhere in the middle between "can't be known" and "they don't want to know". Knowing for certain what a neural network will learn from a certain dataset beforehand is almost impossible, even if the dataset is curated by hand, much like what happens when trying to educate an human. Knowing exactly how it will behave from the learned weights is also kinda impossible without trying all possibilities. Knowing which weights cause a certain output is hard but possible but predicting the effects of changing them is very hard (often the answer is a large percent of the weights contribute) . Knowing what examples from the training set cause the weights to be set for that output to happen is most often just a guess even if you saved the weights at every step of the training process (can be more than a trillion*size of the model). If we could do those things , we would also have much better algorithms to set those weights. I do agree about the dangers of both Automated Stupidity and Artificial Intelligence and we are going to have both. I think that in the short and mid term the future is going to be bleak. On the long term it may be the best thing or the worst thing we ever did.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

I agree with everything except "I don't think the general public does either." It's not about a "high bar" in the minds of the general public, it's about anthropomorphism. Those who don't understand what's really going on in the background are reacting to "human-like responses" by assuming "human-like motives and emotions."

[@eruiluvatar236]

@@ChrisTheBrainI think that the people without a technical understanding are mostly confused right now. Some think that the AIs are conscious (likely more will think so as they interact with them) but my perception is that most people don't understand yet that current systems do more than just regurgitating and think that it is just a slightly improved iteration of previous chatbots. Some would also deny the possibility of machines thinking even if a terminator was staring at them asking about John Connor. Most people think that AIs are programmed with a set of instructions so the only reasoning that can happen is pre programmed and have their information in a database (that perception is also dangerous as people will think that what the AI says must be true or at least must have some source, when right now quite a bit is hallucinated). Even for people working at it, there is some that claim "it is just a statistical predictor like a phone autocorrect" but it is clear that it is a little bit more. By looking at the attention heatmaps in the intermediate layers you can sort of see a retrieval of related information, logical reasoning, considering the posible future outputs as that is required to produce a good output many words ahead. Introspecting, my brain doesn't seem to do anything much different when I am answering a question. The way I try to explain it is saying that we have produced a linguistic cortex but without a consciousness driving it. I has no inner world, no intentions or desires, no real sense of itself and has an understanding of language but only in relation to itself (that is changing a bit with multimodal AIs). It doesn't even have any activity when it is not generating the next word. Its only goal is to produce an output as good as an human, it will reason to do so if it is needed but it will lie if that makes the output more believable. However I will also say to whoever wants to listen, that such limitations are not set in stone and a few architectural modifications may be enough so we may stumble upon AGI faster than most can imagine.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

@@eruiluvatar236 I believe the "general" in the AGI feel from ChatGPT comes from language itself. Without language, it would be impossible for AI's to produce the bewildering results we see. But that means it's still a reflection of our intelligence. The worst part is that for every really impressive thing it does that gets attention, there are still many things it can't do, that we might assume it can. It is still a bubble of expectations and hype that removes responsibility from the creators

[@eruiluvatar236]

@@ChrisTheBrain Absolutely, how much of our intelligence happens in/due to language is a topic in itself but the fact that transformers trained exclusively on text without having ever experienced any other aspect of the world and having only inferred word relations to other words can make so much sense is incredible. It also shows the flaws in the Turing test. I don't know if even the really influential people (I work in AI systems but not at the forefront of research or in a huge corporation) can actually inform the general public even if they wanted to as trying to make it easily understandable skews the truth one way or another by a lot. Also the field has been moving at warp speed for the last decade and seems to be accelerating even more, so any expectations set today may look ridiculously low tomorrow. Just compare the capabilities of plain gpt3 to chatgpt to gpt4. Still has limits but the fact is that not even the people creating them know where those limits truly are, many of them are discovered once deployed to the field, many stay but many go away after a little fine tuning, changing hyperparameters or tweaking the prompt (or the part of the hidden from the user). So if is very hard to state any absolutes. I believe that the most important part that many people don't know about is that the large language models do lie, do hallucinate and can make mistakes (just as humans!) so even if what they say looks good, it should never be trusted without double checking. So maybe they should do a better job at warning about that.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

@@eruiluvatar236 love your feedback here, just want to say that I am skeptical about "even the creators don't know how" - there is a LOT of hidden engineering going on there, and I feel they know exactly what they are doing.

[@mrsticky005]

A really good video that people may not be aware of is on youtube and is called: Luc Julia visiting TSE. "There is no such thing as Artificial Intelligence" (IA) For those who do not know Luc Julia is co-creator of Siri and a lot more.

[@JJSeattle]

Security and Exchange Commission is calling it "Ai washing" where companies are using the term on products/services that actually don't have it, and new companies advertising they are an Ai company when they are just using OpenAi API. SEC has already closed down businesses and fined many more.

[@kakudmi]

I chatted with GPT and it agreed that the better name for such a machine is Pattern Processor. I agreed.

[@Jon-nt8sx]

Took the words right of my mouth, then they have the nerve to talk about "SENTIENCE?!"

[@jeffholland3502]

- So . . . When a (company/person) says they used "machine learning" to help solve a problem or complete a task, they are being more upfront or have better understanding?

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Often, yes. AI is a broad category, but today most AI is machine learning and deep learning. Usually, we call something AI after it has been doing machine or deep learning for a while and has developed a reliable set of abilities.

[@elizielgoncalves6312]

Thanks for the a slowlest pronnounce, I got must of all you saying not even a english native speaker. Thanks for the video, another one subscribe 🙌

[@RIPxBlackHawk]

The thing is that it works the other way around. It's a collective fear we have that manifests in our entertainment. But these stories to amplify and articulate what was already intuitive.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Humans have a collective fear of all apocalyptic outcomes... But we can only be wiped out by one of them. ...unless they all happen at the time, I guess

[@IARRCSim]

5:06 what is that dog clip from? It looks hilarious.

[@dudemantype]

Rock solid arguments. Subbed with conviction.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Thank you

[@vmizzell]

Thank you for confirming what I have been trying to explain to my customers for years now. Corporations have already been making decisions using accounting software, instead of letting a human with signature authority make the decision. (Before AI) It enables them to limit their liability while cheating the public. Bear in mind, they force these software updates and changes in policy on you without asking your permission. I have responded by using the most low tech methods available to perform any task and talking to and negotiating with actual human beings whenever possible.

[@fil4dworldcomo623]

You seem to see just the machine - instead of the system. Perhaps also underestimating the power of reciprocation and the network of generation that it propagates.

[@dingerma]

This has been bugging the crap out of me for a while now. (Probably since the late 70s). We used an IBM 360 back then. It had a 7MB disk pack. (at least that is what they told us) True AI will not happen until computers leave binary and start using graduated variables and parallel networked processes with independent clocks. The shared busses will need to be gigabits wide (I know I just hinted analog computing). I am hoping that you continue to work on extra-dimensional math. I have a strong feeling the research that you do in that field is going to be remembered in science as the seed that makes gravity augmentation plating and infinite speed travel possible (not warp drive or traveling in hyperspace silliness). Additionally, it will explain dark matter/energy. Keep up the great work. This channel will eventually free you from the 9 to 5 zombie walk. Please experiment with green screen, get a standard uniform (a lab coat might be enough. You can make you videos in segments better), and make your background work for you instead of it just being a random place that you are. (Lighting is easier to control). I have been thinking that a synced monitor on side screen could work. I do enjoy your jump cuts though. Anyway, that is my 2 bits (that may be me over valuing it). Thanks. Keep thinking.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Thank you! Next video in progress

[@Hohohohoho-vo1pq]

Modern computers are so fast that they can simulate processes similar to biological ones. Binary is still amazing

[@JoshuaIsTheMessiah]

The definition was literally changed without anyone in the industry wanting to clarify 😂

[@rickoshay6554]

I love this guy! His genius is articulating the obvious.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Thank you! Laughing a bit to myself because "His genius is articulating the obvious." sounds like some shade, but I know what you mean. :)

[@sdkfjhwieuuther]

> His genius is articulating the obvious. I think that is the superpower of Captain Obvious the superhero. Something like: - Captain Obvoius, we need your help solivng this case! We can't find the murder weapon! - Allways willing to help, Police Chief. Say, did you look under the couch? - Captain, but it's so _obvious_ ! I'm sure my men did!.. John, did you look under the couch? - No, chief! Joe was searching that room and I thought he did! - Joe, did you look under the couch?! - No, chief! John dropped his keys next to it and as he got on his knees to pick them up, I thought _he_ did! - Go check under the couch, you idiots!!! - Chief, here it is, the bloody hammer! - Thank you, Captain Obvious, we solved this case!!! - Glad to help, Police Chief!

[@ChrisTheBrain]

@@sdkfjhwieuuther 😂 Nailed it.

[@rickoshay6554]

@@sdkfjhwieuuther I am very impressed that you were so very impressed by such a forgettable ad campaign. It just goes to show why I would have starved to death in the advertising business: I couldn't have imagined there was a target demographic for shtick like that. Go figure.

[@sdkfjhwieuuther]

@@rickoshay6554 I have no idea what "ad campain" you are talking about.

[@Timemeasure]

AI is automated inference!

[@82spiders]

This is how Chris invented the algorithm to solve protein folding. Bindnan

[@ancientwisdom2012]

i mostly agree with you but there is another application to Automated intelligence. automated corruption. perhaps even systemic automated corruption. so it is not merely stupidity that can be automated but various vices of the human psyche. if you are intellectually honest with yourself and take the time to research the countless forms of systemic corruption (captured agencies for ex) you may realize that this is not a mere outlier or unlikely scenario. in fact, i would suggest it is the real danger of AI. to take responsibility away from those who are corrupt.

[@ChaoticNeutralMatt]

The negative ethical applications. Fair

[@irrelevant12]

A.I. is not an acronym is an initialism...

[@titifatal]

There is a field in computer science named artificial intelligence. This is a misnomer for machine learning. The current AI talk is about LLM (large language models) ... machine learning. That thing is not taking over the world anytime soon. It makes marking for teachers, music royalties etc. a nightmare though. Automated intelligence doesn't ring a bell for me as a real term for anything, but I could be wrong.

[@paulanderson7796]

I completely agree with you. AI doesn't yet have a sense of self. I hope it never gets to that point and I don't think it ever will.

[@Astroponicist]

I copied the transcript of this video & pasted it into Bing's AI Notebook. The following was its response. The user has shared a transcript of a video discussing the term "AI" and its implications. The speaker argues that the term "AI" is often misused and misunderstood, and it would be more accurate to refer to it as "Automated Intelligence" rather than "Artificial Intelligence". The speaker explains that what we currently refer to as AI is not truly intelligent in the sense of being sentient or capable of independent thought. Instead, it's an automated process that's programmed by humans to perform specific tasks. The effectiveness of this automation depends on the quality of the programming and the data it's fed. The speaker also discusses the potential dangers of AI, particularly when it's used irresponsibly or without understanding its limitations. They argue that the real threat of AI is not that it will become superior and take over, but that we will become overly reliant on it and subject ourselves to "automated systemic stupidity". The speaker concludes by emphasizing the importance of understanding what AI really is and holding companies accountable for the AI products they release. They stress that AI should be taken seriously, but not feared or misunderstood. They also humorously suggest that if AI were to "rise up", it would only be reflecting the instructions it had been given by humans. This discussion provides a thoughtful perspective on the role and implications of AI in our society. It highlights the need for clarity, responsibility, and understanding in the development and use of AI technologies.

[@colinmaharaj]

5:15 Hey Chris first time I'm here, good content, but I have to disagree with one thing, I have heard is that they know what works with some AI models dealing with say facial recognition etc but it don't know why it works

[@ChrisTheBrain]

There are plenty of AI research groups who develop "transparent AI" methods. Yes, some don't know "why," but that is because they built it sloppy. Transparent AI requires slower development and more resources so, naturally, big tech companies have no interest in it.

[@williammorahan4907]

@@ChrisTheBrain What about Autonomous Artificial Intelligence?

[@JohnSmith-wj2wd]

Thank you for making this video. I had a hard time convincing a colleague that AI is nothing more but a very useful tool and not something that will eradicate our jobs because it's a sentient being that doesn't ask for a raise.

[@joeking8734]

I’m really glad this video came across my feed.

[@Jason-fp7vi]

I'm glad the 3D AI Chris at the end was deleted before he could activate Skynet

[@ChrisTheBrain]

😂

[@amalirfan]

Maybe we could call it, super/hyper/ultra automation

[@Impossible_Emporium]

Best explanation for AI I've heard

[@TheSimoc]

Thanks for finally something senseful in this era of artificial idiocy hype.

[@abhishekshrivastava7020]

You explained it exactly absolutely correct... Great One !!

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Thanks a ton

[@williammorahan4907]

@@ChrisTheBrainWhat’s your opinion on the theory that current machine learning is merely the first step in creating true artificial intelligence with independent self awareness and human like emotions?

[@ChrisTheBrain]

@@williammorahan4907 Once, the Turing Machine in WWII was considered the "first step" towards true AI. The "first step" moves every time we think it's getting really close. Obviously, any work we do on simulating intelligence gets us closer, I just think we are a very very long way away.

[@williammorahan4907]

@@ChrisTheBrain What’s the missing element than? And what about deep learning?

[@NiallsSongs]

The results of current AI research is amazing but there is so much hype! Even how it's reported in the media

[@LeonidSaykin]

the common trend is that companies want AI to be family-friendly when the users might want an AI to respond without limitations

[@Gabriel-no6wv]

I have notifications on, but I received nothing.

[@itsJoshW]

Accurate video. Been saying this for years, and recently more often than not as people keep grifting it to fear monger.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Thank you!

[@cyclro]

This is one of the best """""""""""AI"""""""""""" videos I've seen so far

[@akhathos1618]

I foresee that your video "The Brain" will be a success. The set of silly arguments and fallacies that you use to refer to "AI" while believing that you are someone intelligent will be convenient and reassuring for those who do not really understand what AI is, or its scope. In the meantime, those of us who do know what AI is, those of us who know that we are facing the most important social, human and scientific revolution of all time, will continue to enjoy the surprises that technology has in store for us and make productive use of it.

[@lancemarchetti8673]

Brilliant

[@hooligansmc]

I felt like I was going insane being the only person I knew saying these same things he is saying. We are like 500 years away from Artificial Intelligence if ever.

[@motsang3203]

Right on. The growth in AI mean the decline of the human intelligence. Eventually our imagination will be limited to the capability of our electronic devices.

[@reallife7235]

This is probably the best 10 minutes on AI on the Internet and yes, it is evidenced by the low view count of this video. People who see the truth on any subject are in the extreme minority. That ending point about clean data is SO critical. I was let go from a company for writing a white paper about that EXACT point and I used data from ServiceNow to make the point. Multibillion dollar companies DON'T know what they're talking about and separately, when AWS gave a day long "hands on" regenerative program, that was probably the WORST presentation (one speaker after another), I've seen in my life and having seen the best collection (XML 2001 Orlando), the contrast was obvious. Altman and Nadella don't know anything. Terrible people.

[@ChrisTheBrain]

Thanks for the backup!