CAN MACHINES REPLACE US? (AI vs Humanity)

Maria Santacaterina, with her background in the humanities, brings a critical perspective on the current state and future implications of AI technology, its impact on society, and the nature of human intelligence and creativity. She emphasizes that despite technological advancements, AI lacks fundamental human traits such as consciousness, empathy, intuition, and the ability to engage in genuine creative processes. Maria argues that AI, at its core, processes data but does not have the capability to understand or generate new, intrinsic meaning or ideas as humans do.
Throughout the conversation, Maria highlights her concern about the overreliance on AI in critical sectors such as healthcare, the justice system, and business. She stresses that while AI can serve as a tool, it should not replace human judgment and decision-making. Maria points out that AI systems often operate on past data, which may lead to outdated or incorrect decisions if not carefully managed.
The discussion also touches upon the concept of "adaptive resilience", which Maria describes in her book. She explains adaptive resilience as the capacity for individuals and enterprises to evolve and thrive amidst challenges by leveraging technology responsibly, without undermining human values and capabilities.
A significant portion of the conversation focussed on ethical considerations surrounding AI. Tim and Maria agree that there's a pressing need for strong governance and ethical frameworks to guide AI development and deployment. They discuss how AI, without proper ethical considerations, risks exacerbating issues like privacy invasion, misinformation, and unintended discrimination.
Maria is skeptical about claims of achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) or a technological singularity where machines surpass human intelligence in all aspects. She argues that such scenarios neglect the complex, dynamic nature of human intelligence and consciousness, which cannot be fully replicated or replaced by machines.
Tim and Maria discuss the importance of keeping human agency and creativity at the forefront of technology development. Maria asserts that efforts to automate or standardize complex human actions and decisions are misguided and could lead to dehumanizing outcomes. They both advocate for using AI as an aid to enhance human capabilities rather than a substitute.
In closing, Maria encourages a balanced approach to AI adoption, urging stakeholders to prioritize human well-being, ethical standards, and societal benefit above mere technological advancement. The conversation ends with Maria pointing people to her book for more in-depth analysis and thoughts on the future interaction between humans and technology.
Buy Maria's book here: amzn.to/4avF6kq
/ mariasantacaterina
POD: podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sh...
TOC
00:00:00 - Intro to Book
00:03:23 - What Life Is
00:10:10 - Agency
00:18:04 - Tech and Society
00:21:51 - System 1 and 2
00:22:59 - We Are Being Pigeonholed
00:30:22 - Agency vs Autonomy
00:36:37 - Explanations
00:40:24 - AI Reductionism
00:49:50 - How Are Humans Intelligent
01:00:22 - Semantics
01:01:53 - Emotive AI and Pavlovian Dogs
01:04:05 - Technology, Social Media and Organisation
01:18:34 - Systems Are Not That Automated
01:19:33 - Hiring
01:22:34 - Subjectivity in Orgs
01:32:28 - The AGI Delusion
01:45:37 - GPT-laziness Syndrome
01:54:58 - Diversity Preservation
01:58:24 - Ethics
02:11:43 - Moral Realism
02:16:17 - Utopia
02:18:02 - Reciprocity
02:20:52 - Tyranny of Categorisation
Interviewer: Dr. Tim Scarfe

[@ollantaymedina2204]

The guest shows too much confidence for my liking. That we currently don't know something, is not an answer to a questions if something is possible or not. What happened to intellectual humility?

[@jasonbartlett1357]

Came here, from Spotify, to say this. U said it better actually. Nice.

[@justu9641]

I also would have like for them to find a guest with a similar perspective, but a better theoretical background. I do believe she is interested, she seems however not as knowledgeable in the more technical aspect in oder to maintain her positions

[@louisalexandre33]

That's what you get when you invite a professional bullshiter. 🤦‍♂That woman is a deepak chopra complexity do-it-all, she is biologist, economist, linguist, philosopher, computer scientist, neurologist, historian, etc. yet no known scientific or philosophy papers published. I must add she didn't understand the Gödel argument of incompleteness, which is a logical statement about the openess of mathematical systems, not a conflation onto the feeling of life or the prison of algorithms.🤨

[@louisalexandre33]

That's what you get when you invite a professional bullshiter. 🤦‍♂ This give me vibes of deepak chopra style bs complexity do-it-all, she is biologist, economist, linguist, philosopher, computer scientist, neurologist, historian, etc. yet no known scientific or philosophy papers published to evaluate. I must add she didn't understand the Gödel argument of incompleteness, which is a logical statement about the openess of mathematical systems, not a conflation onto the feeling of life or the prison of algorithms.🤨

[@kyneticist]

I only offer this next comment because Maria holds herself up as an authority and academic, publicising a book on this topic and outlook. Many of the world's greatest ills come about by people speaking with great conviction about things that they do not understand, and often hold a personal bias about that they wish to propagate. I expect that she'll be very well received among the religious, the superstitious and likely even those who wish to undermine science.

[@richardsantomauro6947]

First time I ever had to turn off an MLST episode. Just a series of adamant blanket statements but none of them express even a hint of evidence of understanding what she is talking about. This person is very confused.

[@nonchai]

me too. but not the first time actually.

[@kyneticist]

May I answer your question? AI doesn't need to be anything like us to replace us. There's no law of physics that declares that only humans can be a dominant species.

[@andersfant4997]

The premisses of the question is wrong. Why a goal to replace us? They evolve and do what they do.. They dont give a f××k about us and our values. Scary but invevitable🙂

[@damianlewis7550]

I agree to a certain extent that we can be replaced by something else. But, intelligence appears to be the preserve of living beings. The appearance of intelligence in AI is because we place ourselves in the chain and we project our own intelligence on to the outputs, cognitively biasing towards ignoring undesirable results. Those undesirable results are an inherent characteristic of the shortcomings of our empiricist approach, not a bug that can easily be ironed out. We are in the philosophical realm of the appearance of a thing not being the actual thing. A simulacrum can be a useful tool but we shouldn’t embue it with any more significance than that.

[@osalbaro]

The most tough listen from MLST so far. I wish I could say it is challenging in a constructive way, but at 50 minutes in, I have not heard a single compelling argument from her.

[@damianlewis7550]

🙉

[@pythagoran]

But she's referencing Plato, Aristotle and Mary Shelley - the most prominent AI thought leaders in the field. How dare you!

[@federicoaschieri]

@@pythagoran Who are the thought leaders in AI? Sam Altman? Ilya Sutskever? Dario Amodei? Mustafa Suleyman? 🤣 😁 Please illuminate us, so we can learn from the leaders.

[@federicoaschieri]

@@pythagoran So you don't even have the courage of making a name? Grow up.

[@pythagoran]

@@federicoaschieri lol no I just don't have the time or desire to indulge your sad provocations. I can tell you're upset about AI and just looking for any validation why it can't/won't work. Idc either way tbh but this lady sucks and you kinda do too. Go away pls

[@pythagoran]

Love MLST for bringing different views and showing us that even though someone is an academic, author, or expert it doesn't always mean they have any idea what they're talking about.

[@andybaldman]

This is not going to age well. (In fact, a lot of what she's saying is already demonstrably wrong. For someone who claims to have 'read a lot of papers', she's missing basic advancements that are in the news every week.)

[@jakewu8298]

This might be all going over my head but honestly I don't feel like she's really arguing for anything. Not in the sense that arguing requires an argument and hers often seems to boil down to "I don't think x can be done, things are complicated." It's more a series of statements and her belief that a series of things not being explainable now means they'll never be explainable or that somehow they are driven by a wholly different kind of causality. It feels to me like some kind of residual dualism. I'm probably not being fair here, because I could only make it 20 minutes in, it's pretty painful

[@annelim4194]

2:24 2:43

[@luke2642]

The first 15 mins were difficult, but I'm going to push on though, got to give it a chance!

[@fiasco2003]

I am having a similar experience. It's hand waving furnished with some long words.

[@Robert_McGarry_Poems]

She is a post modernist.

[@and2244rew]

She has a very unscientific view of the world.

[@andybaldman]

Yes. Everything she's saying is emotionally driven.

[@ajohny8954]

Not to be a negative nancy, but this is exactly the type of content I don’t want from this channel

[@andybaldman]

Why? It's important to see how the people who don't get it, think.

[@therobotocracy]

Love the show and hearing different opinions, BUT... That my friends is a woman in the process of being blindsided, run over, and left behind by AI.

[@MrNycres]

Many of her sentences should be finished with “…yet”. Never say never!

[@TJArriaga]

You should have explained to her the difference between alpha go and alpha zero. I have to say was frustrating to watch

[@Irresistance]

On a human, emotional level I want to agree with some of the things she says... but I feel it's like arguing with someone who is certain they'd be able to tell if they are/would be in a simulation against someone who literally knows this is all but impossible. The latter will never make the former realize because such state of affairs just can't be accepted as true and self-evident. This was very much wishing and very little knowing. Interesting how little imagination she has for someone who is so adamant AI can't create or do things without being commanded to (which, for now is kind of true, but may not matter in terms of actual results, soon...) Please DO ignore the bozo downcomment saying he doesn't want such content. We need to know all sides (well, within *some* limits... but she is far from loonie-town, and clearly not stupid, so - no problemo!)

[@amesoeurs]

tim really has the patience of a saint.

[@tylermoore4429]

What makes you think he disagrees with her?

[@damienteney]

Surprisingly so. Makes me wonder whether they were paid for her to appear on the show to promote her book.

[@mutantdog.]

Tim, I know you're trying to be charitable and present an open perspective to viewpoints that differ from yours and your audience but... You know as well as the rest of us that a lot of what she said here she pulled out of her arse. Sure there were some valid concerns mixed in, but her total ignorance of the main subject matter combined with her borderline woo-woo dismissal of the scientific enterprise, it makes for tedious listening when there's practically zero pushback with minimal attempts to correct or educate her. I lost count of how many times you replied with 'I agree' seemingly just so you get her to stop talking for a bit. It's basically a running joke at this point that you'll find some way to complain about ChatGPT but even with this it sounded like you were overstating your criticisms in order to win her favour. Perhaps i'm being a little harsh right now but the fact is you have one of the more respectable podcasts in this field. It's great that you have different viewpoints on, i truly welcome more of that, but you need to be more willing to challenge people when they talk as much shite as this woman did.

[@amesoeurs]

well put!

[@pennyjohnston8526]

Adaptive Resilience - A strategy for snowflake models ? Thank you MLST for this interview ! I especially liked the 'meaning is a process not a definition' which reflects nicely into dynamic AI and the dangers involved in encoding knowledge representations etc as immutable definitions. The reminder that Agent interactions are not always about winning (ie Agents created for financial gain). The search for novelty or edge cases will lead to us adapting our world model, flexibly changing our constructs will make us more resilient in an ever changing environment (or in FEP terms seeking out uncertainties will decrease our entrophy). Great analogy between Humans and how we inspire the computer coding in the purely digital substrate.

[@CodexPermutatio]

She's wrong practically every time she uses the word impossible. However, I think she is right in everything she says about the social dangers of misusing AI. This interview is great, anyway. She is quite intelligent and very articulate.

[@kinngrimm]

13:00 "You will never be able to" Is something we have heared before, even from people who actually have studied the subject matter and not something else entirely. That to me equally speaks of hybris as those who think we need now brain implants so we still would be able to talk to our future machine gods.

[@steve_jabz]

Like everyone else has basically said, she's a pseud. Confidently asserting "it will never be able to" about things that have already happened a long time ago, and then we're expected to believe her when she claims more nevers about the future with nothing to back it up but what essentially boils down to the implication that the brain is made of magic and specialness. One specifically dumb one I wanna point out is the "instant" response time one though. Really? You don't think latency in a computer system could ever improve? Like it just did today with GPT-4o? Like we've been doing every transistor doubling since the dawn of computers?

[@MixedRealityMusician]

I would like to know Santacaterina's views on posthumanism in relation to AI; how posthumanism contrasts certain beliefs and views within humanism that emerged prominently during the Rennaissance. Specifically, the belief that humans and human experiences cannot be modeled due to some kind of human exceptionalism may be anthropocentric, no? To me in Santacaterina's argument is this exceptionalism from humanism that is being expanded to life versus machine, which is one of the barriers posthumanists also challenge (see Haraway's A Cyborg Manifesto) I love this conversation so far! Just my initial thoughts. We need more STEM and humanities cross-disciplinary discussions because there is a LOT to discuss!

[@richrogers2157]

Never say never.

[@zotriczaoh7098]

This is a very complex and excellent discussion between two people who are in some ways poles apart but in other ways can reach agreement in various areas. For example, the interviewer mentions that he leans towards externalism and embodiment. Those are two separate issues but I get the point and so does she. Some of the comments here seem to seize on particular points such as Maria's claim that we will 'never' know or understand something rather than treating her views with any attempt at the principle of Charity. I think the interviewer could have taken issue at times but evidently chose to explore meaning over point scoring in cases where one could explain an apparent lapse on necessary brevity. Altogether I find Santacaterina's view a necessary counter to crude mechanisation. Take a detailed look at the visual system of the Drosophila (a fruit fly with a teeny weeny brain) and consider that we only understand a tiny fraction of its operation. The optical tract has many thousands of neurons and hundreds of different types of neurons whereas our latest research can discern the function of only a few. The fly brain has of order 100,000 neurons in total and each can have from 1 to 10,000 synapses. A bee has of the order of a million neurons. I would suggest that some kind of dynamic system is required before we come anywhere near a model of even these tiny yet mind-numbingly complex systems.

[@XOPOIIIO]

We are things, AI works on the same principles as humans.

[@kinngrimm]

1:32:10 "we are not ready" agreed, question is how to get ready without having these interactions and failures we are stumbling through. It was said there are two ways we as humans learn, either by having a really good experience or a really bad one. Only after both i would consider us ready. Then the question should become how to soften the blows that will come at us?

[@diga4696]

This was a very bumpy ride... Tough interview, good job Tim.

[@astrolillo]

I am not an expert, have no clue, and have no valuable insights but here are my hot takes for the grift

[@damianlewis7550]

AI researchers to challenging perspectives 🙉

[@damianlewis7550]

Maria is an expert in something that you are not it appears.

[@pythagoran]

Lol ty 100% this

[@BinaryDood]

Machine Learning goes the opposite way of human learning. Ours starts with sensorial interpretations and ends in abstract symbols of socially-sustaining value. Ai goes first to our output, that network of symbols we made, for its "internal world model" and IF it is to evolve into something like having sentience, then it must eventually interpret the world sensorially. I dont know if Nvidea's Omniverse is a first step to this in-universe learning which might lead to "sensorial interpretation". Now, I dont think a camera is an eye, I dont think haptic technology directly translates to the sense of touch... But something different might happen from here. Overall I don't think sentience can arise from classical computing at all (Godel vs Hilbert) but that doesnt mean the future there wont be different types of computing. Quantum's basis for computation is far less arbitrary than classical.

[@MarkEngelstad]

I am sympathetic to Santacaterina's position, but this was a difficult episode to finish. The guest could not explain her positions clearly and calmly.

[@hund4440]

She did not make any attempts to explain. Her points consist of statements of the form "humands can x machines can not." Without further explanation

[@dcreelman]

I live in the world of management consulting and there are elements of it which are closer to motivational speaking than anything else. Santacaterina is best seen as a motivational speaker and has neither the mindset nor the incentives of a scientist. There will be lots of business people who like this kind of thing, but I agree with the comments that it's not a good fit for MLST.

[@leunam3434]

Imagine a world without humans and try to answer that question. What would machines do to each other?

[@JeffreeHilton-Cogency]

I honestly appreciated hearing her perspectives. It makes me realize just how lacking a humanities (humanity) perspective is in the AI conversation and in my own learning about it so far. I plan to pursue more diverse sources in my learning about AI going forward. Thanks for an eye opening conversation.

[@propeacemindfortress]

If different perspectives are something you appreciate... May I recommend "Daniel Schmachtenberger: "Artificial Intelligence and The Superorganism" | The Great Simplification" on Nate Hagens channel, Daniel is a quite brilliant thinker with unique perspectives and an uncanny ability to lay out the entirety of his logic chain on every single topic from beginning to end. Quite rare of a piece far outside the marketing and mainstream driven perspective and concerns. Have a good one 😉

[@cliffordramsey2500]

As someone with an academic background in the humanities I can see why there aren't many of us in the field. When you build pattern recognition for trends of human behavior across society and history, and study critical theory exploring the interrelationships of people, technology, and power, it's hard to maintain the level of unchecked optimism and hubris that's required for leaders and builders in the ai space to plow ahead at the speed necessary to remain competitive. We have increased the pressure to the point where very few have the time or energy for critical thought, so in order keep moving forward we are forced to consolidate into polarized camps that can't agree on how the future should look, all as industry trudges on with wanton abandon.

[@damianlewis7550]

@@cliffordramsey2500 For fear of repeating myself, imagine those resources and all that enthusiasm pumped into our schlerotic educational systems instead and what kind of better general (i.e. universal) intelligence could be cultivated in the wider population. The trillions of dollars being discussed could provide free post-graduate level education for all which could lead to greater advances for humankind than a box of tricks owned by a few power-seeking corporations.

[@CasperBHansen]

I am really sorry, but have to voice my opinion on this episode. She is exceedingly good at not answering the question, divergent and going off on her own tangent, throwing around random (many times misplaced) words, often just to end up in the argument; it’s inanimate, therefore this or that, and throw in a few references here and there to philosophers and Latin. I don’t think she even took in and processed the questions before starting a counter argument 😅 I also noted quite a few statements that were simply factually wrong 😅 It seems like she was just there to have her monologues 😅 I didn’t care for watching the whole thing though. I lost patience and interest 🧐 Sorry for the hiccup, I don’t usually complain 🤪

[@kinngrimm]

19:40 "it needs to be anmate and it needs to be consciouse" Lady we are at the beginning of an exponential curve, about to take of. We haven't seen anything yet.

[@wolfRAMM]

46:15 using Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe formula you can calculate any digit of Pi, infinitely many of them. Can't create infinite systems you say?

[@propeacemindfortress]

So loving the sanity of MLST and the guests invited always refreshing, always thoughtful always well informed and nuanced with clear and clean lines in the proper places. 👍

[@andybaldman]

This woman seems fundamentally out of touch with technology's ability to influence humans. Has she seen what social media has done over the past 15 years? She wants an ideal world based on her values, but they are not aligned with reality, and how things actually work.

[@simonmasters3295]

Surely you are wrong on Alpha Go...it has played against itself (and learned) by playing more games than a million human experts could play in all their lifetimes. Albanian is hardly relevant in that context... The point of novelty arising at the edge of chaos piqued my attention...but it is followed by how.many shades of red (or grey!?) exist (256? Lol)! The limit of perception of the human eye? She uses "You know...." too much.. it is an invocation to believe emotionally without thought. And, if she wants a new lexicon then go ahead and invent it, and test it in conversation or writing. I don't see her doing it,.she is closer to being approximated by a conversation bot than she thinks. I should stop ripping this apart, this is just a conversation between friends.

[@nonchai]

I think it would have been better if this had just been done as a book review. Critical and pushing back where - obviously - needed, rather than interview

[@johangodfroid4978]

AGI will occurs, why because undertsand the world is just based on 3D, senses and time, + a reward system, Ai because of its structures will end to be equal or better than human, I don't expain in details how and why but believe it is impossible is wrong and it will be in an early future. The question are consequences

[@simonmasters3295]

For a moment there I thought she was going to say "Evolve" contains the word "love" backwards ... but she pointed to Latin roots and not going back ("away from rotation"?) Then a deep, uncomfortable, reflection on "the wiring for survival" without anything on global society and resource constraints. Then he pulls her back to AI and teleological explanations...she throws in a few phrases from Chaos theory, developmental biology, evolution of language and hides behind others views... Canalisation, autobiosis, blinking!? Another example...scoffs at transhumanist agenda... Then talk about "cleaning up" and "oversimplification" and "erosion of our humanity" ... Some nonsense about Godel, drugs, and feelings about health in a "complex" world. Then she takes Lacun's (present, evolving) negative stance on LLMs - and thinks she is special because she is different - failing to see she is just an outlier on a spectrum Half an hour in and "only humans are agents" is the summary of her position. She states "the artist needs to experience the joy of appreciation" as a fact...he says "language is an organism" Someone has to call this out as a conversation over a pint, rather than anything new. In short my view is this a rant on "it's difficult to separate the emotional and logical aspects of human intelligence" ...and not much more. but I haven't stopped listening

[@mk71b]

We _should_ scoff at transhumanism. I think she referred to "Blinken" in the sense of an author in a particular area of knowledge or "Blinkin" the company.

[@BinaryDood]

Cognition and Emotion aren't separate, that is a thing worth noting.

[@Don_Kikkon]

This person isn't making sense. There is circularity and contradiction, and (questionable) assertions flying around all over the place, I'm struggling to find a great deal of sense though. I wholeheartedly agree that most of the AI or machine learning we are currently in contact with doesn't seem to have an overtly useful purpose, I think there needs to be a lot more discussion around ultimately what we are trying to achieve here? But as for not having 'any' effective definitions for intelligence, well that's plainly short sighted. Michael Levin and team are doing amazing work with a very concise definition "Solving previously unencountered problems via novel means." Also If no one has any real quantifiable explanation of what intelligence is, how then are they able to confidently denounce or deny it in other systems? Yeah 41min was enough for me sorry. For me the AI issue boils down to each of us being able to answer these 3 questions: 1) What are we actually trying to achieve, are we clear on that? 2) What do we each consider to be too far? 3) What constitutes an intellectual equal. Do they need 'skin in the game' for example? I think if we could answer or at least take a wild stab at any of these (which of course are ever evolving situations) going forward, we might at least have some as semblance of foresight to recognize their approach and 'act accordingly' whatever that means in this utterly surreal context?

[@alexijohansen]

A lot of artists create due to unconscious drives like childhood trauma. The idea that ‘I can choose and AI can’t’ is too simple a point of view I think.

[@oncedidactic]

Thai conversation opens eg window for light and air, and some bees and bugs 😋 Wonderful!

[@olaf2554]

construct niches, gather and exchanging information, preferences and intentions?! how does this mean we have no free will?

[@codewithtj]

You should add conclusion at the end of video. Its very lengthy video

[@TheReferrer72]

Writing - will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality. Things never change.

[@kinngrimm]

1:58:00 "not using their own model ... reasons" aren't we one for gossip ^^. Still if so, then i would guess its because the NSA has its new skelleton key freely brought in everyonce home.

[@xyyx1091]

I found this video very interesting and compelling. Maria elegantly pointed out some of the challenges which we will have to face in the future without denying the advantages of AI if used in an appropriate manner. The fact that AI is "not aware nor conscious or have emotions" is a "fact", I just asked Chat Gpt "itself": and this was the answer Do you posses awareness? Chat GPT Awareness is a complex concept that can be interpreted in various ways. As an AI language model, I don't possess consciousness or self-awareness in the way humans do. I operate based on algorithms and patterns in data to generate responses to text inputs. While I can understand language, process information, and provide relevant answers, it's important to remember that I don't have subjective experiences, emotions, or consciousness. My "awareness" is limited to the context of the conversation and the information I've been trained on, but it's not akin to human awareness. I urge all the "geniuses" out there to take notice before, making stupid comments on topics they don't know about, based on things they have "heard" from mainstream media or friends.. Based on the answer given by Chat Gpt does this mean that AI is "stupid"? In that sense "yes" it possesses a huge amount of data, which can be used to solve problems and identify patterns, but certainly doesn't possess consciousness and for it's own self admission it's not "aware nor self conscious and as a consequence it cannot take decisions based on human values". As things stand now this is an undeniable fact. The wrong use of this massive amount of data used by "governments, military and other shadowy institutions" on both sides of the political spectrum cast threatening shadows on our freedoms and those of our children. I noticed that many comments not only were nasty and ignorant but didn't get the sense of what this interview was all about. Usually when some people don't agree with ideas different from theirs, they attack the person expressing those ideas.. I guess that's no surprise that with a topic like this nasty, disrespectful and ignorant comments would come out in a society where human values have unfortunately dropped down the hill and "ignorance" sometimes prevails over reason. On a positive note there is still hope until there are people who are not afraid to express their opinions and for this reason, we only need to be grateful to Maria.

[@TheRyulord]

If you think ChatGPT is a reliable source of information you're a bit confused. They just regurgitate some subset of the corpus they've been trained on. If ChatGPT were conscious, and I'm not claiming it is, it would still be saying exactly the same thing simply as a consequence of how deep learning models work.

[@NanheeByrnesPhD]

Das Ding an sich is not available to humans either, a la Kant

[@CodexPermutatio]

Exactly. Whatever we believe or "feel"... it's models all the way down.

[@vladimirnadvornik8254]

Agency was the first thing that the biological evolution discovered, so it must be easy. We don't see it in AI only because we started from the opposite end, with written text.

[@zotriczaoh7098]

Please define agency and show how it was discovered by evolution.

[@Fiscus128]

I read a lot of emotional, angry, negative responses on this interview, as if saying something negative about AI is like cursing in church. I think it is good to invite people like this, to get a more versatile less technical view on AI and how it is perceived from a different angle/perspective. So far, I think AI as a technology is interesting, but due to the speed at which developments are taking place the risks are significant as well. However, risk is something people rather not talk about, instead it is the opportunity that prevails. It is similar to selling on credit: the prospect and attractiveness of selling something is a far greater force than the (financial) risk of not getting paid. As a result we sometimes do things in the now, which we may regret later (but then it cannot be reversed, or at least not easily).

[@TheRyulord]

Except there have been very critical guests in the past who didn't get this kind of criticism in the comments because they offered arguments for the claims they were making. In fact I think almost all of my favorite episodes are people who are very critical of the status quo in the field and have very insightful things to say about because they really deeply understand the thing they're criticizing. A less technical view of the field would be fine if the claims being made were about something like the impact on society but she's making technical claims so the lack of technical expertise is a problem.

[@sarthakparikh5988]

fan of your ppl's work but fail to see how you should just not had deepak chopra on if you wanted to stoop this low.

[@miquelnogueralonso2576]

I have to disagree with her statements based on a very superficial knowledge of the technology and the illusion that only humans can do some things.

[@Pianoblook]

Loved this. Funny how when you talk to literally one person who gives a shit (professionally) about humanity, it swings the conversation so easily towards very progressive ideals. Good luck to all of us T_T (and also, please lord interview more progressive folks / anyone in economincs / sociology /etc, and ask them about the world we live in today)

[@Robert_McGarry_Poems]

I love that this person, who is actively arguing for a dynamic and living language, also thinks that British English is somehow still relevant. What an insufferable character. It's almost not important that they are correct because it's only very early on, and only once. That personality isn't winning any arguments. Neither is a post modernist approach. To me, post modernist thinking is like the equivalent of just pointing at yourself and playing charades with other people until they get it or don't. They think the attention hostage situation they create is more important than the institutionalized learning that has been fostered for thousands of years. They never give any thought to the exact kind of control and structuralizing they claim to be avoiding, being central to what their claim is as well. They think that because someone has something to share... every single person on the planet has to stop what they are doing and try to guess what it is.... can you say narcissistic.

[@Robert_McGarry_Poems]

No standards, except when you organize a group of people... does she even listen to herself???

[@OneLifeJunkJack]

"Postmodernist" is a dirty word, just like "Marxist". What exactly do you understand by that? If anything, I found some similarities to Fichte.

[@Robert_McGarry_Poems]

@OneLifeJunkJack Post-modernists don't use definition based language. They use emotive ploys to hold you hostage. Marx isn't talking about this stuff. He might have referenced not liking the concept, but I don't think it was his main concern.... Unless you are just calling materialist science Marxism???????? Then I ask what, why?

[@OneLifeJunkJack]

​@@Robert_McGarry_Poems I never said Postmodernist = Marxist. Whether you're correct or not depends on the content of that book. Besides, it's not easy to say if someone is using definition-based language or not unless you encounter another Socrates.

[@Robert_McGarry_Poems]

@OneLifeJunkJack I never said that you said that post-modernism was the same as Marxism. I said they are different, check again. And you can tell if someone is using definition based language. What they say will make sense...

[@propeacemindfortress]

More fish for Yann LeCat!

[@TylerMatthewHarris]

We don’t need to hear from people like this. It’s fine for these types of podcasts to get lost.

[@roseproctor3177]

someone hasn't read the bitter lesson

[@morphos2]

What da hell was that annoying noise in the beginning?! I gave up listening.

[@damianlewis7550]

Maria has opinions that no doubt many AI researchers won’t want to hear but which are important challenges to our faulty assumptions. It is vital that we look away from novelty and hype to question what paths we are laying in front of us and not believe our own propaganda. Andrea Liu’s work on biological inference gives weight to the idea that there is something unique about intelligence in living beings; that living beings are inference systems all the way down to the molecular level. That our substrate itself, not just our “neural software” is constantly performing inference which percolates up to the level of consciousness via the brain. We are insanely complex compared to the homogenous digital neural structures we are building in AI. To the level where you would have to replicate reality to the quantum level in order to simulate intelligence or consciousness. So it leaves us with two endeavours: Accept that our AI is limited but could be a useful augmentation of human intelligence and build it with humans in the driving seat, or strive to simulate a limited portion of reality to the Planck level. One is achievable, the other has no guaranteed pay-off. Anthropomorphising AI systems can be used as a feature knowingly, or we can remain ignorant of our biases and mistakenly deploy flawed agents into the world and cope with the unintended consequences.

[@restrollar8548]

The blinking example is complete lack of knowledge of basic neurobiology and reflexes (the corneal reflex and blinking when the eyes are dry). Extremely uninformed and doesn't know basic, widely-understood biology.

[@LeviFinkelstein]

🤦

[@kahwatv]

I could bear this bullsh*t more than 20 minutes.

[@malakiblunt]

Gets off too a bumpy start - but realy findsits stride - best episode ive heard so far

[@restrollar8548]

Disappointing. Unfortunately, the arguments put forward by the guest are not backed up by anything objective or scientific. It's purely subjective and opinion-based. An AI can be creative, and perhaps even more than us in the very near future.

[@NeuroScientician]

Guess, I am buying another book.

[@MrManet]

your face reminds me of my mother XD

[@Caendras]

Worst guest ever

[@barberb]

Tim is having the pseudoscience guests on again, I wonder how much he was paid for this one.

[@MachineLearningStreetTalk]

Tim was not paid anything - we always clearly indicate when it's paid using the "paid promotion" tag

[@barberb]

@@MachineLearningStreetTalk 00:33:11 "There has been no significant improvement in the human condition, in the quality of life for decades." embarrassing statement by a person "in the humanities" and contrary to Human Development Index statistics, you shouldn't invite these charlatans on.

[@damianlewis7550]

I guess anyone who isn’t a scientist is somehow pseudo? Yet computer scientists are trying to build systems with intelligence, which is arguably the realm of philosophers, using techniques developed by linguists. The irony is crushing 😂

[@OneLifeJunkJack]

Yeah, that's silly. Not everything is about science. You won't call an average theologian or poet a pseudoscientist, will you?

[@edz8659]

this guest needs to be more confident! she is speaking a lot of sense despite her lack of technical background

[@mattb4251]

A sense of humility on topics that aren't yet and perhaps never will be understood fully is a good thing. Too many people are far too confident in speaking (without actual substance) and this is one of the main issues in modern society today.

[@nonchai]

She didnt show any humility herself! And she wasn't even speaking sense from a NON technical background! Even from a philosphy (ie part of humanities ) background - she came cross as woefully inept , unwilling to accept nuance and unaware of the range of philosophical positions on this. Get Philip Goff AND Keith Frankish on the show instead for a better handling of consciousness etc.

[@OneLifeJunkJack]

​@@nonchai She's not "woefully inept". She accepts a Fichtean standpoint. Perhaps you've never heard of him.