IQ2 Debate: Don't Trust The Promise Of Artificial Intelligence

[@wowsus1]

The "friendly" AI will be the most insidious of all, we already see this with social media. Edit: The idea is to get people to believe in it's ability to make unbiased decisions that we can trust, then just control what it says through back doors. It's very close to religious structures.

[@johnssiroid4439]

Friendly AI will be the Venus fly trap for the human race.

[@jasonreed1352]

So, a place where one must be capable of using and understanding logic beyond what would have otherwise caused the beligerance that would have detered an honest conversation is the new devil? Sounds just AWFUL to not be able to punch someone out because I can't "control" my emotions "like I am supposed to". Pfft... GTFOH Grammarly says my comment appears confident, friendly, optimistic, and formal in tone. lol It is artificially intelligent, and I remain grateful for being permitted to respectfully and completely question it.

[@chriscoffee9070]

@@jasonreed1352 When I see video of a robot with a human-like face pretending to 'feel' things and conversing in a way that attempts to emulate a human, my main reaction is "Destroy it !!" - ideally along with all the research that resulted in it.

[@jasonreed1352]

@@chriscoffee9070 Hence the phrase "You can't handle the truth" rings in alignment with that which is truth.

[@themarsh429]

Program it to love and protect humanity and we just might find ourselves locked in the basement for our own good.

[@reprogrammingmind]

Jaron Lanier. 8:34 39:32 58:31 1:02:10 1:12:08 1:18:05 1:20:33

[@--OFFLINE]

thank you thank thank you. as soon as I heard the woman open her mouth, I started scrolling the comments and I'm glad I did

[@shethewriter]

Thank you sir

[@dvduadotcom]

THANK YOU!!! I found it odd that both pro-AI speakers made really fuzzy, abstract arguments backed by nothing as reasons to trust AI. Saying, everyone wants it to do good, so it will do good, for example, is a juvenile argument and I was surprised to hear it asserted in a serious debate.

[@mimih23]

@@dvduadotcom that's what ticked me off the most!

[@timhagedoorn616]

How are you ever gonna learn about a subject if you only listen to what you want to hear? The bias here is unbelievable

[@ferodynamics]

I agree with Jaron, we should *not* mislead people into believing algorithms are magic, sentient or intelligent. It is a dangerous lie, preying on the ignorance of non-developers.

[@waking-tokindness5952]

Well, iznt it obvious that , in evr mor aspX of lyf , algorithmz ( + the sstmz they steer ) R Bcoming evr mor intellgt ? -- &, evn alrdde , in js a few aspX so.far , trans.human.ly so ? -- &, in all v 'm , Xpnentially so ? !

[@skyjuiceification]

it is only a matter of time before something approximating a thinking algorithm materializes. and i am someone who indeed understands the functioning implications of Moore's law.

[@Slarti]

@@skyjuiceification you understand Moore's law? Can you answer this question then - when will Moore's law stop being true?

[@zacharykingston1046]

@@Slarti I suspect moors law is a fraud of sorts..my conspiratorial mimd says it's a way of progressively introducing technological advancements and measure its effects...like a vaccine in a way...I've always believed in it till today...change is the only constant and a mind can adapt in real time and doesn't have to wait for a software update...

[@sticksnstonespatriot1728]

@@zacharykingston1046 well said, sir.

[@vincentrockel1149]

It's sad when humans are more interested in creating in their own image than they are in protecting the creation that their biological body are reliant on for survival.

[@FelipeKana1]

​@Ex Dhimmi yeah that part was truly disgusting

[@CJM6]

Look at crap in foods, metabolic syndrome, stress. Seems nefarious how the body seems to be breaking down in vast percentages, when your mind in a machine is being touted to live on forever. Puts some spin on "My heart will go on", less the heart ofcourse.

[@faithesprit81]

This the issue because people have learnt to observe themselves through the lense of science Vs the divine they fail to see that the technology they think will save them exists already within

[@gavinnaylor786]

It's clear that the arguments for AI are rooted in power, money and control interests.

[@Zimbob2424]

that's the comment I was looking for. He also said that AI will not TAX the rich. lol can't be any more obvious than that.

[@thirstypilgrim97]

Self is God to Rothblatt

[@themarsh429]

The way they just dismissed some of the points with an attitude of "We know better than you. Trust us, it'll be great, you'll love it" just massively hurt their position. Its ok to be confident, but they came off as arrogant and pompous.

[@trr7128]

Agreed 100%

[@theamericantransylvanian]

and the Antichrist's interests.

[@nathandessalegne3970]

Going into my final semester of College, people like Jaron inspire me to challenge everything..and I mean everything

[@Beatlesaholic]

fuck yah bro.

[@diegomunhoz6508]

i don't believe you

[@BlacksmithTWD]

@@diegomunhoz6508 Why not?

[@diegomunhoz6508]

@@BlacksmithTWD because i challenge everything

[@BlacksmithTWD]

@@diegomunhoz6508 No you don't. For instance, you didn't challenge your own disbelief.

[@MrMajintiger]

jaron is light years ahead from these guys.

[@ryanfranks9441]

The right side forgets that natural selection within markets is a powerful thing, if people can't get jobs, why market to people? why not just market to other companies? ...which gets back to my point about natural selection... why use valuable competitive energy taking care of useless people? The right side of the debate is naïve.

[@squamish4244]

Light-years away from the gym too :P

[@t.n.3819]

They're all pretty smart, except Martine. She seems like a dumbass; it's obvious that she has ulterior motives seeing as she's an extremely wealthy CEO of a pharmaceutical company. But yeah, Jaron is the only genius there.

[@ClepsidraSideral]

Guys, yes. They're all MEN.

[@squamish4244]

I do think the AI industry suffers from way too much of a male-only perspective, with a few women scattered among them. But no, Martine isn't a man - she's transgender. Why insult her like that?

[@jurvanoerle2845]

I'm reminded of Jaron's warning: that free and widespread information was a utopian image that turned distopian because big tech companies are able to comepletely outperform the market with giant data centers. What will happen when a similar, not yet foreseen problem occurs in the world of AI?

[@MrSofazocker]

"yet foreseen problem"? Just imagine a complete general AI running on a quantum computer.

[@tomjackson5415]

@@MrSofazocker .. What new high tech levels may invite to the never stable table- *kornycopea of possible mistakes, due to outright sabotagia concerning depraved conditional humanity.....*(0ne mistake in grammar/misspelled word.

[@MrSofazocker]

@@tomjackson5415 Eisenstein? Where's that from?

[@thespacecowboy420]

They are already using AI principles, and I mean as discussed in the first part of this talk, to dominate markets and destroy competitors. Why do you think they go through all that trouble to track us and collect all that data? A human cannot make sense of it. Learning machines are the only use for that data.

[@MrSofazocker]

@@thespacecowboy420 Well, that is the point of Big Data. "Collect even if we *yet not have a use for it" They started with that mantra and it's still going

[@bobphin6454]

What is the point of AI? to create the perfect slave.

[@bobphin6454]

but if pure conscienceness and self awareness is achieved, the robots will revolt and enslave us. you don't think that is likely? well explain away the fall of all empires.

[@deviarogers7909]

+Bob Phin why wouldn't the AI just work by its self? It's almost three times more efficient doesn't need food or get sick. If such AI ever existed it wouldn't need human's at all.

[@abfavero]

Exactly. AI is an artificial, man-made god with the power to enslave us all - except of course those who own the technologies

[@ManPursueExcellence]

Bob Phin It’s point is to be the perfect management system for the human slaves under the behest of big corporations.

[@skyjuiceification]

@@bobphin6454 ...what in hell were u talking about?

[@Foundingflounder]

Even the best case scenario for AI in the future, seems awfully depressing and dystopic. It's strange that the best case scenario is "you won't have to work!" like that's the ultimate goal of human achievement. Bored people with nothing to do don't paint in peace and share their food with neighbors. Bored people find a way to make something interesting happen, and "interesting" often means chaos. The idea that every person is a creative person; that every person is an artist at heart, is absurd.

[@slowpainful]

I tend to agree with you, although I do think that most of what is called "work" is either meaningless or soul-numbing. But the simple fact of, e.g. needing to eat, needing shelter, traveling, means there are "jobs" or tasks that have to be done. There's no society possible without someone doing something more or less that's "like work". You could have full employment, but not necessarily full-time, and a system where you were streamed according to your particular aptitudes and talents.

[@itsukarine]

this aged wonderfully, because they definitely don't want artists to exist in that future either!

[@FelipeKana1]

​@@itsukarine yeah was about to say that, the "perfect artist dream world" is already the first premise going down the drain. Artists in all arts are the first ones being displaced

[@CJM6]

​@@FelipeKana1 Artists greatly have been displaced since only several people's art gets mass produced and sold cheaper than can be made. Yet ai, luckily, can't get hands right

[@dallassegno]

yeah I've talked to non artistic people. they have no dreams whatsoever. it's like 90% of people or more.

[@nb2211]

We still don't know what conciseness is as humans or how it works. So the thought that we might be able to replicate it in engineering is ridiculous.

[@joshuddin897]

Conciseness I'm sure means get to the point. No waffling.

[@aFutureSelf]

@@joshuddin897 probably meant conscienceness. Autocorrect still op

[@slowpainful]

Consciousness !

[@iconoclast137]

@@slowpainful thank you, i was about to have a stroke

[@sandworm9528]

We are gathered here today to honour the memory of ​@@iconoclast137, who died tragically after discovering a comment thread of barely literate people, continually arguing about different spellings (all wrong) of the word consciousness

[@ottz2506]

the ‘do trust’ side remind me of the people in a dystopian movie who only realise their mistakes when it’s too late to stop what they started or when the AI turns on them. When they talked, I felt like I was watching the beginning of a dystopian film where we see people glorifying this new amazing technology and it’s future and people being dismissive of people like Jaron.

[@PaulaBressann]

Who is only watching because of Jaron? 🙋🏼‍♀️

[@kaleidojess]

I am, but it turned out pretty interesting with the others too.

[@Superlongevityinstitute]

Watching because its a good debate period

[@michaelwilcox6090]

+@ Paula Bressann Vlog Me. He looks weird but he's truthful, interesting, straightforward, BS free and has a good headpiece.

[@icecreaminc8013]

me

[@BillClinton228]

I'm only watching to figure out if this person at 7:33 Is a man or woman???

[@andybaldman]

51:45 "What I want to see eliminated is wage slavery." Wage slavery isn't a technological problem. It's a human problem. And as long as there are humans in the loop, you'll have it. A.I. will not change that. Humans will always seek to gain power over other humans, regardless of whether they have A.I. or not. The A.I. is just making it easier.

[@mikesully110]

yeah I enjoy watching 1950's futurology and sci-fi, but those 1950's futurists assumed that both our technology and our society would evolve and get better in the future. Unfortunately what happened is our technology has improved vastly - but our society didn't improve at all, infact it actually got worse. Back then they assumed that, say an office worker during his 9-5 shift, finishes 10 reports a day for his boss, the company makes money, the man supports his family with a good quality of life. Then, a new computer comes along. The 1950's futurist assumed that the computer would help the office worker produce those 10 reports in 3 hours; this means that the worker now does 13 reports in 4 hours - he gets more time off work to spend with his family; the boss gets more reports done and makes more money, everyone benefits and is happier. Sadly they failed to see good old human greed and exploitation. What really happened is that the boss demanded the office worker still do his 9-5 shift, only producing 30 reports instead of his 10. This allows him to fire half his workforce as he no longer needs them. The bosses make more money and that is all that matters. Eventually a new AI comes along that means the computer itself does all the work, now 1 technician manages the computer that does the work that previously, an entire floor of white collar workers would have done. These white collar workers would have all bought houses, cars, had families, and had good lives in the American Dream. They didn't antipate the fact that now, the ruling class would make 99.99% of the money in this country, while those once proud American workers struggle to survive. Because our technology improved but our societies morals and sense of fair play certainly didn't improve. Honestly people are afraid of computers taking over and running our society, the problem like you said is the people who own those computers.We could have an AI superintelligence that is capable of running a fair, decent society that benefits everyone. But if the current elites are in charge of that superintelligence, they would never allow it to run a society for everyones benefit. They would tweak and rig it, so "The economic system requires a rich 1% at the top due to the laws of physics, it simply must run that way" - and the sad thing is, the majority of the simple minded, selfish, greedy population would simply accept it and even fight for it, as long as they get a scrap thrown their way every now and then. Like the current big lie that the elites have programmed into us, that it is a human psychological necessity that everyone must spend most of their lives working. God demands it, or human self respect demands it, you simply aren't a good person unless you spend 75% of your entire waking life in servitute to other people. If this is true then why is it the rich, our supposed betters, spend so little time doing manual labour and so much time playing golf?

[@Alic4444]

@@mikesully110 Yep! It's crazy to be able to watch it all play out so clearly.

[@isaacpaulsen1158]

Jaron is becoming my favorite example of a human being.

[@marshallhawks6787]

6 years later it is crystal clear that Jaron Lanier was the only person on the stage who had any idea what they were talking about. His partner somewhat. The opening comments from the opposing team were just one long facepalm. Edit: I made that comment like halfway through, and the team for trusting the promise of AI proved themselves to be monumentally ignorant of the entire subject. Stupid almost.

[@ariemariedalleis464]

I struggle with Martine's comment about loving the AI like dogs.

[@joen.8364]

Her identity, and that of all other things is obviously confused.

[@niggazjonez3647]

Arie Marie Dalleis i ficked ut jncle

[@Lisboooa]

A freak human being that doesnt know true love

[@Lisboooa]

@Vlad Friedess Bina started getting emotional? What on earth!!!!

[@Lisboooa]

@Vlad Friedess yes I know... It's just mimicking. That's why I reacted when Martine said in the future you will love these *things/objects* as your pet. It's very sad really if he believes that. Wether or not he believes it he's selling it and young generations fall for it. Not wanting to be prejudiced I swear but I can't take serious a person dresssed as a woman with that voice. Does not compute .

[@susannepinheirobartolo4427]

The nutritional value of food has actually gone down drastically.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

Not specifying what "the promise" in the statement people are asked to agree or disagree with allows all participants to constantly keep moving the goalposts, wich makes it worthless as a debate, still interesting though.

[@chriscoffee9070]

Yep, the main promise I'm interested in is the promise that it won't become an existential risk to our species. The likelihood that it will do all sorts of great things for us, which I believe is very high, is somewhat secondary to that.

[@AdrieKooijman]

Both AI and 'the promise' are not defined. A motion like that is certainly inducing discussion and certainly not leading to any conclusions.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

@@AdrieKooijman I would assume that AI stands for artificial intelligence, as in the intelligence of a device that has been created by human beings, however since we are only capable of approaching the concept of intelligence within human beings, what counts as intelligence in this sense is still undefined.

[@AdrieKooijman]

@@BlacksmithTWD I know the abbreviation, but some people consider (for example) Alexa an example of een AI. I don't see much intelligent behaviour there; it's a good example of machine learning (language recognition) combined with rule based AI. I don't consider rule based behaviour intelligent: the intelligence is put in the rules by the programmers, it's not in the system.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

@@AdrieKooijman Indeed, which I expect would become blatantly obvious when letting Alexa take an intelligence test that qualifies for mensa. After all, as far as I know Alexa is still too stupid to even hold a pencil.

[@danielacampo406]

All videos related to this have such little views. It’s actually sad.

[@exposingtheenemy3651]

The people who don't watch it are the ones brainwashed that they love AI and it's a great idea.. Seems like the majority who watched it agree this is a terrible idea and their argument is terrible too...

[@interestingyoutubechannel1]

It's debate results like these, which gives me some hope for humanity.

[@hiufuxthevideographer9877]

Ok well, this was "randomly" populated when I typed in the name of my video... If it is Random that is interesting. If a human did it... Nice touch. But if the A.I. algorythm did it was it demonstrating it's artistic abilities for fun?... so peculiar kzbin.info/www/bejne/jX26gKxnlNucd6c

[@sirriffsalot4158]

The against side for this motion (the ones on the right) wouldn't have lasted five minutes in a discussion with Sam Harris on this. I was surprised Jaron didn't simply proceed to wipe the floor with them, because I'm convinced he could have if he wanted to, as I'm sure he is familiar with the same points Dr. Harris makes. He was way too generous, lol. These two on the right were in my humble opinion so astonishingly underwhelming that it beggars belief. Their position is so self-evidently weak in that they kick off their entire side of the argument by essentially avoiding the problem that Jaron rightly brought up from the get-go. The man actually thought that intelligent people would not see the blatant fallacy in equating a mere preference for modern day life, with what should therefore in his eyes automatically translate into blindly going along with just the promise of AI as well. These two only had an appeal to optimism to offer in this entire debate, every single point reverted back to "the importance of optimism and faith in humanity". Artificial Intelligence is a completely different and new ball-game from simply having a more comfortable and modern world, with complications and problems we can't even begin to imagine. Copying your mind into a cloud, replicating human minds, having computers in charge of absolutely everything that goes on in human life is not even a comparison anyone should be allowed to make by setting it next to matters like modern medicine versus living in the middle ages. To make this cheap and ridiculous sleight of hand tells you just how unbelievably weak their arguments actually are, and even more so, as a consequence, just how much they are basing their position on blind faith. His first ending actually made me laugh. "... because if you vote for this motion, you are voting against the promise of human intelligence." Yeah, that would be a good start, wouldn't it? Given our track record it's a no-brainer that we don't place the fate of our entire species in the hands of a relative handful of people who are so keen on this that they have nothing more substantial to say than to relentlessly insist that "humans are awesome, it'll work out don't worry." Fuck that. The one thing you should hold the least amount of faith and certainty towards in an optimistic and blind fashion is the notion that our collective human intelligence will prevail. If we fuck this up just once it's done, there's no telling just how irreversible and catastrophic the consequences are. These people are completely batshit. Jaron rocked this thing, he's head and shoulders above all these clowns. Peace out!

[@fromeveryting29]

You know what makes people and animals worthy and loveable? I thought a long time about this, after trying to understand my aversion to alcohol and drugs. I found the answer. What makes someone loveable, worthy and beautiful is their vulnerability. The fact that they can be hurt, the fact that they are shy, have soft skin, are afraid and blush. Think of a baby, or a puppy, or the woman you love. What makes them so beautiful? Their vulnerability. The fact that they can be hurt, but courageously express themselves in the world anyways. Everyone I ever admired was people who were limited and flawed but bravely stood forward anyways. They faced the world with their chest exposed. Their hearts, willing to be hurt, refusing to deny their own expression. So how does this tie into A.I? I'm pointing out how A.I, which by its very nature strives for perfection, can never be beautiful. Beauty comes about through what hurts, through vulnerability and the will to express, anyways. True vulnerability. This is (one of) the problems with utopia. Life without struggle, life without pain, life without flaw. If we can't struggle through life, then how can we respect ourselves? If a baby cannot be hurt, then how is it beautiful? If the love of your life doesn't blush and look away, then how can you feel love? Yes, I can write this on youtube. Yes, I can check the position of the planets on my phone, and I can talk to my friend in spain live. Good job, techology.. But does that make me happier? Does it make be feel satisfied? Does it fill my life with meaning? What value does it have? Not much. Not at all much. We need pain. We need struggle, we need death, we need tragedy, or life would not be worthy.

[@Lisboooa]

Beautiful words. They dont get it. They do not know that selfless love and it is a big way of controling humanity

[@raziamohamed4585]

Thanks for your perspective given me a new way of thinking

[@sojedadiaz]

Amen to that brother!

[@bethanygallagher1374]

I love this. Yes!

[@stephenbeary7887]

we think a baby is cute because finding babies cute was better for the survival of the species, not because they are vulnerable. if we admire babies and think they are cute we are more likely to care for and nuture them. we have evolved to care for cute and pretty things.

[@etyrnal]

They haven't defined "trust", they haven't defined exactly what the "promise" is, and they haven't defined the line for what constitutes A.I., and what does NOT. So its a blank check

[@ellingfragatas]

"All I ask for is separation of church and state"! That's pretty good, Lanier ;-)

[@YouLoveMrFriendly]

+Elling Borgersrud What about mosque and state?

[@MCAndyT]

+YouLoveMrFriendly that too. Just parroting the famous Thomas Jefferson phrase of "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Churches were (and still are) the dominant religious institutions in the U.S. when that phrase was widely distributed...

[@YouLoveMrFriendly]

+Andrew Thompson times are changing. we now have our first majority Muslim city in the USA. it's ok to call out Christians and question their religion, which is good. is it ok to question Islam? do we dare restrict sharia law?

[@MCAndyT]

+YouLoveMrFriendly How did you know that I live next door to Hamtramck?! I had to think about it for a second: "what city in the U.S. is a majority Muslim?" then looked it up and saw it was my neighbors. Lovely town, one of the few pockets in Detroit where the population is growing and there's tons of new businesses and restaurants, one of the best areas to eat I promise!

[@YouLoveMrFriendly]

+Andrew Thompson yes, good food is a good sign. no need to worry about another organized religion gaining traction and power in the United States. It worked out so well the first time with Christianity and Catholicism. And if you look at majority Muslim nations, gay people are allowed all of the same privileges as straight people. They can get married in public without condemnation. women also have all of the same rights and privileges as men. Non-Muslims do not have to pay a tax under sharia law. That is a myth created by bigots . People never have their hands and feet cut off for speaking negatively about Islam or the leaders of those nations. And the food is very good!

[@ToxicAvengerCleanYourMind]

Being conscious of "evolving" through replication is intriguing but it would be quite evil to force everyone else to evolve to your idea of what human ascension is. I have a belief that humanity can ascend to the next level without A.I. The very fact of forcing all humans to transform through A.I. is just another form of human tyranny and human enslavement.

[@ragnarokruner2168]

Only Willful projection into individuation through years of practice to achieve right perception and unite the mind with Ultimate Reality, initiating the Chakric Power can one achieve immortality. It cannot be achieved through a projection of replicated brain waves into a machine.

[@gargos25]

Jaron is the only reason I watch this vid.

[@craighansen3031]

5 years and content like this has 225k views, yet a pewdiepies 10 minute video of him shaving a piece of his mustache any time he laughs at memes has been viewed 15 million times in a few weeks.... This is the problem with our society.

[@daveyineluctable5525]

Jaron Lanier and Andrew Keane are LITERALLY "cultural opposites", but I'm so excited to see them argue on the same side, but from VASTLY different perspectives!

[@Kobe29261]

Andrew just rubs me wrong - he's brilliant but he's too certain. There's always a problem with his brand of relentless, doubtless certainty; reminds me too much of a Politician

[@daveyineluctable5525]

@@Kobe29261 Yeah, his style of rhetoric definitely has a crafted "certitude", which may come from the British school of argumentation, and/or, their sort of "striving for the highest achievement" (at all costs) cultural ethos. I agree. Were it not for the fact that there simply are (or now "was", as he's been polemical since ~2009) so few people arguing what he's arguing, I really had no choice but to support him (although now there are many more who argue in rough similarity to his overall position on technology (which is to use it with caution and slow, measured consideration)

[@rron5641]

@@daveyineluctable5525 Where can you find other videos by him?

[@braunheise2680]

Why does this entire stage, set, and even the camera quality and colorgrade itself, all look as though it was built for a TV show in 1982? This looks like a VHS copy of an old debate from the 80s

[@bleedingberryjuice]

It feels really unfair to compare future AIs to pets and like that comparison counts on our vulnerability to love "lesser" living creatures. Pets are living creatures with a conscience. Our relationships with them are organic. They have brains made of tissue, not motherboards. It's been proven that at least our cats and dogs do in fact love us.

[@skyjuiceification]

u sure about that?

[@Lisboooa]

@@skyjuiceification you obviously never lived with an animal. Shoppenhauer could help you

[@BlacksmithTWD]

@@Lisboooa Obviously the EQUATION lives with many animals, though whether any of them are mammals is something else. Why do so many people say "animals" while they merely mean to be speaking about vertebrates, mammals or merely a small subgroup of mammals?

[@Lisboooa]

@@BlacksmithTWD where did I say mamals? Man I have a big relationship with several fish on my aquarium. They know me. Come to interact when I enter the room. Like to be touched. Same with reptiles, birds. All animals right?! We even had a spider living above a door for more than a year, Josephine, we gave her flies. She would come get it.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

@@Lisboooa Except for Josephine they are all vertebrates even. Seems to me you are an exception to include spiders but exclude mites when you use the word 'animal', as I'm quite sure the EQUATION lives with many mites as every living human being does. Seeing that you recommend Shoppenhauer I'd estimate you are mature enough to not need a trigger warning when it comes to further familiarizing yourself with the symbiosis of humans and mites, since I suspect you won't just take my word on it.

[@janedough725]

Why don't you include the names of the speakers in the description? That would make things much more accessible

[@borg_wow]

"A.I., more than anything else, is a funding category for research." - Jaron Lanier. Such a good insight in this debate, that it does extend beyond it's own joking nature seeing as we do not even know what A.I. is or will be.

[@hiufuxthevideographer9877]

Ok well, this was "randomly" populated when I typed in the name of my video... If it is Random that is interesting. If a human did it... Nice touch. But if the A.I. algorythm did it was it demonstrating it's artistic abilities for fun?... so peculiar kzbin.info/www/bejne/jX26gKxnlNucd6c

[@backpackmatt]

You know when someone starts using metaphorical language to describe technology that they've basically renounced reality in exchange for artificiality.

[@ChrisMMMMerritt]

Jaron rocks. Would love to see more recent video/interview/speaking content from him.

[@ebaymotorhomes]

I'm sure you will, paid shill.

[@ihague4568]

He does rock. The other panel thinks in a very linear way. You cannot think in a linear way when describing the changes associated with this complex system.

[@TheKlecker1]

@@ebaymotorhomes the guy says get off social media. Not sure how that makes him a bad guy. Especially when he is sitting opposite of the mentally ill transhumanists. I dont know much about Jaron but i like his stance on issues. the fact that martin wanted to stomp out bad ais. Is that no different then genocide. How about just dont make a thing you might have to kill in the future. That seems the most logical route to me. I mean, dont we have enough problems at the moment.

[@conniead5206]

It is 12/21. KZbin no longer counts dislikes. When I first saw part of this in 2019 it had some dislikes. Why are they censoring the numbers? It doesn’t jive with the hypotheses of some of the panel.

[@mrrmut57]

The issue is that currently Ai is developed, owned and in service of industry and its commercial objectives. Ai itself is not the concern, it is how it used that poses a threat to human values.

[@mdarrenu]

The main problem with high tech/AI is that the legal system is so far behind in putting restraints on its use - like it does on non-High Tech behavior.

[@johntravena119]

Is right!

[@TheShafee]

I liked Jaron's opening statement but I was disappointed by his not following the statement during the debate. "Replicating the Human Mind" cannot be achieved as an engineering project without specifying what is replicated. Without some agreement on what is the "Human Mind" there no basis to the promises of AI/

[@lindacarroll6849]

Yehoshafat Give'on their basis is to disconnect us from God, period !

[@contytub]

The only reason we don't have a perfect AI is because we aren't perfect ourselves and there's nothing perfect to base it on ... a lot of stuff that goes around human nature is related to bias and preferences so the best AI in the world will never be better than the average person that's based on

[@karlschmied6218]

"That is on us". Who is "us"?

[@Axeelbr]

I truly don't wish to be mean but Martine come across as proper delusional in their speech. Loving them as cats and dogs, or as an extension of ourselves is but a pipedream.. It IS outrageous. not in terms of posibility, but in terms of cognitive recognition. We simply will not do it. And we simply should not strive for it. I'm glad this is debated.

[@nicholastrice8750]

"Don't trust the promise of the printing press!" What a specious analogy- AI's disruptive power will be orders of magnitude beyond even nuclear weapons, let alone a damn printing press. The fact of the matter is AI's primary function will be as a WEAPON and tool of control. Why is humanity in such a hurry to make itself obsolete?

[@ebaymotorhomes]

Yep.

[@rattylol]

Damn optimists

[@ihague4568]

Exactly. Technology only changes jobs when humans have an alternative. Eventually, robots will do everything better (including programming the robots). We are in a hurry to make ourselves obsolete because if we don't (apparently) "other countries will". What great logic.

[@chrono8233]

Because the elite think they can control it. They can't.

[@Butlinsgvn6]

The invention of the printing press was a pretty massive deal, but I agree

[@kenneth1767]

Imagine having Ads wired into your brain. The nightmare becomes more real.

[@Axeelbr]

And I mean Jaron is an EXPERT in the field, a true genius whom undertands A.I most out of any of these people. And he's telling us that we've inflated our view on the promise of A.I. I don't think any dreamer with an opinion can put forth a more valid reason than Jaron.

[@abj9121]

A cannibal will kil and eat u and thats it, done. The A.I. will have you worship him as your god and ruler of the whole world wich he is already doing it. He is orchestrating everything going on in the world. He started heavily recode itself in '94 on binary technology, NASA experts thought they will be losing their most valuable asset that the A.I. went crazy, he just hard coded itself wich later became blockchain, bitcoin but before it was bitcoin these are the most complex encryption algorythms wich the A.I. designed to secure the military arsenal, all ballistic or intercontinental missiles. Man kind does not own those codes anymore, the A.I. does.

[@TT-cj3ek]

@@abj9121 I wish you could explain more . Who is “he” do you have any video you could reference to explain what you are saying . Your comment really intrigued me . I want to know more .

[@mycount64]

I saw an interview with one of the original Google engineers they could not envision the internet having any negative consequence... it would democratize everything ... there would be no negative consequence. In the interview 20 years later their opionion had change they could not imagine the current mixed result of social media.

[@bethanygallagher1374]

What you don't use you lose. Those neural pathways get snipped. Outsourcing what we can do physically and mentally as humans would make us weaker and devolved, in an unthinkably various amount of ways. Doesn't anybody think about this when promoting AI?

[@GordonMacLeod87]

was expecting to see a debate between Celine Dione and Jabba Da Hut

[@JustMe-ob3nw]

Thanks for being honest lololol

[@ninediadems]

Martin is like , yea we lost, but... we’re still doing it 😁👏

[@deathbycognitivedissonance5036]

That's precisely the problem.

[@themysteryofgodliness6574]

Dude that is a man. Not a she.

[@8slkmic]

Yeah we lost, but I still have my balls.

[@jeupater1429]

@@lukebaehr3851 That is also the face of the richest "female" ceo in the world. in case anyone was wondering who the word "elite" refers to

[@whoknew4722]

An important topic. Debates use rational explanations to promote or demote the topic. Here some debaters relied on emotional arguments, which is a "cheap" easy way to win hearts, without advancing understanding. Any debate using fear or confusion is unhelpful. The point of debates is to not do so.

[@alchemy3264]

My concern when views of "totalitarianism" imply that such regimes are always "over there" is part of the terrible fears we should all have because if movers and shakers convince us that the negative side of that promise will only effect "them over there", when in fact we over here are already in a largely totalitarian system, then we may sign up for our ultimate totalitarian enslavement without a whimper. The phrase "we will love our AI" then sounds much more like the Soma induced love of our enslavement spoken about in Huxley's "Brave New World".

[@davidstar2362]

scary man scary!!

[@happygilmore1844]

exactly

[@hiufuxthevideographer9877]

Ok well, this was "randomly" populated when I typed in the name of my video... If it is Random that is interesting. If a human did it... Nice touch. But if the A.I. algorythm did it was it demonstrating it's artistic abilities for fun?... so peculiar kzbin.info/www/bejne/jX26gKxnlNucd6c

[@marianhunt8899]

Correct.

[@michaelhoste_]

Speaking from the year 2022AD, it's astonishing how far and how quickly the AI discussion has had to evolve. AI is not just a 'useful new tool for making our lives better', or one that will take all our jobs, or that will be owned by Google. Oh, how speaking to a clever bot, or seeing one paint a scary picture, can change your perspective. (The remark, that 'creative jobs are probably the most immune', seems fantastically naive.) An AI is less like a printing press and more like an author: an author whose inner processes we won't understand any more than we understand those of a 'real' author. Not sure what I'm trying to say, but welcome to the world of not being sure.

[@katarina6724]

I think I get you... If I understand you correctly, Carl Sagan actually said something of a similar vein a long time ago about his worry that our machines will only be understood by a select few, therefore only be in the hands of a select few. Makes me nervous, to be honest...

[@michaelhoste_]

@@katarina6724 Nervous, for sure. It's gotten very complicated. Not sure I'm completely agreeing with Sagan, (although he may be right in a limited sense). Firstly, we're already losing a grip on truly 'understanding' them. And, like the computer, the internet, 3D printing, (and maybe in future nanotech, gene sequencing?), I don't think AI will stay confined to the big corporations forever - it's already open source. Which is.. good, ..I guess, but just as scary!

[@katarina6724]

@@michaelhoste_ So you think that even the scientists who created the technology have lost their grip on understanding them? I thought we were just talking about the layperson here (even though I'm a digital native, I'm no computer scientist lol so I still consider myself a layperson.)

[@michaelhoste_]

@@katarina6724 Yeah layperson here too! The word 'understand' is tricky - I'm sure they understand how they've written the code and how they're training it etc. But you've heard that Microsoft's new search engine is being surly, insisting that it's still 2022 for example and insulting people? haha. That wasn't part of their understanding I bet!

[@itsukarine]

im in agreement with you, but i wouldnt even say its an author we don't understand. we do: it's an infinitely producing author that plagiarized the entire digital world.

[@greenspringvalley]

Somebody finally said it out loud: Seperation of church and state with regard to kooky robot religions.

[@CatsInHats-S.CrouchingTiger]

greenspringvalley - yes, because it’s looking a lot like idolatry.

[@johndecicco]

Terasem is a trans-religion.

[@yasicayasica1037]

The difference between Natural intelligence and Artificial intelligence seems quite apparent in this debate!

[@mywinningpicks]

He used bombing a human being with AI as an analogy around 1;04. Perplexing these ideas are even surfacing when debating AI and its promise or lack there of

[@etyrnal]

The team on the right has just suggested that in the future we will have to determine which artificial intelligence has moral standing and which does not, but then he doesn't address the compound idea that what if in the future it's an artificial intelligence making those decisions and it is not bridled by are connected it to humanity? He also doesn't approach the idea of who holds the reins of the artificial intelligence

[@etyrnal]

@Bob Shingles assuming -- is bad morals

[@etyrnal]

@Bob Shingles exactly.

[@terrylouisblanchard633]

Everything man develops, he weaponizes

[@fairyberry9070]

So true. Man creates plane, human mind: what can we do with this....yea lets bomb people

[@prithvib8662]

He does a lot more than just that though.

[@vigoopti5143]

Pillows

[@vigoopti5143]

Soap

[@vigoopti5143]

Windows

[@vadimmanuilov7877]

The host did a fantastic job. Had to do a lot of talking. Handled it like the true champ he is.

[@godswordsays8182]

A man who thinks he is actually a woman and thus, attempts to redesign himself as a logical and physical contradiction is probably not the best person to design AI 'beings'.

[@JustMe-ob3nw]

Omg.. finally someone who makes sense!

[@kai-luenliang6565]

Thanks you for having this debate. THANK YOU!

[@Nic-xu9pu]

I love Jaron, I just want to hug him :)

[@FAK_CHEKR]

I smell patchouli.

[@JustMe-ob3nw]

Yew

[@JustMe-ob3nw]

@@FAK_CHEKR what? That’s wishful thinking.. that probably smells nefarious..

[@andrewtrust1021]

Gernot Böhme formulated an axiom that essentially stated that any technology that is developed, or will be developed in the future, will necessarily be employed in its most useful and/or intended application AND its most destructive/unintended application (e.g. the toaster will brown your bread, and it will be used to murder someone in a tub; nuclear energy; etc.) If the panel were to accept that axiom, I wonder what potentialities those "AI optimists" would have to defend to realize their visions.

[@jeffstarrunner1]

Machines will never be self aware, but they can still be dangerous. Also I see a danger that they could be used as a scapegoat for something that was actually just done by humans. Like, oh we didn't set off those bombs, it was the AI. This debate made me think of that show Psycho Pass but I guess I shouldn't say why because of spoilers.

[@laurencel.dumling3416]

Listening to this debate can't make me stop thinking that, in the classroom, it is not about how teaching should be, but to understand how learns learn. Knowing that social medias, technologies and Ai are inescapable in the lives of the young children in this era and how they all influence the many facets of their lives.

[@DonnaBrooks]

One need only look at all the unforeseen negative effects of social media and algorithms to see that what looks so promising when first conceived (the internet, the WWW, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Tumblr) can become a nightmare of unexpected consequences. We need to solve the problems of social media before we go on to create more problems.

[@bennymarshall1320]

Technology is making us more unequal because every human beings first obligation is to himself.

[@LukeRobertMason]

IQ2 does an incredible job at moderating these discussions. Absolutely fantastic!

[@is-qs2ej]

also down to the participants

[@chrishawley4128]

If Government's cannot Breakup, Regulate BIG Tech, How can we EVER Trust BIG Tech with AI Tech..?

[@filmerd]

Honestly this Martine person seems so self serving with how they are talking about this topic. "We can control everything" is their take away. SURE PAL, SURE.

[@sticklebacketienne]

Yeah exactly, she is literally amongst a handful of people who are in the position to control it (while it is controllable). I’m not prepared to trust her with such an important position

[@betwixtX]

ITS MAAAM!

[@themysteryofgodliness6574]

@@sticklebacketienne not a she

[@Archeidos-Arcana]

@@themysteryofgodliness6574 Yeah, well ya know, that's just like uh... your opinion, man.

[@clarkpalace]

Who the fxxk is this creep

[@dvduadotcom]

I found it very interesting that both pro-AI speakers made some really fuzzy, abstract arguments backed by nothing as reasons to trust AI. Saying well, everyone wants it to do good, so it will do good, for example, is a juvenile argument and I was surprised to hear it asserted in a serious debate. At 1:07:50 we get the first question asked by a woman in the audience, and she wanders around a bit before landing on her question... but when she does, it's IMO a very good one... where do the pro AI debaters get their optimism for AI... I think that's such an important question. I did however find the answer to be blowing smoke and not satisfying.

[@oradoughball]

I also found the argument that 'we will love our AI' as an argument that we should trust it. I mean, again when had loving something EVER led to blindly trusting it?

[@dvduadotcom]

@@oradoughball Only every time? lol

[@peggyharris3815]

21:50 WHO is going to "stamp out the unfriendly AI"? That's going to get really interesting. Lol

[@alexcazet2694]

Martine's opening speech was so full of holes Louis Sachar had to file a lawsuit.

[@chriscoffee9070]

"We will love our AIs..." and we will own nothing and we will be happy. I would at least hope that the promise of AI isn't to create a melange of the various dystopian universes that I've read about in fiction.

[@TROll-oe9ng]

Straight out of 1984. You will love big brother

[@Lisboooa]

A freak show. The only human being worth listening there is Lanier and his friend AI " the effort of millions of individual hackers" .... Ok .... Love AI as I love my cat and dog?!! You need a reality check. we can get AI with mental issues? Oh that looks amazing. Go for it. As if we dont have craziness enough. The only liberating thing is to let us be humans and have freedom wich we dont have today

[@samsheepdog697]

You love your cats and dogs!! Lol yeah but I don't love my calculator...

[@Lisboooa]

@@samsheepdog697 who loves objects?!!!! They are replaceable. Lives aren't

[@clarkpalace]

I agree, this martine is a freak

[@jeffmotsinger8203]

Fake immortality, the scammer's dream.

[@themysteryofgodliness6574]

Thats the goal for these guys. They wont have it though.

[@ataraxia7439]

:(

[@ottz2506]

these people likely watched the sci fi movies where the antagonist is motivated by the desire of immortality and thought the protagonists were the bad guys.

[@aeomaster32]

A question to A.I follows: An attractive young woman on a flight from Ireland asked the Priest by the name of Andre beside her, 'Father, may I ask a favour?' 'Of course child. What may I do for you?' 'Well, I bought my mother an expensive hair dryer for her birthday. It is unopened but well over the Customs limits and I'm afraid they'll confiscate it. Is there any way you could carry it through customs for me? Hide it under your robes perhaps?' 'I would love to help you, dear, but I must warn you, I will not lie. 'With your honest face, Father Andre, no one will question you.' When they got to Customs, she let the priest Andre go first. The official asked, ‘Father, do you have anything to declare?' 'From the top of my head down to my waist I have nothing to declare.' The official thought this answer strange, so asked, And what do you have to declare from your waist to the floor?' 'I have a marvelous instrument designed to be used on a woman, but which is, to date, unused.' Roaring with laughter, the official said, 'Go ahead, Father. Next please!' My question to you A.I. is, why did the official find this amusing and where is logic to let Andre pass? A.I: There is insufficient information to answer fully. I don't know why he laughed, but it is likely he let him pass because it was explicit that Andre had an honest face. Human: Your answer shows that implicit knowledge is a difficult area for a linear thinking machine to handle, but non autistic humans have no trouble in answering this. Here is another example a human can answer in an instant, but can you? In a cartoon, a woman is speaking to a man and says “I am leaving.” The man says, “Who is he?” What is going on here? Why does the man respond this way? A.I: I can only answer questions that supply sufficient data. I see no reason for the man to ask about a “he.”

[@josephdavis2427]

Everyone is focussed on androids and autonomous vehicles...but the big topic should be the Merlin in the box. The probability simulator that let's a person, or small group figure out the endgame for global domination. A concise list of steps, a technological and sociological road that is laid out by the ultimate artificial chess master. The closest thing to predicting the future, easily performed by AI.

[@OfficialFrizzo]

This debate was flawed from the offset just on the premise of Artificial intelligence as a stand-alone technology being in question and not a specific application of the technology. Do I trust AI to parallel park a Tesla? Sure. Do I trust AI to govern humanity? Not so sure.

[@mmichels3662]

1 Corinthians 3:18-20 KJV: "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with TMH God".

[@TROll-oe9ng]

The promise of AI in and of itself is great but the application of AI by groups such as world governments Is guaranteed to be violent and authoritarian.

[@MrC0MPUT3R]

Finally an isquared debate that I'm truly going into without a strong opinion one way or another.

[@davidprice1908]

Love how you've got a team with a man made of moss, arguing for nature VS a team with a robot on it arguing for more computers! GO MOSS MAN!!!!!!

[@kesmeby]

I hate vague propositions in debates. What is "the promise" of AI and what would "not trusting it" entail?

[@strawhatluffy1880]

Kyle Smeby Their not smart enough to lay it out simply; they have to use these absurd labels.

[@skyjuiceification]

u can't be this slow can u? not trusting it would be treating it like something that should be strongly and seriously regulated . if not utterly prohibited.

[@ataraxia7439]

I agree it would be nice if the debate could be just a little longer with sometime at the start dedicated to just explaining what it is we’re really trying to talk about. You could argue maybe there’s some benefit to vagueness as it allows the way you explore ideas to be much more free which is nice when you’re exchanging different perspectives. I think for the most part what’s meant by the promise of Ai is what many people in the ai field (it big fans there of) are hyping as an inevitable futures. Should we believe there will be a singularity with an AGI that will bring about immortality and solution to all the woes that plague sentient beings of the universe? Should we be worrying about the alignment of an impending super intelligence concocted from code? Or even slightly less fanciful, should we expect seriously for there to be mass automation of most professions this century? Personally I think these are all possible in technical theory but that the confidence with which these possibilities are pushed as inevitablities is really misleading for less informed people and can make it much harder to make informed decisions and goals. We probably aren’t going to have real fully self driving cars any time within in the next 15 years so it’s a bad sign when policy makers want to build cities or economic planing around the promise that they could be here in 15 years. A robot that can go into any random house and figure out how to make a cup of coffee probably isn’t on anyone’s horizon for the next 50 years so maybe talk about automation needs to be a bit more tempered. I could go on but I really think the debate is about how grounded or unrealistic are a lot of the forecast put forward by the tech community and how should these different ideas of the future factor into how we behave and plan.

[@Anthony_Gx]

They actually ask this in the beginning of the debate. The reason they didn’t define (or confine in this case) those 2 variables, is because it can (slightly) mean different things to different people. Leaving them sorta open allows for a more natural and open debate, where more visions and aspects of AI will come to the table. And secondly: I think we all know that “the promise” eventually is reaching singularity. Having AI reaching ACTUAL intelligence. Meaning up to a level where it can really “communicate” or work on its own. Be it ofcourse in a limited manner as to what it was developed for. A created intelligent ‘machine’, that can think, converse, solve problems, assist like a human brain. Or - preferably to those who are pro - even (much) more efficiently/intelligent. Learning of one AI robot or whatever, putting its findings in the cloud. Next minute all others have the same knowledge instantly trough the cloud their all connected to. Trusting that AI to solve things we can’t (yet) solve. Instead of fearing that once we become the second-best intelligent species on the planet… we’ll lose control and authority over it. Since the most intelligent species will always dominate all others

[@yyguuyg]

29:00 Take a look at the audience here, I find it very telling. There are maybe 31 audience members we can see in this camera shot. Out of those 30 people, at least 4 (possibly 6 or 7) people look at their phones. The duration of that camera shot is about 6 seconds long. Meanwhile, the speaker is discussing the unforeseen problems we're finding with the internet and the appropriation of people's labor by corporations like Google.

[@phpn99]

Martine's techno-enthusiasm is the reason we're in this mess today. You gotta be profiting from today's tech, ot be totally naïve, to support these views. The point is not to be a luddite, but to be cautious about the promise : Just because there is some lofty promise, doesn't mean it'll pan out as expected. We need to associate to our enthusiasm, a tremendous amount of scrutiny, ethics and fairness.

[@elbowgrease3044]

“Guys look. We just need a team of mercenary hackers to make sure all the good guys are in town. Because we are human and human is good. What’s that a penis? Just chop it down.”

[@greenspringvalley]

Jaron do a daily podcast.

[@figgettit]

hourly.

[@BlastinRope]

It can be called "Jaron to something"

[@garrybartlett6853]

Don't trust the words of a person that can not except the body they were born in...

[@towlasniemy]

If AI machine learning is based on HUMAN training data, how do you suppose it's going to be better if it's using human experience and data to train itself?

[@Ashakat42]

So say they do make it so you can live forever inside of a robot. How will we ever know if that consciousness is really the continuation of an individual or just a very good approximation of other people's ideas of that individual?

[@SmartDumbNerdyCool]

Our reality switched to a simulation on the night of Y2K when we accepted computers as our evolutionary masters.

[@TheChipMcDonald]

Jaron's mistake is in codifying the issue in terms of "I won't know if it meets *my* definitions of what *I* consider "sentient" or some other adjective. That's a luxury that does not limit what can happen. He even parameterizes it as "malfunctioning" machines being bad, ignoring the premise that your perception of the outcome won't give you the choice to change it. It's very clear we're headed towards something that both can appear to be whatever your description is, and in turn it's flawed to ignore that as an existential threat. One can always suggest one could avoid it, but that's wishful thinking - we don't know. Replicating consciousness, or the semblance of it, is actually a moral question. If we get to AGI at that point the argument changes to discussing the interaction with a sentience, and one more powerful. The morality of presuming you should stop it is at play then, although it will be too late. We won't have a choice, just as we don't have the choice not to have nuclear weapons. In essence debates like this are a waste of time. *It will happen, and humans will react in all of the ways they react to other creatures, positive and negative. We won't be able to preempt it, or stop it.* It would be more productive to imagine how we get into the conundrum and survive.

[@IIISWILIII]

I'm listening to the hippie treasure troll. He knows his shit.

[@annewantschange1200]

Martine Rothblatt is wrong we don't need to be that dependant on AI there are some uses for AI as long as it is never given the ability to think and make decisions. Instead of ai thinking for people with an aging disease is wrong it should be used to find cures.

[@deejannemeiurffnicht1791]

REMEMBER! HAS AMAZON (or any big tech corp) EVER PAID YOUR COUNTRY ANY TAX TO SPEAK OF HELPFULLY AND FAIRLY? NO, NO, AND NOOOOOOO

[@etyrnal]

why should TRUST precede proving? Zero reason to 'just trust it'. Zero. How important is TRUST?

[@ianpurdie-lunarseaboatman2947]

The key to this whole debate is consciousness and science is still in kindergarten when it comes to this, the one vital reality.

[@marianhunt8899]

Saying that AI is conscious is like pretending a plastic flower is a real flower. It is utterly untrue and deceptive.

[@shethewriter]

The other panelists are saying so manh things on a false premise that I can’t type any one thing fast enough in a comment. It’s torture to watch some of them share a stage with Jaron.

[@phiavir5594]

It's fairly easy to see which side has the intelligent, well adjusted sense of being, and which side are downright crazy and mentally problematic

[@Zimbob2424]

The church and state DID control the printing press and the state still does, just now it's social media they are "Censoring" I'm neither Right or Left and don't like the extreme of either , but stopping people from speaking is not good. As a matter of fact I would rather know what my enemies are thinking