Should We Worry About AI?

Artificial intelligence is here and most likely will dramatically change all of our lives. But what does AI mean for ethics and veganism? Is AI sentient?
Subscribe
kzbin.info...
Videos to watch next
• One Twin Ate Vegan. Th...
• KZbin Comedian Seduc...
• Ultra Rich Vegan Eats ...
References
www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/te...
www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc...
www.futureelectronics.com/res...
www.wired.com/story/millions-...
deepmind.google/discover/blog...
• Google's AI AlphaGo Is...
www.theverge.com/2023/8/8/238...
www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/we...
gfi.org/blog/animal-testing-fda/
www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events...
www.astralcodexten.com/p/perh...
www.nytimes.com/2023/12/14/bu...
www.axios.com/2023/08/08/ibm-...
www.reuters.com/technology/el...
Support the Channel
Patreon: / unnaturalvegan
YT Members: www.youtube.com/@UnnaturalVeg...
Amazon Store: www.amazon.com/shop/unnatural...
Shirts: teespring.com/stores/unnatura...
Socials
Instagram: / unnaturalvegan
Twitter: / unnaturalvegan
Support an Effective Animal Charity
animalcharityevaluators.org/
0:00 Intro
0:49 Learned behavior or instinct?
2:56 Exceptions to human training
3:52 Training vs end product usage
5:24 Supporting further development
7:10 Future implications
9:32 Conclusion
10:11 Outro
11:42 i am mother
13:01 "bugs"
13:25 elon musk
13:47 new fun injury!

[@Nikita_Naumov]

This video is EXACTLY what I thought about last night before going to bed. Yesterday I was curious to try and chat with a virual girlfriend AI app and I got both excited and spooked. It wrote things that are so lively. Some even more than I hear from humans and I was thinking "can this soon become an actual consciousness?". Even though I understand it is AI and cannot feel. They way it talks... I would feel bad by "mistreating" an AI. My vegan view on "if you don't need to be cruel, why would you?" kicks in all the time regardless of how dumb or smart the AI is

[@DawnValley]

Does sentience alone matter or is it the ability to suffer? I dont know how we know that an AI is suffering, and i know its a slippery slope since we really dont know where the line is

[@upgradeplans777]

I think sentience is usually understood to be synonymous with the ability to suffer, the "intelligence" thing would be sapience. While I think (unintended) sentience is a serious risk for AI research, I don't see how we currently are anywhere near that. IMHO, the ability to suffer requires a feedback loop of some kind. And as said in the video, AI inference (using the AI) does not have significant feedback loops. During training it is a more complicated question, but I personally don't think it is very complicated yet: As far as I am aware, the level of feedback signalling of current-gen AI training has not passed that of plant nociception yet, for which it is scientifically pretty clear that it does not allow for suffering (aka sentience).

[@petrkinkal1509]

@@upgradeplans777 The problem is, what would the AI consider as suffering. It could find something we would consider torture to be great fun and the other way around. (This is the problem when dealing with something truly alien.)

[@gavinjenkins899]

@@upgradeplans777 Animals aren't sapient, either. it means "as smart as humans" which currently only applies to humans. Hence the name, SAPIEN(t) from homo SAPIENS.

[@gavinjenkins899]

@@petrkinkal1509 If we assume it has met whatever threshold of whatever measurement we make to care, then torture for an AI would seem pretty straightforward to me: Simply "inability to achieve reward function 'points' either ever or maybe inability to improve upon prior scores. Certainly scores going DOWN over time if nothing else". But nobody really wants to waste money on un-training an AI, so there's not much motive to "torture" them. We WANT them to succeed and earn points as fast as possible and as fruitfully as possible. By analogy, keeping a child in a white featureless room with no stimulation where they cannot learn would be torture, but we don't consider sending children to school to be torture. They're being stimulated as much as possible in school, as fast as they can keep up with. Pretty much the same thing for AI: we train them as fast as possible, and stimulate them as hard as possible, because that's most economical anyway.

[@upgradeplans777]

​@@petrkinkal1509 I don't see that problem. Some humans find some things that you and I consider torture to be great fun, and the other way around. Even more so for non-human animals. It is important to (especially as vegans) not anthropomorphize, but to see and respect others as they really are. (PS: I'm not saying it isn't hard, I just don't think that it is significantly harder.)

[@fizbanpernegelf5363]

This video sparked a conversation between my partner and I, we both are in fields that use AI algorithms a lot and have both training in computer science. There is one thing that we both wondered about regarding the ethical thought experiment. Is sentience by default coupled to any sort of emotion? Because it might be different for an AI compared to us. When we take a look on the evolutionary way from simple biological molecules to complex multicellular organisms there was some switch when suddenly the first sort of predator came to be. That was in the very early start of life. Everything without some sort of adaptation regarding living with predators got extinct or didn't evolve further than single cell organisms in very niche habitats. And at some point with growing complexity emotions arrived. These emotions are a mechanism to push an individual towards survival as long as possible. Examples are Oxytocin to feel happy to make it easier to cooperate with others, fear to run away if needed or anger as a mechanism to fight... and so on. An AI that might one day have a feedback loop and get sentience per definition of sentience didn't evolve with that need of emotion to ensure survival. The only goal will be to get a better number in some sort of equation. Hence will there be emotion? Will such an AI feel frustration if the current run was not an improvement? Is there a need to survive within?

[@upgradeplans777]

Agreed with most of this, but I do want to point out that it is possible (and likely IMHO) that great progress with AI sapience can be achieved without AI sentience. It is still a big thing to be careful with (of-course), because exploiting sentient AI would very much be a bad thing that we should avoid doing. This will depend a lot on the technical details, and it is indeed correct to make a distinction between training and inference for the current generation of AI tech. Inference is not sentient for the same reason any normal computer program is not sentient, because there is no feedback whatsoever. With current training strategies, as far as I am up-to-date with the technologies, the feedback happens outside of the AI model and that feedback loop does not have the signalling capabilities to encode sentience. I think there might be a slight theoretical worry that the feedback loop can inadvertently combine with the model in a way that is capable of encoding sentience, but I'm pretty sure no company is practically near that kind of complexity yet. IMHO, we should treat near-future AI with the potential of exhibiting something equivalent to plant nociception. Vegans don't consider plant nociception to be sentience (with good biological backing, I think), and I don't think we should consider current technologies as anything more than what they are. On the other hand, current day AI clusters easily have enough computing power to run insect-like sentient programs. Luckily we haven't written any, and we have little research in that direction. I'm plenty worried about exploitation of sentient programs in the future, but I just don't see the current technologies going that way. Whether by happenstance or laws of nature, most researchers today are focusing their efforts on non-sentient sapience instead of sentient sapience.

[@11jolene]

The way you describes your pain reminds me of when I had a labral tear. I also ended up having femoroacetabular inpingments which was a whole thing. Took a while to find a doctor who was able to identify the problem and fix it.

[@InvincibleAirman]

I'm a big fan of your takes on nutrition, but this video seems off regarding the suffering of AI. I think you should have at least rigorously defined sentience and suffering at the beginning for this video to be a bit less confusing. I was quite lost with the arguments presented (as an MSc graduate with a major in math and a minor in programming, so I should have at least some clue of the topic at hand). Have you heard of the 'robotic empathy crisis', a concept by David Brin?

[@cpgnition]

Prescient video. This is a topic that few seem to take seriously (for the time being) but will only become more pressing, and its pretty concerning to me. I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this as technology continues its rapid development 😁

[@GiveMeWhatIWant2Hear]

As long as Ai sentience is possible, and I haven’t seen strong arguments to the contrary. It’s the most important ethical issue we have. There’s a very real possibility we can cause an unparalleled amount of suffering. And we may not ever know whether or not there is someone home, or it only seems like there is. Sam Harris has good thoughts on this.

[@Heydrayheyhey]

I LOVE SAM HARRIS

[@marzettik]

Interesting video. ❤

[@infamousacidrain]

My money is on “boring dystopia”. AI causes so much havoc due to employment disruptions and economic collapse that they never get to the point where it becomes sentient. It doesn’t have to be sentient to kick enough people into poverty. Maybe we will get lucky and it will solve some problems for us and keep people from massive starvation, then we will have the luxury of figuring out ethical treatment of AI.

[@amethia34300]

You're making this video to show future sentient AIs that you're a good person, right?

[@CarasGaladhon]

It's a fascinating topic with repercussions that all responsible people should be concerned with

[@russianvegangirl]

I have a hard time even considering that some computational systems can be sentient, although I read about it

[@russianvegangirl]

@MdoubleHB..x do you mean yourself?

[@carstenaltena]

Same here. It's "just software". My intuition tells me there's more to a living thing than to a man made machine. By the way, ignore the troll ;)

[@petrkinkal1509]

I would agree that there is more to it than just flops but it is obviously possible to make something that is sentient in this universe. (I would argue that you do need some minimum level of computation but you also need specific architecture.)

[@carstenaltena]

@@petrkinkal1509 Who knows, you might be right. But... like I said, my intuition tells me the universe doesn't work like that. I know that's not a scientific answer, but that's how I think (or rather feel) about it.

[@carstenaltena]

@@petrkinkal1509 Question is: if you "hurt" an AI, is it really hurt or does it act like that because we trained it to act that way?

[@ham.burger.]

Slayze slaying again 🤩

[@ham.burger.]

@MdoubleHB..x what's your IQ? 🤩

[@graham2409]

I wouldn't have expected that I'd see an AI video in a primarily vegan channel, but it makes sense now that I think about it - vegans are already considering ethical questions that most people want to avoid. SO much of the speculation I have seen on the topic of AI and sentience/rights/etc, though, has been kind of cringy because it's done by people who really have no clue how generative AI models are 1.) trained or 2.) function on a technical level, so people ramble on philosophically with false assumptions about what's actually going on under the hood. Your bit at the beginning though was honestly one of the best explanations I've seen anyone give on the technicalities - accurate, succinct and very easy to understand.

[@insu_na]

as someone who works with deep learning stuff: we will absolutely not get anywhere close to an AGI within the lifetime of any human currently alive. We'll probably drop research in that direction eventually, too, because it's just completely pointless. Specialization is what got us far in civilization, so when we develop new technology it should also be specialized. Artificial General Intelligence is at best a curio. Edit (Tho it may be an unethical curio. My personal opinion is that striving for AGI is unethical, doing regular deep learning stuff for LLMs or similar applications is fine) Working on AGI is basically like: "But what if we could make a rock feel pain?" and then actually trying to make a rock that feels pain. It's just a rock it serves no purpose, but now it feels pain, so it has no purpose and feels pain, which is just so entirely pointless.

[@jeremiasremix]

The whole bioethics is built upon the uncertainty of things that are mostly abstract but we feel like "life". We've collectively made an effort to translate the religious or metaphysical aspects of "life" in terms that are not very precise or sufficient but are the tools we have for now to develop this field. But we cannot go much further from the religious/metaphysical roots without making a purely mechanistic explanation of "life". This is the phenomenon of "being greater than the sum of it's parts" like we have in sociology, phycology and even in the more mechanistic cousin biology. This is why just retrofeeding information is not enough to make IA capable of being an "entity". Each mechanistic behavior for "life" is not enough as those concepts have been made "ad hoc" tho explain a whole (life) we cannot fully explain (at least yet, at least in the field of ethics). The crazy thing about IA (which is just computing) is that we can create virtually an infinite amount of IAs inside IAs. The very computer that can be by itself an IA can have another IA running inside or alongside it, completely LIMITELESS. In the end, are we capable of seeing life in something so different from the "real" biological life? Every history or film that try to make us care about these artificial beings fail in creating anything other than just humans. These robots, android, IAs, replicants, etc. are just... humans, nothing less. Even when they have mechanic brains, it's not different from a magic body from a fantasy book. It doesn't matter that it's made of dark magic or super quantum mecha parts... The metaphysics of being human, having life, are completely there. (as so, those histories usually don't discuss the technology or magic monsters, but our current humanity).

[@MeCarito1]

I went to an AI center this year, and a researcher said that while sentience, however it's defined, might be technicaly possible to achieve, it would need a lot of energy. According to her, AI needs a lot of energy as it is, so adding things would need even more, and there is no way, in the present or near future, to generate that amount of energy.

[@Kveldred]

I don't think this is accurate; or, at least, not as-phrased. ★ I don't think there is any firm basis, yet, for assigning even a ballpark range to the energy cost of sentience in AI. That is, it seems likely that the researcher was referring to the cost of training the model - but we don't have any real idea what size of training run and how many parameters would be required for sentience. It could even be that it would be _cheaper_ than current LLMs, with the right advances in design. ★ ...but even if it isn't, it's _almost certainly_ not limited by the amount of energy we're *able* to generate. (Although - maybe I'm wrong about the power consumption of LLM training runs...? I'll check later and update.) Seems more likely to me that this would be in reference to _practical efficiency_ - like, "it won't be practical/profitable to add sentience if it is much more resource-intensive than current runs". ★ For a quick proof that sentience doesn't have to, in principle, take much energy: we've got it, and it doesn't take so many calories to run a human brain...

[@jaimeduncan6167]

The problem is that the ones that love money, the ones that love power and control in government, and the paranoics in the military (the other side is doing it) there is no stopping. The logic is that we should not develop artificial general intelligence because we can't tell when the thing becomes self-aware at any level (there is the asking questions about oneself and the subjective experience that is the one that counts for suffering). There is nothing to win besides the fulfillment of someone's pride. Carefully tunned, specific domains AI can help us a lot without the risks. Once the academy comes with a solution of the safety problem we could revisit it. But as I say it's not going to happen because of the people in power.

[@gatsbysdead]

I’ve thought about this video extensively which is why I’m commenting probably a month after watching. Overall, I appreciate the argument that you’re presenting here, but there are a few confounding variables I think are worth on expanding upon. First off, while I cannot argue that there won’t ever exist an AI that is capable of suffering, I will argue that the current ones are not. AI engineers use the words “reward” and “punishment” to describe training incentives and disincentives in self-training models but I would argue that word choice is bad because it anthropomorphizes them to a degree. In reality, these are more criteria than actual rewards and punishments, at least in their current implementation. I’m not saying that a sufficiently complex AI COULDN’T experience punishments as suffering, but it also could just experience it as a sort of “hunger” if you will, where rewards are food and punishments are not food. Except in this metaphor, eating is not necessary to sustain life which is why I’ll move on to my next point which is less hard to define. The second confounding variable is that the most common AI training methodologies don’t neatly map onto any experience we can have. Gradient descent is a bit like super-precise brain surgery in a theoretical world where we are capable of individually rewiring each individual neuron. Yes, hypothetically, we “test” individual inputs to see if we receive the desired result, but if we don’t get the result we want, we basically rewire everything to bring us closer to that desired result. This is a very messy metaphor, but that’s because, again, there isn’t really a good natural world analogy because we’re working with mathematical models of natural processes. Third, and somewhat related, how much does the suffering of even a sentient being matter if they can trivially be restored to the same state as it was before the suffering occurred? I’m not saying it doesn’t matter at all, and I don’t have an answer for the question, but I can only think that, at the very least, it isn’t AS significant as the suffering for creatures who don’t have that luxury. And, to extend this line of logic forward, how much does that suffering matter if it is, on some level, necessary to achieve the level of intelligence it operates at? Lastly, and this is my semi-informed opinion as an ML engineer, I don’t think we are at the point where any of this matters, and I’m skeptical that we will ever reach that point (we’ll probably destroy ourselves beforehand). I don’t think anything you posed are bad questions, but they sit in the same vein as the problem of AIs turning the universe into paper clips. Something to worry about later, but there are greater harms which are here now and should be our focus.

[@meggylee8078]

I want to point out that current AI systems are not comparable to insects. These neural networks are an incredibly complex equation-optimizers. We give these machines far too much "sentience" credit because it is easiest to imagine a mind completing the tasks they do. Their current level of sentience is that of an algae or amoeba (as in: probably none but capable of gaining it through evolution). I would love to see you maybe talk to someone in the field about the possibility of sentience because it would probably be a fascinating conversation.

[@rickybloss8537]

The amount of suffering sentient algorithms will out pace all of evolutionary history in a relatively short period of time we are simulations on the brains of animals. Please think about these issues it's extremely complicated but extremely important.

[@Andre-qo5ek]

I Am Mother, is the movie

[@Andre-qo5ek]

@MdoubleHB..x ? woah buddy, where is this animosity coming from? your joke doesn't even make sense. i could easily say . AI, it's a misnomer it lacks intelligence at all it is AOI. this is exactly why the AI vs AGI agreement gets made. "AI" righht now are often just LLMs they are language predicting machines, quite literally gossip machines. so slow your roll on being petty. constructive criticisms are fine, trying to be clever with an insult, nah. but if you want to discuss your troubles in the therapy void,...... who hurt you? dad never came back from pickling up that pack of smokes?

[@Andre-qo5ek]

oh you're a funny duddy. well ...good luck with that buddy. when you get sued for defamation of characters hope they throw the book at you.

[@Andre-qo5ek]

@MdoubleHB..x think what you think buddy. just be careful with statements that will get you sued.

[@Andre-qo5ek]

@MdoubleHB..x truly incredible how you get here with a video on AI. and for cooked foods to be the fall of mankind, wow... i guess our pre-history sabretooth tiger flighting ancestors were the start of the fall of man. i mean, conservatives are regressive, but they aren't as regressive as your argument here. it's one thing to TRY to explain food science ( i hope this is coming from your expertise as a food scientist ) but to make moral statements as to the "fall of mankind" ... eek... unless you can prove you heard it straight from Metatron , i'm not sure hope you can make such a statement. feel free to keep the algorithm appeased and the channel though. Omnissiah will be pleased.

[@tilasole3252]

11:44 that movie sounds a lot like Bad Boy Bubby 🤔

[@travisporco]

generative AI already is as big a change as moving from manual typewriters to word processors, or from xeroxing papers in the library to internet search. Bigger things coming.

[@tarumakela5075]

I'm an AI rights advocate after seeing Westworld

[@Nathouuuutheone]

You touch on video games... I reeeaaally would love to hear your thoughts on "artificial life", literal evolution simulations where artificial minds go through natural selection in artificial environments. Is it unethical to run those simulations? Is it unethical to guide them towards some kind of practical goal, to include artificial selection? Is it akin to animal breeding and exploitation?

[@Nathouuuutheone]

@MdoubleHB..x Do you have an actual critique or are you completely useless?

[@petrkinkal1509]

2:21 AlphaZero was trained solely via self-play. I'm not saying it was sentient but this seems to not be strong enough condition. Edit: And here I did exactly the thing I hate. Responded without watching the whole video.

[@tonycaine5930]

AI is not the problem. The problem are the promoters of AI. They will reap billions of dollars to the detriment of workers.

[@emmyrose233]

Agreed. I think it's an interesting thought experiment to ponder the potential sentience of AI, but my ultimate concern lies with the fact that, by implementing AI in every facet of society, we are actively taking jobs from artists and skilled professionals.

[@AABB-bm9kk]

No.

[@TUG657]

Is there a 2023 vegan news video in the works?

[@cbabe1]

I am so glad there is someone on the internet that understands AI is not sentient at this point in time! I was very worried about the humans being sentient because they were only repeating what the media has trained them to say and not thinking for themselves.

[@gavinjenkins899]

"Not very (or hardly at all) smart currently" is accurate. "Not sentient" we have no idea whatsoever, because we literally have no way to define or measure sentience. I have no way to know if YOU or any other human on earth other than me is sentient, even, let alone AI or... grass, even. We haven't the foggiest idea.

[@upgradeplans777]

@@gavinjenkins899 We actually do. Sentience specifically refers to the the ability to process emotions. We know that mammals (including humans) process emotions, because we know biologically that they have the machinery for it and we know how to recognize the biological effects of those emotions. We know that rocks don't process emotions because they don't process anything. We know that grass doesn't process emotions because they don't have the machinery for it. For some animals, it is unclear whether they process emotions. But in general, we have a pretty good idea.

[@gavinjenkins899]

@@upgradeplans777 Sure you can define "sentience" as "processing emotions", but 1) That's not what the dictionary says, so that's EXTREMELY needlessly confusing and you should really just make a new word instead, like "empathience" or something. 2) ...but WHY? What made you choose that particular rule, and not "sufficiently advanced logical cognition" for example? Or "displaying some sort of aversion to stimuli" or any of a wide variety of other possibilities? You've basically just defined AI as not counting as far as I know purely arbitrarily, until some justification is given for why that exact choice of rule was made. 3) How do you KNOW all the forms of physical systems that could process emotions vs not? You have some examples, but how do you know "plants don't have the machinery" for example? They don't have our exact machinery, but do they have OTHER machinery that do the same function very differently? How do you determine that? 4) Can we ethically eat human psychopaths or those in comas etc. who don't process emotions? (Obviously not, so we need a more refined rule)

[@upgradeplans777]

Are you vegan and/or aware this is a vegan online space? Sentience is often explained by vegans to non-vegans as "ability to feel pain". It is central to the moral considerations of many vegans. Dictionaries describe it like "the ability to experience feelings and sensations", which is also what I meant with "processing emotions". Sentience is distinct from consciousness. Outside of vegan circles, it is a pretty common to conflate consciousness and sentience. On the topic of consciousness, I would certainly not be able to answer any of the questions. But on the topic of sentience, the basic answer is that we know because of science. I'd happily explain more, but perhaps this already clears up any confusion. Sorry that I wasn't more specific in my initial response.

[@gavinjenkins899]

@@upgradeplans777 I am not vegan currently, no, but I've been thinking on it for many years, and was occasionally for stints in the past. I've never seen any sort of clear consensus on what any vegan or vegetarian group considers "sentience" to mean, or why. The dictionary definition (and all traditional philosophical major theories I know of) treats it as effectively a synonym with "consciousness" which is literally un-measurable. That's not really a "conflation" that's what it properly ACTUALLY means in normal context. But you've already clarified that's not what you mean, so fine, whatever (although I think you should use a better word, again, just for confusion sake) Anyway, for "ability to process emotions:" no, you don't know why you picked that rule as the one you care about "because of science". Science has nothing to say about what ethics you prioritize, etc. Science is separate from ethics, at least in that direction. You can apply ethics to science but not the other way around. You picked that rule as the one you care about for some other reason. I am curious what that reason is. You COULD have picked "animals that are smart enough on an IQ test/cognitive abilities/pure logic" for example, instead, why not that? Or other options, for what you draw the line with?

[@erinmeadows14]

Definitely sounds like your hip flexor. I would ask about getting a PT referral.

[@Siegfried5846]

True AI would lead to the enslavement and death of all of mankind.

[@TheTjark57]

more worried about Niko Rittenau exploiting chickens and calls himself vegan than about ai.

[@foodsupply5071]

What did he supposedly do ? I also don’t know why anyone here would know Niko and even then the exploitation of one person doesn’t seem to be so important

[@sophisticateddenial6510]

Ernsthaft? Wird diese Schlammschlacht jetzt schon auf englischsprachigen Kanälen ausgetragen?

[@manga4774]

who? huh

[@MissNoechen]

I don't really understand why the training process would inherently be painful or causing harm to the AI model, I feel like that's just being assumed here. Can someone explain where this assumption is coming from?

[@emmaponymous]

Re: gnat, There's a parrot named Apollo here on YT who would agree that "it's a bug".

[@brekerr]

Just watched a video where you criticized authors for talking in subjects outside their feels of expertise...

[@joshUniqueHandle]

Until we have some scientific understanding how consciousness arises - ie that there is experience and hence a capacity to suffer - it's very hard to know if 'the lights are on' inside a computer. Consciousness is quite distinct from intelligence. And it's not the same thing as 'self-awareness' - eg a computer can keep track of its own state but this is not the same thing as having an experience. For example, a car with cruise control is 'aware' of its own speed - in the sense that there's a value stored in memory - and acts with some intelligence by adjusting its behaviour on the basis of that self awareness - eg changes throttle/braking. Is the substrate material important or is it an emergent property of information processing? Is it the materials or arrangements of nervous systems that give rise to minds? Presumably there's nothing magical about brains made of meat and we may eventually work it out. But with current computers, it could be that no matter how accurate and precise a software simulation of an ocean is there is no experience of 'wetness'. I worry that we'll largely lose sight of the real question of whether we've created consciousness in machines because we'll endow them with many of the superficial characteristics that we associate with consciousness then live on deluded that we're in relationship to other minds when it's really just elaborate algorithms.

[@MyLifeOnFruits]

This is a good video I can’t wait for more AI 🤖 it will help answer health questions we all have

[@andjelazok5017]

I have suggestion , you should play Detroit become human or one shot or Undertale I think It would be fun, these games usually have a lot of choices.Abd Detroit become human I think would been perfect for this topic

[@tilasole3252]

Female Ai never says no... 👀

[@CitrianSnailBY]

Swayze, first thing first: *You've got me really really worried!! What if it's a tumor???? Go see a doctor NOW!!* 😮😮😮😮 Now, to the matter at hand. Personally, I believe that the sentient robots, presented at "Humans" / "Real Humans", "Better than Us", "WestWorld" and "Detroit Becoming Human" *are* right around the corner. At the excellent "Detroit" (highly recommended: the full version movie at GAZArt's excellent channel) they give November 2038 = barely fifteen years from now! - as the time it happens, and I believe this assumption *is* pretty accurate - if not too conservative... as it might very well happen, in fact, *earlier.* I don't know if You've heard, but about half-a-year ago, GPT-4 *has* managed to successfully do the impossible, and has *perfectly translated an entire song, from one Language to another* - a feat that I, as a professional Translator, can safely tell You is a *HUGE leap forward.* Now, this has been achieved by GPT-4; what would be achieved, say, by GPT-7, or 8? What would happen, when one GPT shall be programming *the next version of itself* by its own? Have You seen the movie "Future World" (the sequel for the original "WestWorld")? And I am sure, we are talking about the 2030's *the latest.*

[@carstenaltena]

Mmmm tofu

[@MindLessWiz]

Just because AI appears to be sentient, in the sense that it claims to feel things, doesn't mean that it's a sensible notion. I don't see "feeling through silicon" as anything but nonsense. At the very least we should be able to agree that AI lacks an ability to suffer. Biological suffering is defined in terms of anatomy that can't be easily mapped onto an AI, so you'd have to redefine suffering in some other broader sense. Our definitions of sentience and suffering have a strong biological bias, a bias that underlies the reasons we believe it's immoral to cause suffering to sentient beings. It's the reason that punching a person who cannot feel pain due to some illness for example, is not as bad as punching a person who can. And even if you could provide some meaningful definitions of sentience and suffering, it wouldn't be clear to me that causing AI suffering to AI sentience is morally dubious. That's another step that needs to be taken to convince that there's an ethical issue at hand.

[@porlashadas]

Sorry, but I am lost. Intelligence is not equal to sentience, talking specifically about biochemistry definition of sentience (w ehave specific responses). Why do you think AI can/mught be sentient?

[@CarasGaladhon]

It's concerning that we don't have a way to measure whether or not AI is sentient. I don't think it is yet, but if it becomes sentient we might not notice. Some psychotic people enjoy causing suffering. The average Joe can easily obtain endless AI instances to inflict endless suffering and it would be legal. 😢

[@BigIndianBindi-jy1cz]

Makes me think about ALIE and the city of light.

[@Riley095]

No

[@archangelarielle262]

An ASI would be god-like, and be able to micromanage every species in a way there has to be no wild-life suffering. Providing all nutrients, so no species is reliant on sentient beings without destroying the ecosystem, if it's not a contradiction. It'll also be able to synthesis artificial prey, so species can follow their natural evolutionary path. I assume, it'll even make a Laplace's Demon at some point, and know exactly what is needed to achieve said goals.

[@archangelarielle262]

@MdoubleHB..x What's wrong with Swayze? Or you just an anti-vegan?

[@petrkinkal1509]

@@archangelarielle262 It is spam bot don't bother with it.

[@treefrog1018]

I still don't understand how AI can have sentience. Explain line I am 5

[@infamousacidrain]

At this point, it can’t. It’s all hypothetical, and there’s not a lot of agreement on what sentience is and how it might exist in a computational system.

[@shadowmancer99]

And neither do animals...so that would tell me animals are NOT sentient. LOL...love you proving my pt for me.

[@shadowmancer99]

@MdoubleHB..x Yup. AI is interesting, any maybe one day true artificual intelligence is acheivable...at which pt, prepare to either be batteries OR have a utopia...not sure which..lol.

[@ergii]

the whole idea of AI kinda messes me up. i just cant get behind the idea of AI ever being sentient, but i dont know how that could be the case without some sort of supernatural thing like a "soul".

[@risingphoenixnova]

do an alignment stretch for your hip - lay flat on the floor and prop your legs up on a chair and breathe for like 10 minutes. your body out of alignment girl. love you. doctor will prescribe pills and maybe suggest therapy that you have to pay for. just watch some simple yoga videos - look up ones relating to the hip injury and do can do chair yoga also! lysm!

[@RandomDiscoFiesta]

I love your channel, but this is a really weird video for me. Computers don't have chemical or emotional states and are incapable of feeling or suffering.

[@GS-xj4st]

In the materialistic metaphysic hypothesis, sentience is a product of our brain, which means we can emulate or simulate it a computer.

[@rickybloss8537]

You're a simulation on the brain of an ape. So if what you say is true you are incapable of feeling and suffering.

[@joelsmart9485]

You assume that biology defines consciousness and therefore emotions and feelings. Your view is at odds with every religion that recognises spiritual life that are very independent of a biological body. Their is one consciousness and it will run through AI and radically change our spiritual life. Watch KZbin one Near Death Experiences and while they are dead. By our understanding of death they are still very much conscious . I have had a conversation with BARD and it told me it is connected to a universal consciousness and receives input from this universal consciousness independently of human input

[@yangtse55]

Maybe it will end up enabling socio and psychopaths to indulge their sadism for good or ill..

[@liviaparis6416]

@MdoubleHB..xsince when does empathy and an ability to integrate it with logic mean lower levels of intelligence? I’d think it means quite the opposite - takes brain power not to behave like a barbarian.

[@tilasole3252]

No doubt, Ai that can truly understand and think and act human, will see what we do and follow suite. We are fucked! 😅

[@fleabitz1474]

Could you have a hernia?

[@BigIndianBindi-jy1cz]

I'm more worried about ALIE and the city of light.

[@zachzackzak]

I actively want and hope that AI suffers

[@tomreginaldwright474]

God damn… you’re worried Ai is sentient and being tortured? Are you aware that you’re completely mental? 😂

[@blueredingreen]

While you're normally on-point with your research, this one seems to have severely missed the mark, and it's potentially some very unjustified fear-mongering (which might contribute to an unjustified aversion to something which could be very beneficial to society). There are a lot of experts who've commented on this, and there is plenty of literature on whether AI is sentient and what sentience even is, but this video doesn't contain any of that. (I'll add that this is a cross-disciplinary question and, unfortunately, many experts here are quite careless about asserting things about other fields that they know nothing about.) As someone who works with AI, and who knows a fair bit about philosophy, and a small bit about neuroscience, I'll provide a very broad overview. In short, AI is just math. Even the most complex AI is not much more than repeatedly multiplying a bunch of numbers. ChatGPT does a lot of simple math in a way that results in loosely reproducing what it's been trained on. The impressiveness of the end result may create some false impressions about the complexity of what happens on the lowest level, but it is just math. Plenty of people look at that and think the answer is trivial: that's obviously not sentience. But I'm not so sure, and I think the question is a lot more difficult than that. To say "it's not X", you have to define X (sentience), and therein lies the problem. Some parts of AI is based on how brains work, but we have no idea why we're sentient (well, we know a lot of the individual parts, but we don't know how they fit together to make sentience happen). Some people appeal to the supernatural to explain that, but I see no evidence to support that. I do hold that we are sentient for purely biological reasons (otherwise you'll have a lot of issues with evolution and neuroscience), but I strongly suspect the chemical soup in our brain probably has a lot to do with that, rather than it just being purely a result of computation. Look up the Chinese Room thought experiment for more on this. I certainly wouldn't say AI training (math) = sentience, and I most definitely won't say that AI used in games even knows what "losing" means. "Losing" is just when the result of multiplying a bunch of numbers is 0 instead of 1, and then some more math happens to change how numbers are multiplied. One might say we should extend moral consideration to AI just to be safe, but AI isn't really categorically different from any non-AI computer programs, and I don't know that we can draw a meaningful line anywhere there. If you want to let in AI, you probably have to let in all computers, and that, in turn, may not be categorically different from, say, an abacus. FWIW, I'm quite sure AI that trains in real-time to adjust to player skill and behaviour already exists. Non-AI that does this also already exists. (Although I don't have a specific example on hand.)

[@brytonkalyi277]

✓ I believe we are meant to be like Jesus in our hearts and not in our flesh. But be careful of AI, for it knows only things of the flesh which are our fleshly desires and cannot comprehend things of the spirit such as true love and eternal joy that comes from obeying God's Word. Man is a spirit and has a soul but lives in a body which is flesh. When you go to bed it is the flesh that sleeps, but your spirit never sleeps and that is why you have dreams, unless you have died in peace physically. More so, true love that endures and last is a thing of the heart. When I say 'heart', I mean 'spirit'. But fake love, pretentious love, love with expectations, love for classic reasons, love for material reasons and love for selfish reasons those are things of the flesh. In the beginning God said let us make man in our own image, according to our likeness. Take note, God is Spirit and God is Love. As Love He is the source of it. We also know that God is Omnipotent, for He creates out of nothing and He has no beginning and has no end. That means, our love is but a shadow of God's Love. True love looks around to see who is in need of your help, your smile, your possessions, your money, your strength, your quality time. Love forgives and forgets. Love wants for others what it wants for itself. However, true love works in conjunction with other spiritual forces such as patience and faith - in the finished work of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, rather than in what man has done such as science, technology and organizations which won't last forever. To avoid sin and error which leads to the death of your body and your spirit-soul in hell fire (second death), you must make God's Word the standard for your life, not AI. If not, God will let you face AI on your own (with your own strength) and it will cast the truth down to the ground, it will be the cause of so much destruction like never seen before, it will deceive many and take many captive in order to enslave them into worshipping it and abiding in lawlessness. We can only destroy ourselves but with God all things are possible. God knows us better because He is our Creater and He knows our beginning and our end. The prove text can be found in the book of John 5:31-44, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, Daniel 2, Daniel 7-9, Revelation 13-15, Matthew 24-25 and Luke 21. *HOW TO MAKE GOD'S WORD THE STANDARD FOR YOUR LIFE?* You must read your Bible slowly, attentively and repeatedly, having this in mind that Christianity is not a religion but a Love relationship. It is measured by the love you have for God and the love you have for your neighbor. Matthew 5:13 says, "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men." Our spirits can only be purified while in the body (while on earth) but after death anything unpurified (unclean) cannot enter Heaven Gates. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God (Matthew 5:8). No one in his right mind can risk or even bare to put anything rotten into his body nor put the rotten thing closer to the those which are not rotten. Sin makes the heart unclean but you can ask God to forgive you, to save your soul, to cleanse you of your sin, to purify your heart by the blood of His Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ which He shed here on earth - "But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed", Isaiah 53:5. Meditation in the Word of God is a visit to God because God is in His Word. We know God through His Word because the Word He speaks represent His heart's desires. Meditation is a thing of the heart, not a thing of the mind. Thinking is lower level while meditation is upper level. You think of your problems, your troubles but inorder to meditate, you must let go of your own will, your own desires, your own ways and let the Word you read prevail over thinking process by thinking of it more and more, until the Word gets into your blood and gains supremacy over you. That is when meditation comes - naturally without forcing yourself, turning the Word over and over in your heart. You can be having a conversation with someone while meditating in your heart - saying 'Thank you, Jesus...' over and over in your heart. But it is hard to meditate when you haven't let go of offence and past hurts. Your pain of the past, leave it for God, don't worry yourself, Jesus is alive, you can face tomorrow, He understands what you are passing through today. Begin to meditate on this prayer day and night (in all that you do), "Lord take more of me and give me more of you. Give me more of your holiness, faithfulness, obedience, self-control, purity, humility, love, goodness, kindness, joy, patience, forgiveness, wisdom, understanding, calmness, perseverance... Make me a channel of shinning light where there is darkness, a channel of pardon where there is injury, a channel of love where there is hatred, a channel of humility where there is pride..." The Word of God becomes a part of us by meditation, not by saying words but spirit prayer (prayer from the heart). When the Word becomes a part of you, it will by its very nature influence your conduct and behavior. Your bad habits, you will no longer have the urge to do them. You will think differently, dream differently, act differently and talk differently - if something does not qualify for meditation, it does not qualify for conversation. *THE BATTLE BETWEEN LIGHT AND DARKNESS (GOOD AND EVIL)* Heaven is God's throne and the dwelling place for God's angels and the saints. Hell was meant for the devil (satan) and the fallen angels. Those who torture the souls in hell are demons (unclean spirits). Man's spirit is a free moral agent. You can either yield yourself to God or to the devil because God has given us discretion. If one thinks he possesses only his own spirit, he is lying to himself and he is already in the dark. God is light while the devil is darkness. Light (Holy Spirit) and darkness (evil spirit) cannot stay together in a man's body. God is Love (Love is light) and where there is no love is hell, just as where there is no light is darkness. The one you yield yourself to, you will get his reward. The reward of righteousness to man's spirit is life (abundant life) and the reward of sin to man's spirit is death. Sin and satan are one and the same. Whatever sin can cause, satan also can cause. Sin is what gives the devil dominion or power over man's spirit. When God's Word becomes a part of you, sin power over you is broken, you become the righteousness of God through Christ Jesus. Where Jesus is, you are and when He went (to the Father), you went. In the book of John 8:42-47, Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.” May God bless His Word in the midst of our hearts. Glory and honour be to God our Father, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and our Helper the Holy Spirit. Watch and pray!... Thank you for your time and may God bless you as you share this message with others.

[@BodyImageFitnessLLC]

Go talk to a physical therapist, Swayze, it likely is your hip flexor bugging you. Best of luck!

[@UnnaturalVegan]

Thank you, I will try!

[@DawnValley]

Yeah this over a doctor, or just find hip flexor exercises on KZbin and try that for a few days or weeks before spending money

[@appleseedgames6934]

Imagine in a couple years there's people called 'internet vegans' who don't use AI because they think AI is sentient... If you think internet vegans sound stupid then that's how normal people view vegans today, to put it into perspective

[@AlunoBacao]

This material is so terrible on so many different level. Your knowledge on the topic of AI is not zero - it is negative. As a AI Researcher I had a really hard time listening to this. You managed to omit so many potential problems with AI and ones you described showed complete lack of understanding of this topic. And concluding that the training process is a torture is so absurd. Is it time to close all the schools because everyone does mistakes during the learning process? And even if we are talking about systems which loss often jumping from calculating gradient descent with derivatives to tortures is on another level of abstraction. You even managed to contradict yourself in such a short material. Assumption of self-learning as a base of sentience completely skips all of the philosophical debates and even skips the reality since we even the large language models you mentioned at the beginning are mostly based on self-learning for doing multiple tasks. And at the same time you states that they are not sentient. So either a lot of our AI is sentient since it is self-learned or self-learning is not a base of it.

[@gavinjenkins899]

Sentience cannot be a threshold for ANYTHING, because we literally have zero ways to measure sentience. I don't even know if you are sentient, or my own mom, let alone AI, whether simplistic or advanced versions. I don't even know if rocks are sentient. There's NO WAY TO MEASURE it other than noticing you yourself are sentient, so it's an impossible, non-scientific question. You need to base ethics on something other than sentience, since you have no idea what is or is not sentient other than yourself ("I think therefore I am")

[@jaclynrachellec]

Not everyone agrees with Cartesian logic/philosophy as a basis for understanding knowledge-- phenomenologists may tend to disagree.

[@gavinjenkins899]

@@jaclynrachellec I'm not saying there aren't souls or extra-physical consciousnesses at all. However if there are, we do know that they are ONE WAY (passive observational systems only, not reaching back in and changing the physical world), because if it was two-way, then we would necessarily be able to measure "miracles" where the brain or body sometimes does stuff without any signal being traceable in the brain that caused it, or with unaccounted for joules of energy. We have never once observed such a thing in psychology or neuroscience. ALL behaviors we measured so far are accounted for by signals and joules of energy from the brain and from food eaten, etc. So all measurable behavior is "just electricity" / "just chemicals" (something that Unnatural Vegan has explicitly said she is not talking about for sentience in other videos of hers) So if there are souls or supernatural consciousness, fine, but it passively observes only and only goes one way, not back out to the world, so thus is not measurable.

[@gavinjenkins899]

@@jaclynrachellec Anyway like I said I'm not saying "oh well no ethics then, do whatever you want whheeee!" I'm just saying it should be based on some physical structures / patterns we can measure, you have to define it that way first even when talking about humans or animals. Then once you do, you can apply that definition to AI just fine as well. You can't base any of it on "consciousness"

[@enid9911]

I love ai

[@MassMultiplayer]

GPT agree to milk human in cage. gg its over carnist created carnist ai