The dream and danger of AI | Liv Boeree in conversation with Dominic Walliman

@LivBoeree sits down with Dominic Walliman from @domainofscience to talk AI, poker and existential risk.
When the best poker players in the world can be beaten by AI, what does it mean for the future?
Watch the full talk at iai.tv/video/the-dream-and-da...
AI. We marvel at it, we fear it, but we cannot ignore it. Join renowned commentator and prize winning poker player, Liv Boeree, in conversation with Dominic Walliman, to explore how we can best utilise and regulate AI to change the world for the better.
#AIPhilosophy #LivBoeree #DomanOfScience
Liv Boeree is one of the most successful female poker players of all time. A self-confessed nerd with a first-class degree in astrophysics, Liv combined her science background and passion for games to become one of the most recognizable faces in professional poker. Dominic Walliman is a science writer, physicist, and KZbin sensation. His popular KZbin channel, Domain of Science, and award-winning Professor Astro Cat science books for children have captivated audiences worldwide.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

If AI is already beyond us in computational power, is there anything that only humans can do? To watch the full talk, head to iai.tv/video/the-dream-and-danger-of-ai?KZbin&

[@crescentsi]

It's interesting to listen to people discuss AI and comprehend it within the parameters of human experience. At the same time you can see a consciousness that the machines that we have created are not human at all, but are designed in ways that are, at least theoretically, appeasing and familiar to ourselves. The most salient question is not whether AI is human, better/lesser than human, can emote, exhibit consciousness, is capable of subtleties such as creativity, insight, spiritual experience, etc., it's why do we need to create simulations of aspects of ourselves? The truth is we know the answer but dress it up as something else. I often find the following perceptual error interesting. Because a computer can mimic intuition through the ability to process enormous amounts of information very quickly, we make the assumption that intuition is therefore nothing more than a series of "logical" (more accurately binary) processes. If this occurs in computers it doesn't equate that this is actually the case with human beings; the processes are different... organic as opposed to synthetic. Throughout the discussion on the video, the limitations of human perception weren't addressed. If we perceive computers as emoting, conscious, etc. it doesn't mean that they necessarily are and it doesn't mean that machine sentience, etc. is the same as human mental processes/experience.

[@toddboothbee1361]

Also the value of art isn't commercial. It isn't experience, but the communication of experience. Sure, the receiver of the art can be duped into thinking another person made it, but the art isn't complete without the human maker/sender. The need to make persists, whether or not the receiver perceived it. The maker still creates with an expectation of an audience, of communication.

[@crescentsi]

Absolutely, reciprocal communication is intrinsic to the arts, even if the creative never displays their work to others. However, the value of the arts is commercial. We all know it isn't really so, but we measure the success and status of creatives and (largely) the value of art-work through how much money people are willing to spend on viewing/listening to/reading the work.

[@johndoolan9732]

So LISTEN with different type of approach AI can learn anything we put our mind too

[@toddboothbee1361]

What makes us different is not anything cultural or labor related. It's not emotion, either. The special thing, so far, is the apparent conundrum of experience. If we or AI can calculate that, then we're talking!

[@jellslixcy6168]

Love

[@seespacelabs6077]

Love the topic and Liv. I don't like that you teased the content on your other site without calling it out at the beginning of the video or in the title. It feels like bait and switch, and I wouldn't have started watching the video if I knew it was truncated. Probably going to mute your channel from my feed so that I don't get enticed by more "teaser" content.

[@engineeranonymous]

While you were watching this openai release sora text to video model. All your base are belong to AI.

[@alex79suited]

Playa. Peace 😎 ✌️

[@SolaceEasy]

Learn how to keep secrets from the machines or humanity is at risk.

[@kwazar6725]

Its a tool like spelling and grammar checker.

[@djdedan]

Creating an image is not art. Creativity is a culmination of that persons unique experience. So will ai be creative one day, yes but it will not replace the next Picasso. When a human produces something it’s something only that particular human would make. Not could but would. Will there be AI rock stars? Yes. Will there be human rock stars? Yep. Both will exist and compete in the same space or even splintered spaces.