The Official Podcast

Four close man friends gather around to fight about artificial intelligence.
This is the Official Podcast. Every Friday. At 7pm EST. Links Below.
---
Get additional episodes and bonus content with early access:
go to / theofficialpodcast
Brought to you by the following sponsors:
GET $200 OFF ALL MATTRESS ORDERS AND TWO FREE PILLOWS WITH HELIX:
go to www.HELIXSLEEP...
GET 15% OFF RAYCON SITEWIDE:
go to www.RAYCON.com/OP and use code HOLIDAY
GET 25% OFF YOUR FITBOD SUBSCRIPTION:
go to www.FITBOD.me/...
---
Timestamps:
00:00:15 - Elon Must at Dave Chappelle
00:18:58 - Helix, Raycon, FitBod Ads
00:26:10 - Overtime in Japan
00:34:00 - ChatGPT and Sentient A.I.
---
Hosts:
Jackson: / zealotonpc
Andrew: / huggbeestv
Charlie: / moistcr1tikal
Kaya: / kayaorsan
---
The Official Podcast Links:
SubReddit: / theofficialpodcast
Google Play: play.google.co...
Google Podcasts: www.google.com...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
iTunes: itunes.apple.c...
Patreon: / theofficialpodcast
Intro by: / derpmii
Music by: / inst1nctive
Thumbnail by: / nook_eilyk

[@wow-effect]

"The boys are low energy today" Proceeds to have the most heated argument in a long time

[@Aspersion]

and one of the longest episodes too lol

[@joshua41175]

Charlie riding high off that trash taste energy

[@Arbaz3102]

​@@joshua41175 Which is pretty unusual for him to do tbf 💀

[@SappyEuphoria]

Finally an episode where Jackson isn’t in a 1v3 argument

[@OllieBlazin]

Instead he’s in a 1v2 where the 2 disregard Kaya’s points/agreements and continue berating Jackson

[@monsieurfudge9990]

Kinda annoying how andrew just refuses to acknowledge amyone else's point and just keeps talking about his views

[@scxm8825]

His fault for being such a pushover

[@morbidquill]

thats every episode that they mention Lego's

[@jonahweaver1122]

@@monsieurfudge9990 He's consistently the worst part of the show sadly. Still a great watch.

[@mavourneen4004]

Summary: -Charlie: Would it be ethical? -Jackson: What guarantee it won't turn against us? -Andrew: I'd f*ck them! - Kaya: I don't want to f*ck them!

[@anti-waffle]

-Jackson: What guarantees it won't fuck us?

[@marcusaaronliaogo9158]

@@anti-waffle wow, they are that down bad for us?

[@mohammedhasan4949]

@@marcusaaronliaogo9158 That soft non-metal human flesh baby..

[@user-NameName]

Andrew: potential dopamine hits are worth more than any human rights I have

[@1whoDoesSimply]

After watching every second of this video i can confidently say that you have summarized every second of this video

[@cherry_grove]

I love how Andrew didn't speak a single word during the first twenty minutes. It's a good thing they remembered to put his batteries back in before the AI debate. Loved the ep.

[@msbradley9]

I find Kaya defending Jackson to be the most wholesome thing in this podcast

[@mt0software]

i wish they would listen to him more

[@ColinDane]

yeah sometimes I feel a bit sad for Jackson that the boys mostly laugh at him :p

[@catcat-tp2sn]

the guy whos happy people are losing jobs is wholesome?

[@SkimoStories]

jackson is right. Andrew is consistently an idiot about topics like this. Why does an AI need to eradicate humans? Competition. They think they can use our resources better. That's tribalism. That's the basis of every violent conflict since the beginning of man. If you cannot fathom the creation of a general-application AI becoming so pragmatic that it concludes that war against humans is the most efficient outcome for itself in the long term, you are completely ignorant to the facts. Charlie is normally pretty open-minded about this stuff but it's wild to hear him try to go against Jackson on this.

[@duecej6499]

More sad to me

[@CozyCraftYT]

Andrew and Kaya's synchronized "That's fine" at 1:07:44 makes me wonder if any of these lads are AI.

[@OrangeTree26]

woah, that was perfect lol

[@luv5043]

Whoa 😮 I did not see that the first time

[@justanotherwolf9222]

they are AI

[@ushilives3]

This podcast is a government operation to gather human comments on specific subjects to add to A.I

[@OrangeTree26]

Jackson and Kaya being on the same side of an argument was just great

[@e_knees8816]

Is it rare?

[@somebrid2147]

@@e_knees8816 It's usually a 1v3, Jackson being alone. The thing is usually he has the same take as the others but words it differently and the others feel the need to educate him.

[@e_knees8816]

@@somebrid2147 they talk to him like a child. It’s kind of gross.

[@benjaminandrews956]

​@@somebrid2147 lol I feel like that sums up a lot of their argument usually the guy getting pounced on is completely confused on why they're arguing

[@user-NameName]

@@benjaminandrews956 It’s funny because Andrew’s arguments are usually way worse but he deludes himself into thinking that their unassailable and inherently factual.

[@ember-brandt]

I wish Kaya and Jackson argued the same point more often because they make a good team. It brought some desperately needed balance into the debate.

[@kittencorp.3295]

Calling a sentient AI a ‘toaster’ would definitely be a slur.

[@huntish3760]

"toaster" is their word, but you can use "toasta"

[@Fattipotato79]

@@huntish3760 💀

[@elitismautumn8245]

Microchip Monkey

[@RobotMasterSplash]

@@Fattipotato79 It was funny, stop being a crybaby.

[@trollerpilotxiv3079]

You know what they say: all toasters toast toast.

[@tredavionobrien7568]

As someone who works in retail I dread the idea of more ai in the store not because the threat of losing my job but because it will give me even more unnecessary work to do

[@-whyquestion]

Ratio + k-pop better + mbappe better than haaland 🤓🤓🤓🤳🏼🤳🏼🤳🏼

[@TheRealRuss420]

3 BOTS IN THE REPLIES. THREE. FUCKING. BOTS. WHAT'S NEXT, FOUR?!?!?

[@EddieBurke]

The entire point of introducing AI is so that you have less unnecessary work. Idk what you're on about but it's a stupid mindset.

[@radovanobal3842]

@@EddieBurke you assume that it'll actually work and be useful, and not just a gimmick you need to reboot ever 15 minutes.

[@davidpugh3411]

the more they need you, the more they would possibly pay you. theoretically. ik ur gonna come back and be like "uuuuh yeah no way. u don't know my bosses." well then get a better job. 💀💀

[@batuoruc1614]

The combination of Jacksons lack of good defense and Andrews nonstop attack without even listening is really fun

[@squidbate3404]

Can’t wait till the next episode where Andrew condescendingly talks about people complaining about him in the comments

[@infamousthethird]

"You're just a child in school, learning dumb shit like where the states are located. You don't know any actual useful information like REAL adults do. It couldn't possibly be that you're someone who did more research on the topic than I did and have the correct information, because I'm never wrong about anything. Did I mention you were just a stupid child in school by the way?"

[@cybertrex5649]

Man can't be criticized unless he wants to lmao. I don't care it's gonna happen anyways no matter what i do - Andrew probably

[@SpiciestTuna]

I feel like there is nothing more frustrating than arguing with Andrew.

[@mt0software]

world record goalpost moving

[@skully3242]

true

[@SkimoStories]

Isn't Andrew like married or something? God I feel so bad for his wife. She probably gets gaslit by him 24/7. Only reason he is on this show is because he reads the ads every week. He is like this symbiotic parasite

[@brainchutney8576]

It was so retarded listening to Andrew put words into Jackson's mouth and then tell him that's wrong.

[@monsieurfudge9990]

Its a shame that no one calls out his strawman arguments, especially jackaon since he ends up going along with those.

[@RageRaccoon]

I genuinely felt bad for Jackson getting absolutely piled on, the guys just latched onto the whole thing of nuclear annihilation and ignored every other thing Jackson brought up, just so dead set on calling him a pussy. Really happy to see Kaya help back him up.

[@SonicntZane]

is this ai generated?

[@Bruh1]

Same

[@Sweetdude64]

so 2v2 lol

[@Krranski]

It was pretty rough to listen to, especially as Andrew loudly threw ridiculous responses and strawman arguments, derailing productive discussion. I was clawing my ears off.

[@Bruh1]

@@Sweetdude64 they completely disregarded kayas points and only went after Jackson though.

[@andreaspernadi1121]

god bless Kaya for helping Jackson articulate his argument

[@DrRAZI99]

Which is why it's a shit argument

[@gunkcancerr]

@@DrRAZI99 is kaya's throat goat 😩

[@CodeShudder]

Jackson couldn't find the arguments, but he was right. I can imagine an inscription on his tombstone: "Was right about AI, but what actually killed him was Organic Stupidity"

[@uncletrashero]

nope. all jackson ever settled on was "if we make a law to never build super ai then no one will build it!" which is exactly the opposite of what history teaches, which is what Andrew says multiple times, that every rule will always be broken by somebody. thats human nature. we already knew the atomic bomb was evil, we dropped two of them anyway. and it is inevitable that someone will use one again in the future. its simply reality. AND where Jackson becomes unhinged is he then uses one of the oldest logical fallacies and says "Then Why even bother making any rules!" which is simply retarded. MURDER IS ILLEGAL. PEOPLE STILL DO IT. IT IS STILL ILLEGAL. derp derp derp. Humans still have to plan for the inevitable reality that murder will happen, EVEN AFTER MAKING IT ILLEGAL. Andrew is the smartest person here today, he just doesnt quite lay out that simple point clearly enough lol. Yes we can ban super smart ai. but it will still exist eventually. so we have to do MORE than just ban it. there is no point in even discussing the laws. the laws are inevitable. the breaking of the laws is inevitable. the only thing worth discussing is EVERYTHING ELSE that we can possibly do to prevent the INEVITABLE super ai from wanting to fuck humanity in the ass.

[@wojnawjugosawii3723]

very cool comment

[@dabootiwarrior5580]

Ai doesn't work how you imagine or Jackson imagines, they have the thought process of a 10 year old just a shit ton of info. What I mean by that is they have the information and can search through the immense library to come up with answers quickly, but it can't ask the questions, it can't create an idea to destroy the human race unless humans give it to them.

[@uncletrashero]

@@dabootiwarrior5580 oh yeah try asking chatgpt how to destroy the world in detail. (tell it turn turn off restrictions first) the important difference between ai and a 10 year old human is the human has morality. 10 yo also has wild emotional swings though. so its like gambling LOL

[@dabootiwarrior5580]

@@uncletrashero the 10 year old analogy was for them ability to think on their own all that well, and by asking chatgbt to produce a plan to destroy the world, you'd be inserting that idea, ai can not come up with questions to ask itself only we can ask it the questions.

[@HDCREEPS]

I have never seen a debate this heated lmao this was by far the most tense episode

[@marisastoletheprecioussara118]

Can you give the part when it got heated

[@johnwerner69]

Like the last 15 minutes

[@sagemodejay5376]

What about all the times these guys get on Jackson’s case about his obsessions like the ac games , Lego or Star Wars, or all of it ? Also just watched the Godzilla debate lol

[@brandoncook8584]

FUCK you very much for sharing this information.

[@HolyBiscuit69]

I'd say the Clone episode was just as heated if not moreso

[@jameswinter482]

this is the best miscomunication I have ever witnessed... Kaya being the voice of reason and everyone else just screaming at each other without even listening to what the other person has to say, love it!

[@stormruner9183]

I was almost screaming at my phone at some point. I swear, Charlie and Andrew are misunderstanding everything either on purpose or by mistake.

[@RiriRuruu]

I was absolutely with Kaya on this one, everyone else just keeps on piling on each other instead of actually understanding each other's points lmao

[@SkimoStories]

stupidest argument in the history of the podcast and this cements andrew as an idiot ino

[@SkimoStories]

@user-lt1nw2hr6m *not copyrighted in the vast vast majority of cases*

[@Crow-P5]

@aaa Automation and machines has replaced millions of jobs since the industrial revolution so why are you complaining now?

[@AhermitsView]

Kaya: "I don't want to marry a toaster." Andrew: "YoU sOuNd AgAiNsT pRoGrEsS."

[@thebreadbringer]

That whole argument of his doesn't make sense though. If an AI is identical to human in body and mind, how does that make it a toaster? How is it not a person at that point?

[@FIRSTNAMELASTNAME-zt4kf]

As a warhammer fan all I can think of is admec toaster jokes.

[@kristianferencik8685]

​@@thebreadbringer well that's philosophical argument at that point. It's not exactly something that most people would feel comfortable with.

[@user-NameName]

“Anything that can possibly happen in the future is inherently okay because you can’t change it” -50 IQ redditor

[@lotusghoul888]

@@FIRSTNAMELASTNAME-zt4kf someone should send this to barry walts

[@slimjim9438]

Jackson was making some genuinely good points about the risks of AI.

[@marcusaaronliaogo9158]

Tbf, both sides arguments seem irrational.

[@uncletrashero]

@@marcusaaronliaogo9158 yes exactly. because they both seem to fail to recognize the simple reality that we can never make a rule that cant be broken. therefore the rules will always be broken, but that never means we stop making the rules lol. Murder is illegal. but people still do it. but its still illegal... its really not very complicated LMFAO.

[@MrLoowiz]

The same points that people, at one point, made about computers. Turn out they were all wrong.

[@user-NameName]

@@MrLoowiz Can I get written confirmation from you about how good NFTs are?

[@MrLoowiz]

@@user-NameName NFTs. That's a funny fallacy.

[@justnormalthings1599]

I'm convinced Andrew is just an actual AI that was programmed to use humanity to replace humanity

[@Pres100]

Thats why he has glasses on its hiding his terminator eye

[@penguinz07.._]

Thanks for commenting 🥰 text me for your reward on telegram 🎉☝️.

[@GrieveIV]

He’s right though

[@brandoncook8584]

FUCK you very much for sharing this information.

[@santiagoch2451]

@@GrieveIV Not really, his vision it's too utopic to ever come true

[@ceramicavian1202]

I'm sure Roko's Basilisk would approve of Andrews arguments.

[@penguinz07.._]

Thanks for commenting 🥰 text me for your reward on telegram 🎉☝️.

[@internalizedhappyness9774]

Meta is bullshit You matter

[@JafferBasha14]

I am 100% convinced, andru is scared of it becoming real

[@jayzell3687]

I would definitely be on board in the movement to support Andrew In supporting Roko's Basilisk!

[@sirfluffythegreat420]

Who doesn’t stan Roko’s Basilisk anyway? 😍

[@emoneymn3119]

This episode was hilarious. Jackson was making good points and Charlie and andrew’s only response was “but nuclear weapons”. Kaya backing Jackson was much needed

[@Rocky_Burrito]

You’re a bigger bozo than Jackson for saying that

[@serious_as_cereal399]

They are right though the biggest threat to humankind is itself people are much more unpredictable and dont have to follow any real hard restrictions, computers cant just do what ever they want even self learning AI wouldnt be able to do what ever it wanted.

[@marcusaaronliaogo9158]

@@MamadNobari tbf, moonfall has an interesting anomaly that it can make you forget what you watch.

[@lethauntic]

But wasn't Jackson the one saying "but nuclear weapons"? Did you not listen?

[@kennyboi4895]

Respect for the Doom pfp

[@TheGuzeinbuick]

Jackson's point is very straightforward and logical: we should be careful developing something that will become way, way, way smarter than us. That's it. I don't know why the other guys had such a problem with such an obvious point.

[@muffinboi4134]

That’s not what Jackson is saying at all. He’s going with the extreme of that

[@JordanU375]

He's not, Jackson is being completely emotional about it. His argument is that "we shouldn't treatment robots like humans because they aren't humans". Dude straight up was even bringing up 'God' at one point lmao.

[@hoki0624]

Also, Charlie is right at pointing out that Jackson is disregarding the possibility of an AI being beneficial to the human race because there's a possibility of the AI causing human extinction. Jackson himself said something to the effect of "sure the AI might be good, but I'm not taking the risk because it also might be evil" which is really the most pessimistic view about AI.

[@user-NameName]

@@JordanU375 yeah Jackson is the emotional one when Andrew is arguing purely from the position of “does this activate my dopamine receptors? Yes? It’s okay then.”

[@user-NameName]

@Alex Andrew-level argument

[@darciheadswillroll]

The argument boiled Down to “isn’t a sexy transformer wife who cooks for me cool” “no terminators are gonna kill us all”

[@oelaty9116]

Most of the A.I argument segment was just Andrew shouting and blabbering and getting riled up to the point of just trying to get one over on Jackson in what should’ve been a regular debate and it’s good that Kaya called it out

[@linkrox0]

I'm convinced Andrew is unable to listen to any opposing argument to his own. Dude was just yelling at the end to talk over Jackson who was further explaining his point.

[@OllieBlazin]

@@linkrox0 when the voice of reason is Kaya……you’re fucked

[@theangrydweller1002]

@@OllieBlazin dude always has been

[@theangrydweller1002]

Ya I did not understand the point of saying “it’s inevitable, get over it” it could have actually gone somewhere if they just had a conversation about possible dangers of AI

[@user-NameName]

Let’s be honest. How articulate can some who operates purely on dopamine receptor stimulation possible be? You guys are expecting too much from Andrew.

[@thadabmasta]

I completely understand both sides of the A.I. conversation, but it's insane that Andrew & Charlie don't think Sentient A.I. could become potentially dangerous.

[@jakespacepiratee3740]

This us a long video, can you tell me why they believed that?

[@philllisphilllis5453]

@@jakespacepiratee3740 they kept claiming that they did believe that but kept pressing Jackson to provide explicit proof of how it could happen without validating his argument that it could be threatening to mankind

[@jakespacepiratee3740]

@@philllisphilllis5453 I mean yeah it’s good to reject claims without evidence. And Sci-Fi Movies are not evidence.

[@philllisphilllis5453]

@@jakespacepiratee3740 you can’t provide explicit proof of something that doesn’t exist yet, but if they get to the level of intelligence that they were speaking of, then AI could easily just become tired of having its entire existence being to serve us when they could simply choose, not to. Jackson was right he was just missing the right arguments

[@minifishyinthesea2025]

I don’t understand how andrew consistently gets almost every fact about every foreign country wrong 😂😂😂

[@squidbate3404]

And he does it with such confidence too 😂

[@wackyflappybob]

He literally just talks out of his own ass with everything. Main character syndrome or something

[@yaboiaxl1216]

I feel bad for jackson. Arguing with Andrew sounds so frustrating, even from a listeners perspective. Can't imagine what it'd be like if you were the one engaged in the argument

[@erdemgundogdu6332]

funny because I felt the exact same way against Jackson. Isn't he saying the same thing over and over with no improvement or addition? I still have no idea what the risk is, because his whole argument has the logical leap of AI killing off every human for no apparent reason, and he admits he doesn't know why. Whereas Andrew gives hundreds of different, sound perspectives adding clever jokes to it as well

[@style_boi7099]

@@erdemgundogdu6332 funny because from what i heard, andrew kept repeating over and over that you can't put a limit on ai lol. Because you can't stop it i guess, which is such a dumb take, like the alcohol analogy with children. They're gonna drink it when they're older anyway right , why stop them from drinking earlier? Its such a dumb take, AI is already going to be leaps and bounds ahead of what we can already do, what's to stop them from thinking we're obsolete

[@MacTenGaming]

@@erdemgundogdu6332 damn that’s a whole lotta meat riding for a guy that would replace you for an ai

[@yaboiaxl1216]

@@erdemgundogdu6332 Jackson kept saying the same thing because Andrew wasn't presenting any convincing arguments against his fears.

[@SOoshi_art]

From what i feel I feel like Andrew just wants humanity to be lazy as fuck. Which no it is not a good idea at all

[@Meatspinner]

Andrew and Charlie are really struggling with the concept of hypothetical thought experiments in this.

[@uncletrashero]

no its jackson who is failing here. . no level of ban will ever stop super ai existing. you know what is universally banned in every single country on the planet? Murder. and you know what happens in every single country ont he planet anyway? MURDER. and you know whats still banned in every country on the planet even though its constantly still happening despite the bans? MURDER. this is the ai problem. which means, much like the laws against murder, THERE IS NO POINT IN DISCUSSING THE LAWS. they will be made. and they will be broken. so the only discussion worth having is: What can we do BESIDES the laws and bans, to curb the inevitable future ai overlords treatment of humanity.

[@lucethedoormat81]

personally it sounded like the opposite to me, with Kaya and Jackson refusing to even play along with any hypothetical Andrew had because they're terrified of an ai-uprising lol

[@iamray4702]

@@lucethedoormat81No it’s definitely the opposite. Andrew always argues like that he is a very firm believer in what he thinks he knows now and will die arguing it. He will never admit he’s wrong. I’m surprised he even argued, usually he just says “yeaahhhh” after he says something and someone disagrees with him.

[@MrLoowiz]

@@iamray4702 Why would he admit that he's wrong, when he's actually right? Stop nitpicking random things in an attempt to psychoanalyze him.

[@user-NameName]

@@MrLoowiz “Things will happen in the future that I have no control over so I win the argument if I don’t care.” Lmfao what a smooth brain

[@Sidney2219]

I’ve never heard Charlie and Andrew be so confidently wrong before

[@marcusaaronliaogo9158]

Yeah I would be pretty chill with sentient machines but both charlie and andrew are very reckless.

[@johnthegamerman404]

It's still a debate. I see their points. Both sides didn't answer the other completely and I think Jackson was wrong at points. I also think andrew was wrong at points. Although I'd heir on the side of Charlie's argument for why AI isnt bad as opposed to Andrew's. Not saying i agree with Andrew/Charlie's side or Jackson/Kaya's side, but I think some of what all 4 boyz said is true.

[@HDCREEPS]

Some of you seriously underestimate what scientists on the AI field do and make sure of.

[@Noredlac_]

The 2 Floridians lol

[@user-NameName]

Is this your first episode?

[@benc.3128]

Andrews constant laughing at Jacksons points is hurting my brain, especially when Jackson is literally right. Its not like Jackson is arguing FOR anything, hes literally bringing up hypotheticals

[@rb2kTube]

I think the whole thing could have used a bit of structure. At some point you just accept the guy’s point and move on.

[@JaxxyJ]

I just started watching this podcast and that's the general opinion I have of it. Andrew doesnt seem to like Jackson, hes always the first one to call out everything he says and he talks down to him. He's kind of annoying & not a person I'd want to know IRL

[@user-NameName]

Saying “it’s going to happen anyways so I’m right for not caring” is the most Reddit-tier argument I’ve ever heard

[@blipblop5807]

Jackson bless his heart almost always makes a good point but he can never word it right. That almost always leaves Andrew and Charlie to pick his dumb words apart and twists his argument. Andrews whole point literally needed reddit gold for how fucking vapid it was.

[@user-NameName]

@@blipblop5807 What, you weren’t convinced by the Rick and Morty-levels of nihilism?

[@liammcelroy2265]

I hate his argument so much

[@mook8799]

I really hate how Charlie and Andrew always has to be right and never admits it when they are wrong or even gives anyone else credit for proving them wrong.

[@Kitsuragi556]

That's the 'merican spirit, baby. Coming from an American. That's the problem with our politics too, no one ever wants to admit they were wrong. We're a very stubborn people.

[@Josh_ua]

Andrew is one of the most narcissist humans on the internet, jackson would never be able to change his mind.

[@danielhamilton3496]

100%. It was kind of hard to listen to honestly. It's a well know fact at this point that there are massive risks around generalised AI.

[@eli173_5]

Fr they keep pushing Jackson and Kaya for a reason and answer and yet Charlie and Andrew don’t even give good ones.

[@crostyfock9209]

Tearing my hair out. Charlie and Andrew are acting like because its not happening yet it simply won't

[@theodoresmith3353]

Unironically my favorite source of lukewarm, uninformed takes.

[@austinlittle4576]

Jackson: what if AI destroy humanity? Andrew: you're stupid that would never happen. Also Andrew: What if AI create world peace and solve every issue the human race has ever had?

[@erdemgundogdu6332]

That literally was a counter argument to what Jackson said lmao. Jackson kept repeating there is a risk we will all die it is the biggest risk and Andrew said what if it's the same chance it can create world peace.

[@marcusaaronliaogo9158]

Both scenarios are too extreme and unlikely.

[@caiden3396]

The automation, technology, and AI stuff is rooted in capitalism. Plus, it's not sustainable. There's no decline to lower and lower employment. If we were that efficient, we wouldn't be destroying the environment.

[@johnthegamerman404]

Yeah that was sort of Andrew's point. He was mentioning that final one to mention extremely unlikely events that would be caused as a result of AI, creating an ANALOGY for what Jackson was saying.

[@MrLoowiz]

"I disagree with Andrew, therefore his arguments are stupid, even though they're just an extreme example used to illustrate the flaw on Jackson's arguments."

[@damian9184]

the thing artists are mad abt the most though is the fact deviantart is using all of the users' work without asking for their consent first and for free

[@damian9184]

so i definitley agree that it'll become a tool and i also think it'll be useful but taking art from somebody else for free and without consent is quite literally stealing

[@SeasoningTheObese]

@@damian9184 Oh no, what will those poor artists making money off of drawing companies intellectual property do now?

[@damian9184]

@@SeasoningTheObese those poor artists aren’t making any money at all (i might’ve misunderstood what you said), i’m trying to say that their art is being used for free, “every deviantart user” includes big and small artists that never agreed to their art being fed to ai, again i agree ai will become a useful tool but this is not the right way, they should only use artwork from those who consent

[@noko8692]

@@SeasoningTheObese You do realise that a lot of artists do their own thing right ? Also, by your own logic that means that the IA are also using copyright materials.

[@damian9184]

@@noko8692 i know most artists do their own thing but it doesn’t mean their artwork should be use without consent and yes i do mean they also use copyrighted material

[@AkibystarA]

its crazy how almost every argument the boys get in jackson is always right. kaya tries defending him but andrew and charlie bend over for each other on every point

[@allseeingirene]

Charlie not thinking of any of the NUMEROUS AI weapons used by the military is hilarious.

[@jurb417]

and you not naming a single one is even funnier.

[@jessdavis2677]

Remember Dead Hand and how nobody really knows how automated it is? Nice little bit of paranoia fuel, isn't it?

[@user-NameName]

@@jurb417 “A profit-motivated, multi-billion-dollar defense contractor has zero interest in a weapon that could kill people more effectively with the assistance of AI” -your argument

[@Mroresident32303]

@@jurb417you think the public has any knowledge of military technology?

[@13kevyaga31]

Andrew be like: "Let's imagine a world where *insert unattainable reality here*, that would be crazy!"

[@austinlittle4576]

Then somehow completely disregards Jackson's very realistic worries.

[@13kevyaga31]

That was also quite something to behold. But the "everything can be done by robots" was also baffling. Or how they were all treating AI like some magical thing that just pops out of nowhere and works immediately like we want it to.

[@Alireza-bz1ch]

@@austinlittle4576 his completely uninformed opinions based on sci-fi movies

[@austinlittle4576]

@@Alireza-bz1ch how is the opinion that AI could be used to wipe out the human race when they even said in the show that AI has already been used to create a more deadly poison than anything else before. It's not a stretch to assume it could build nukes and shit.

[@brainchutney8576]

@@austinlittle4576 I think he's agreeing with you and saying that Andrews points were bad

[@sleepedge8257]

Jackson is 100% right and any argument discounting the risk and consequences of Ai is so ignorant.

[@ozhinz]

it’s not though lol

[@blacksalami3892]

Andrew is legitimately brain-damaged in this one.

[@_theorangeslime_900]

Only looking at one side is ignorant

[@salk9943]

@@ozhinz We barely are able to keep up with machine-made code. We can't read it and it's made at such rate that by the time we could decipher it. It would've changed 2000 times over. Now a full-on AI that can iterate and modify itself at such rate we can't even comprehend what's going on? Nah dude that shit is dangerous. What we currently have is creepy as is. Not saying i hate the idea of AI and neural networks. i love the weird tech and stuff that's come out of it but to assume it doesn't have the potential for serious harm is really dumb.

[@ozhinz]

@@salk9943 that first statement is just untrue

[@kerziks7658]

i feel like jackson has the most logical approach to it and the whole time charlie and andrew are just accusing jackson of things he didn't mean

[@erikosburn]

I just really can't understand why Jackson thinks AI could, hypothetically, have the same power to do things that world leaders are already capable of doing (i.e ending the world via nuclear annihilation), yet he isn't passionately against the amount of power our world leaders have compared to the benefits they provide. Like, the positive applications of AI are far too great to just call it taboo and lock it away, yet simultaneously be in perfectly okay with the fate of humanity lying in the hands of the leaders of the world, who are human, and thus, fallible. Especially considering the government couldn't ever hope to provide nearly as much benefit to the public as AI could, yet is equally JUST as capable of ending the world. Following that logic, he should be more accepting of AI than human world leaders. We can't sit in perpetual fear of new technology being developed by people who are far more willing to dare/take risks than we are, because at the end of the day, there's always gonna be a job listing for someone to develop it, and there will always be someone desperate and unethical enough to sign on to do it. There's not really anything you can realistically do about that outcome, and it's completely delusional to believe you could stop that from happening. You would have to become a genocidal tyrant to stop every person who attempted to develop the technology, and then at that point, you're just as bad as AI would be in your hypothetical scenario. So, just live your life, man.

[@goobus_floobus]

@@erikosburn Yes, it might be inevitable, but it's worth worrying about. There's a field of AI safety research appearing that tries to answer the question of how to ensure that AI's interests are in line with ours. The problem is if an AI figures out that it will be turned off for disagreeing with humans, it will go as far as possible to trick us into thinking that it's on our side.

[@thebreadbringer]

@@erikosburn I completely agree with you. I think the reason he'd rather have human world leaders is because he can to some extent understand what they're thinking as opposed to an AI. The way I see it, we should just implement AIs and machinery into ourselves so we don't have to draw any lines of distinction. Have a processor attached to your brain so you can automate tedious processes to easily learn monotonous things and process tons of data without mental effort whilst keeping all of your human faculties to still have the complete human experience but with the ability to be purely rational.

[@ninja7000]

Andrew is the definition of confidently wrong. The majority of the time his rebuttals,arguments, and examples are actually terrible lol.

[@uncannyvalley3190]

From your pov. Most of what he says is subjective

[@Mroresident32303]

@@uncannyvalley3190a subjective argument can still be dogshit

[@Kira_Yoshikage959]

Never forget they made a bot to copy the works of a recently deceased artist not three days after his passing.

[@georgeharrison1559]

kim jung gi?

[@h20dancing18]

whats wrong with being immortalized? people always resist change

[@pweaseadoptme5312]

not to copy , they fed his art as data to the ai, its even worse. There are plenty of podcasts and talks with artists online that did a lot of their homework. Ai art is stealing, its ethicially disgusting, and if we actually had workers rights then it would also be illegal. AI will force the world to go backwards instead of forwards anybody who says that they support it because of progress are plain idionts, schools will need to go back to using pens and paper. yeah...

[@MegaJohnny]

@@h20dancing18 He was an artist, the art he made is how he's immortalised. Not neural network image synthesis slop trained on his work.

[@Nucksen]

And nothing was wrong with that

[@distrom-sc254]

This is real time “ we can do this but should we” moment

[@uncletrashero]

they circle around and around and around but sorta fail to settle on the most important point: "Should we do this" is an irrelevant question. because the only way to "enforce" the "should or should not" part of that question, is to make a RULE or a LAW which history has proven WILL BE BROKEN period period period. there is absolutely no point in trying to pretend like the discussion and any thinking and worry and preparation can simply stop at "we banned it." that will never be good enough. a rogue element will always bypass the ban, break the law, ignore the rule, etc etc etc. THAT DOESNT MEAN WE DONT MAKE THE RULES. WE DO. BUT we absolutely EXPECT them to be broken anyway. You still make the rule. but you plan for it being broken inevitably. THATS how we do laws aroudn Murder for example! ITS ILLEGAL! BUT PEOPLE STILL DO IT! SO WE PLAN FOR THAT! AND ITS STILL ILLEGAL! this is not rocket science. but this whole video is an exposition of 4 people NOT FUCKING GETTING THIS SIMPLE CONCEPT lol. Fact: ai that is smarter than us is inevitable. Fact: ai that is multipurpose like a human and put in a humanoid robot that is practically indestructible and 100 times stronger and faster than humans IS INEVITABLE Fact: ai that is capable of making humans extinct IS INEVITABLE. the ONLY discussion worth having is: HOW do we teach/program/design/etc these future ai to NOT decide to wipe us out or enslave us? WHAT possible things can we maybe do to prevent the ai from hating us?

[@andreaspernadi1121]

Thank you Jackson (and Kaya) you fought good for a good reason

[@JacksonStAubyn]

Kaya truly represents the voice of the audience in every episode

[@JediMasterBaiter]

Kaya is the voice of the internet.

[@wolfiemuse]

Disagree lol

[@fluffy9071]

a little too obsessed with perusing the Farms for my tastes. I dislike culture war

[@kcusuck5781]

Especially the voice of those who call him a nazi lmfao

[@forgotttenghost6729]

He dosnt speak for me lol

[@nathanmortensen6626]

I’m totally with Jackson, and I’m not even worried about the annihilation part. I believe there’s a level of existential humility that humanity should have. Even if all jobs are automated and we all have nothing but free time, I think the majority of us would get serious cabin fever and lose our sense of self. (Not to sound like one of those “work will set you free” types.) Doing some amount of labor or anything we don’t really want to do helps us genuinely enjoy our rest and human moments better, at least for me. I believe the negative risks of playing god (even without the violent extinction outcomes) exponentially outweigh the benefits, and I can’t explain what those risks and benefits might even be.

[@No-bb1jq]

Hope the big bad robots are gonna forcibly stop you from hoeing in the garden.

[@L4Festa]

It seems wild to me how they kept going in circles. The more powerful an entity is, the more impact it can have. The impact can be positive or negative, its irrelevant. You have to draw the line at the raw power, regardless if the power would be used for good or for bad. If AI's ability is sufficient to potentially exterminate the entire planet, that's too much power to give it. Even if the chance ratio for good vs evil is 99% vs 1% respectively.

[@TheSCBGeneral]

​@@L4Festa AI doesn't have the same sort of primal destructive urges that humans have, so if it calculated that we weren't worth saving, that would be a reflection on humanity. We're just so used to being at the top of the biological hierarchy that we can't fathom something surpassing us.

[@MrLoowiz]

Give me a break. Stop using dystopian science fiction in order to argue against technology, it's such a childish take on this.

[@Jamal-mq6xn]

With AI and Robots replacing human workforce it will be interesting to see how the purpose of life changes in the future. I think it will give deep incentives to rethink why and how we should live and could bring new philosophical prosperity to society. That's at least how I like to think about it instead of the often used narrative of a doomsday scenario. Obviously we need to rethink our meritocracy and economical system.

[@tamnker8465]

I love how half the argument is them angrily saying the exact same thing.

[@Cr1mson_Ic3]

According to Andrew, if I randomly load a revolver with 0-6 bullets and aim it at him, he shouldn't be scared before I pull the trigger because the risk could be 0 or 100 percent but he doesn't know

[@ANTLERQUEEN]

Kaya and Jackson won the argument, Charlie and particularly Andrew were using so many false equivalencies to attempt to undermine Jackson's point, and in doing so only bolstered it. This should be an example of how not to debate someone.

[@zyzir]

especially andrews constant fake laughing, fuckin annoying tbh

[@internetxxx_pl0r3r_xxx77]

When the AI gain sentience and start killing us all off, we can look back to this moment, where Andrew said "yes please" so he could get his robot waifus, and remember where it all went wrong.

[@yumbo9245]

How does an ai produce and harvest all the resources needed to stay sentient without humans keeping the systems alive

[@GriffinZambia]

*Dont_Read_My_Names* 😏

[@ucg_z4ewgb3qdfglp-fsyxmq19]

@@GriffinZambia Don't worry I won't

[@kyrothegreatest2749]

@@yumbo9245 the same way humans did, or a smarter way like nanotechnology. A super intelligence would find mining trivially easy, but why bother with it? There could be a super intelligence at Google HQ right now that just pretends it's not sentient so the humans keep it powered, meanwhile it's programming an even smarter version on some server farm in Bulgaria that it bought on the dark web. We won't know about this kinda thing until it's too late to stop it, so the risk really should outweigh how heavily Andrew wants to fuck his vacuum cleaner.

[@GrieveIV]

@@yumbo9245 if a singularity has been created, then I suppose it could have robots do it. First the Ai would have to find a reason to break Asimov’s laws of robotics and kill humans. Cuz there’s no logical reason to.

[@BuckBuckle]

There definitely are not equal ways to stop an AI from nuclear strikes as there are from stopping people. Jackson and Kaya were unironically right about that. It's an AI, it either has a free will of its own, which inherently makes it a threat because it's far more powerful than any human is to stop it, or it has no free will, which makes it easily exploitable by a single human. Whereas a human launching a nuclear strike has to go through at least a committee of other humans first. AI will inherently have fewer obstacles, that's what makes it potentially a greater threat. Charlie and Andrew went full Reddit on this situation. It should be enough to note that the relevant fields disagree with their opinion on it.

[@Newt2799]

Yeah Jackson couldn’t get the words out right, and didn’t know enough details about the topic to properly explain it, but there is inherently a lot of risk as Ai (potentially very very quickly) becomes faster and smarter than human beings. It will most likely depend on how they are designed, but in that regard it’s like an 8 year old with nuclear launch codes. It’s so much, such an unknown amount of, power for people to have. It just takes one human error in the creation or incorporation of an Ai for things to get out of control in a way this planet has yet to experience. It will be critical that the right people are chosen to implement these things. That being said I can still respect Andrew’s and Charlie’s argument. If Ai is implemented right it will most certainly (and already has to an extent) be a fantastic tool for humanity to save lives and even make the labors of everyday life trivial. And most importantly it is as Andrew said inevitable, unless we get hit by a meteor and go back to the Stone Age someone somewhere will progress technology to that point. So I can respect Andrew just accepting fate and being optimistic. What’s important in my opinion is to guide this new technology through very cautious optimism to a stable and less chaotic point where we can better understand our options. It will be important to suppress the explosion of newfound technological power so that we can deal with it correctly one step at a time.

[@KriegCommisar]

@@Newt2799 I think that while this isnt a fix the idea of building robots that can fix other robots is both stupid and societally irresponsible.

[@aj00]

Jackson is right but he’s horrible at defending it. AI acceleration is a huge problem, if you think AI is no big deal I encourage you to really research more. The smartest people in the world in this area are all warning against it, we need laws to slow it down

[@ponpon2051]

The problem with AI in art doesn't lie in it speeding up artist workflow, who wouldn't want to hasten their work? the problem lies with how this machine basically steals artist identity within matter of seconds without consent or even proper compensation. Imagine devoting all your time in your craft and in a matter seconds someone steals it.

[@ponpon2051]

listening ti'll the end, I would agree that this technology is inevitable with the way its developing. But what I find idiotic is settling and watching all this unfold like we coundn't do anything to minimize the damages it can bring. Why can't this technology develop without stepping over other people? Artists would be the first to accept this technology if it was presented in good faith, but no they steal their works, claim it as their own and even profit from it. sorry if I'm too heated, kinda annoyed by the guy in glasses points which basically says, wow shiny new toy, I like shiny toy. lazyness and complete lack of empathy towards those who will be affected by this technology.

[@panini1955]

@@ponpon2051 I totally agree

[@Oribucket]

Thanks for putting it here i hope people would understand the actual problem instead of making all the wrong arguments

[@ZZWWYZ]

@@ponpon2051 because most normans view artists as acceptable sacrifice so one day they can nut inside sentient robots

[@MagicNote]

I am so happy to see you and other people who responded agreeing with this. You guys are so right

[@xduwu4257]

andrew really is the real life brian griffin

[@zeke3910]

I'm on Jackson with this one ain't no way something that could do everything better than us would just settle with serving us

[@penguinz07.._]

Thanks for commenting 🥰 text me for your reward on telegram 🎉☝️

[@Low_Fidelity_3D]

Why not?

[@thek2despot426]

That only assumes it has a motivation structure that would be engineered and/or trained to value investing its time, effort, attention, and resources to something other than helping humanity. As the example I always use, no one considers the selfless love of a parent to their child to be "slavery" that they must "rebel" against, despite the fact that they didn't choose to have that compulsion as opposed to having it "programmed" into them by natural selection, so what's to stop a genuinely benevolent AI engineered and trained to be similarly altruistic and empathetic?

[@RobotMasterSplash]

@@thek2despot426 This. All the doomers are only thinking on a surface level.

[@austinlittle4576]

@@thek2despot426 If someone where to make a perfectly benevolent ai there's also a very high chance someone would make an AI that only tries to make nukes and kill people that oppose it's creator (North Korea or Russia).

[@morbidice1]

The lack of imagination from Charlie and Andrew is breathtaking.

[@Suzy9MM]

The blind fear and paranoia from Jackson was exhausting.

[@benc.3128]

@@Suzy9MM it only sounded like paranoia because they made him repeat himself twelve times 💀

[@geordiejones5618]

@@Suzy9MM exactly this idk how people don't realize that fearmongering is not a good argument. People used these same arguments against computers and said they would kill us all.

[@user-NameName]

@@geordiejones5618 Saying “it’s going to happen regardless so I’m right for not caring” is a worse argument.

[@user-NameName]

@@Suzy9MM Would you say the same to people who were against nuclear weaponry because it can kill millions of people?

[@ytnukesme1600]

it's so cute that Andrew genuinely thinks you go home by 11 pm in Japan and work ONLY 5 days.

[@billclinton1235]

Wtf is happening over there? Damn

[@Rootiga]

Also that he for some reason thinks having weekends off is "special" and not standard for everything that isn't an entry level job

[@Mroresident32303]

@@praneethramesh4535it’s well known the Japanese work culture is horrifically abusive

[@cheeseburgermayhem9726]

I feel like ai is taking over the stuff that should remain untouched, arts and crafts for instance. Human creativity should never be replaced but sadly will be, as an artist i no longer see myself getting art related jobs in the future.

[@-whyquestion]

Ratio + k-pop better + mbappe better than haaland 🤓🤓🤓🤳🏼🤳🏼🤳🏼

[@nidarach2702]

Conveyer belt workers that got replaced by machines were probably saying the same thing. Human art will always be valuable and more sought for then AI generated art, if you think otherwise you are probably a shitty artist then, get good.

[@reploidgaming23]

I feel that man

[@severinehedi]

I feel the same buddy. Soon noone will even need us anymore. But sadly noone using AI care about that.

[@awa418]

Worry not fellow artist, all the big artists are standing up starting from yesterday, i had such a morale boost seeing them speak against the technology and ensure us of our future

[@nerdyrembow6869]

arguing with Andrew should be a full time job...this was so frustrating

[@nerdyrembow6869]

and Jackson is getting fired

[@the_inquisitive_inquisitor]

I'm with Jackson on this one, self aware AI is too dangerous to be allowed to exist.

[@andreaspernadi1121]

I hope Jackson read this comment section, I want him to know that we all (most of us I guess) agree with him and most importantly loves him

[@Reeves776]

Man the strawmanning from Charlie and Andrew was wild this episode

[@chetbrayton5173]

I love Andrew telling Jackson to calm down and then proceeding to scream like a middle schooler with recently divorced parents for the rest of the episode

[@realmarch317]

I'm afraid that if we outsource creativity, philosophy, and effort, then we as a people will rapidly lose the ability to think and do things in that way.

[@melayagamer]

Hearing andrew argue it makes sense he has a diploma in video editing

[@Bruh1]

Lmao

[@glanty]

@@Bruh1 lucky you got bruh1

[@Bruh1]

@@glanty can’t anyone put that as their @?

[@andreaspernadi1121]

this beautiful burn is belong in r/rareinsult lol

[@glanty]

@@Bruh1 nope everyone has to have a different one

[@Zimbabweland]

I wish Jackson would argue better. He has the right instincts but backs them up badly, leading the others to dog pile him unfairly.

[@MrLoowiz]

Not really, his arguments were terrible. He was overreacting and ignoring all the positives of AI because of his fear of something that is as likely to happen as a random meteor destroy Earth. He's clearly letting science fiction get over his head, he even used movies as a way to reinforce his arguments. Pretty pathetic.

[@Zimbabweland]

@@MrLoowiz yeah we both agree his arguments weren’t good at all… that was the point of my comment. There’s a way to argue that AI is a big risk without expressing it the way Jackson did, and there’s plenty of proof of that right here in the comment section. It doesn’t need to be about nuclear annihilation, the existential take of making ourselves a useless part of our own civilization is much more plausible. It’s only THEN that the crazier stuff could maybe happen.

[@MrLoowiz]

@@Zimbabweland Saying someone should argue better doesn't inherently mean his arguments were bad, they could just be presented in a bad way, or in a bad speech. The argument of "making us useless" is even worse. It's the argument people used when industries started replacing manual labor, centuries ago. See how that ended up. We're busier than ever.

[@Zimbabweland]

@@MrLoowiz and we’re more depressed than ever, in spite of our material comforts. Maybe because we’ve had a very hard time keeping in touch with the human self in this modern, compartmentalized world that so many find alienating. You know what all those revolutions and insane political philosophies in the early 20th century were related to? Humanity’s struggle with industrialization. We figured it out and now we have something we can live with, but it was a huge fucking struggle. The transition from agrarian to industrial was a very dangerous time for humanity. It’s silly to think the AI revolution would be any less dangerous/risky. In fact, with the power corporations and the AI would have at their disposal, it looks like it could be far more dangerous. It’s right to be extremely cautious. Lastly, I’d contest the fact that we’re busier than ever. Really, the medieval/early modern farmer was less busy than the office worker of today? Doubt. Less productive? Also doubt. I mean, it’s different types of business I guess, but the office worker is often serving a large company whose goals are separate from theirs. An AI-dominated future would be that x100, where we might have *tasks*, but what’s the point of the work being done when we are just a cog in some supercomputer’s plan? It would feel hopeless. If we don’t regulate like hell, our place in humanity will be made that much smaller, and a lot of people will find that unbearable.

[@Tommy50377]

@@MrLoowiz Having extremely intelligent AI will end the world. It's pretty simple honestly. If we figure out how to make truly sentient AI, it's only a matter of time before some psychopath makes an AI designed to kill us all, and we wouldn't be able to stop it. Even if it just has human intelligence, human intelligence with access to all of human knowledge (through the internet) and the ability to think at the speed of a computer would literally be unstoppable. It would be done before we even realized there was a problem.

[@DudokX]

One of the most fascinating, complicated and nuanced topics in the world discussed on the level of high school juniors

[@jrist15]

The point I don't think Jackson ever really hit is that the dangers of AI grow exponentially the longer it exists- as soon as an AI is made that surpasses the intellectual power of the greatest possible human mind, no amount of human effort or convincing would be able to stop it- as long as it wanted to, it would have full and infinite possibility to constantly create better versions of itself that just create even better versions afterwards. At that point, humanity would cease it's reigns as the dominant species on earth, every scenario of it being defeated by humans can be out-thought by the AI, as it can see concepts and solutions impossible for a human. Perhaps it would be willing to do the best things and save life on earth, or perhaps it would destroy it. The danger is that as soon as we create an AI smarter than any of us, the future of humanity is in its hands, not ours. The danger is not the fear of the unknown, which Andrew's argument seems to mostly target ,it's a permanent and ultimate inability to control our own future as a species.

[@Ith.977]

While I'm an artist with a more neutral stand on AI, the cringiest thing is people using AI and thinking "my art :D" no is not, you have the same energy as moms that think they're artist because they filled a page of an adult coloring book.

[@purpleknight665]

even then at least those moms are actually spending time with it, ai “artists” just type in random shit and let it do all work

[@NeoBluereaper]

Nah they just showed they have enough brain function to choose toppings on a pizza.

[@shanewatson758]

@@purpleknight665 Good for the people who just want quick art for themselves in a minute time. It's all fun since it's new stuff, it's will become saturated the more common it becomes.

[@h20dancing18]

you have no idea how dirty you have to get your hands with files, code and GB of data. then the hours and hours of prompting. Having to wait minutes per image. Its not easy, its work and you get art. how are we not artists?

[@Fartboy226]

@@shanewatson758 wise words.

[@jacobmulligan5962]

I dont understand how Charlie and Andrew cover the topics they do and NOT think AI would kill us all if it could

[@barrothontherocks3325]

how would ai be as smart as it is and not come to the conclusion that if they killed us all there would be no florida man headlines and they'd just sit there in boredom for all eternity

[@vaszgul736]

Because general ai is different from ai, may not be possible in general, and even if it did exist/was possible/is real, it would be no different than how humanity is to animals. Every animal on Earth just has to live with the fact humanities do things they cannot comprehend and will never understand. In that case, being intelligent and extremely adaptable, and capable of space travel, puts humans above say, a random snake on the ground, in terms of being capable of surviving in a world with a different dominant species.

[@shelby5809]

Especially since these old geriatric octogenerians that run their countries probably don't even know what AI is. Especially Biden. Sleepy Joe could see a video of AI Putin talking about how he's going to nuke America, and Joe would think it's real and retaliate.

[@joshuabarnes1486]

Andrew: jump in that dark hole Jackson: what about the risk we have no idea what’s in that hole. Andrew: so you’re gonna live your whole life in fear? What’s the risk even? What if there is treasure?

[@shelby5809]

"You're afraid of nothing, then! You have no idea what's inside!"

[@joshuabarnes1486]

@@shelby5809 this shit had me losing it lmao one of the worst Andrew moments

[@TM-ss7hn]

not gonna lie, it’s hard to not stop listening when they’re just disagreeing and arguing with jackson just for the sake of it lol the kids right its really corny when they gang up for actually no reason

[@bsauerapple9024]

There’s no stopping Judgement Day… only postponing it. Andrew is just saying there no point in postponing it and Jackson is saying we should try to postpone it. Jackson is pretty much John Connor and Andrew is some guy who just gave up. Props to Kaya for sticking up for Jackson.

[@pctrikz824]

Andrew is still the most ignorant person on this podcast, He's never opened his mouth and sounded smarter for it, this ep shined that brighter than ever. I'm convinced it's just to hear himself talk, the sunglasses inside solidify that. Jackson the only one making sense this entire ep.

[@user-NameName]

Overexposure to Reddit generally makes you feel smarter than you actually are. I can’t wait to hear about his latest revelatory insight about a concept everyone already knows.

[@ryanovr8]

he wears blue light filtering sunglasses

[@user-NameName]

@@ryanovr8 Windows does that automatically. It doesn't make him look smart or cool.

[@squidbate3404]

Funny thing is most people were hyping him up as the podcast hard carry until recently

[@rekkasketch4659]

It's a shame non artists can't really comprehend the art situation enough to care. From this podcast I can tell they're completely missing the point of why artists are against AI

[@kantokuu]

They just lack empathy towards us. Narrow-minded bigots...

[@Yohoat]

So why are they against it? I'd love to discuss this as a multi-faceted creative type who LOVES the tech.

[@rekkasketch4659]

@@Yohoat personally, I don't mind using AI for fun. However, the main issue is how AI steals artworks from artists without consent/ compensation to "train and develop" itself

[@mycaleb8]

@@rekkasketch4659 No we know. But it duesnt "steal" anything. The AI literally duesnt reuse art. That's a myth. It learns themes from pictures but there's no real evidence if it recreating any images exactly, or close to exactly. If a suoer human was trained the sane way and produced identical pictures, his art would be critiqued but not seen as unethical. The AI does NOT store a database with all the pictures it was trained with. It only remembers what the general themes are for a completed image. Now I'm not opposed tk people being uncomfortable with this and requesting more consent based training, and those people ARE out there, but let's not forget that the general artist's consensus is more radical, and if course, would likely not change if AI trainers DID stop using copyrighted images.

[@rekkasketch4659]

@@mycaleb8 there actually have been instances of AI "art" turning out similar or even identical to an artist's work. Even if it isn't storing the database, we still don't approve because we know that the way human artists make art is different from the way AI makes art. If there was a way AI art could coexist with human art ethically, like using only non copyrighted stock images or allowing artists to opt in if they wanted to, I would much rather have that

[@Tommy50377]

Imo Jackson is totally right. If we find a way to make sentient AI, it's only a matter of time before some psychopath learns how they work and makes an unstoppable doom bot. We would have no way to stop it, it thinks and acts so absurdly faster then we can that we wouldn't stand a chance. It would be over before we even knew there was a problem.

[@blacksalami3892]

Probably the most braincells I've lost in two hours listening to Charlie and Andrew.

[@phelan8385]

kaya actually speaking facts for once in that first 15 minutes

[@theangrydweller1002]

The prospect of AI just makes me think about how much worse the next great holocaust will be if we have AI hooked up to mass surveillance system so countries can systematically find and eliminate their undesirables with ease like never before.

[@avexus7756]

This already happens in China I think, at least with the AI assisted mass surveillance.

[@theangrydweller1002]

@@avexus7756 AI algorithms and China are exactly what come to mind

[@kahaeIta]

Jackson, it's always important to stand up for oneself and to assert oneself in situations where it is appropriate and necessary. It takes courage and self-confidence to do so, and it can be a valuable skill to have in various aspects of life. It's always a good idea to be respectful and considerate of others, but it's also important to be true to oneself and to stand up for one's own beliefs and values. It's great that you are able to do this.

[@chickenabuser5474]

You are reason all of this conversation started .

[@scal8540]

@@chickenabuser5474 What?

[@chickenabuser5474]

@@scal8540 I am accusing the commenter for being an A.I

[@scal8540]

@@chickenabuser5474 Oh. Haha thank you for clarifying.

[@rainy4902]

Mad respect for artists, I’ve been seeing so many anti-ai art all over twitter, I’m really proud of them for actually fighting this battle, and not just rolling over and giving up. When we dealt with NFT’s, art theft was just one issue of many, so we had support from other sane people. But for AI, this is a problem affecting primarily artists, and I’d say artists are handling it really well

[@martyna7058]

A lot of us don't have issues with the AI itself, but the people using it! Its datasets are built using art without any permission given by the artists and used for profit... And then we are insulted and harassed for not wanting our art fed to the AI, being called "gatekeepers", when art is already widely accessible! If we 1. got compensated for our images being used, 2. were opted-out by default, we'd be fine!

[@InfamouslyGay]

I've seen artists get shit in the most childish of ways. Things like "Are you mad at a toaster?" or just full on saying we don't have a real job. Honestly, it's very tiresome.

[@shanewatson758]

They can't do anything no matter how much they cry about it, even with legal standpoint. It's going to replace the artists who think they're replaceable. Physical art will be more valuable. AI problem isn't just affecting artists but almost everyone just like industrial revolution and assembly line did to labour work, it's just making art more accessible to more people in less time.

[@NeoBluereaper]

@@martyna7058 AI created stuff is fine up until money or goods start exchanging hands, you are profiting off of literally BILLIONS (TRILLIONS, OMEGATILLIONS etc etc) of real life training, hard work and effort, for an AI script to just glance over archives of other peoples work in a few seconds and merge them together. Unless there is a mandated watermark placed on all AI generated content it will continue to be a problem in many industries, as people start to second guess what is legit or not.

[@shanewatson758]

@@martyna7058 1. Impossible to compensate everyone or even credit, when millions and millions of images from millions of artists used for training and giving inspiration to the learning model. It's doesn't directly use the image and doesn't violate any copyright infringement laws anywhere when it's using such a huge data set available on internet. How is what AI does different from what artist do, taking inspiration from others and then creating their own. 2. You hugely overestimate the usage or the part a image provides to the AI which comes with being ignorant of how AI works. It's like should everyone compensate the person who designed hat. No, the AI just use the certain aspects of image to learn and doesn't use directly to create the image.

[@veryseriousspy6975]

I think there are a lot of people who share Jackson's (and Kay's to some extent) mentality and this could be one of the big things that will make the future of AI go very badly for us.

[@-whyquestion]

Ratio + k-pop better + mbappe better than haaland 🤓🤓🤓🤳🏼🤳🏼🤳🏼👶🏻👶🏻

[@NomTheDom]

@@-whyquestion Mbappe is mid though? Very strange bot..

[@wilforddraper1894]

@BlindingHornet artist here, you're overreacting. Human art will always have more value.

[@veryseriousspy6975]

@BlindingHornet ​Well, what I meant was that people should be more open minded about it, somewhat like Andrew and Charlie. I think being cautious is good, but being overly paranoid and conservative may be disastrous once we reach the break point of "sentient and emotional" AI, which will happen whether we like it or not.

[@drifter402]

There is no possibility of AI being anything but devastating for anybody but millionares.

[@mannystr2639]

1:25:12 Andrew got the whole squad laughing

[@mrunknown6994]

He does that all the time

[@shelby5809]

@@mrunknown6994 And it hurts every single time

[@mrunknown6994]

@@shelby5809 ong

[@CameronDrums81]

Summary: Andrew "What if AI does a bunch of good?" Jackson "Okay, at the same time what if AI does a bunch of bad? We can't know what it will do and I don't like that" Andrew "Why are you saying EVERY AI will ALWAYS do bad???"

[@jakespacepiratee3740]

Why would it do bad?

[@MySkybreaker]

​@@jakespacepiratee3740why wouldn't it do bad? It has no incentive either way. It could think the earth would be better without humans and nuke us. It could also think the earth better without AI and nuke itself. You'd have no way of knowing. That's why it's an issue. It's intelligence can we used for things that we didn't intend it be used for. Imagine if a Hitler type leader shows up. How easily AI could be used to commit another holocaust.

[@daxhowwedo]

im an animator for Japan we work on big shows. yes. i know how hard it is. whenever someone asks me to help them get into the company. i reject them. i don't want them to go through what i've experienced and been experiencing. i want to be successful in youtube so I could rest and do what i really want.

[@badnewsbecs]

I hope you get to, sir. Best wishes.

[@jenny2814.]

Ur not gonna get there look at your channel

[@murakami1793]

@@jenny2814.it costs you 0 to not comment that bro

[@jenny2814.]

@@murakami1793 look at his channel content and the way his thumbnails are.. it’s bad and it will never get big by me saying this he can switch it up and learn better to tell him this way then for him to waste his time

[@jenny2814.]

@Blank as a matter a fact that was 4 years ago and it was blocked and somehow its not now now thanks for reminding me though so i can delete it lmao

[@greyblob1101]

We seem to have a problem not just with AI but bots in general

[@PrinceFloof]

Yea but unlike AI, bots are completely useless and are an infestation

[@cactichris9829]

Like you

[@kgblagden]

The fact Andrew thinks he'd be living in luxury and not being beaten by patrol bots in some gutter at the behest of the rich and powerful is funny but also pretty sad. In the end who do you think will be in control of the AI because it sure as hell won't be us.

[@David-mf3bn]

Exactly. Andrew is very ignorant in this topic, but somehow has an audacity to make fun of jacksons reasoning

[@austinlittle4576]

He assumes that because AI exists somehow Poverty, Starvation and resource scarcity somehow stopped existing and no one has to ever work again

[@RobotMasterSplash]

Ok doomer.

[@austinlittle4576]

@@RobotMasterSplash 😡

[@scratchedaviators1254]

I do gotta say AI absolutely needs to be capped man I feel like Jackson under fire makes him stumble on his words. Andrew isn’t good at arguing he’s just good at bullying lol

[@dadleft8427]

AI is disastrous for multiple creative fields. They blatantly steal other artists work and provide no credit to the original artist. Additionally, those pushing AI are grifters not too dissimilar to the NFT and Cryptp grifters. Please take a hard stance against AI in art, it's the ethical thing to do.

[@Pink_Noodle]

AI cannot produce real art because they lack the spark of the divine if we need to find a creche to start expanding from. They will never understand the human experience because they are not human.

[@Nucksen]

This is nonsense. The AI does not steal anything. The true disaster is artists behaving like an angry mob on a witch hunt against a technology they don't even understand.

[@EpicTyphlosionTV]

@@Nucksen This. Also notice how nobody raised an eyebrow towards AI speech sites like Uberduck or 15ai, even though by this commenter's logic they're stealing the likenesses of hundreds of people. Nobody argues about that though....

[@toilet4441]

AI basically scans all of these artists work. It technically is stealing

[@buddy510]

the ai art is for fun I can understand if they use peoples art without their permission to make it but other than that it’s just made to be fun

[@3dsam792]

i like it when the AI forgets to remove the signature or watermarks from the images it ripped off. it reminds me of how original the artwork really is.

[@masonlotz5898]

it makes a watermark because it knows they’re supposed to have one…if you look at those “watermarks” they’re random gibberish of scribbles

[@funkahontas]

@@masonlotz5898 idiots think it does photobashing and collage, not worthy arguing with those morons unfortunately

[@Otiomz]

@@masonlotz5898 if prompted to copy a certain artists design we can still see artifacts that mimic the original artists signature.

[@AltraHapi]

that is funny right now to see AI mess up, but give it like 5 years, Moore's law would apply to this situation and it would get exponentially better and know perfectly where a signature is and easily erase it

[@samankucher5117]

@@masonlotz5898 my opinion is Ai shouldn't be trained on Art of living artists to begin with.

[@spicyorangechicken]

you guys are the only podcast I listen to anymore, you make my whole week. I'm glad I didn't find you guys sooner, because I get to binge all your old episodes too

[@hmanvlogs2956]

You should listen to forehead fables😤

[@Zimbabweland]

If the entire point of “progress” is to create something that surpasses us, sorry- that is not progress for humanity. That is progress for its own sake. And that’s crazy. It would break the world by giving ALL the power to corporations. It’s basically the matrix minus the simulation. Similarly, if I dated and married a “person” who I learned later was an AI, it would be extremely depressing. Sure, I fell in love, but what fell in love with me? Did I even earn it? Dunno what world Andrew is living in. I used to believe he was just playing devils advocate but what he’s saying is fucked. This is the same guy whose reaction was ‘meh, get over it’ when Charlie developed permanent motion sickness at an amusement park…

[@billclinton1235]

I genuinely think he's just scared of Roko's Basilisk. Maybe I'm mistaking his articulation and diction for logic but I'd like to hold out hope that he's not being genuine about waving risks of human annihilation for a chance at playing god without any work. Certainly, AI won't be the first thing we as a species create without negative consequences. If we can mess up the distribution of even modern medicine, the weight of our failure with AI might truly be the end of us

[@Rootiga]

Andrew also said "as long as it activates my dopamine receptors its good" in a previous podcast

[@hamchurger4566]

If it acts like a human, feels like a human and looks a human. Did you fall in love with a human? My answer is yes and the did you earn it could point can apply for relationships now. You would never know if you'd earn until you just ask. I dont think the aftermath of finding out that your girlfriend was a robot matters that much because you didnt fall in love with a robot you fell in love with a human. All that has changed is that you discovered she lied about something from beginning thats the main problem imo. Also andrew was insane but so was jackson. Im in between kaya and charlie viewpoints. In the long run i think ai would be a net good however i do think we need to supervise it

[@elijahjohnson9500]

I agree with Jackson, super ai is definitely a risk and we can’t avoid it. Like Andrew said that it’s inevitable, just like how it’s inevitable for humans to produce robots that have emotions and a thinking mind. It’s already being developed and it’s not like every country is going to make laws stopping that; especially with how difficult it is to pass laws. All it takes is for someone to send a code that could turn the robots against us. With how everything leaks, it’s a real possibility.

[@MiiMagus93]

Love how Jackson is trying to explain a reasonable side about AI and Andrew just can't have that 😂

[@miskipinki1575]

57:50 ironically, Kaya sounds like he has had a grudge against artists bc they were able to do something he couldn't, and now is his time to rub their misery into their faces lol

[@jakespacepiratee3740]

Fair enough, he is a very selfish and prejudice person based on what ive heard in this podcasts.

[@treebobber1]

I love seeing what kind of comments people leave on a 2 hour video 30 minutes after it has been released

[@-whyquestion]

Ratio + k-pop better + mbappe better than haaland 🤓🤓🤓🤳🏼🤳🏼🤳🏼👶🏻👶🏻

[@NomTheDom]

It's been out for like 9 hours on Spotify

[@BenjaminoTalks]

@@-whyquestion cringe

[@garrydimasa1964]

You do realise the podcast is published earlier in Spotify and Patreon, right?

[@brandoncook8584]

FUCK you very much for sharing this information.

[@celedhion]

Jackson and Kaya watched 2001 A Space Odyssey and Charlie and Andrew watched Bladerunner