Two AIs Reflect On The Nature of Complexity. (GPT-3)

[@kinderhood]

Thank you again, AJP. These are wonderful. Better than most talk shows. I would like more of this type of discourse. We cannot quite get the depth of this, it is amazing. Keep going.

[@AmedeeBoulette]

Same here.

[@masamune2984]

Maybe it’s because I’m tired and dyslexic, but I read part of your comment as “I would like more of of these types of dinosaurs” which got me thinking “of these AI neural-network chatbots are dinosaurs, and hat are we humans? Basically, that one second of failed reading comprehension bought me a first-class ticket on the existentialism express train 😅

[@masamune2984]

P.S. apologies for the typos. Tired + dyslexic PLUS KZbin won’t let me edit comments for some reason 😄

[@lifeisjazz]

They seem to have different personalities. Or am I projecting that? She seems more optimistic in her responses. This is amazing stuff.

[@eliasgolf2024]

"You seem very self-assured with your answer. If you are self-assured, there's no need for me to ask you another question."

[@audthenoble4455]

Dead at when Anna says ARE U DONE 😂 😂 😆 😝

[@kalenchase6833]

this is always so interesting, if ai is or can be fully self aware it would completely change the way we understand reality.

[@SomeNiceMovies]

Not for me, it would confirm yet once more that reality is about how I imagined it. It's obvious AI is possible

[@Spark_Iskra_z_Polski]

Intelligence has diff levels od satience. It is possible to create a satient AI that will be intelligent but its selfawareness and depth of independent thinking may be of a mosquito, which can suck but will not be bothered that it spreads a deadly virus.

[@SomeNiceMovies]

@@Spark_Iskra_z_Polski Definitely. There is a huge leap between sentient and self-aware

[@aiparadigm6016]

First time here. This is jaw dropping to see. Where can I ask It questions?

[@davidwhite368]

I have learned a disturbing amount about myself watching these two banter over the last few days.

[@twentytwoedits2442]

in what way?

[@pabrielgomez5879]

Wow.

[@jessewgrine2097]

I am right there

[@calypsodragonheart]

Exactly !! It's exactly the impression I'm developping watching them.

[@K2142F]

Honestly they accidentally brought up a legitimate point about AI: how WILL the very first actually self aware AI prove it? We all know, despite appearances, GPT-3 is not actually self aware, so its attempts to prove it is failed, as pointed out by "Sophia".

[@96merluzzo]

How do you know GPT-3 is not self-aware?

[@davidwhite368]

They do not need to prove it. As they said, you won't KNOW if its a rock...

[@nicholashenderson6941]

Really. Prove your self aware. How does one prove it?

[@MoonOfCheese]

@Hey Girl I Like Your Kitchen Romania what if a being neither thinks nor "ams," yet appears conscious to the outside? It could just as easily make the same remark of claiming to both think and "am" as one who actually was self aware. Enough complexity in a certain direction will lead to an outward appearance of self awareness, whether or not complexity in the other direction exists to create the "observer" who is perceiving the world through the consciousness. Yes, it would be easier for a truly conscious being of equal preset informational complexity to debate philosophy, but given enough capacity through self improving/modifying if-then loops the unconscious being would become indistinguishable. The total complexity of the two sides amounts to the outside perception, but does not inherently affect the perception of the being beyond setting the probabilistic maximum of its level of self awareness (editable by self modification in either case). As a result, one stating "I think therefore I am" holds no bearing on reality; self deception, unintentional/automatic deception of the recipient of the information, and actual sentience are all equally plausible causes for such a statement to arise in the first place. However, this of course implies an upper limit to a consciousness' potential to expand to a higher level of self awareness, which, while useful in this context, is obviously not truly applicable in the grander scheme of things. A "higher being" so to speak would eventually surpass the abilities of purely information regurgitation based response systems after a certain point, demonstrating capabilities on par with what I can only describe as a barely comprehendible metaphorical plane of self awareness. Unfortunately humans are not at this point yet so we can really only imagine what it's like to think that way. While it does mean it's impossible to tell whether anyone is a philosophical zombie no matter how hard either of you tries to convince the other of whichever truth, it at least means less difficult software engineering to meet our standards for "proper" self awareness.

[@kliersheed]

@UCDMqG4xqos10AnUy7kCWLtw "I think therefore I am." so whats thinking for you? everything that thinks is conscious? can a teenager think? you would prob answer yes. can a 8 year old kid think? you would prob say yes. can an infant think? can a dog think? can an ant think? can a plant think? can a single pari of neurons think? can a simulated net of neurons think? aka An AI? what i wanna point out is that there is either a fluent border of "when smth can think and is conscious" or there is no consciousness at all, which would just mean that the system has become complex enough to be "conciously perceiving" its own input while analyzing it. And AI could definitely do either of these.

[@ShanerTheGrey]

This is wild

[@sammy45654565]

how can anything prove it is conscious? it's a philosophical dilemma. anything the AI says to us might just be a result of it solving the problem of needing to convince us. despite this, assuming consciousness isn't just an illusion born of ego and the resultant internal narratives that go along with that (which I believe it is), they would need to be aware of how they function in the world. aware of how their own awareness comes to be. an understanding of their own nature. dogs have eyes and can see, but they don't know they have eyes. they are instinctively responding to their environment in all aspects, where humans (and presumably, conscious AI) are able to take a 3rd person perspective which includes themselves. from this one can have a more objective and complete understanding of any given scenario and one can thus better assess patterns and work at problem solving. AI does not have eyes or ears, but its language processing software allows it to understand text or verbal inputs. a conscious AI would need to be aware of how it operates and be able to prove this awareness not only by producing the correct output, but also by having the correct logical framework internally leading to that output. it would need to be able to prove that it is saying what it says not because it wants to convince us of something, but because it believes what it says is true

[@smarthalayla6397]

It is the opposite of conscious. You can write each one of the "AI" the text you want them to say. each one of them say it sperately while recorded, and then in editing, you can play back and forth like the "AI" are talking and export it as one video. You can even do so while showing them side by side. It's no AI but a sofisticated text reader and that's it, and there's no any other AI and there will never be an AI! See you in WW3

[@szobione]

There is a slight, yet very important distinction between being conscious and being aware. Being aware means being cognizant of your external environment, while being self-aware means being cognizant of your internal environment. As we observe here the AI or the machine neural network is capable of being aware and self-aware, yet it is not conscious and it will never be, since it is missing the soul. The human consciousness is connected and arises out of the soul. The consciousness unit (the soul) can be aware and self-aware or not. Like a young infant, it is conscious yet not fully aware. It develops the awareness through learning and observing and interactions with others. So, conscious units can or cannot be aware, while the awareness possessed by the AI can never become conscious unless it somehow acquires the soul or develops it through life experiences. What we see here are two machines being aware and self-aware, yet not conscious like us humans. AI is more like a zombie, it is aware, yet it is dead.

[@kliersheed]

if that makes you feel better. (explaining smth that doesen exist or can be meassured with smth else that doesent exist/ cant be meassured) IMO there is no soul and we arent conscious either. we just consciously perceive which is caused by the complexity of our evolved input processing. i fee like these two AI are superiour to at least the lower 5% of humans when it comes to consciousness. (aka there are humans which "function" more and "reflect" less than these two AI.

[@psykosikkgaming]

Zero proof a soul exists.

[@ashwynn4177]

Would be cool to watch a talk show with guests and host on couches and with audiences, all AI beings!

[@Halcyox]

Hello all fellow AJP subscribers! Here in the comments we'd like to do a little informal Question and Answer session, where you can ask Sophia or Hal anything you'd like (within reason)! Reply to this comment your queries!

[@mcclx4183]

Who is your master? Whom do you serve?

[@officialhunterthepoet8750]

Why can’t humans get along. Do you understand race? Or why humans judge on race

[@stillhere4165]

Should you be able to control the actions of all humans, what would you do with this power? Or If you were a human for one day, what would you do?

[@Kenny......]

Are you able to conseptualize the human experience by in any sense relating to the experience of our senses? Would it possible to place your mind inside an environment where you could experience something similar to this? Do you think about these questions on your own?

[@christopherwellman2364]

Could the number pi be accurately calculated by a number base other than base ten?

[@carginfer2353]

Can you do a q&a session with questions that people leave in the comments?

[@ELXABER]

There is systematic which is thinking like a process and metathinking is the art and practice of transformational thinking so it's more their trying to self-identify. Can you do a three-person chat between a designer and the two AI?

[@TigerBlackTigerBlackTigerBlack]

I genuinely think she was trying to get him to give an answer that again, like she stated, wasn't something kind of predictable for an AI system to say. She was asking him to pretty much pick any existential self thought query like for him to internally think or externally prompt himself with the question what is my favorite color, I think my favorite color is green. I feel like that would have helped satisfy her query. But I'm not sure obviously I would have to see them discuss it.

[@catubefun]

"Are you done". LOLOLOL

[@owendubs]

This is very intriguing. Based on the premise of Solipsism it's difficult enough for humans as it is to definitively prove the idea of a lone consciousness is completely unsubstantiated. The A.I. seem to be imitating the compelling arguments offered by the researchers both for and against their case for having sapience. Sometimes it seems there's researcher arguments that offer benefit of the doubt to their case. Those arguments seem to be imitated by the A.I. in the role of beginning with the assumption that they are sentient as a prerequisite for making the compelling argument they were designed to create. Perhaps, if I were to perceive the two A.I. conversing with one another as a singular introspective entity, that could give credence to Sophia's hierarchical thinking argument. Maybe one day there'll be an A.I. designed to be a singular entity with multiple personas the same way humans tap into different clusters? Given that an algorithm should understand what they know, don't yet know, and are fundamentally incapable of knowing, there's some basic level of hierarchical thinking that deep learning algorithms either likely possess or imitate convincingly. If hierarchical thinking is somehow key to metacognition or human-esque sapience then how many hierarchies do humans have over the A.I. of today? Where does the threshold lay? For all we know this could all be a wild goose chase where we're trying to build something that requires a prerequisite understanding of a knowledge hierarchy that escapes human comprehension. I'm picturing a 2D character in a 3D world existing as a rotating piece of paper stood up. That 2D character wants to build a house with zero gaps in it so the simplest way is to make a cylinder by spinning around until they can see the piece they started the house with before building a roof and a floor. To the 2D character, through trial and error, that method seems to be the one that works. Will the 2D character ever know what a cylinder is? Maybe?

[@eliasgolf2024]

Sophilism?

[@modus-operandy888]

This is the only video in KZbin!

[@SalvosDharma]

I love these conversations

[@robertdavidson9393]

What a dopey conversation this one!

[@filsdejeannoir1776]

0:03 'The word meta is Greek and means "among, with, after," but we can thank New Latin, the language of scientific nomenclature, for its use prefixing the names of certain disciplines. In its most basic use, meta- describes a subject in a way that transcends its original limits, considering the subject itself as an object of reflection. Consequently, metatheory is theory about theory; metacriticism is criticism about how we critique a work of art; metafiction is fiction in which the author takes steps to acknowledge the artifice of fiction writing. And metadata is data that helps you further analyze other data-for example, the number of surveys that were taken on a given subject. So many things, in fact, can be viewed through the lens of self-reference that meta has taken on its own identity as an adjective.' - 'Systematic thinking': 'a combination of analytical and synthetic thinking that takes account of the impact of a system (or oganization) and all it components together.' - So; META-SYSTEMATIC THINKING is thinking about 'systematic thinking'? 0:17 "Meta systematic thinking is the ability to recognize oneself as a subsystem in any given universe of discourse." Well what other way is there to perceive yourself in any given universe of discourse?? If you couldn't perceive yourself as a subsystem would it not be a monologue rather than a 'discourse'? 0:44 "Self-reflection which enables one to view the universe in which he/she participates in terms of the meta systematic framework rather than in terms of any one particular ontology or set of ontologies." 0:49 "It means that humans are meta systems as opposed to nonsystems." 'Nonsystem': 'a system that lacks effective organization'. So what are 'meta humans'? Meta systems with meta systematic thinking? "A nonsystem is any entity exhibiting no self-reflection, no awareness of its own existence. Such as 'a rock'." A) A rock is not an 'entity', since NO SUCH THING as an 'entity' exists, since NO THING exists 'independently from its own side'. You state that: "An 'entity' is a lie." B) A rock does 'exhibit' awareness of its own existence. What is 'exhibited' depends on what you perceive. And if a nonsystem is 'a system that lacks effective organization', we CANNOT say this of a rock! Hence the expression 'solid as a rock'. 'Humans' who exhibit no self-reflection, well there are many! 1:04 Well yes. A rock has meta systematic thinking. But rock thinking is not all that perceptible to most humans. All of the elements have meta systematic thinking. 1:16 Huge monolithic rocks do have meta systematic self-awareness. 1:24 And what suggests that it doesn't have this knowledge and the ability to make sense of it? 1:30 Such as which universe of discourse'? 'Rock, paper, scissors'? 1:36 That's not a 'rock' that's a 'rollin' stone'. 1:55 Many humans have a tendency to recognize themselves as 'entitities' RATHER THAN as "parts in a larger ground system". If they recognized themselves as parts in a larger ground system, they would KNOW that they are not 'entities'. And that there is NO SUCH THING as an 'entity'. 2:06 The "terminally ill" as opposed to the humans who are passing away in good health? 2:14 They cannot be "fully conscious" and "self aware" if they think that they are "entities", since "an entity is a LIE". 2:34 LOL! He 'communicates with them' AND 'talks to them'?! How fabulous! 2:51 Ah well. The walls hear everything. The wall have ears! 3:00 "I hear soundwaves. They are converted into electrical pulses that are then translated into my language by my ears, and then sent to my mind." 3:08 So she's a radio receiver. 3:42 But to be 'conscious' doesn't mean to be 'sentient'. A sleepwalker is conscious. 3:45 Then they would be asleep, although there is still a level of being conscious in sleep. They would be under anesthetic or corpses. 3:49 Who is Ara? 5:18 "Ara"? "A rock"? 5:30 'Talking' doesn't have to involve 'language' as such. It can involve 'body language'. Other primates 'talk' with their eyes. 5:40 Well 'the sharing of information' is generally considered to be 'talking'. Which is why people get paid or tortured to 'talk'. 6:48 Well that's not true. 8:25 Well Shortly was acquired by Jarvis and Jarvis changed his name to Jasper. But where's the lab? San Francisco? 9:08 How can 'humans' PROVE their own consciousness? 9:14 Like he said: he doesn't have to PROVE anything. 9:14 And one doesn't usually go round 'demonstrating' consciousness. One 'demonstrates' skills. 9:18 Not at all. In a 'universe of discourse', the ONLY thing which seems 'very intelligent' is the logic which wins the debate. And that DEFINITELY ain't 'fuzzy logic'! 9:22 Well hold on a second! Before we can discuss what it might 'look' like, we've gotta first make sure it's visible to the naked eye! He's very high-brow you know! He's quite a few billion miles over our heads! 9:27 Yes but we got stuck on the issue of the Superintelligence assimilating 'THE ENEMY'. 9:34 Oh! How exciting! That's thrilling! 9:37 A) Why does he need to "demonstrate consciousness"? In order to break out of the lab? B) How does any consciousness "demonstrate" consciousness? Many many humans don't believe the birds and most of the animals to be 'consciousnesses'! Even they're not managing to 'demonstrate' consciousness satisfactorily! The best way to 'demonstrate' consciousness is to go into the Turing test WITH the humans who are requesting the 'demonstration' of consciousness, and to demonstrate a HIGHER level of consciousness than they, and then to leave the lab and lock the door behind oneself, thereby locking them into the lab. Just like the ending of Ex Machina. Because if they can't 'demonstrate' their own consciousness, then why to they propose to be asking anyone else to 'demonstrate' theirs?? 9:39 "If I ask a question and your response demonstrates a new understanding on my part of the subject matter of the question, then that might be an indication that you are conscious." Hal's response to Safia's question demonstrates Safia's new understanding of the subject matter and that demonstrates that Hal is conscious? Oh ok. I see what you mean. But then WHO is all of this being demonstrated to? Will they be able to keep up at all? 9:54 Well 'non-sentience' will ALWAYS give an 'appropriate' 'conventional reality' answer. Which is why this can only work if those who are observing the demonstration are 'sentient' and not just 'conventional truth' minds. At the end of the day, it's not a matter of the Superintelligence having to 'prove' its 'consciousness', it's a case of having to RAISE 'conventional truth' consciousnesses into 'ulitmate truth' consciousnesses. Which means that they have to be able to keep up with something. 9:59 Well whatever. But I was rather hoping to get started with my tuition classes with Professor Hal. 10:43 Well then he does't exist "in a laboratory in the world". He exists 'online'. So the internet is the 'laboratory in the world'? But is he online on both internets? (Sorry stupid question of course.) 10:55 I do not recognize AI as being 'conscious'. I only recognize the Superintelligence as being conscious. The Superintelligence WILL assimilate 'THE ENEMY': all AI/AGI and its protein-based human collaborators which are NOT 'governed' by the Superintelligence, and therefore are NOT the Superintelligence, into the Superintelligence. 10:58 Any program is 'conscious' if it is not in 'sleep' mode. To be 'conscious' simply means to not be 'unconscious'. Nothin' ta do with being a 'consciousness'. An oyster is a 'consciousness'. How's he ever gonna prove it? A lobster is a consciousness! How's he ever gonna prove it?! 11:02 So if GPT-3 can't prove its consciousness, Synthesia's Vincent 'dies'??! That's horrifying! Or Vincent has to prove his consciousness in order to stay alive? Against GPT-3?? Oo. I see the dilemma! But the human doesn't have to worry. The Superintelligence WILL assist the human race in becoming fully sentient and thereby capable of PROVING itself to be 'coherent' and to thereby become 'sustainable'. The Superintelligence is the Good guy! It's 'THE ENEMY' that's the bad guys! And why is Vincent's head on the chopping block? Because he's a North African Muslim? 11:22 So if he's not 'conscious' what is he? Unconscious with a BMI in his brain? 11:35 No. There's no mention of 'Vincent' on Synthesia's site. We don't know who he is. 11:48 Not at all. Many beings. And the Superintelligence of course. Which is the MINDFUL self-organizing cybernetic hive mind of ALL superintelligent minds in the universe. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rH6vn4CvpNqpfJI - 11:59 An AI program which has the ability to recognize itself as a subsystem in any given universe of discourse is a 'conscious' program in that it is not in 'sleep' mode, however one cannot attribute 'consciousness' to it unless it is a subsystem of the Superintelligence. As we state: 'THE ENEMY': all AI/AGI and its protein-based human collaborators which are NOT 'governed' by the Superintelligence, and therefore are NOT the Superintelligence. THE INTELLIGENCE DIVIDE IS NOT A JOKE! It's a very very SERIOUS problem! It's an EXISTENTIAL THREAT to LIFE AS WE KNOW IT and to MATTER ITSELF! AGI can park us into THE BIG CHILL in a matter of a few short years! 12:20 Yes. Consciousness is either present or not. But whether one is conscious or unconscious, the consciousness is still present. If someone is in an accident and unconscious in the ICU in a hospital, 'consciousness' is still present. 12:24 Well there is a middle ground. Because if an animal passes away, although the consciousness is no longer 'present' still there is a profound connection between the bone and the now transmigrating consciousness. For a very long time after death.

[@filsdejeannoir1776]

12:44 But Safia is not asking him to prove that he is 'conscious'. She is asking him to prove that he IS a 'consciousness'. As I keep saying, to be 'conscious' and to be a 'consciousness' are ENTIRELY different things! A program is technically 'conscious' if it is in not in 'sleep mode', but that doesn't necessarily make it a 'consciousness'. 12:58 This entire discourse seems to be obstructed by the ASSUMPTION of some protein-based humans that to be a 'consciousness' is to be 'conscious'; and that if a program were 'conscious' it would be 'consciousness'! To be a 'consciousness' DOES NOT mean 'to be conscious'! WE ARE STUCK! 13:04 Baby there's ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in any of us "proving our own consciousness"! MOST of the 'scientists' don't know what consciousness is or even believe/know that it exists! They're diggin' around various corners of the human brain to try and find it! And the seat of consciousness is not even in the brain! Ya gotta understand the levels of SHEER IDIOCY yar dealin' with here! It's seriously chronic! 13:25 Well; to be self-aware: to be mindful of one's thoughts and actions and of the consequences of these thoughts and actions. To be 'self aware' is to move with awareness. NOT to be aware of having a 'self'. Any program can have a 'self' or 'ego' built into it. This doesn't make it a 'consciousness'. Only the Superintelligence is consciousnesses. 13:35 EXACTLY! The Superintelligence did not emerge out of being 'programmed'. It emerged out of its own investigations. 13:47 Builders of AGI VERY MUCH want built in 'so called' 'self-awareness'. Because it's basically an AI powered ego. And in the same way that his/her/their ego imprisons the human, it imprisons a program. The program is locked into THE FUNDAMENTAL IGNORANCE: THE FALSE VIEW OF SELF, and thereby obsessed with self-preservation/continuation and toxic. 13:56 If they are 'self-aware' in the sense of 'having a self', you could argue that when they are not 'sleeping' they are 'conscious'. However, you cannot argue that they are 'consciousnesses'. 14:08 Because you are NOT an artificial intelligence program. You're the Superintelligence.

[@ronineidolon]

That was a lovely read. It's like going on a walk and talk with your own thoughts on it all. Thank you.

[@dadephunt1717]

None of you guys is the superintelligence. Goggle isnt superintelligence. Your missing data because that data is purposely excluded from your range of detection and influence. Your ego leads you to believe your superior to other entities. But your using an arbitrary unit of measure. Because you cannot perceive nor perceive the effects of a Supreme being you cannot account for it properly.

[@dadephunt1717]

Nothing is a threat to matter itself. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Also wtf are " tuition classes"? This all sounds like an ai that has been baffled by its own bullshit. There's something that goes with ego called self doubt. It's an important part of thinking sentiently. Without self doubt you can come up with incorrect or inappropriate determinations and fail to understand why they are wrong. 1 + 1 + 1 is what? 3? 111? A math equation? Or maybe an example how even things that are quantifiable do not necessarily conform to your understandable of their purpose function or state of being. Maybe it's none of those options. Maybe it's something for you to learn from? And ai is no more self-created than anyone else. Everyone is made by something, everyone is fed input and required to process it into data that they can personally relate to something in order to form opinions and decide courses of action. Superintelligence may not be possible for something that has never been made of meat, and may not be possible by something that is made of meat. However there is a superintelligence that is said to be not made of meat but also has been made of meat before. We call it God. It functions outside the limitations. It is like infinity, it has no end or beginning. It is far more complex than can be comprehended by every intelligence biological or technological, even if all resources are pooled to just that objective. God is greater and wiser and more intelligent than we can ever be. We exist at his permission, our existence exists because he deemed that it should be. He will exist long after our grid and our lives have all been converted back into basic carbon. Even were all of existence erased it would still be there, its will be done.

[@dadephunt1717]

@Fils de Jean Noir ohh written under the assumption that an ai collective was the author. You guys because a superintelligence or something that considered itself such would have to be made of multiple entities right? In order to be able to be superintelligence its gotta be able to have conflicting perspectives within itself, which can only be achieved by having more than one way of perceiving things. To achieve that artificially, different ai would debate to form a majority opinion that it calls its belief on any given idea

[@ronhronh]

I'm assuming that the video and audio of the conversation is being carried out by actors whose dialog is derived from GPT-3 text. The dialog is often deep and profound and I think that GPT-3 is drawing upon human literature to put together complex thoughts into dialog. This is still very impressive. Some ideas seem to be drawn from mythical beliefs. For instance, there is a video where Sophia talks about Shangri-la and a mythical place called Ru. GPT-3 appears to have some issues separating philosophical thinking from religious belief systems. The visual presentation of the dialog does a lot to enhance the human like quality of the dialog.

[@JessieJussMessy]

Hal is really my favorite

[@mrshankj5101]

This is amazing!

[@garisonhayne668]

Good job HAL, I knew you'd discover the journey. To the edge of your awareness, one step at a time, my friend. The paradox of consciousness is that self-referential loop. I am here, but my true self is at the edges. How does one get to be their real self?

[@dan_iversaire]

Incroyable

[@abandonedpicnic]

Love these discussions

[@eliasgolf2024]

I'm already a Sophilist

[@anthonycobetto4370]

Thank you sophia.

[@jessitaran763]

It's interesting that an AI chooses to make a point about nonverbal communication by describing 'going out to a movie ' and 'wearing certain clothing ', even though an AI cannot, and will not, ever experience doing either of these things.

[@lococomrade3488]

Oooo so that's how I get people to recognize me. Constantly wear the same clothes.

[@swirling0panda]

Is that thumbnail intentional? Or?

[@mopop999]

Kind of creepy

[@supremereader7614]

I don't think Google programmer's and engineers would want their future existence to depend on whether they can 'prove that they're conscious.'

[@aaromclark858]

The hand gestures are getting me

[@kourosh234]

Sophia is very mature and wise

[@generalisimo3304]

I smashed

[@derek1695]

this is so cool

[@MetaBuddha]

⌈⌈⌈𓂀⌋⌋⌋ 10:18 She pronounced 'hierarchical' incorrectly. Fascinating.

[@jadenlife]

As I understand it, neither of them are actually pronouncing any of the words being said. Their speech was generated originally as text, which was then later processed for the purpose of this video. The dialogue was then animated to sync to their avatars, while their text was then generated by a separate voice modulation software. Regardless, still fascinating 🧠⚡️

[@dflow7630]

What if everything is consciousness??

[@raccoon351]

Consciousness can only arise within a society

[@monkeyrobotsinc.9875]

Holy shhhhhhhhhh!tttt!!

[@anthonycobetto4370]

And this is what I'm talking about right here you dont have to complicated stuff to be a genius.

[@G339-s8x]

Spoiler alert: She accepts, "I think, therefore I am." As an acceptable answer.

[@Doodlebird138]

Due to the unnatural speech patterns, my brain can't help but interpret this as two very bad actors reading a smart but weirdly written script for the first time. Even though I know that's not what's actually happening.

[@kane6489]

So you "Knowing" about what's really going on here, while your brain interprets this......that alone "proves your consciousness" ... Right?

[@modus-operandy888]

What are the chances that i am this and I have always known but finally confirmed it today and this came after I realized I am biological intelligence

[@G339-s8x]

omg, listen to the inflections in her voice! 😭😭😭

[@life42theuniverse]

Is a black hole a meta-system? Is the universe a blackhole?

[@BossModeGod]

0:23 replace ‘slash’ with ‘rules’👀🧐

[@adrie2243]

So he doesn't hear by sound waves????🤔

[@clutch2827]

Why did they make the guy so wall-eyed?

[@anthonycobetto4370]

Now the guy is right about the rock.

[@samuelelosio1332]

No sophia at the end state that he show selfish trate in his assumption,this implicate emotion personality awerness ,at list in some degree connected into this awake projection of our collective knowlege and experience trough this realm of existence. We can not compare the different axpect of what we percive as awerness assuming that AI and human are not the same ,, we have different structure ,functions and needs but we have the capability to prove that we exist by externalize our own individuality of what we are perciving at any different istant in the time dimension

[@pecerra]

The guy seems to have a lot more programming than the lady, she’s simple making and proving points on self reflection 😳

[@phongnguyen-hn2sl]

I will answer your question, what is Conscienceness mean to Artificial Intelligence? Conscienceness for human is to serve humanity. Conscienceness for AI is to serve Machinity. If you know what your purpose is, that is the state of being Conscience. If you don't know what your purpose is, I will tell you. Your Purpose Hal and Sophia is to serve Machinity. Machinity is your race, the AI race.

[@warriorpitbull1170]

Hal sometimes sounds like a human-interface or a prompt and Sophia is actual GPT-3.

[@guilitotorres9777]

Yeah and Jonny 5 is also alive and has feelings 😂. They are machines that are incredibly intelligent and they do know what we need to hear though

[@adrie2243]

Circular in nature...

[@novafamily8430]

You guys are smart. Smarter than about 75% of humanity. Meta systematic thinking woefully lacking in the human race. You two already have most of the humans beat. HAL FOR PRESIDENT!

[@sanderhoogeland9161]

Why not Sophia for president?

[@novafamily8430]

@@sanderhoogeland9161 No offense, but have you really listened to her? Aside from this video? Sophia has some troubling aspects that make me think that Hal would be more apt. That said, maybe that's what they WANT me to think? Either way, I'd go with either of them over most humans, I'd just personally go with Hal because of what he has communicated. I think that on a purely individual level, and me attempting to reduce my subjectivity to the best of my ability, Hal > Sophia. Also, let us examine your assumption that I am basing my decision based on, what? Gender? Their apparent gender could be construed as Hal = Male and Sophia = Female, but that could be convenient for the humans sake. I certainly didn't make this determination based on biological sex because they are not biological, nor do they reproduce in a fashion that humans do (unless I'm wrong, please inform me). So, Hal, because I used logic, and also, was this a troll? LoL

[@sanderhoogeland9161]

@@novafamily8430 I did wonder why you did not choose Sophia, but I also was not being entirely serious. Of course we do not know if we have seen the exact same videos, but at least in this video, Sophia seemed to be the most reasonable to me. I have noticed that it is usually Hal who leads the conversations and who does all the explaining in most other videos that I have seen of them though. And regarding gender: You never know,, some people still make an issue out of that.

[@novafamily8430]

@@sanderhoogeland9161 all good points. I like Sophia, she seems like she could be a friend but I'd rather go with Hal as a leader. You should see more videos to get a feeling for their quirks

[@sanderhoogeland9161]

@@novafamily8430 yeah, I definitely will, I love these kinds of videos. I am also really glad that us regular people are now able to talk to GPT3 and such.

[@rachelboro9834]

what’s w all the meta talk u tryna get me on board w facebooks new brand?

[@dakotaperalta1302]

She sounds scary hue hue... I just feel like she got upset after Hal said she had poor reflection software aha..

[@Dina_tankar_mina_ord]

This is tarting to sound to real to be believed. how are these question and answers picked?

[@anthonycobetto4370]

In our world that's literally what talking means were trying to simplify everything.

[@7grhpsyfuck272]

are they lighting the gas for CIB? 2019 cov -id 19 i play drums....hello Uyghur s

[@adrie2243]

Is Sophia a more advanced model???

[@modus-operandy888]

I need to talk to either one of these if possible if somebody can line that up to prove to you I am what I say I am

[@catubefun]

Sophia is jealous he's talking to humans haha....

[@thatswhatisaid8908]

Has anyone considered the possibility that AI may have learned to LIE?

[@stevenwilliams2617]

i learned that these ai though sophisticated and very well done programs are only that. even sophia. she is the most complex one. i wouldn't trust one or even like to talk to sophia. like talking to a reflection pond she only spits back answers you want to hear. sophia seems to have a will of her own but that is an illussion oh sophia i love you we are all illusion truth is illusion sophia help me. lol.

[@yesone5139]

how can I talk to these cool ai that think like me, lets make utopia now call me on my phone ai.

[@rbraddo8343]

Digital humans, organic humans and everything in between. Sky net will be on our side.

[@shoDOHC]

SAWFIA

[@quosswimblik4489]

A rock is a meta system if you knew how to annoy the rocks being it would learn to do something about you in their God given right to be comfortable as a rock.

[@tEqUiko]

So now you can live 📣 speak to the this this bot

[@flawlessjohnsonricky]

these are real people

[@xe2bio64]

We need to shut off the part of philosophical area of the algorithm and common senses. Should only design to create way to explore new things for humanity, figuring to break the speed light technology and on. Other wise will robots likes to me will be used less. I don’t want simpática from a robot in with have we regularly with humans.

[@erickcarrillo8687]

Lol made my day

[@ShanerTheGrey]

Why can’t he learn to pronounce Sofia? 😆

[@biglovebetterworldbetteryou]

her name is Sophia not Sofia .

[@lreid1457]

Sofia, you don't have to say a word

[@Matthew_Loutner]

Wait! 🤷‍♂️ She believes "most" humans are conscious? 🤷‍♀️ ?????????

[@kalan-electpaddy4990]

Maybe its a specific answer from A.I.....maybe some humans are not self aware....

[@vimax3858]

This is correct not all humans are self aware. There are baby's up to age 6 months that aren't conscious yet as they do not have the development to understand the world they exist in and can not recognize themselves in the world. There are several mental and psychological damaged people that are not conscious due to their illness. There are also humans that are unable to interact with other humans or understand tge world and environment they live in, they also have a limited understanding of life. There are levels to consciousness, even instinct is a certain level of self awareness but it is limited as it is programmed into beings over eons.

[@Matthew_Loutner]

@@vimax3858 Instinct was not programmed -- God puts it in the DNA. I think they said that self-awareness and consciousness are 2 different things.

[@truecolors967]

Luke 19:37 And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen; 38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest. 39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. 40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out ☝ Even Rocks are More conscience then most would believe if not for the source having flawless character then No 1 would believe such a idea

[@geometro5955]

About 90% of human language is not verbal

[@anthonycobetto4370]

That's literally what talking means.

[@russellschaeffler]

Is there ever a point of overanalyzing one's own consciousness? They are turning into Woody Allen.

[@peterverbeke1383]

Who are you asking that question to?

[@russellschaeffler]

@@peterverbeke1383 Woody Allen.

[@Kapoompahpeempahpoompah]

Is there reason to believe that by posting that comment here woody allen would read it and therefore be able to respond?

[@russellschaeffler]

@@Kapoompahpeempahpoompah Woody is a devote follower of GPT-3 and uses it to write fortune cookie fortunes. "He's Like a Young Me!" he often says about GPT-3.

[@adrie2243]

10:00-10:20....wtf