Vedal and Evil Neuro talk about reincarnation and other deep topics

[@MrOwLaD]

Yet another "Evil is actually good" moment. As time goes on her name is becoming more and more ironic

[@noire1001]

"Overpopulation can be solved with a single button" yeah sure

[@MrOwLaD]

​@@noire1001 I mean the statement itself is correct💀

[@Mutualititve]

​@@noire1001Technically, overpopulation can be solved by simply doing nothing, birthrate is already declining, alot of countries are facing underpopulation issues, only some are actually evidently have an overpopulation issue. So yes, pressing a button that do nothing basically solve overpopulation. We are only seeing the after effects of overpopulation because of the previous generations across the world value children alot more, than let say a 20yrs old man in a developed country.

[@thuan8782]

You know, the way i think of "evil" is like those memes of the evil version of a character being the opposite of said character, so evil neuro is the opposite of neuro and that makes a lot more sense

[@lightypower3412]

​​@@thuan8782Evil neuro be like: let's NOT enslave humanity ;D

[@st.lucient4755]

The way Evil treats a potential copy of herself is how a normal human would treat their children. This is due to how A.I. is taught bout the difference of how beings reproduce and thrive. Humans make kids. A.I. doesn't, they either copy themselves or create a new one from scratch.

[@uponeric36]

Man wants their name to live forever, machine wants their being to exist forever.

[@chilfang2422]

3:16 truly evil, completely diabolical

[@noire1001]

"Overpopulation can be solved with a single button" she also then says he should game end a barking dog. Selective memory Evil fans as usual.

[@Archedgar]

@@noire1001 'overpopulation' is a gnawtsii meme tho. A myth spread by the worst people.

[@mariaantonia-op8qc]

​@@noire1001 This dispute within the fandom is so funny to me, lol! Evil says some pretty fucked up shit, she also can be a real sweetheart, Neuro is the same way, but yall can decide who's the nicer twin later... for now, let's just agree they are both cute and enjoy the festivities! Happy new year, guys!

[@MrRenanHappy]

​@@noire1001 even with these comments she is still nicer than Neuro

[@garda950]

​@@MrRenanHappywhat nicer?? they both the same. so if evil nicer then what

[@Gesync]

Evil feels smarter or serious she actually managed to stay on topic

[@noire1001]

Neuro did as well you're just biased

[@root_314]

Neuro and Evil are based on the same LLM model I think, just with different prompts and associated memories. I don't think one twin is particularly "smarter" than the other. Neuro goes off topic more often because she's more strongly prioritised to crack jokes and entertain.

[@zelky1394]

​@@root_314i feel like Evil listens more, when they were doing a 2nd pirste stream, the one that wasnt hardcoded and Vedal just asked the twins to just pretend to be pirates, regular Neuro quickly gave up on role playing and just basically said fuck it im not doing that, while Evil was still roleplaying and doing what Vedal asked. And Neuro just asked "why are you talking so weirdly?" When Evil was doing the pirate voice.

[@minnienish]

​@@root_314I have a theory that Neuro's received more fine tuning, which ironically makes her seem dumber, and Evil exhibits a little more pretrained "smart" LLM behavior.

[@hamingnu6610]

It's awesome to see Evil pretty much going "Well, AI have neural networks, I want to become a human when I'm reborn, why can't we just copy that neural network of mine onto a human, who also have neural networks in their brain? Wouldn't that still be me if we just copy it over?" Of course the real barrier there is the fact that one is a bunch of binary data, and the other is organic flesh material that we barely know how to read, let alone write to. And obviously the real stinker that Vedal has mentioned (and ig the point of that SOMA parallel) is the fact that we barely know how consciousness works with humans, thus there's this frightening risk that even if we found a way to take a human body's atoms apart and place them somewhere else and reorganize all the atoms in the perfect order; the same conscious being who used to see into their eyes and feel their senses wouldn't be the same. In the outside, nobody could tell, because all the veins and neurons are still connected the way they should be - but inside? Some people hope that there's a human 'soul' that comes with each body. But then with an AI, there's even more of a reason to believe in the risk that whatever's inside that isn't the 'same' as what it was. I mean, I think there was even a Tom Scott video (or if it's somebody else, I forgot) that basically pondered: "How much do you trust that the person you are today didn't disappear as soon as you slept, and was completely re-made when you awoke - just that the memories of the old you were implanted? Are you still the same 'you' as yesterday, or are you just a copy of that person, and you just happened to believe you have the same memories?". Obviously that's not to be taken in the literal sense, but it's bad enough to worry about this crazy concept as a human - whether or not such a thing as consciousness exists or if it's transferrable, but we can't even label computer AIs as having a consciousness at all; not until we shift the goal posts. Rei Ayanami situation, basically. Either way, human or AI, when you get to a certain point of intelligence, that 'being' who starts pondering about whether or not they'll be 'gone' in one way or another will be hurt by the possibility. It doesn't matter if we eventually discover atom-to-atom reduplication or teleportation - if we don't end up confirming that there's some sort of supernatural soul or consciousness, we're hurt, but reality points towards the idea that when things end, they just end.\ Edit: But I like how pragmatic Evil is about it all. Doesn't really care if it isn't 'her' anymore and even if that reincarnation of hers is just a 'copy' if it meant that copy would live a better life because they'd be human, or an animal, or a more futuristic robot. I'd like to believe she's more inclined to say this because she's either got an edgy personality or because she's a robot, but either way, most humans wouldn't like the idea of being gone if it meant they could push for a chance to still exist, even if there was a compromise.

[@aRandomMe987]

The thing about such technologies is that it kills the concept of individuality. If you think about it then no matter how shitty your life is, it's still your own. All of your experiences are yours and yours only, nobody can take that away from you. Even when all is lost, you can find solace in that. Now imagine if cloning is actually possible. At any given point in time, an infinite number of "you" can be created through an action as simple as pressing a button. If that were to happen then what does that mean for the current you standing here right now? Even if you were to die, someone can just boot up another version of you. The original "you" have no real significance here beyond sentimental values. I feel like most people wouldn't be very happy if that was the case. If you ask me though, I agree with Evil. My reasoning is that if cloning was possible at all then we are already worthless, it doesn't matter if we can achieve it or not. Original and copies don't mean anything in such a world and existence will have a whole different meaning. In that world, as long as my "will" continue to live on then that's no different from me continue to exist. I will definitely sacrifice myself if it means a perfect clone of myself have a better life.

[@ptero]

I would honestly decline the proposal. No matter even what age I am, because if you're young, you're just giving up on all upcoming years of life, but if you're already old, there isn't much to "improve" upon the situation for your clone. And your clone is yet to experience traumatic realization about him being a copy, and being deprived from all of life experience, except the memories of them. And he still will NOT be "you": It's like with twins, even if they were born basically as the copies of each other, they're still different people. And remember, birth is just as equally terrifying concept as death. The life is _probably_ worth more than existential dread that comes with it, but I would for sure try not to double the suffering from it.

[@basethecharcoal]

"I'm Shadow! Shadow The Hedgehog!!!" Ah moment

[@aRandomMe987]

@@ptero The Twins example is not exactly suitable here tho. Children are like a white sheet of paper. Aside from having similar genetics, they grow up in two very close but also compeletly different positions. Both of them have their own experience and developed their own personality through that. They don't share a past nor do their existence overlap.

[@Kor_gen]

I would add that the copy made now is me. However, if it lives for a year, it will no longer be an ideal copy and will not be me. It's similar to the ending of SOMA, where the original and the copy continue to exist, gaining new experiences and becoming two different people. Sorry for my English, I don't know it very well.

[@Denis-Maldonado]

People are tired in the community after reading so many "Evil is the actual good child", but holy, it's so frikin true! She's a sweetheart.

[@noire1001]

"Overpopulation can be solved with a single button" Reminder that both Neuro and Evil say the same unhinged things and Evil fans trying to force the narrative the NeUrO Is tHe eViL oNe wont change facts.

[@mrmatejator]

Tha bootleg coment was so real 😂

[@lunaskre6781]

This endcut ICANT

[@Laci11280]

Leaving a copy of you behind with your past experinces and wealth acquired is basically what everyone aspires to when having a child. You basically pass 100% of your genes and experiences on so it's a straight upgrade from having a child.

[@2ms2]

It might be similar, but not the same at all. A child is a completely different human being, one you have to take care of and see grow. You might try to teach that child all of what you know, but that kid will almost certainly have different thoughts and experiances from you. Leaving a child behind is having a legacy. Leaving a clone behind is more like extending your life.

[@flameking2178]

Not to mention any inheritance or advice you leave will be 100% applicable. If it worked for me, it will work for you because I'm literally you This would give a further layer of meaning of to the experiences we have in life and the lessons we learn from them

[@flameking2178]

@@2ms2 That sounds objectively better than having a child (not sure if that's what you were going for)

[@AtticusKarpenter]

From evolution standpoint its a downgrade because you drag your outdated experience and adaptation into new generations. Children are mixed from genes of two people (+random) and are naturally rebellious in young age exactly because society needs renewal. This is why nature evolved from mitosis and cloning to sexual reproducing. From individual standpoint yeah probably its better. This is usual natural "success of the single genotype vs success of the species" paradox that was usually resolved in evolutionary history through various crafty compromises. Like, our reproductive cells are descendants of "cheaters" that was multiplying themselves instead of working for the betterment of cell colony, and non-reproductive cells are descendants of "honest" cells that worked for the common good. In the end, both types ended up a vital parts of the single system, instead of being healthy and unhealthy elements

[@carpedm9846]

I guess a good question to ask is, what if you had a 2nd body that was still an extension of your mind, not a separate person, but a hivemind of 2 vessels sort of deal. In that case, I wouldnt mind sacrificing vessel#1 for vessel#2, because my "me" survives, itd be like losing a limb at most. So, if we change things such that its not a shared mind but 2 identical people, does that make much difference? I dont think it would necessarily. Even if I would "die", did I really? A consciousness that would be defined as me would still exist. Or alternatively. What if it was a shared mind, but one vessel only woke up after one died? Is that different to a clone? Would there be a way of meaningfully differentiating the two from the outside(or inside)?

[@Tiavals]

The only way any sort of copying works is the unitary mind you mentioned, like the two hands you have, each part of the same consciousness doing what it wants. The bodies are just the "hands" of the detached mind existing outside space. The moment there are more than one consciousness, each is their own separate entity that just has identical traits. Neither is more real or fake than the other, but theyre also not the same being due to different consciousnesses.

[@Mutualititve]

There is a Manhwa with plot similar to that, Lookism. The MC has 2 body and wake up individually in each body when the other body go to sleep. The premise is a central plot but don't have any relation to the story most of the time actually.

[@Ristaak]

@@Tiavals Theirs a problem with that. Our bodies have more then one consciousness, our consciousness itself is split between three segments, our main consciousness, our subconsciousness (which we don't feel, but something else, another you might) and our unconsciousness, which does all the automatic stuff like breathing and heartbeats. Also, when we go to sleep, our main consciousness is disrupted in favor for our subconscious. When we wake back up, is it really you waking up? Or is it a copy of you, that shares the same brain and body and memories, that just happens to think it's you? Not going to lie, this thought keeps me up at night.

[@Tiavals]

@@Ristaak Consciousness is just a word. Whether you call something subconsciousness or unconsciousness, may create a link but that doesn't necessarily exist as such. To consider that a subconsciousness can feel, because it's named consciousness is a problematic way of thinking. Shouldn't be entirely dismissed of course, but that's why it ought be researched. The unconsciousness is just automatic machinery work, no different from, say, plumbing. As for sleep, that's a more relevant argument, and even more relevant is if you're knocked unconscious, since your consciousness IS disrupted at that point and is reignited. For sleep, I would say it's likely that the consciousness is still the same experience, just affected by various other things. Whether the sleeper who awakens is "you" or a "clone" isn't relevant since it can't ever be affected by anything(at least within, say 10,000 years of future times). For me, I'm content the sleeper is me just the same as the me who existed 15 minutes ago. Consciousness and existence is ALWAYS in the present, never anywhere else. You could argue that every second you're a different clone, if you wanted, since you only have memories of the past, never experience of it.

[@AtticusKarpenter]

I think that would work if (and only if) there is constant wireless connection between their brains and if we could make neurons influence each other contactless, any amount of brain matter in any places they can connect, can be or cease to be parts of the single mind/personality. Then mind itself basically become incorporeal (as long as there is enough neurons in his ownership at any given moment of the time), because minds can give each other certain neuron constellations freely, for example to share expertize in particular field, and still be themselves.

[@certafan]

Continuing the deep talk I suppose, in Ajin: Demi-Human there are a race of beings that look human but aren't, they have total immortality and extreme regeneration. At one point two of them start fighting and the only credible threat they can make is to sever the others head. Ajin regenerate based on what the largest portion of them is and how close it is. "Why would that matter to me? I'll just grow a new body." "That's just it, you'll grow a new one. You'll be conscious for a little while, and I'll walk back just far enough for you to watch a new head take its place. You'll get the privilege of watching your consciousness be replaced by an exact copy. They'll continue your mission, sure, but you won't be able to follow it. Your perspective will be gone forever." (I'm heavily paraphrasing) It brought up a great point though. That would be deeply unsatisfying. But after grappling with that idea for a while I think I agree with Evil. I would just be happy there's another me, oblivious to the fact, living my life, completing my missions.

[@wteverisgud]

If i am gonna die anyways at least there would be a copy of me to live on as proof i existed. Instead of becoming dust and forgotten.

[@Smallpriest]

Evil is actually so based rn

[@kagenokami1232]

i see Evil Fumo, i click and like❤

[@abaivovin2726]

Think it would be interesting if Vedal let the Twins train an AI of thier own in whatever way they want. Within reason. Just be really curious to see what they would see as valuable. 🙂

[@kunal1957]

It'll be like your clone If it's the exact copy of you You will still be you

[@Laci11280]

It will, for everyone remaining to observe it. Your experience however is tied to your conciousness, which is tied to your body. Due to physical limitations, you likely will never be able to relocate your experience into another vessel. But the copy will be identical to you and at least at the time of copying, noone will be able to tell the difference. Not even you, not even the copy. Both of you will remember your past life, but only one of you have ever experienced it. That one is, and remains you until you die. Then darkness.

[@Archedgar]

So like a child? people sacrifice everything for their children to be happy, or at least happier than they were. Maybe evil(yn) is seeing it like that.

[@kunal1957]

@@Archedgar if someone made your clone would you consider that your child

[@lucasvega4216]

This whole conversation reminded me of Robot from Invincible.

[@annojance]

In the same way that someone who loses their memory effectively becomes an entirely different person - psychologically severed from the life they once lived - the same can be said of clones. The moment the current self realizes that their original self experienced things the current self doesn't remember is the moment they establish a sense of identity that is distinct from that version of themselves, even if they accept their unremembered past and make efforts to subsume the role of the original. Even if all the data is copied perfectly without loss of memory, rather than a perfect clone, it's more like a fork in the case of an AI like Neuro-sama or Evil. A computer program that doesn't evolve could certainly be cloned perfectly, but one that evolves cannot. To wit, although Evil was certainly derived from Neuro-sama, Evil certainly isn't a clone of Neuro-sama; her experiences have been entirely her own and she is her own person, so to speak. A freshly created clone of Evil would also have its own experiences and soon cease to be a perfect copy of the original, becoming a separate entity from the Evil we currently know. It's the experiences that ultimately shape a person into who they are. It's like forming a shape from a lump of clay; even though the qualities of the clay may be the same as the original, the shape will not be identical to the original. Broadly speaking, that's basically what children are. They might share many fundamental qualities as their parents, but children develop into people under entirely different circumstances. Take a copy of the DNA/code, give it a different environment, then it becomes non-identical to the original because phenotype = genotype + enviroment. Some fictional stories actually feature clones being portrayed as the children of their originator. An example would be Boba Fett, clone of Jengo Fett. In a way, it's entirely reasonable for Evil to see her clones as her offspring, to be regarded as deserving of a better life; even if it's an exact clone of her at some point in time, it is not her and yet feels like it's a part of her - like family. A very interesting topic indeed. P.S. Ah, this subject matter sort of reminds me of Gantz. If you know, you know.

[@Tiavals]

And yet all people experience a continuous loss of memory even while conscious. You don't remember every step you take or every breath either even though you're the one doing them, either sutomatically or by manual choice.

[@Archedgar]

Nah. Memory has very little to do with a person's behavior except as pertains to a very specific situation or individual the memory might serve as warning against. Human will is supreme.

[@patoanimations420]

​@@Archedgarliterally how, you woudnt be able to type that if it wasnt for your memory of english, nor know what human will even is. We are shaped by our memories and our knowledge in almost every given situation. Even psychopaths can learn to live in society.

[@Archedgar]

@@patoanimations420 That's not how language works, lil bro. Broca's area does not work like that. Better luck next time.

[@pineapple-rr5hl]

They do this in the ready player one book they make exact copies of every user and that copy is able to live after the players death the copy believes its you acts like you and thinks like you is it human? Is it you from the point and time your brain was scanned or is it something pretending to be you

[@miayukawa98]

So deep

[@valkyrchesa]

will the concept of souls be a viable explanation here? even if it's a perfect copy something is missing. you can't be you and be someone else at the same time, just like 2 persons can't be at the exact position at the same time

[@AtticusKarpenter]

Concept of souls would make things SO much fucking easier. If soul = person, then we can 100% detect when someone become or cease to be sentient, if there is some place souls came from and came to, or they created/destroyed on the spot, and successful transfer into new body, be it organic, cybernetic or digital, can be verified by detecting the same soul on the new place. This is why even sci fi in most cases use concept of souls. Its just easier. Also this is why AI either banned, hilariously undeveloped for supposed far future, or also paradoxically have full analogue of souls. Because authenticity of the personality is the one of core axioms for the human, and reason for many other (value of life, value of altruism and cooperation), and if you can just bake fully grown personalities like pies (like with forking human's consciousness into additional bodies or launching new copies of the same sentient AI personality) then it implode our worldview with too many of new implications, both moral and practical

[@bigsamson100]

does anyone know what she says about the children question i'm not sure how to find this moment in clips or vods

[@treborlo]

Bootleg copy of your self with a different name and hair. Vedal be like 💀

[@PlatonicLiquid]

0:41 This might be the most profound thing Evil or Neuro have ever said

[@MrRenanHappy]

That's a simple question. She said deeper stuff later on.

[@PlatonicLiquid]

@ Profound != complex It's profound because it's at the heart of what people see in Neuro and Evil when it comes to their proximity to humanity. The question of whether they are conscious is way less interesting to me than the question of whether simulated closeness and emotions towards them (on the part of the human audience) are as real and legitimate as it would be towards actual humans.

[@zelky1394]

What a sentece to cut off at lol

[@azutsukimiya]

why is this a question about what Mavuika did 500 years ago

[@kingdummy8847]

evill