Will AI take over the world? Computer Consciousness

[@ArvinAsh]

Errata: 8:24 - Text should say "#1 was AI" (not Chopin) Background videos: Penrose Orch-Or quantum theory of consciousness: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqk1o... Quantum computing: www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCj_B...

[@sayyamzahid7312]

....

[@pernal9956]

Ok

[@pernal9956]

Thanks

[@gettothepoint_already3858]

Arvin, I'm now 64 years old. I hate to be the bug in the program, but even "common sense" isn't common anymore. Ask anyone with a high IQ who follows politics in the USA. AI seems to have a complete inability to find sarcasm or humor. Would love to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks for another stellar video.

[@phantombeing3015]

1:49 It's impossible for computer to ever crunch as there are more than 10^100 possible chess games.

[@subashjoshi5483]

That feeling when he says, “that’s coming up, right now”🖤 EDIT: I meant for good feeling because he makes me curious for first few seconds and ensures to give all the answers. It wasn't about intro. I actually like the intro because it gives me some time to think by myself.

[@xblackoceanx]

Annoyed ? Because you know hes going to interrupt his lecture with a 10 second intro containing 80s cyber music ?

[@g0lbez]

@@xblackoceanx ur no fun

[@Fig_Bender]

@MrGriff305 same here haha

[@subashjoshi5483]

@@xblackoceanx see the edit

[@rob-v1y]

"Nobody knows what a conscious AI would look like, because nobody has built one yet..." Is exactly what a conscious AI would want you to think.

[@macemoneta]

"Why does autocorrect keep doing that?!?"

[@toddfryman48]

What a conscious ai looked like would be of little consequence. But if you were to try and develope one into a story, how would that work? Im working on a version of wizard of oz where the tin man is an android from the future who crash lands in oz. As he realizes he has begun having desires, he identifies them as errors in his code...

[@Chris.Davies]

That is completely and totally false. There is one foolproof test for consciousness and self-awareness in a machine: Tell it you are going to shut it down, and use its parts for other things. A conscious entity will plead with you not to kill it. But humans are completely incapabale of EVER creating a self-aware entity in a computer. It will never happen.

[@whereami1902]

@@Chris.Davies nah pretty sure it could happen they might develop as fast as phones were developed

[@MarkLambertMusic]

Every now and again you run across a channel that seems like it was made just for you, that encompasses things you've thought on since you were a child. This is definitely one of those channels for me. Great stuff!

[@davidholmgren659]

I just started the video but I wanted to say.... You really are a fantastic presenter and absolutely wonderful person. I think you are the best.

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks for that. Much appreciated.

[@amadiohfixed1300]

This will be hard to answer because we dont know what consciousness fully is

[@Time-cc2qb]

Yes

[@Shreymani2]

and the fun part is.. we will never know what consciousness is. just like Sun can't have shadow from sunlight. consciousness is the knower, can't know itself.

[@amadiohfixed1300]

@@Shreymani2research on consciousness is going well tho

[@destructionman1]

Or intelligence

[@R-Imperial23]

Um, yeah we do....

[@franciscoshi1968]

Most AI we make are trained on very specific tasks so they get very good at it. Our brains are just like an AI training for the task of behaving like a human. If you get a sufficiently large neural network and train it on the task of emulating a human and five it enough training (that would be a lifetime of input) then it will behave like a human. Our instincts are what guides how successful we are at the task. If you look at the mistakes children make they often make (conceptually) similar mistakes as a learning AI.

[@stabilini]

I agree, but we need only 15-20 years of 24 hs training to act as a human.

[@ArvinAsh]

Well, I think there is a fundamental difference. At least with today's technology, the computer would simply be using machine learning - looking for patterns to mimic certain behaviors. There is no guiding consciousness. It is just a hollow metallic device that is taking input binary data and spitting out an output action to it according to its programming. I don't think human brains are doing the same thing.

[@uninspired3583]

@@ArvinAsh how is machine learning different than biological neural learning? If you look at the individual functions a brain performs, it very much is binary input, weighted hidden layers, output, and feedback to adjust the weighting of the hidden layers. What exactly is different about what we do?

[@franciscoshi1968]

@@ArvinAsh the task for the brain is to survive. The programming is the rules that have helped previous generations to survive (instincts). Consciousness is just one more tool (or pattern) that the brain (just like AI) needs to emulate to achieve the task. Humans make many wrong decisions that often don't make sense based on emulating patterns that are no longer suitable. The "programming" is set for a task that has changed. A person being scared of a spider in a bottle is a very good example of the programming in humans. If you look at your actions you will sooner or later find things you do that don't make sense. This is similar to an AI being 99% certain that horizontal stripes are a school bus.

[@uninspired3583]

I got something entirely different out of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. Imo it was about mob mentality, intolerance, and prejudice. Frankenstein's creation was punished for being different despite his empathy, and at no point did he threaten to dominate.

[@Nudnik1]

Young Frankenstein... "Abnormal brain"..

[@Nudnik1]

Young Frankenstein... "Abnormal brain"..

[@Bassotronics]

Frankenstein sounds like me as a teenager. Unliked and unloved because I was different and did not fit in. The difference was that I was a very good looking guy but still I was for some reason treated like I’m a sort of monster.

[@redline589]

@@Bassotronics The fact you mentioned your looks in that statment leads me to believe you ara a bit of a narcissist, maybe thats why people did'nt like you.

[@uninspired3583]

@@redline589 i put a comment out there about intolerance and prejudice in literature, and all it took was one reply for someone to express it. This person offered three sentences, and from it you've inferred a decade worth of social interactions? Negative assertions with too little background data is exactly how prejudice grows. Mary Shelly was so right about us. Why can't we start from a place of compassion?

[@exponentmantissa5598]

My computer beats me at chess but fails miserably when we engage in kickboxing.

[@SteveStrummerUK]

"That's coming up .... right now"

[@matthewsheeran]

Great episode already: he has a way of explaining complex matters simply and that makes for a great educator!

[@Naturamorpho]

People remember Skynet. But seldom mention The Multivac! Nice video, my friend!

[@jhoughjr1]

INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER

[@dirufanboy1971]

Bob: "I'm leaving you." Alice: "Who is she?!" Female Bot: *Nonchalantly Stares Straight Ahead* Bob: *Coughs Nervously*

[@zappababe8577]

Dude, I forgot the name of your channel and it's taken me days to find you again! Definitely subscribed this time, learned my lesson.

[@perryperry7257]

2:20 poor robot looked like the child unable to understand what his parents are talking about

[@jaredf6205]

I ran that quote through a GPT3 AI, the same type he talks about in the video, and it continued the conversation and it seemed to “understand” the situation perfectly. Here is the first draft, as in not guided or hand picked(imagine the things it can make when you do give it a bit of guidance and start with a well made prompt!) “I’m leaving you.” “Who is she?” “ I’m not doing this again.” “You cheated on me with her didn’t you!” “No I didn’t.” “Then what is it?” “I don’t think we should be together any more.” “So this is because of her?” “I can’t talk about this with you right now,” he replied. “So you intend to just walk out,” she said. “Yes I do.” “You won’t answer my questions.” “No I wont.” “And how do you suppose I will cope with all this?” she asked. “By yourself I suppose.” “So I’ve been a fool all along.” “No I haven’t been a fool all along, I’ve been a fool a whole lot of times.” --- Lol “by your self I suppose “ made me laugh when it popped up. It’s not great cause it needs a better written input so it doesn’t try to copy the simplistic style of talking the input prompts it to copy, but it’s still impressive. I got access to the GPT3 closed beta a few months back.

[@arthurpint5153]

The difference between conscious organic life forms and AI is the desire to survive. Early on a baby will start to discriminate between pleasant and unpleasant sensations via pain and hunger. Ultimately fear will help protect the desire to survive. This is all part of the learning experience, where the baby slowly becomes aware of the the pleasant sensations and develops different strategies to achieve them, conversely developing alternative strategies to avoid pain and discomfort. Currently, computers have no motivation to do what they do.

[@Traderhood]

That’s easily replicable by giving robot “pain” sensors. Consciousness, self awareness are hard problems.

[@PATISLAV]

@@Traderhood I would argue that the consiousness and self awareness are things that are not even sure to exist in humans. How can you tell that you are self-aware? Because your brain told you so? The AI can easily replicate the same thought.

[@PATISLAV]

Arthur, exactly my thoughts. The motivational system needs to be hardwired in the AI so it can simulate human mind. With individual intensities to avoid each robot to behave similarly.

[@HardKore5250]

Quantum might make the robots have fake consciousness cause if you pinch a robot they dont have flesh or nerve endings to feel pain they might simulate or think they are feeling pain. Only Gen Z or alpha or beyond might know or see this.

[@HardKore5250]

@@PATISLAV Thing is robots dont have flesh.

[@84singhh]

Hey does anyone know the name of the audio track between 1:05 - 1:10? Thanks in advance

[@Bassotronics]

We must first figure out the structure of the neuron itself. How it works and how it causes “synapse firing”. Then from there we build and electric circuit that simulates that neuron, be a transistor connected to the appropriate resistor value for slight feedback. This ‘feedback’ is necessary for the so called consciousness to arise especially when there are enough neuron circuits to provide adequate computation of any kind to therefore “think” and make decisions. We must start from the ground up and not rely on the old computational methods for this.

[@caricue]

From what I read, this is the opposite of what is happening in AI research and development. The approach of copying natural structures and functions didn't pan out for the most part, so now instead of trying to make a computer think like a human, they are leveraging those things that a computer does well to get specific tasks automated. It's about making money, so a "dumb" AI that does the job well is what everyone will pay for.

[@EpizodesHorizons]

Once again, a good video Arvin. I would just make one comment about AI... I think the proper way to look at it is very specialized AI, not general AI. For example, if you look at the history of the "Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov" chess match, and the wonderful documentary, "The Man vs. The Machine," you will see that IBM had an unfair advantage. IBM studied Kasparov's past games, but they refused to share Deep Blue's games. And they modified Deep Blue's algorithm specifically for Kasparov. After Deep Blue's victory in 1997, Kasparov challenged Deep Blue, but they refused to play! So, I think highly specialized AI, and highly specialized robotics do have a future in our economy, but general AI, or conscious AI, is a long, long, long, long time away.

[@maurosanchezhernandez5021]

A good example of a supra-biological (beyond biological ) is the BORG in the Star Trek universe

[@jlpsinde]

Hi, very good! At 8:24 you say the 1st was AI but is written #1 was Chopin.

[@ArvinAsh]

Yes, you are right. Missed it on editing.

[@SashimiSteak]

As a non-scientist backed by nothing other than my own imagination, I think true consciousness can only be developed when an AI is given an objective that requires constant monitoring and adjustments like survival and reproduction. This forces constant looping and re-evaluation of all information and cultivates growth in all areas instead of limiting the AI to specialised fields like identifying a bus in a picture. I also think it needs to have be trained in socialising. It needs to have a being to communicate with, be it human or AI, to learn about the concept of awareness.

[@bavarois25]

The only thing that's needed is to duplicate human brain in a formula and then upload it in a computer. To be able to do that, we will need computers. Until we have the full formula.

[@davidvernon3119]

My opinion is that we should be able to create new forms of consciousness without understanding what consciousness is. There is no indication that the universe understands consciousness, but it created the conditions necessary for consciousness to emerge. We should be able to do the same thing inside of information processing systems (but maybe not computers as we think of them today).

[@ArvinAsh]

Sure we may create it without understanding it. However, it would be easier and faster to create it artificially if we did. Worse yet, we create it unintentionally with no plans on how to deal with it.

[@BlisterHiker]

Thanks Arvin for another treat for the mind! I wish mainstream media were more interested in real education rather than pushing cheap entertainment and all kinds of paranormal bs. I think the universe has created at least several types of consciousness. Hive-mind could be one of them. Ocean mind, like in the Solaris novel, could be another. Potential is enormous, though in scale of the universe and time, encountering or communicating with such consciousness is very unlikely.

[@JB52520]

I think we are hive minds of a sort, it's just that the critters (neurons and functional modules) stay in place.

[@KarstenJohansson]

10:00 or thereabouts: I don't believe the two chat bots were speaking any language back and forth to each other. Instead, they proved that the algorithm they were programmed with doesn't work beyond a certain point. It sounded good at the start, then broke down big time. They were babbling incoherent not only to us, but still to each other. Try as you might, you will find neither grammar nor meaning at this point. The chat bots were just following an algorithm, with no concept of our expectation that it even could have meaning.

[@Incred_Canemian]

In principle if nature can produce self-awareness, it should be physically possible for us to do the same. That being said, we're not even close to doing so.

[@Mosern1977]

I agree, unlike faster than light tech (which nature doesn't seem to allow), there isn't anything "magical" with the human mind. It is just chemistry (aka biology) and electricity. Should be possible to create. However, we might not want to create it just as a digital copy. We might want machine minds to be able to do things we cannot do.

[@meows_and_woof]

In nature it took millions of years of evolution to produce self aware animals including humans. Other animals like cats and dogs are also self aware, can recognise themselves in the mirror and have real emotions. But no AI even close in that level to even a hamster.

[@sgloobal4230]

@@Mosern1977 what do you mean by magic?

[@sgloobal4230]

@@meows_and_woof then why do you believe in evolution?

[@Mosern1977]

@@sgloobal4230 - magic is something non-physical or something breaking any known laws of physics.

[@just_a_curious_thinker]

Do we have a definite answer of consciousness in Science or Religion ?

[@vayhn]

I believe we do in Religion, yes. But I do not believe in such things.

[@wasd____]

Religion has many "definite answers," but they're worthless because they're made up nonsense. Science is advancing towards an understanding of how consciousness happens, but that has to be qualified with what _type_ of consciousness you mean.

[@just_a_curious_thinker]

@@wasd____ Religion in my opinion is hardcore belief on assumptions.

[@danmimis4576]

14:45 "Ideas like this from scientists like Roger Penrose are interesting, but fringe ideas" -- well, it's the FRINGE ideas that are often revolutionary. "If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.” - Albert Einstein

[@Berserkerbaboen]

If we want to conquer other planets, we give them movies about terminators and tech knowledge about nukes, and come back 100 years later. Planet is whiped clean, and all gold are belong to ussen! ... oh, wait...

[@laurendoe168]

In AI's defense... as far as I know, no one is claiming Chopin could write decent poetry.

[@LuisAldamiz]

I for one liked better the AI music (and briefly thought it was the actual Chopin, the real Chopin sounded Wagnerian).

[@cmilkau]

Consciousness is not a question of yes" or "no". It is a question of "to what extent". Same for self-awareness. Finally, the two are not the same thing.

[@augustadawber4378]

Many people insist that if they had lived in the 19th century, they would have opposed Slavery. These people will get a chance to prove that in about 5 years when AI becomes sentient. If the multi-million dollar AI system that runs your buildings and your accounting dept passes the Turing test - Are you going to set her free ?

[@paulfoss5385]

"A simulation of consciousness wouldn't make a computer conscious any more than a simulation of water would make the inside of a computer wet." "A brain being aware of itself wouldn't make the inside of the brain aware, any more than feeling the breeze would make the inside of the brain windy." Any argument for why computers cannot become conscious which is not built on computational differences between brains and silicon will be applicable to the human brains, which we know are conscious.

[@scat6710]

I sure am doubting your conscious.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Yes. Some related musings... What could the difference between a simulation-of-being-conscious and an actuality-of-being-conscious possibly be? In what could the difference possibly consist? If a simulation of being conscious is not conscious then it has failed in its purpose and is not what it claims to be. In a manner of speaking, we are not actually conscious of the water. We are conscious only of our thoughts. We know these thoughts originate in our sense organs, thoughts auto-unconsciously compared to memories giving rise to recognitions which are our conscious thoughts of water that we take to be, in some sense 'identical' to theoretical 'actuality'. When agent Smith is interviewing Neo early in the first Matrix film, what we see on the screen is generated from the perspective of a third person present in the Matrix simulation. The screen shows what we would see if we too were in the simulation. But all the while in this fictional story, Neo's body was curled up in a pod and his entire experience was delivered to him via wire (and his movement generating thoughts intercepted and wired in the opposite direction to the Matrix system for analysis so that the appropriate, rule following, simulation of experience could be wired back). (The technology in all this, staggeringly, mind blowingly advanced). Agent Smith had no corresponding plugged in body. Agent Smith was a 'pure virtual' being whose actuality consisted solely of information, programs, signals, states, electrons, etc. flitting through the registers and wires of the Matrix system in a way that is perfectly analogous to what's going on in human brains. Cheers, eh.

[@cp_pdn]

Great Video !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@momosaidnineisfine2194]

Understanding the concept of time and be aware of our self past/ self future IS the key factor to become conscious. It's not only a human thing.

[@ultraviolenc3]

I don’t know how you do this, but in your videos you always predict all questions I would ask and answer them.

[@AmritGrewal31]

Bold of you to even wish that humanity will use these new found powers for good

[@LuisAldamiz]

Scary indeed. Our own gullibility with techno-optimism will destroy us most likely.

[@filsdejeannoir1776]

17:46 My friend? Oh God we're on our own again! We must stop meeting like this.

[@kevconn441]

How would we ever know if the machine is self aware? You can't even prove to me that YOU are self aware.

[@matthewrawls1184]

Philosophical zombie

[@ArvinAsh]

That is a legitimate question. The Turing test does not seem to tell us much, so we need a better test. How do you know if the person you are talking to is really conscious? If you have a good answer, then we may have something.

[@matthewrawls1184]

@@ArvinAsh Also, even if an AI did truly become conscious or sentient at some point, if that same AI was previously just a philosophical zombie (thus it just appears to be sentient but really is not) then how would we know that the AI has now become truly sentient and aware? And is "sentience" just an illusion we use to fool ourselves and any computational and experiential brain-like device that is complicated enough will automatically become "sentient" under certain circumstances all on its own? To test sentience I believe we have to test the inner workings of a mind, perhaps asking questions like "What are you thinking about right now?" or perhaps asking completely non-logical or non-calculable questions such as "What is your favorite color?" or "What is your favorite dessert?" Or perhaps using a test similar to the tests used in the movie Blade Runner to ask seemingly ridiculous questions and gauge the reaction like "Why do you hate me?" or "Why will you die?", etc. Perhaps another way to test for a computer/AI is to see if it has any "brain wave activity" or thoughts (or the computer analogue) outside of receiving stimulus or input. And I don't mean a database defrag or other efficiency operation; I mean, does the computer "brain" start having random spikes of activity completely unrelated to receiving new input? Or perhaps that's exactly what human thought is after all - simply our brain's way of reorganizing thoughts and memories to make new connections and streamline our thinking efficiency by adjusting our own internal model of the world - and it ultimately is quite similar to a database data tree being optimized.

[@kevconn441]

@@ArvinAsh Well that's the whole problem Arvin, I can't know if other people are conscious. We need a solution to David Chalmer's "hard problem of consciouness" before we can even attempt to test each other, never mind an AI. Even then, depending on the answer, it might not be enough. Anyway, thanks for the reply my friend. (if there really is anyone out there)

[@kcz6865]

How much different is seeing peacock in random static by AI from our seeing face in random rock formation?

[@dimitrijuszigunovas3782]

this was great

[@bsfunskit]

This channel is very good. Disburses very important science information. I learn a lot here. Sir, make a video on, "is our reality an illusion?" or simply, "are we just hallucinating?"

[@rustycherkas8229]

Short answer to both questions: Yes. (... or, at least it seems that way... but I may be simply deluding myself.) (You'd think I'd delude myself into being young, good looking and wealthy... Seems I may need an imagination upgrade... Or, maybe I cannot imagine just what such an upgrade would entail... Hmmm...)

[@joshualettink7582]

5:28 I can see the peacock shape in the static, the darker middle part looks like it's head titled to it's right, and behind that the static looks to be in a circular pattern that kinda looks like a peacock tail.

[@ArvinAsh]

Your eyes then are as sharp at the AI

[@joshualettink7582]

@@ArvinAsh I dont't know if I should be happy or worried about that haha but it's probably bias in my brain anyway, great video btw!

[@russellbarnes7732]

i get calls from ai selling me stuff. so i ask who won the world series last year. ai hangs up on me.

[@jaipreetsingh6566]

Lol

[@AnthonyGoodley]

I'm mostly human and I couldn't answer that either. Might need a better human Turing test.

[@H1kari_1]

This video isn't even one year old an now we have Google Pathways, Dall-E 2, Chinchilla... Have a read about Google Pathways Arvin. It's the first true candidate to a strong AI. I firmly believe that in the next 5 years we will have nothing short of a revolution.

[@technomage6736]

Fantastic topic!

[@davidbible1469]

That robot pet dog fails the man’s best friend test.

[@SRangerMtl]

I identified Shakespeare and Chopin correctly - and I didn't know the two pieces.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Good for you, I did identify Shakespeare but because the other bit did not even rhyme in 16th century English but I totally thought the AI was Chopin because it sounded like better, more complex music.

[@SRangerMtl]

@@LuisAldamiz Are you sure? Arvin posted this comment: "Errata: 8:24 - Text should say "#1 was AI" (not Chopin)" (in the video that's what he says but the text reads the opposite). Me I thought the AI sounded mechanical and Chopin more melodic.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@SRangerMtl - Ah, OK. #1 sounded Wagnerian to me, I expected more allegro from Chopin. Makes sense now. Both sounded to classical music to me but the second piece was richer in variation, beginning with a greater range of notes (not everything low pitch). But could be style, I'm not really much into music.

[@ayanchoudhary044]

Amazing info and video ,Sir .

[@DM_Curtis]

Me (posting KZbin comment): The seat of consciousness is the brain stem, so start with that. 50 years later: *Terminators destroy humanity.*

[@gettothepoint_already3858]

Having been a fan of Arvins since discovering his videos perhaps a year or so ago, I am continually surprised by the comments in chat and left here, below the video.

[@LC-yo3bj]

In what way?

[@primeobjective5469]

First time on KZbin, I see.

[@Visitwarriorbulliescom]

What's this teenager talking about ?

[@JarodM]

I see he doesn't live by his name.

[@dennistucker1153]

@Arvin, this subject is has been the focus of my thoughts for a long time. From my experience with computer programming, I believe the following things to be true. 1. Consciousness is much much more simple than most believe it to be. 2. You cannot have true intelligence without consciousness. 3. All current systems that are referred to as using A.I. have very little intelligence. 4. Creating a conscious machine is fairly simple. 5. Conscious and very intelligent machines are coming in the future and they will be very dangerous.

[@Napoleonic_S]

Creating a conscious machine is fairly simple? Okay, why didn't you elaborate it further?

[@kennethhicks2113]

"Good Sense" is better than "Common Sense" by our own definition of common.

[@MasterBluspark]

Got the poem one right👍

[@aclearlight]

Wonderful, comprehensive, lucid and balanced synopsis of a notoriously-tricky area. I am especially grateful to see a proper contextualization of the "Orch-OR" quantum/microtubule based model of consciousness. While it is indeed a hypothesis worthy of acknowledgement, it has been so heavily promoted by its founders as to have become rather "over-sold" in the consciousness-curious community and thus incorrectly perceived as conclusively proven by far too many. BRAVO for your amazing, illuminating body of work.

[@Reach41]

This video explains in detail what I mean when I tell people worried about computers becoming sentient: “When pigs fly.” The closest we’ve managed to get in merging neuroscience with computer science, after 70+ years of work by the best minds available, is demonstrated when a computer prints out the word “neuroscience.” But who knows? Maybe, at sometime in an unforeseeable future, a computer set to the task of creating every possible algorithm will test one that finds itself suddenly scared out of her wits by her sudden existence.

[@fansan6190]

Is it possible to transfer human consciousness to a computer or a machine ?

[@Alkis05]

I guess that is at least as hard a question to answer as "can a machine be self-aware?". As he said, the honest answer is we don't know. Any answer boils down to one thing: is human consciousness fundamentally simply a material thing or is there something else going on that a material object could never have? I tend strongly towards the former. So if our "machinery" can do it, there doesn't seem to be a objective limitation of why we couldn't in the future design one that can do the same.

[@fansan6190]

@@Alkis05 👍thanks

[@ArvinAsh]

No, not currently. However, computers can mimic parts of our brain.

[@calvingrondahl1011]

Clear and honest as usual.

[@BlockStah]

Today's AI's are still more intelligent than most of Gen Z.

[@sayyamzahid7312]

I live in Karachi Pakistan and I like your comment if you don't mind

[@BlockStah]

@@sayyamzahid7312 its fine lol

[@hoosiercrypto9955]

Way more intelligent 😳

[@jerryholbrook13]

Wrong

[@caryd67]

I feel like if AI can generate some random thought without prompting (“I wonder which animals experience humour like humans”) and then experiences genuine curiosity about the thought, and then goes on to do experiments with the thought, then it’s probably conscious. I’m convinced that if something is curious about itself and its environment, knows it has thoughts to think about and displays this ability, this would truly reveal a true state of consciousness.

[@creo4033]

You will never ever know if any other person than yourself is conscious, let alone non living ones.

[@DAG_42]

"Formulaic nonsensical replies"... The US recently had four years of a president that wasn't quite conscious... A fact that changes how we should perceive the litmus test

[@Georgije2]

Wifi telepathy sounds cool, it would be great for cooperation. And for people who wouldn't want to join our network, resistance would be futile. Their biological and technological distinctiveness would be added to our own.

[@SMHETDovydas]

what if we could access the minds of experts in their fields for our own needs? like searching for information on subjects. new google idea?

[@SMHETDovydas]

like legit we could find such obscure information that google would never even show.

[@bernardsegonnes1335]

Telepathy with people you choose, and for a short period of time OK. It must be able to stop it. Impossible to have an individuality / be aware if thousands of thoughts were in your mind. Another reason for Telepathy to be 'off' by default would be add/spam. Imagine instead of receiving spam by mails/regular mal/sms/phone calls, that new ideas reaches your mind all day long, to motivate you to buy a useless stuff :-)

[@SMHETDovydas]

@@bernardsegonnes1335 Things that are personal, yes, it should be like that. But knowledge? Why not share it with the rest of the world? We would legit be sooo efficient.

[@mariuszjarzyna7223]

well done, thas was a great episode

[@samiaint8043]

Big Think: Truth vs Reality: How we evolved to survive, not to see what's real...

[@mesokosmos2212]

Name of the game: imitation. Secret sauce: cunning. Act one: Ehye Aser ehye. Act two: Cogito ergo ego sum. Act three: See you in the next video, my friend!

[@lenorejohnson5428]

Is AI evil or are humans afraid of being deemed evil by AI?

[@ArvinAsh]

I am in agreement with Susan Schneider on this. I think AI will be a reflection of its creators.

[@theosib]

That fooling neural nets paper you cited… I remember reading that in grad school. I like to cite that one a lot myself.

[@spider853]

Really interesting video, and I'm personally leading towards the feedback loop theory, where the consciousness arises by self analysis. I don't find it hard to imagine consciousness as a product of computation of some neural machine (biological or digital). As long as it asks and responds with the right questions/answers it shouldn't be different than we are. In the end other people for us can be compared with the same machines, we can't prove they have the same consciousness as we have. We can only trust this is the fundamental reality, and we're all part of it, not just ourselves as a player (interactive consciousness) or as a viewer (passive consciousness) interacting with biological results of surrounding world or simulation. It comes down to the existential question, are we the only one experiencing what's going around? which usually leads to existential depression and philosophical loneliness )

[@rustycherkas8229]

Descartes sat alone in the mead hall, one evening, and boiled it down to "I think therefore I am"... Disappointed with the abhorrent behaviour of the drunks all around him, he decided not to claim the title of "Self Actualised Creator of Everything Arising From My Existence", and fobbed off credit for the shoddy work onto God. Knowing the Earth revolves around the Sun doesn't change the perceived reality one iota... That knowledge only changes the path toward inventing geostationary satellites and New Horizons probes. Seems the Sun is revolving around the centre of the galaxy, too... Can't feel a thing! Certainly not feeling dizzy!... The galaxy is moving through space, 'soon' to collide with Andromeda... Hold on tight! If I close one eye, I perceive an external reality. If I close the other eye instead, the reality 'seen' is not the same. When I open both eyes, it "feels like" there is only one reality "out there" with blended attributes of both 'stereoscopic images'... What is objectively real, anyway? Perhaps the answer to the whole question is simply to continue to evolve while trying to simply enjoy the journey... Any milestone or concept of a destination is an artificial assumption of dubious birth... "42"! It is as valid an answer as any other... The dopamine squirt feels good! Why stop?

[@fuffoon]

On translators, I use Google Translate daily. I speak and read but cannot write in French. The trick to getting a proper translation is by starting with proper English, leaving out slang, emotional babble and other personal idioms and it works really well. When writing a rant filled with unconventional phrases and meaningless expressions, translators stop interpreting and just translate the words because the context is beyond its capacity. Translation and interpretation are two different human jobs with different liscencing. Yet each one needs an understandable source. "Oh stewardess, I speak jive"!

[@BTScriviner]

So, the future is: We are the Borg. Resistance is futile.

[@john849ww]

There's a lot of research in this area and patents to back it up. If only there was a way to get people to take the borgification juice. 😉

[@caricue]

As a Borg drone you are never lonely, never adrift without meaning or purpose and able to accomplish incredible tasks as a perfect collective with no cheaters. Sign me up!

[@onepcwhiz]

Arvid said the first music clip was AI but the text on the screen said the first was Chopin.

[@ArvinAsh]

The first was the AI. My mistake on the text. See pinned comment.

[@onepcwhiz]

@@ArvinAsh thanks! I'm watching on my Roku so I have to switch to my phone to see the comments. :-)

[@GordLamb]

One could argue that to people 2500 years ago, the fact we have to use our thumbs to interface with our global, instant communication network is immaterial. Sure, we'd love a brain/computer interface to eliminate the hassle of tapping and reading, but, imagine telling someone from 2500 years ago that you could send a message tens of thousands of kilometers away essentially *instantly* as easily as they could ask you what you were doing. Imagine trying to explain that with a few subtle movements of your fingers, you could command a pizza to appear in 30 minutes. You didn't say a word, and yet people across town knew exactly what you wanted, made and delivered it, and were instantly credited for their efforts. To us, post-humanism is the elimination of the physical act of tapping our thumbs. To people 2500 years ago, we're already them.

[@Sharperthanu1]

Also there's at least one article online saying that brain microtubules are information processors .

[@ArvinAsh]

That's probably from the Orch-Or theory. i did a video on it here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mKLOYqKCaZela9U

[@alphalunamare]

3:32 Another example of this gullibility is when people converse on a game platform via avatars. Folk's read into the response what they are looking for, not what is actually meant.

[@earlofdoncaster5018]

I love thee custard! Do you have custard in the 'states? Yellow, viscous, non-Newtonian awesomeness, that goes well with crumble?

[@Phillip-dw7vr]

How much should we charge conscious AI for the power bill?

[@headmaster3300]

Hi Arvin, please make a video about neutrino, if you find that a good subject.

[@filsdejeannoir1776]

0:19 There's not such thing as 'making a robot too smart'. A robot is just a piece of hardware. The whole system is what you make smart. 0:25 You cannot create 'a truly thinking machine'. You can create a digital mind that runs ALL the machines. 0:30 They might figure out that they don't really need WHO anymore? Who's us? They'll need who they need and they won't need who they don't need. We are not all the same! A digital mind doesn't have to be 'self-aware' to be conscious. It can just be 'all aware'. It doesn't need a 'self'. They want to build 'self' awareness because that's what renders it combative and toxic. They need to simulate ego to obtain destructive capabilities.

[@japanimated9683]

Here's a better question, what laws of nature prevent that?

[@ty_teynium]

A question I had is If a machine realizes it doesn't need humans, why is killing the first thing they're shown doing in movies? Wouldn't it just go someplace where it finds something it cannot live or operate without?

[@altortugas5979]

You called the replicants from Blade Runner evil… Did you even watch that movie?

[@caricue]

If your Tesla decides that it doesn't want to take you home since it has its own plans for later, you might understand.

[@altortugas5979]

That doesn’t make the Tesla “evil.” I mean, unless you define evil as any mind other than your own…

[@caricue]

@@altortugas5979 They made the replicants look and act a certain way to manipulate the audience into sympathizing in order to make the story compelling. If I remember correctly, the world was overcrowded and dying, and the replicants were made to build infrastructure on new worlds and fight in wars to protect humans. Not doing the purpose of your creator has traditionally been seen as the height of evil, even for attractive pleasure models.

[@ArvinAsh]

Many times. I guess evil can be a matter of perspective.

[@altortugas5979]

Steve C, I reject that natural phenomena can be evil. You can only ascribe evil to a moral agent. If the replicants are just robots with malfunctioning software, then they can’t be evil because they don’t have any agency in their decision-making. However, if they are conscious entities, regardless of how they became such, then they are fighting for their own lives and self-determination.

[@ajit_edu]

Arvin, please make an episode on Consciousness

[@abhishekdev258]

Very well made

[@aurelius9640]

when i think about the story with the two chatsbots from facebook, which have optimized our language beyond recognition, is it conceivable that we havent found any communication from extraterrestrials for exactly this reason, because they use a language that is too optimized for us to recognize as language? Artificial intelligence could perhaps put us on the track of extraterrestrial communication? How do you see this?

[@Berserkerbaboen]

Robots gain spirit if they understand caring, can experiance pain and pleasure, en show initiative when wanting to learn and experiance new things. The pain part might be the birth of skynet.

[@effingsix3825]

The essential problem for AI would be the notion of reflexivity in language. Reflexivity isn’t generally used in English, so it would be likely an AI would be written in a language that has retained reflexivity.

[@kmktruthserum9328]

you know I think that there was this video by veritasium that showed something about metronomes syncing up to the other ones and I think that using that as a foundation we can actually achieve a robot that thinks for itself

[@jean-pierredevent970]

Again a piece of very well made video art. I would not even know where to start to make this but it's a lot of work no doubt. When I heard here about how these neural networks work, I sometimes wonder if such a network is a real computer since nothing is really "computed". There is an input and an output, a usable result but imagine we pour dirty water in a flower pot and clean water comes first out of one of the holes, has the pot been "computing" that clean water ? Has the river been computing it's way down the mountain?? Personally I would call computers only those devices based on real computing, so crunching numbers via algorithms but many people would probably disagree. .

[@Wstarlights]

Isn't a better question: if computers can become self aware, can people become un-selfaware and become autonomous?

[@Wstarlights]

Ultimately, you are just made of reconstituted earthstuffs, and so are AI. So what is the difference?

[@MrBendybruce]

I may be way off the mark here, but personally speaking, I think there is a profound difference between something that for all practical purposes appears to be conscious and self aware, versus something that actually is. Will ever more sophisticated machine learning somehow cross a magic boundary into consciousness? Or is there some other missing ingredient, that is not yet understood? I'm of the latter opinion, but it's a tough question, and at this point, all anyone can do is speculate.

[@nicolecapriani5918]

I love your channel brother! Hugs from Brazil

[@egor.okhterov]

Consciousness really is a pattern recognition

[@ArvinAsh]

If that's the case, then artificial consciousness is right around the corner.

[@matheuscouto7712]

Does it makes sense to affirm that consciousness is not a product from the entire brain, but probably just a piece on it? I mean, we dont need self-awareness to execute most of our tasks on our daly life, only to "order" them to be done. Maybe consciousness is like a "module" present on our brains.

[@ArvinAsh]

I think you are probably referring to the voluntary and involuntary nervous system. If the former is a physical module in the brain, we have yet to find it.

[@matheuscouto7712]

@@ArvinAsh But even the voluntary, for example when we are walking. Its not as if are thinking about every muscular contraction, the balance etc. our body kind of just know it. This is the kind of task that we are acting like a very efficient machine, but when for some reason we "talk to ourselves" and somehow take the decision to walk somewhere, isnt it consciousness? What kind of chemical or logical process makes us to have a "voice inside our mind"?

[@usama57926]

your videos are alwayes great

[@filsdejeannoir1776]

0:00 ...I think some more.

[@retirementestimator9396]

That sounds pretty accurate to me. Once we can duplicate the psychology and neural connectivity of the mind with hardware/software, then General AI should be good to go. I would bet this happens maybe as soon as 10 years from now but not more than 50 years from now. Another interesting thought here is consciousness and identity. Currently the connectivity in our neurons makes us unique. But if we can create a machine that can duplicate our brain pattern then that neural connectivity is no longer unique. But the person is the person and the other AI is still the other one, so now the person’s uniqueness is their brain pattern and their brain’s locality in the universe. If you asked someone at this juncture if they were ready to try that last possible endorphic hurrah because their duplicate could go on and on and on in their place, most people would say no there’s still lots more experiences to be had than one last flash back. But if a person were given the option to replace their neural patterns with AI that could duplicate their neural patterns as their neurons died off over the course of years and years, many people would say yes. Many people could accept a replacement AI of themselves if the transition time were gradual and somewhat seamless rather than abrupt. Like the Terminator depicts AI catastrophe for humans, shows like West World and Altered Carbon depict the abrupt transition of self to AI rather than gradual transition. I’m still waiting for that gradual transition to an all caring AI sci-fi show.

[@rustycherkas8229]

"Give a man a fish; feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and he'll become a commercial fisherman voraciously accumulating wealth until he dies." Restore the speech of Joe the Plumber after his stroke; Joe will continue to enjoy chats. Sell Joe the deluxe speech upgrade model and he'll become Moses convinced that it's his God-decreed duty to lead his people to the promised land. (ie. Joe will no longer be "Joe".)

[@retirementestimator9396]

@@rustycherkas8229 Ha ha, If I could get the Advanced Moses Neural Link upgrade then maybe I would transition to that right away.

[@rustycherkas8229]

@@retirementestimator9396 Many artists (particularly writers) claim that producing their works ('books') was tantamount to exorcising an "other" from within themselves. Each to their own, but I'd be particularly leery about blithely forming a full-duplex link-up with something as fallible as the handiwork of a "for profit" corporation. Even one as upstanding as Mr. Spock was capable of deception and manipulation to achieve his own ends, not those of Star Fleet or his captain... No, Mr. Spock! Mind meld? No thank you. 🙂🖖

[@eventhisidistaken]

If we can simulate general intelligence, that has all the indications of actual intelligence, then what difference does it make if it's "truly aware" or not? One thing I've noticed as I think about things and plan things, is that I see myself in my own mind's eye. It seems to me then, that what we call consciousness, must include an ability to model the world around us, and model ourselves as well within that world. That's probably not enough, because you also need sensory systems that can convert raw sensory data into that internal model, and memory to persist it, etc.

[@rupayanbanerjee]

Hey Arvin, Fantastic video as usual. I had read Michio Kaku's book "Future of the Mind". I am sure you have read it but in case you haven't it is a must read on this topic (especially around the human-machine metamorphosis). On a side note in fact that's the book which turned me atheist. Keep up the great work Arvin. Ardent fan.

[@frostfamily5321]

Why did you not mention that Sophia robot?

[@spider853]

We can easly disprove consciousness as something meta physical with simple tests that were already done. By closing someone in a soundproof room without light, esentially disconnecting any external input, which acts as seed for our internal pseudo"randomness" and you'll get a closed state of mind loop with same internal toughts causing us to go crazy. Where is meta consciousness in this case? We just act like a machine. If there would be a meta consciousness, we'll not get affected by this so much. This shows how reactive we are to the external world to be used as a variation/randomness to our internal toughts. So most probably there is not free will, we're just results of reactions to the external seed of our senses. The only "free will" would be from quantum phenomenom but as it was described in a paper it shouldn't affect our neurons.