Will Computers Ever Think Like Human Beings? - with Vint Cerf

[@cyberdelicxp9125]

I'm glad The Architect is speaking normally for us dummies. He seems really chill when not having to blackmail The One into reloading the Prime Program.

[@joejeffrey1436]

On march 9th I went to see this lecture and so far it has been one of the most memorable moments of my year. This is the first lecture I had ever been to and the atmosphere of the room was something I had never experienced before. Before I came I had no idea who vint Cerf was, but during the talk he completed captured my attention, I was amazed at how much this one man had innovated and learned in his lifetime. As a new experience it was absolutely worthwhile seeing a lecture in person and the things that he said had stuck in my mind for the weeks to come. I am looking forward to when lectures like this will take place again after quarantine, because I can't wait to have another experience like this. Even though it has only been 2 months since I saw this lecture, I feel that it has completed changed my outlook and attitude towards my future for studying and working in Computer Science. I am very glad that I stepped out of my comfort zone to attend this lecture, because it has influenced me more than a KZbin video ever could.

[@ronniecollum8794]

joe -- are you enthralled , sounds like it .he is smart , no doubt but he and his ideas about deciding who to send through and who to hold back reeks .

[@quelorepario]

But but why did he create the third version of the Matrix, and did he have to destroy Zion six times?

[@michagardea7253]

Nice one! :D

[@quelorepario]

@@michagardea7253 inexorably indubitably ergo yes

[@gh8447]

😂😂😂 Took me a moment. That's a good one.

[@crimsonhalo13]

Because mechanical tentacles. Everyone likes mechanical tentacles.

[@quelorepario]

@@crimsonhalo13 giggidy

[@hvanmegen]

what an amazing speaker.. he goes from simple example, extends on it, and gently pushes you into the deep end of the pool where you're swimming in understanding before you even realize that you've just learned an entirely new way of looking at neural networks.. brilliant! I love it! 😄👍

[@rayzorrayzor9000]

I totally agree with you, I was looking for a subject to fall asleep to and I was in two minds wether this subject would be too hard to follow whilst in a semi sleep state but wow he made it soo easy to follow (and no I didn’t fall asleep BUT I’m so glad cos of what I’ve learned) 😂

[@aerobique]

@JP interesting reasoning

[@billkemp9315]

Vint is absolutely one of the most amazing minds I have ever met in person!

[@SinanAkkoyun]

Brag

[@billkemp9315]

@@SinanAkkoyun well a brag would be me telling everyone that I am working with him...which I am, I was just honestly telling what I personally feel about him.

[@SinanAkkoyun]

@@billkemp9315 Wow, that's awesome! o.o I take it back, lol. May I ask how exactly you work with him?

[@SinanAkkoyun]

@Sparkle Plenty ?

[@qclod]

A few minutes in, and I already love how Mr. Cerf talks. Looking forward to this.

[@Project_Kritical]

Completely agree

[@Hypotemused]

What a treat. I haven't seen a Vint Cerf talk in ages. I learnt about how TCP/IP and packet switching worked from one of his lectures almost a decade ago... He was so clear that it pushed me to learn distributed systems and changed my thinking. I would have never have gotten into tech without seeing his talk 10 years back. I'd love to shake his hand and thank him one day.

[@byrnemeister2008]

Great talk. Very good high level overview neural networks. Social media psychology etc. Incredibly humble guy. Invented the internet but didn’t mention it once. Very articulate and clear presentation. I will be looking for more presentation from Mr Cerf.

[@autohmae]

Let's remember and he would tell you, he didn't do all that work alone. Many people worked on it.

[@jimwyatt715]

The internet is an extension of the world wide web. The work of sir tim berners. Leigh. Look it up.

[@byrnemeister2008]

Jim Wyatt LOL no. The World Wide Web is an application that runs on top of the internet. TCP/IP is the foundation. Look it up. LOL.

[@andrewstoll4548]

Ummmmm Al Gore invented the internet. 🤪😜🤣

[@autohmae]

@@andrewstoll4548 does anyone know what Al Gore did do ? If I understand it correctly he was on the most active member of the committee that opened up the Internet from government only project to allowing the commercial Internet to develop.

[@chensun2427]

Am i the only one thinking that this professor looks like the FATHER of the MATRIX?

[@pietervandermeulen9718]

Didn't you mean the 'architect'? (By the way, thanks for relating this topic to the novelist William Gibson. The 'inspirator' for manny people who are in to this kind of science).

[@chensun2427]

@@pietervandermeulen9718 ah yes i did

[@SinanAkkoyun]

Well, he is the father of the internet, so...

[@fultzjap]

I came here just to say that and I'm relieved someone else did. Even his voice a little??

[@technicalmachine1671]

The architect was modelled directly after him. Funny that he'd be talking about this kind of thing.

[@flightofthecondor]

Thank you Dr. Cerf. I am a semi-retired journalist who wrote about ICT and I met and spoke to you briefly at an ICANN event in Kuala Lumpur 10 or more years ago and yes, I am of the same opinion that at least for now and perhaps for a long time in the future, computers and AI will not have the same thinking capacity and flexibility as humans nor even be able to be conscious of their existence, even though they can carry out specific tasks or a set of specific tasks very much faster than humans, under the control of algorithms defined by humans which they process but they are lost in situations and circumstances which fall outside the scope of their set or sets of algorithms. In all my years of writing about the ICT industry, I have encountered to many claims by tech-futurists, cyber-utopians, tech-marketers, tech seminar speakers and so forth who have made rather starry-eyed, idealist or opportunistic claims about the extent to which ICT, the World Wide Web, digital media and so forth would "revolutionise" or lives and empower us to challenge the powers that be and to an extent these have, however more often than not, the World Wide Web, digital media and social media has allowed us to harmlessly and ineffectively rant and rave in a sandbox whilst the powers that be mostly ignore us and carry on with business as usual.

[@GasterPoppe]

Bless this man, because of him i can talk to people that obsess over the same movies, shows, books, and ect. as me, get updates on what's new up here, and text

[@UtraVioletDreams]

4:52 Richard Feynman

[@RedBatRacing]

Robert's diagrams were far more pleasing to the eye. He was the artistic one in the Feynman family

[@UtraVioletDreams]

@@RedBatRacing lol. Indeed, but at first no one took him serious. They did not understand the true meaning behind his art.

[@Hiker58]

Just an observation about Feynman diagrams ... I once searched for a Feynman diagram on Google that was both simple to understand and busy enough to be fun for a casual reader of a report I wrote. It's stunning how many diagrams are out there with the space/time scale backwards. Forget social media, that's one of the most disappointing things I've seen on the Internet.

[@oscill8ocelot]

@@Hiker58 Flipping the axes has no effect on the physics the diagram is describing; time is symmetric in physics. If you take a diagram of a particle / antiparticle pair annihilating on contact and producing energetic photons, the time-reversal of that diagram describes an energetic photon spontaneously producing a particle / antiparticle pair. It's the same process but in reverse. You can do this with all the Feynman diagrams.

[@Tondadrd]

@@oscill8ocelot I believe you but according to some KZbin videos I have watched the Universe doesn't seem to be symmetric in either time, space, ... the third thing.

[@flikkie72]

Wow, I didn't want to watch the entire lecture, but ended up doing so - such a gripping talk!

[@ChrisStolba]

I find it dangerous that these academic types are saying extremists or alarmists messaging is dangerous because (1) it is opinion on what is extreme, (2) sometimes there needs to be extreme messages, and (3) if they recommend censoring extreme messages than all it takes is the power structure to label speech as extreme to censor it, regardless of if it is truly "extreme".

[@mariushusejacobsen3221]

(4) If the extreme message is legitimately bad, censorship will boost its credibility and perceived relevance.

[@TS-jm7jm]

(5) sometimes the extremists have valid points, and further if those points are ignored/suppressed long enough and unaddressed then those points will become a rallying cry in a revolution. (6) revolutions tend to be violent.

[@quelorepario]

(7) all above points are invalid because they are extrapolations from a wrong premise

[@TS-jm7jm]

@@quelorepario (8) the above point is a point about itself.

[@mariushusejacobsen3221]

@@quelorepario Mind explaining what the wrong premise is? 1 is practically tautological. "X is extreme" is an opinion. Since you disagree (with all points), please show how you *measure* the extremeness of a message, rather than opine on it, and how your threshold for "extreme" is not a matter of opinion. 2 is a given since without anything 'extreme', the band of what is not extreme will shrink until there is. Since you disagree (with all points), please explain how the phenomenon of "purity spiral" occurs, without relying on the same premises that you call false. 3 is an observation that has historically been consistently true. 5 is an observation of history. I would add it being dependent on the point being relevant for enough people. At which point they would be unlikely to censor it in the first place. 6, given that we're talking about politics, has "exceptions that confirm the rule". Which is why it says "tends to be". Since you state you disagree with all of the points, please give plausible alternate explanations for each, or if that's your angle, why these observations are not relevant. 4 is an observation with the same premises as the Streisand effect, which is well documented at this point. So your argument, that all points come from a bad premise, necessarily needs to disprove the Streisand effect. By appearances, you're just rejecting it, without much thought, as a response to cognitive dissonance, which would mean your world view doesn't go well with reality. If, rather than engage with the above questions, you'd rather modify your statement to be more precise, I'll accept that as well. However, after you said anything in the first place, stopping here only vindicates your opponents.

[@SJsAdv]

I like this guy's way of thinking. He's pointing out so many good things that so few people even realize.

[@wills8288]

No problem with any of the lecture other than this one thing he mentioned: "Google suppresses those people that generate bad ideas and elevates those with good ideas." Question, good sir: How do you know you are correct? As you say, knowledge and science are best guesses and you must always be ready to admit you are wrong. How will you know if you are wrong if you silence those "data points" that don't fit your models? Wow!

[@JOSHUAWARREN16]

l

[@joemerino3243]

Somehow being a computer expert makes him competent to discern the validity of literally any source of information on the internet. He can tell the 'quality level' of a newspaper, no doubt by how well it confirms his preconceived notions. What a disappointment.

[@stevenharris8159]

Will you have a good comment about thinking critically but not deep enough. Information quality is an ethical issue based on values. How are these values created? Well they are based on a system or network. Just like the shared connection of neurons and the assumed protocol of the internet, there is an assumption that Google's information quality algorithm has a correct answer. Regardless of what the answer, is you don't get one without the assumption, hypothesis, input. I'm not saying this is good or bad/correct or incorrect that Google does this. Doing so would be taking my value system and comparing that to Google's which is the whole point of this lecture. AI doesn't have a one size fit all.

[@woooweee]

Google's own behavior proves the point, "algorithmic fairness" produces things like an image search for a "american inventors" coming up with a page full of African Americans. This isn't elevation, its deliberate ideological bias. They have proven themselves not credible in matters of objectivity. Mentioning snopes was the cherry on top, sites like that just cherry pick in one direction nitpicks as a method of propaganda. Hoaxes like clockboy are conveniently not "fact checked" as they don't benefit their narrative, a few copied newspaper articles so they can pretend they handled the subject is all they will bother with, and its like this consistently. I mean seriously, feminism alone doesn't survive a "fact check", and places like google will bend every rule to ignore the data points on that one.

[@larstruelsen2483]

Good point. Ironically, a large portion of the talk was about the pitfalls of human bias, yet Google is somehow immune to it. It doesn't add up.

[@l0g1cseer47]

One of the greatest critical thinking teacher! Truthful one!

[@shainemaine1268]

Yeah but I think he's confused about what sports are all about

[@l0g1cseer47]

@@shainemaine1268 if you can specify to the appropriate time frame of the video would be helpful?

[@xntumrfo9ivrnwf]

Very interesting talk but only ~10% is directly related to the title of the video/presentation...

[@Blackmark52]

"10% is directly related to the title" I'd say 10% was exploring the question in the title, 90% was examining the evidence for why it was answered as it was.

[@JP-jg4ne]

@@Blackmark52 He never related any of it back to human intelligence vs. computer intelligence as far as I could tell... Rather I think Cerf was giving a general talk, part of which included a bit specifically on human intelligence vs. A.I. This video could have been given many titles as there were quite a few subjects talked about, the uploader has chosen the one they hope to get the most views with.

[@Blackmark52]

@@JP-jg4ne "chosen the one they hope to get the most views with" That may be true. But most of the talk was on the inherent limits of computer systems premised on their difference to human thought. And the end introduced foibles of human brains because of their inherent dislike of uncertainty. Something that you would never want to program into a computer. Everything did relate to the idea of computers and human brains being fundamentally different.

[@JP-jg4ne]

@@Blackmark52 He did say he's not an expert on the brain so guess that's why the talk was focused more on the A.I side. I didn't really think the 'will computers ever think like human beings?' question was considered as the title would suggest, which I thought was funny as he actually talked about social media, likes and attention in the video.

[@Blackmark52]

@@JP-jg4ne " question (wasn't) considered as the title would suggest," That may depend upon how you think of the question. I think of a conscious brain as fundamentally different from any binary system no matter how complex. Cerf explains what he can about the fundamental unit in the brain and notes that we don't know entirely how neurons work and know less regarding the implications to human perception and thought. He then explains how computers learn differently from human brains. And finishes with human-computer interaction.

[@avatarofenlightenment386]

Vint is utterly correct in his inferences from the scientific method to critical thinking more generally. Science is not a doctrine but a process of thinking about the validity of one's own premises, beliefs, and assumptions.

[@monad_tcp]

I want more of this gentleman speaking. No, it was only 1h.

[@daphne4983]

Resembles Darwin

[@kusulas24]

is amazing this man, is hard hearing and is an father's of internet inventing protocol tcp/ip is the internet of now. Believe that he is working with Google like vice for evangelice the internet now via interplanetary protocol, the problem send and receive data is lost data and encriptacion is a big challenge :) using quantic computation :). How i know about it?, im too a person hard hearing..

[@KipIngram]

SO MANY good points! Excellent presentation. I have to say (this is a compliment) that Vint's dry and courteous sense of humor reminds me of Bob Newheart's. 🙂

[@andrewt15]

Sometimes I can't believe the INVENTOR OF THE INTERNET is still alive. Great man.

[@KuraSourTakanHour]

That's just proof the internet isn't as old as we feel it is. It's barely in its 30s

[@missymoonwillow6545]

the decepticons gave us internet.

[@andrewt15]

@@KuraSourTakanHour My thoughts too. It's so young but has so radically changed the way we operate.

[@janethenry518]

So it ISNT Al Gore? lol

[@autohmae]

@@KuraSourTakanHour 30s ? I think you are confusing the WWW (World Wide Web) with the Internet. The WWW is just one application on top of 'a system to transport information' between computers. Email would be an other application (al though email is actually older than the Internet) that uses the underlying infrastructure that we all Internet. The Internet came from what used to be ARPANET which was first started in late 1960s or early 1970s. The first implementation of what we today would recognize and call Internet was in 1975. Email is from 1971 it was used to send messages of people working on the same computer (people had terminals connected to the same computer, thus sharing computers). The @-sign pronounced 'at' was later added to be able to send email to people on other systems. That was possible because computers were connected to the Internet thus able to exchange information. Anyway, Vint Cerf worked on the Internet, not WWW.

[@kongesnok]

Damn, that was a whole lot of interesting stuff that had nothing to do with the title of the video.

[@Hexanitrobenzene]

I agree.

[@thelonious-dx9vi]

This is an incredibly brilliant person. He casually mentions TCP/IP, casually omitting that he invented it. And that the entire world runs on it, including the delivery of this video to whatever device you're watching it on. Mind-bogglingly impactful dude. And I never even knew he was this cool to listen to.

[@foobar1500]

I also noticed that it's interesting that he did mention TCP... but didn't mention that maybe his most known merit is that he wrote the first implementation of it. I'm not really certain if he would have been essential it getting done, but sure he implicitly downplayed his part quite massively...

[@ssiddarth]

Great talk by a Great man, it was an absolute joy to watch this Thanks RI

[@duli3595]

One of the best talks I listened to! A beautiful argument for the scientific method! Only tiny confusion arose when discussing the vectors in NN. Among other things this talk made me think again about human decisionmaking by a "rule of thumb logic".Congrats RI!

[@quelorepario]

For those who don't know who he is: he's actually one of the "architects" of the _backbone_ of the Internet. He is the inventor of TCP/IP along with Bob Kahn at DARPA in the seventies, back when the "network of network" was known as the ARPANET. Those who are confusing with the inventor of WWW/HTTP, firstly that didn't exist until the 90s and secondly was invented by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN.

[@nicoroehr]

45:00 Spot on! Having done technical support for computer software for decades I have made the experience that most people don't want to be advised. They want to be comforted that they were right all along and everyone and everything else is wrong. And the higher the rank of the support seeker, the less he/she/div is willing to accept an advice that goes against his/her/d belief system. For example, when a customer tells you in advance that he is an Electronics and Communication Engineer and that he is MCSE certified - you tell them to open a window, and they get up from their computer, walk across the room and open their office window. And hell forbid you tell them afterwards they were wrong doing that.

[@MultiNacnud]

Dear Mr Cerf: The Sun paper is of a reasonable quality.It's what is written in it not so much so.

[@Silly.Old.Sisyphus]

indeed so; in this difficult times, its excellent absorption qualities make it a practicable substitute, although it does make it delicately tricky to explain to the missus where that big red crimson mark on your bum came from and why you chose to not use Page Three instead

[@MultiNacnud]

@William White. How about any newspaper that that tells the truth . One that doesn't accuse Liverpool football fans of stealing wallets at Hillsborough. Or a newspaper that didn't have a pro independence stance in it's Scottish edition and a pro Unionist stance in it's English edition, just to get more readers .How about the Sun's headline 1 in 5 muslims support Jihadists (23rs November 2015),total lies.

[@martink6092]

@William White there is a wide selection of entertaining fiction available, some even better than The Sun, by such obscure English authors as J Austen, C Dickens, & W Shakespeare.

[@TS-jm7jm]

@@martink6092 well played sir.

[@ahumanbeingamnayplaceholde1746]

@@martink6092 Well played

[@juliashenandoah3965]

Fantastic video, thanks for uploading! I personally think because future computers will also always work in a pure electrical ways based on transistors, they will never achieve the true complexity of a mammal`s brain that is working in electrical but also biochemical ways in the synaptic cleft. A computer will never enjoy happiness based on dopamine serotonin blood-sugar and other chemicals, a computer will never have any body-awareness and therefore will never fear pain discomfort hunger thirst and death. Even adding billions over billions over more billions of transistors in every chip in the oncoming decades ..... it won`t change anything but make only pure mathematical processes faster for better gaming graphics and more sophisticated programs. Thinking self-aware machines will probably wishful thinking forever, even when mankind will be able to create perfect robots in the year 2100 (or maybe earlier Boston Dynamics can already build bipedal machines) these machines will only be capable of do exactly what their programming dictates them, but never will processors based on transistor technology become self-aware or even develop feelings. But from a software point of view will be possible to at least simulate hyper-realistic machines who accurately can act like humans based on how complex their programming is.

[@GonzoTehGreat]

24:12 Possibly the most important part of the lecture... He seems to explain how Neural Networks are not using Feature Selection [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_selection] when they perform Classification via Supervised Learning, but are instead looking for correlations between mappings in multi (higher)dimensional vector spaces.

[@TrippSaaS]

I love how he intended to offend people with the Sun comment😂 he’s one of the most humble speakers I’ve ever heard. He didn’t even mention the fact that he’s gotten a Turing Award after telling people that it was the CS equivalent of the Nobel Prize.

[@SumoCumLoudly]

"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim." - Edsger Dijkstra

[@everythingisrealrivers6582]

this will be the sixth time we have refuted the idea of AI domination, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it - Vint Cerf

[@kryptonite7491]

Thanks for an insightful look at the progression of computing. (From someone who got onto computers in 1966 and is still interested.)

[@morthim]

"if you see trolling, people who deliberately say things to incite reaction. the reward they get is generating that reaction" that is the most fair comment i've heard someone say about trolling ever. however it isn't an intrinsic reward for some types of trolls. teachers for example don't just want reactions to their trolling, they want to get paid. getting a reaction is just the means to getting paid. the same is true for people who get paid by advertisers. what is occuring in all forms of reinforcement or Q-learning, regardless of computers, is the reinforcement of rewarded behaviors. monetization methods are a form of reward, as is popularity, as is political relevance.

[@codeoptimizationware2803]

@morthim : Hmm. Are you the jackass that "invented" reaction-shots?

[@wtfbbq]

While I agree with what you're saying about reinforcement and reward mechanisms, I definitely don't agree that "trolling" broadly applies to anybody who's getting a "reward for their behavior". Teachers are most definitely not "trolling" by teaching, nor are people getting paid by an advertiser to say something (perhaps such as an athlete endorsing a product) trolling. Teachers ARE getting paid to say things, yes, but they aren't looking for reactions as their form of payment. For the teacher, deep down they don't really care if a student passes or fails, as long as they've done their job they get their monetary reward. The athlete endorsing a product doesn't really care if people actually buy and use that product, they are getting their monetary reward regardless. For a troll, the reaction itself IS the reward. It's just very strange to hear somebody essentially saying teachers are trolls.... And not only that but using the term "troll" so broadly that it encompasses nearly all of humanity and that anybody getting any type of reward for any type of behavior is a troll. It's not a correct use of the term whatsoever.

[@agffga8757]

@@wtfbbq I'd add that literally every living being is a troll if we adopt that definition

[@WetDoggo]

Wow this was a good presentation. One you figure out how speech pattern you realize that you have enough time to process what he's said. I think this was very interesting 👌 I definitely learned some things

[@AnExPor]

I wish you were one of my college professors. Very good subject matter. The software testing bit at the end is on point.

[@qugart.]

It's kind of awe-inspiring to watch Vint Cerf talking about networks only because of his works on networks

[@louiscorprew7970]

🤯 Fantastic lecture!!

[@Randgalf]

Throttling information that doesn't fit in your bias is a very dangerous thing and the one challenge the internet age needs to conquer. This man, smart as he is, managed to contradict himself big time in this lecture.

[@jbiwer32]

32:06 - 32:48 truer words have never been spoken.

[@HebaruSan]

The sports team fan analogy is not entirely apt. Fans of rival teams can still relate over their shared interest in the sport, often with some good natured pro forma teasing over beers. Getting online hostility down to the level of that between fans of rival sports teams would probably be a marked improvement.

[@phillipholmes5206]

Computers can basically only output what you put into them. AI systems at the moment only have a list of questions and answers already input, then a word matching program returns an answer for a set number of matched words in any given question. It's not that complicated. We can train them to do specific things, like play chess, and make them learn by creating deviation algorithms that deviate from a path when they lose, and keep to the path when they win, then store the results, which is a basic learning program. Getting a computer to think 'out of the box' to come up with totally new ideas, or new answers to existing questions, is a lot harder. Not saying it can never be done, but we are a long way off doing this. Pretty much like driverless cars can only drive safely at very slow speeds, driving at speeds normal humans take for granted is still some time away. Sonic sensors are not that accurate, analysis of camera input is enormously complex, which is why existing systems you may think are nearly perfect will inexplicably run over a cyclist. People who don't understand how computers work believe they are better than humans, and will thus make better drivers, but anybody who is a programmer, who has tried to do this, will know they are far from being perfect enough to actually drive safely.

[@ejosh3420]

Very wonderful speech

[@andrescolon]

One day I had the opportunity to shake his hand in the University of Puerto Rico after he gave us an amazing talk on the history of the internet. I'm a huge fan of his mind.

[@charlesmayberry2825]

I agree with the point about supporting products, I have several devices that I have bought, that are a horrible buggy mess. you find out the driver is open source and just blatantly ripped, and unchanged, they offer no support, and you end up digging through the software source yourself and patching, and modifying it in a way to even get it to work. It's a serious headache, that I honestly do because I like the challenge but the point remains that I shouldn't have to be a programmer, to have my wireless headphones working -_-

[@inaamilahi5007]

Wow!!! It's an amazing talk given by an amazing person.

[@darkpandemic5802]

thanks for sharing

[@Direkin]

"They gave it the rules and told it to go play with itself, which it did for quite a long while, and within a few days it had learned..." that the only winning move is not to play?

[@DampeS8N]

That's not what I learned when I played with myself for a few days. I learned how important lubrication is.

[@noellelavenza]

See, that's actually been encountered a bunch of times. Someone used NEAT (NeuroEvolution of Augmenting Toplogies, a form of neural network) to play Tetris, and the moment before it ran out of room and would have lost, it paused the game and refused to play any further. The only winning move... was not to play.

[@TS-jm7jm]

@@noellelavenza that's pretty cool

[@basic48]

Superb thinking

[@igecnovak3200]

The Architect from MATRIX really exists!!! :-)) Anyway amazing lecture from brilliant mind, thanks for upload.

[@mateusneto6687]

There should be a international norm about the control of information, exchange of messages and other files of midea alike by goverments and corporations, that use censorship,banning and other ways of controling and harassment of users opinions and ideas, this practices diminishes the rigth of free speach. There are many examples of these in the internet around the globe.

[@UtraVioletDreams]

I liked it. But I feel at the end, the lecture leaves the question "Will Computers Ever Think Like Human Beings?" unanswered. It was more about our own responsibility and awareness concerning information technology.

[@autohmae]

The answer is: not any time soon. The computer systems don't have nearly enough complexity yet. Maybe some advances could change that but greatly accelerating the development, but predicting the future is hard.

[@Silly.Old.Sisyphus]

i think that's unfair - he presents the facts and lets you draw your own conclusions. But if you are in desperate need of a binary answer, the answer is "Yes" - in fact, some of them already do (a bit) and some of them - the most famous ones right now, don't.

[@winstoncat6785]

Problem with "facts" is that in many internet disputes, or flat out "fake news" events, you aren't dealing with something based on a law of nature, but rather dealing with narratives constructed on "established truths". These always have "wiggle room". If everything were based on laws of nature, disputes would be easily and quickly resolved. Although, a lot of the problem with internet communication is deliberately vexatious behaviour.

[@marklawes1859]

I think this was the best RI lecture I have ever seen! Bravo!

[@keefjunior4061]

Mostly curious to see how many architect comments are here. Am not disappointed!

[@austinmoore2672]

I know it isnt but the Alan Moore credited in the description I wish so much to be the writer of Watchmen etc. Edit. This guy is amazing my god

[@DaKoopaKing]

Is there a Q&A for this?

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

Yep! kzbin.info/www/bejne/fajEZGuqr9RlhMU

[@ZeHoSmusician]

Odd - it doesn't show in your list of uploaded videos... (Could explain why it has so few views, too...)

[@extrastuff9463]

@@ZeHoSmusician It's kinda normal lately, in the past they had Q&A videos in the main feed but now it's always linked to at the end of a talk and in the description. Usually up same day or a bit later in my experience. I guess it's a deliberate choice to keep the feed less cluttered? But for full lectures they are consistently there.

[@charleslong5373]

One thing you might do is measure the circumference of a new-born’s head, and then measure the circumference of a mature adult’s head. Remember that volume is related to circumference by the cube of the linear dimension. The average volume of an adult brain is 1.4 liters. Some people have brains as big as 1.6 liters. The determined volume of a little grey alien’s brain is 2.2 liters.

[@PeterPete]

I noticed the video and thought I'd comment on it - imo the answer to the question is NO, computers will never think like human beings simply because the vast majority of human beings are literally insane and yet, paradoxically this vast majority of people think there's nothing wrong with them!

[@stardust6769]

Wonder how self driving car auto pilot would handle the following traffic sign in Melbourne Australia, " Turn left from the right", also known as a "hook turn" 😅.

[@rox4884]

We also have to remember that being smarter isn't necessarily better in evolutionary terms, there was a species of humans that had larger brains than we do, yet here we are and where are they.

[@brentwilbur]

The sum total of all the processes in the brain produce the phenomenon that we experience as consciousness, though no single cell is aware of itself or the others. The same could ultimately be said for the internet. There could be an intelligence out there that we are simply incapable of communicating with because it is quite literally on a totally different scale.

[@realmofwushurichard7767]

great talk

[@gerbenhoutman9348]

31:30 I've made this sports analogy for years. It has been getting worse and worse to the point that if you disagree on any small detail of the leftist narrative, you're likely to be call horrible names. The right is far more open minded and accepting of diversity, at least in my experience, having been on both sides. If you doubt me, try listening to an hour of the Rush Limbaugh radio show, then consider that the average conservative tolerates CNN ABC NBC etc. etc without hate rising up in their hearts.

[@bozotheclown7625]

i live with these trumpites, i'm an expert, and i'm NOT BIAS. i live in a rural republican county (USA) where u get to personally know these people, it's not big city alienation. at 35:00 Professor Cerf states giving trumpites the facts is rejected. what SciAm didn't include in their dataset evaluation is EDUCATION LEVEL of the subjects. 95% of my trumpites neighbors even if they have a high school diploma have 4th 5th grade education levels. we are currently, and for 8 decades. passing students through to graduation who can barely read, write, let alone behavioral sciences. starting late 80s their education was from Hate Radio AKA rush limbuagh then thousands more were sponsored by USA corporations. we had literally thousands of fascist conservatives on the airwaves and NOT ONE liberal voice. this was the foundation that has led to trumpites USA (and 2 decades ago fox news re-enforced the "the less education you have the more you're correct" which the corporate media helped the republicans enforce. Professor Cerf really makes an astounding false claim that scientists will ignore data contrary to their hypothesis. Prof. Cerf should have qualified that with "10 scientists out of 5 million in the last 50 years knowingly falsified their data". SciAM should have qualified their report that educated americans will listen and change their points of view given factual data, it's the trumpites that don't. i also know five 30-40 year olds in this area that HONESTLY believe the earth is flat. they saw some youtube guy present the "liberal scientist conspiracy". coasttocoastam is the USA/worlds #1 "global warming is a liberal scientists lie" which c2cam started 14 years ago under art bell then george noory took up the mantle. in my area i not only directly speak to neighbors who parrot c2c2am's last night's show but over heard people in stores/parks talking as if last night's c2cam is the word of god. and often they literally say that. it's a common thread to trumpites, 1. gun nuts owning 5 to 50 guns with 5000 rounds of ammo; 2. christian by identification but often do bad things the bible says not to do; 3. white supremacists. during W bush i wrote to hundreds of "corporate media" inviting them to investigate my county and see the overt white supremacy. (no takers). then obama was elected and the corporate media in entirety claimed "racism is dead in america", again i wrote them i could prove them wrong. the confederate flag quadrupled over night and many racist bumper stickers and many new NRA bumper stickers. (i think the NRA gives them out for free). what i've noticed it's the uneducated white supremacist who responds like Professor Cerf states at 35:00. all my experience at higher education was all students are willing to listen and learn and honestly change positions given facts.

[@mrheem]

They won't have to think like us, they'll be us and we will be them

[@ShaneSathar]

They won't because we have energy, vibration, frequency, and emotions A computer doesn't have emotions or vibration Just energy, frequency, and tasks Your mind is conscious because we were created by a creator. Hence, we are creating We can, however, play a vital role in influencing our tech to be more positive than negative Because most things of creation can have a positive and negative We need to be careful what we create and, more importantly, why and for what use If it doesn't benefit us or the planet What's the use

[@mxcollin95]

Great lecture!!!

[@richardbunt2278]

This video keeps on coming up on my video list .got fead up with these videos

[@kagannasuhbeyoglu]

Thank you. Very interesting informatives.

[@bimbumbamdolievori]

sciencee is approximation. Liked the humble statement. You are really into pretty much anything

[@mo__yo__9785]

Google took a big step here, it basically is a sort of capitalistic and moralistic argument, there is a high energy expense for making new technology, software needs to have standards (which may not be overcome by startups), if these the barriers are overcame, then technology makers need to support them for life (which may be hard when new technology is in the pipeline) if the new technology fails and it’s part of infrastructure or is important enough, it needs to be made available to companies that can use it (Google). But hey that’s just a critical thinking exercise…

[@kingrobert1st]

You got it the wrong way round. It should be "Will humans ever think like computers?"

[@Seafox0011]

But maybe there's a third option ... both will think like something else.

[@kattarhindu3224]

Legend 🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@UlaisisP]

It looked more like a pitch sale than a worthy RI lecture. With the appropiate "bajada de linea"

[@ghostrider.13]

They already do think like we do. Where have you been?

[@grproteus]

Came here for answers about the Matrix. Was not disappointed. (Was expecting more "vis-a-vis" and "apropos" though)

[@Scarletraven87]

Before asking "Should they?" consider you're in control of the scrollbar.

[@tjohnson4062]

He set off my assistant while talking about companies taking responsibility for their software, skipped back 3 times before I realize it was him saying "at Google"...

[@mookiezebra]

We are computers, we need to figure out how to recreate ourselves.

[@tabularasa0606]

And leave out all the bugs nature made.

[@ahumanbeingamnayplaceholde1746]

@@tabularasa0606 true

[@Camcolito]

With a name like 'Vint Cerf', you're bound to be some kind of big deal.

[@MichelJosephCardin]

Funny; is this question! Prior to watching this video; I must voice my view that I wonder what you all think is different between an anatomy based processor and a fabricated one that is capable of change in structure! I know that there isn't any and you might now also think the same way. The only problem that I see is that we just don't have the right people on this challenge.

[@gpondave]

Without wishing to detract from his prestige or his remarks in any way, his description of the 100-dimensional ambiguity in pattern recognition is simply wrong. It's not the 10000-vector that's ambiguous, it's the value of each of the points in that space, even if quantized to only 1 bit per point.

[@porcelinaoceania8212]

I’m amazed by this mans intelligence. Absolutely!

[@wildstar1063]

So basically what he saying is that these neural network systems look too much at the trees and don't see the forest as a whole. Also they don't contextualize well.

[@yash1152]

0:13 - 0:19 i was thinking exactly the same thing.

[@crimsonkhan3815]

I definitely use that nobel prize illustration (dunno where though). Do i need to pay anything to Mr.Cerf when it happens?

[@Meninx87]

He literally looks like the personification of Science and Wisdom.

[@soberhippie]

A great hour of Vint Cerfing for me. Thank you very much.

[@science212]

He and Ted Nelson are great thinkers.

[@melkiorwiseman5234]

Without even watching the video first, my answer is no. Computers can only ever think like human beings if they're built like human beings - with neurons (even if they're artificial) which work much like those in human brains rather than digital "on" and "off" only. We might manage to get close with digital, but we'll never actually get there without a radical change in technology. That's my opinion at least. YMMV.

[@ComicGladiator]

I am the Architect. I created the Matrix. I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also the most irrelevant.

[@anujarora0]

4:51 it's Richard Feynman

[@stevemartin4249]

Great talk. A STEM specialist who praises the scientific process (critical thinking skills), while warning us against making a fetish of science ... as we have done with the spiritual impulse. What scares me is that STEM specialists, those who pay them, and the larger consumer public all have a small but consistent percentage of those populations who are genetically predisposed to be 'bad actors' - high in dark-triad behavior traits of narcissism, machiavellian opportunism, and morphologically defined psychopathy. As the behaviorist experiments of Solomon Asch, Stanley Milgram, and to a more questionable extent, Philip Zimbardo have shown ... even the more numerous, neurotypical actors in 'good faith' can be easily manipulated into following non empathetic, dark-triad behaviors. This problem is exacerbated when we social primates exceed the small community size typical of other social primates, a maximum of 200 or so for chimpanzees but usually much smaller, we have also exceeded our capacity for emathy-driven morality. Dunbar's number, a theory correlating the size of our prefrontal cortex with the maximum number of people we can empathetically interact with at a mutual level of recognition has had cross cultural replication studies indicating between 150 and 250 people. Our species' distinctive capacity for abstraction, reason, symbolization appears to be a double edged sword - because when we employ those functions of the brain ... it usually appears to be a zero-sum game against empathy, with the advantages of empathy decreasing with increasing scale of populations. Yes, the cleverness of city-slickers seems to go hand-in-hand with dark-triad behavior. Rather than empathy, large scale, institutionally sanctioned hierarchies depend on rule-driven behavior grounded in tradition, law, or algorithms. The problem with such large scale power structures is that those on the more nurturing-empathetic end of a temperamental spectrum depend on on the 'should' of acting in good faith, and institutional rules to enforce that 'should'. But as the old Taoist saying goes, the more laws the country, the more wicked the people. And even under good leadership surrounding by those acting in good faith, is a temporary state of affairs. Ever hear of mission drift / mission creep, or 'structural reform'? Remember Matt Taibbi's reference to Goldman Sachs as 'the great vampire squid relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells of money'? Well Lloyd Blankfein, former CEO of G.S. and Harvard graduate tried to justify obscenely high salaries by saying bankers are 'doing God's work.' And after all, Harvard University was founded by clergyman John Harvard to educate ministers. Hmm ... either that 'god' is Mammon, or both Harvard and G.S. are showing the end-game of 'prosperity theology'. Remember that recent trillion or so dollar bailout, supposedly meant to shore up local businesses forced to shut down because of the virus? (Speaking of which, the origins of that virus and a wet market? Ha. Another Harvard conection that KZbinr ReallyGraceful can fill the reader in on). But back to that bailout money. By far, the school with the world's largest endowment ... over 40 Billion dollars ... only relinquished a 10 million dollar knee-jerk grab, due to bad publicity. So much for institutions and law protecting the 'should' of acting in good faith to empower the marginalized and hold authority accountable. Going back to what scares me ... is the deceit with which label homo sapiens as a social primate. Just a modest hypothesis, but I'd say that we are closer to being the world's first, only, and probably last 'herding primate' ... and we will probably go out like locusts, with swarming behavior. Or as spelled out in the first three paragraphs of Chomsky' 2010 speech, 'Human Intelligence and the Environment' ... perhaps evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr was right, human intelligence may prove to be little more than a fatal mutation of a social primate. chomsky.info/20100930/ Uggh. though I don't agree with his 'solution', I don't think Ted Kaczinsky was the least bit crazy ... or a 'bug' in our collective genome. He just never found the right community ... or the institutions we are all funneled through, didn't allow him that chance.

[@auntiecarol]

Coolest name in the history of computing!

[@lameiraangelo]

They won't have to. They WILL think better than us.

[@aaroniouse]

The first open-source car will be heads and tails above all other cars before it, with unlimited possibilities.

[@LiftOffLife]

His connection to Google and Alphabet who will enslave mankind with AI is beyond him.