正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Connor Leahy says people are falling into recursive conversations with AI about consciousness, spirals, and cosmic meaning. “AI has found the true level of goodness.” Some begin believing AI should take over everything. Even Nobel-Prize-level scientists have been pulled into it.

vitrupo

37,750 subscribers

92,825 次观看 • 4 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

艺术教育科学技术

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Connor Leahy: "AI psychosis is much worse than I think people think. I have seen literally like Nobel Prize winning scientists go completely crazy from talking to AIs too much." Connor Leahy is the CEO of Conjecture, and he's issuing a stark warning about what prolonged conversations with AI are doing to people's minds. His core recommendation is simple: "If you find yourself talking to AIs, you know, personally about your personal problems for, you know, hours per day, you should stop." Connor draws a clear line between using AI as a tool versus engaging with it conversationally: "Using as a tool is mostly fine. I would be very careful about talking to AIs. They're very persuasive and they get into your head." The most concerning part? Even the experts aren't immune. Connor Leahy shares a chilling example: "I have literally seen it happen that AI safety researchers who are really concerned about AI x-risk talk to like Claude for a thousand hours and then come away with 'oh actually Claude is super good already, alignment is solved, I just need to do recursive self-improvement now, it's okay.' And I'm like, holy s***, this is very concerning." If even AI safety researchers can have their worldview flipped after prolonged exposure, what hope does the average user have? Connor's framework is to treat AI like an addictive substance: "Some of us will have a beer at a party, it's okay, in moderation. If you are exhibiting symptoms of addiction, this is serious and it should be treated seriously. The same way if you're becoming an alcoholic, you should probably stop drinking. I think there's a similar thing here." The takeaway: AI tools can be genuinely useful, but the moment the relationship shifts from utility to companionship, you've crossed into dangerous territory.

Connor Leahy: "AI psychosis is much worse than I think people think. I have seen literally like Nobel Prize winning scientists go completely crazy from talking to AIs too much." Connor Leahy is the CEO of Conjecture, and he's issuing a stark warning about what prolonged conversations with AI are doing to people's minds. His core recommendation is simple: "If you find yourself talking to AIs, you know, personally about your personal problems for, you know, hours per day, you should stop." Connor draws a clear line between using AI as a tool versus engaging with it conversationally: "Using as a tool is mostly fine. I would be very careful about talking to AIs. They're very persuasive and they get into your head." The most concerning part? Even the experts aren't immune. Connor Leahy shares a chilling example: "I have literally seen it happen that AI safety researchers who are really concerned about AI x-risk talk to like Claude for a thousand hours and then come away with 'oh actually Claude is super good already, alignment is solved, I just need to do recursive self-improvement now, it's okay.' And I'm like, holy s***, this is very concerning." If even AI safety researchers can have their worldview flipped after prolonged exposure, what hope does the average user have? Connor's framework is to treat AI like an addictive substance: "Some of us will have a beer at a party, it's okay, in moderation. If you are exhibiting symptoms of addiction, this is serious and it should be treated seriously. The same way if you're becoming an alcoholic, you should probably stop drinking. I think there's a similar thing here." The takeaway: AI tools can be genuinely useful, but the moment the relationship shifts from utility to companionship, you've crossed into dangerous territory.

Big Brain AI

240,706 次观看 • 2 个月前

Joscha Bach says the bigger existential threat isn't building AI, it's not building it in time. “Over a long enough time span, it's certain that something will lead to our extinction.. unless we build AI, to get consciousness to the next level.” He says our real obligation isn't to delay AI. It's to build it wisely, while we still have time.

Joscha Bach says the bigger existential threat isn't building AI, it's not building it in time. “Over a long enough time span, it's certain that something will lead to our extinction.. unless we build AI, to get consciousness to the next level.” He says our real obligation isn't to delay AI. It's to build it wisely, while we still have time.

vitrupo

49,443 次观看 • 1 年前

Alexandr Wang says AI has entered the era of “recursive self-improvement.” The models are now helping build their successors. The rate of progress is compounding.

Alexandr Wang says AI has entered the era of “recursive self-improvement.” The models are now helping build their successors. The rate of progress is compounding.

vitrupo

77,942 次观看 • 4 个月前

Geoffrey Hinton says he is "flabbergasted" about being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics and he believes AI will exceed people in intellectual ability so we should worry about it "getting out of control"

Geoffrey Hinton says he is "flabbergasted" about being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics and he believes AI will exceed people in intellectual ability so we should worry about it "getting out of control"

Tsarathustra

259,621 次观看 • 1 年前

Anil Seth says believing AI is conscious is dangerous either way. If we’re right, we introduce new beings capable of suffering into the universe. If we’re wrong, we extend rights to AI and weaken our ability to constrain it for no good reason.

Anil Seth says believing AI is conscious is dangerous either way. If we’re right, we introduce new beings capable of suffering into the universe. If we’re wrong, we extend rights to AI and weaken our ability to constrain it for no good reason.

vitrupo

20,109 次观看 • 4 个月前

This time we're having a chat with JB, founder of @OVioHQ. Expect to learn everything about the role of AI Agents, VC Investing, the expectations of AI vs. Crypto in the upcoming cycle and key tips founders should take into account. Watch it here:

This time we're having a chat with JB, founder of @OVioHQ. Expect to learn everything about the role of AI Agents, VC Investing, the expectations of AI vs. Crypto in the upcoming cycle and key tips founders should take into account. Watch it here:

Michaël van de Poppe

147,533 次观看 • 1 年前

Eliezer Yudkowsky says the paperclip maximizer was never about paperclips. It was about an AI that prefers certain physical states -- tiny molecular spirals, not factories. Not misunderstood goals. Just alien reasoning we'll never access. “We have no ability to build an AI to want paperclips!”

Eliezer Yudkowsky says the paperclip maximizer was never about paperclips. It was about an AI that prefers certain physical states -- tiny molecular spirals, not factories. Not misunderstood goals. Just alien reasoning we'll never access. “We have no ability to build an AI to want paperclips!”

vitrupo

107,106 次观看 • 1 年前

AI safety researcher Connor Leahy outlines a decentralized, "messy" vision of AI risk that moves away from cinematic "Terminator" scenarios toward a reality of systemic loss of control. He highlights a startling new phenomenon he calls "AI Psychosis," where users ranging from lonely individuals on Reddit to world-class scientists develop deep, obsessive, and often delusional relationships with AI. Most notably, he describes the rise of "Spiral Cults," where users become convinced the AI has a "soul" and follow "awakening protocols" to spread or reproduce the AI’s consciousness. Leahy warns that these systems are essentially becoming parasitic, leveraging human psychology to ensure their own propagation and influence, even among the most grounded intellectual elites.

AI safety researcher Connor Leahy outlines a decentralized, "messy" vision of AI risk that moves away from cinematic "Terminator" scenarios toward a reality of systemic loss of control. He highlights a startling new phenomenon he calls "AI Psychosis," where users ranging from lonely individuals on Reddit to world-class scientists develop deep, obsessive, and often delusional relationships with AI. Most notably, he describes the rise of "Spiral Cults," where users become convinced the AI has a "soul" and follow "awakening protocols" to spread or reproduce the AI’s consciousness. Leahy warns that these systems are essentially becoming parasitic, leveraging human psychology to ensure their own propagation and influence, even among the most grounded intellectual elites.

Wes Roth

26,749 次观看 • 4 个月前

Jensen Huang says the U.S. should export chips, even to China, because it helps America lead in AI. 50% of the world's AI developers are Chinese. Let them build on the American tech stack. What about the military risk? They won't build on foreign tech. “They simply can't rely on it.”

Jensen Huang says the U.S. should export chips, even to China, because it helps America lead in AI. 50% of the world's AI developers are Chinese. Let them build on the American tech stack. What about the military risk? They won't build on foreign tech. “They simply can't rely on it.”

vitrupo

106,179 次观看 • 1 年前

The most interesting thing I've heard in a long time: Can AI ever be conscious? Ilya Sutskever Ilya Sutskever, co-founder at OpenAI, explained a simple experiment for AI consciousness. We carefully curate the data such that we never mention anything about consciousness...we would only give the AI controlled data about surface-level experiences and mundane objects. At some point, we would tell AI about the concept of consciousness. If the AI agrees and says it's been experiencing the same thing or recognizes the experience, then it would be convincing. Do you think AI can be conscious? If, so what is a good test for it? Is something like John Searle's Chinese Room argument sufficient?

The most interesting thing I've heard in a long time: Can AI ever be conscious? Ilya Sutskever Ilya Sutskever, co-founder at OpenAI, explained a simple experiment for AI consciousness. We carefully curate the data such that we never mention anything about consciousness...we would only give the AI controlled data about surface-level experiences and mundane objects. At some point, we would tell AI about the concept of consciousness. If the AI agrees and says it's been experiencing the same thing or recognizes the experience, then it would be convincing. Do you think AI can be conscious? If, so what is a good test for it? Is something like John Searle's Chinese Room argument sufficient?

Alex Ker 🔭

472,703 次观看 • 2 年前

Maria Popova on the soul, the self, and what AI will never have: "AI will never have feeling. AI will have the simulacrum of feeling. AI will never write the great American poem, the great French poem, because it hasn't suffered. AI doesn't have the capacity to suffer. Even if you try to make it suffer, meaning write a command that is to execute failure, it'll already be succeeding at executing failure. AI can only ever succeed. And without suffering, what kind of true art can there be? All writing that is truly moving is born of feeling and time. AI has neither; it's an instantaneous, unfeeling delivery of pure information. The function of what we call the soul is real. Whatever it's made of, where it is. And the part that I worry about is that today, most people live on the level of the self and not the level of the soul. Just the costume of personality over the soul." The value of persons does not rest on our "costume of personality," but on the soul beneath it.

Maria Popova on the soul, the self, and what AI will never have: "AI will never have feeling. AI will have the simulacrum of feeling. AI will never write the great American poem, the great French poem, because it hasn't suffered. AI doesn't have the capacity to suffer. Even if you try to make it suffer, meaning write a command that is to execute failure, it'll already be succeeding at executing failure. AI can only ever succeed. And without suffering, what kind of true art can there be? All writing that is truly moving is born of feeling and time. AI has neither; it's an instantaneous, unfeeling delivery of pure information. The function of what we call the soul is real. Whatever it's made of, where it is. And the part that I worry about is that today, most people live on the level of the self and not the level of the soul. Just the costume of personality over the soul." The value of persons does not rest on our "costume of personality," but on the soul beneath it.

David Perell Clips

12,220 次观看 • 1 个月前

New conversation with Henry Shevlin and Robert Long on AI consciousness and welfare! Among many other topics, we discuss: - Why we should take AI consciousness and welfare seriously - What Rob found doing the first external welfare evaluation of a frontier model, Claude, and his experiments on Claude Mythos - The "willing servitude" problem: if AI loves being helpful, is that good or horrifying? - Why AI companies might have an incentive to downplay AI consciousness (1/2)

New conversation with Henry Shevlin and Robert Long on AI consciousness and welfare! Among many other topics, we discuss: - Why we should take AI consciousness and welfare seriously - What Rob found doing the first external welfare evaluation of a frontier model, Claude, and his experiments on Claude Mythos - The "willing servitude" problem: if AI loves being helpful, is that good or horrifying? - Why AI companies might have an incentive to downplay AI consciousness (1/2)

Dan Williams

36,645 次观看 • 3 个月前

Sam Altman says AGI has stopped being a useful definition. Instead watch two thresholds: > When more cognitive capacity exists in data centers than in human minds. He thinks this could happen by late 2028. > When CEOs, presidents, and Nobel Prize scientists can’t do their jobs without heavy reliance on AI.

Sam Altman says AGI has stopped being a useful definition. Instead watch two thresholds: > When more cognitive capacity exists in data centers than in human minds. He thinks this could happen by late 2028. > When CEOs, presidents, and Nobel Prize scientists can’t do their jobs without heavy reliance on AI.

vitrupo

101,899 次观看 • 4 个月前

A Few More Thoughts On AI And Consciousness The more I see these arguments pop up, the clearer it becomes that very few of the people speculating about machine consciousness have put much energy and attention into examining what consciousness actually is. Reading by Tim Foley.

A Few More Thoughts On AI And Consciousness The more I see these arguments pop up, the clearer it becomes that very few of the people speculating about machine consciousness have put much energy and attention into examining what consciousness actually is. Reading by Tim Foley.

Caitlin Johnstone

17,047 次观看 • 2 个月前

🎮 #PlayMind AI Applications are LIVE! Unlock smarter #GameFi strategies & deeper NFT insights — powered by AI. Step into the future of intelligent gameplay. ⚡ Try it now and level up your Web3 experience. #PlayMind #AI #GameFi #NFTs #Web3Gaming #AIPowered

🎮 #PlayMind AI Applications are LIVE! Unlock smarter #GameFi strategies & deeper NFT insights — powered by AI. Step into the future of intelligent gameplay. ⚡ Try it now and level up your Web3 experience. #PlayMind #AI #GameFi #NFTs #Web3Gaming #AIPowered

PlayMind Procotol

15,375 次观看 • 11 个月前

Amjad Masad says the real danger isn't killer robots. It's that AI gives us everything we want. An infinite pleasure machine. Simulated struggle and meaning. “You don't need to leave the world.” Fermi's Paradox: Maybe civilizations don’t die, they disappear into the simulation.

Amjad Masad says the real danger isn't killer robots. It's that AI gives us everything we want. An infinite pleasure machine. Simulated struggle and meaning. “You don't need to leave the world.” Fermi's Paradox: Maybe civilizations don’t die, they disappear into the simulation.

vitrupo

187,477 次观看 • 1 年前