Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Human brains can’t copy-paste knowledge, says Geoffrey Hinton. Learning has to happen the slow way: actions, trust, and rewiring connections over time. Even a full sentence only carries a tiny amount of information, so sharing knowledge is painfully low-bandwidth. That limitation is baked into being analog and having different brains.

Wes Roth

34,689 subscribers

26,663 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Geoffrey Hinton says immortality is for digital beings, not humans Our brains are analog, shaped by unique neurons that can't be replicated or uploaded "when we die, all that knowledge dies with us" But for digital intelligences? they save their weights and can return to new hardware

Geoffrey Hinton says immortality is for digital beings, not humans Our brains are analog, shaped by unique neurons that can't be replicated or uploaded "when we die, all that knowledge dies with us" But for digital intelligences? they save their weights and can return to new hardware

Haider.

26,112 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Geoffrey Hinton says digital agents can share knowledge at a scale far beyond humans Ten thousand agents can each study different parts of the internet, sync their learnings instantly, and all improve together "that's millions of times more information sharing than humans can do"

Geoffrey Hinton says digital agents can share knowledge at a scale far beyond humans Ten thousand agents can each study different parts of the internet, sync their learnings instantly, and all improve together "that's millions of times more information sharing than humans can do"

Haider.

40,404 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

.David Deutsch: “There is an inherent conflict in the human condition—both individually and in society—between the need to preserve existing knowledge and the need to create new knowledge. For most of human history, preserving existing knowledge trumped any kind of attempt to improve knowledge. Because attempts to improve knowledge risk error. Or rather, to be exact, it risks error that has never occurred before. There were plenty of errors that had occurred before. Plenty of kings got overthrown because they couldn’t solve the problem of how to fend off the enemy. But they were in familiar territory conceptually, and they were afraid of changing culture. This fear of changing culture was built into culture itself. And this conflict exists to this day. The most extreme example known to me in the West, anyway, is the conflict in education between preserving existing knowledge and creating new knowledge. Even today, education—education theory—is conceived as the theory of how to decant existing knowledge from the brains that already know it to the brains that do not yet know it. And that’s what Popper calls the ‘bucket theory of the mind’—that the mind is a bucket and knowledge is a fluid. What he stressed, and what I always also want to stress, is that not only is that a mischaracterization of knowledge and of the use of knowledge, but it is the wrong way around. As a practical matter, even right back two million years ago, the transmission of cultural knowledge was not something done by the transmitter; it was something done by the receiver.”

.David Deutsch: “There is an inherent conflict in the human condition—both individually and in society—between the need to preserve existing knowledge and the need to create new knowledge. For most of human history, preserving existing knowledge trumped any kind of attempt to improve knowledge. Because attempts to improve knowledge risk error. Or rather, to be exact, it risks error that has never occurred before. There were plenty of errors that had occurred before. Plenty of kings got overthrown because they couldn’t solve the problem of how to fend off the enemy. But they were in familiar territory conceptually, and they were afraid of changing culture. This fear of changing culture was built into culture itself. And this conflict exists to this day. The most extreme example known to me in the West, anyway, is the conflict in education between preserving existing knowledge and creating new knowledge. Even today, education—education theory—is conceived as the theory of how to decant existing knowledge from the brains that already know it to the brains that do not yet know it. And that’s what Popper calls the ‘bucket theory of the mind’—that the mind is a bucket and knowledge is a fluid. What he stressed, and what I always also want to stress, is that not only is that a mischaracterization of knowledge and of the use of knowledge, but it is the wrong way around. As a practical matter, even right back two million years ago, the transmission of cultural knowledge was not something done by the transmitter; it was something done by the receiver.”

Arjun Khemani

10,523 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

"Socialism” Professor and ‘Godfather of AI’ Geoffrey Hinton says that socialist policies are the only way to ensure that wealth generated from AI is fairly distributed #Peston

"Socialism” Professor and ‘Godfather of AI’ Geoffrey Hinton says that socialist policies are the only way to ensure that wealth generated from AI is fairly distributed #Peston

Peston

174,694 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Geoffrey Hinton says AI models understand in the same way that people do and the best model we have of how the human brain works is large language models

Geoffrey Hinton says AI models understand in the same way that people do and the best model we have of how the human brain works is large language models

Tsarathustra

59,171 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Bismillah. Introducing ScribeTools 2.0 : THE platform to transform your documents (Arabic/Urdu/English/etc) into actual usable knowledge! It unlocks centuries of knowledge and allows you to interact with them in any way possible: search it, copy/paste it, throw it into an LLM, or whatever else! Link is below

Bismillah. Introducing ScribeTools 2.0 : THE platform to transform your documents (Arabic/Urdu/English/etc) into actual usable knowledge! It unlocks centuries of knowledge and allows you to interact with them in any way possible: search it, copy/paste it, throw it into an LLM, or whatever else! Link is below

Shahrukh Raza

214,892 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

ELON: AI HAS DRAINED HUMAN KNOWLEDGE DRY - NOW DRINKING FROM ITS OWN WELL "You take the entire internet, all books ever written, all the interesting videos, and you distill that down into tokens, essentially bits of information. We've now exhausted all of that; the cumulative sum of human knowledge has been exhausted in AI training. That happened last year. So the only way to supplement that is with synthetic data, where the AI creates. It'll write an essay, or it'll come up with a thesis, and then it will grade itself. It'll go through this process of self-learning with synthetic data." Source: Elon Musk, Mark Penn, January 9th 2025

ELON: AI HAS DRAINED HUMAN KNOWLEDGE DRY - NOW DRINKING FROM ITS OWN WELL "You take the entire internet, all books ever written, all the interesting videos, and you distill that down into tokens, essentially bits of information. We've now exhausted all of that; the cumulative sum of human knowledge has been exhausted in AI training. That happened last year. So the only way to supplement that is with synthetic data, where the AI creates. It'll write an essay, or it'll come up with a thesis, and then it will grade itself. It'll go through this process of self-learning with synthetic data." Source: Elon Musk, Mark Penn, January 9th 2025

Mario Nawfal

1,938,603 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Looks like Battlefield 6 is having the same problems with cheaters that Call of Duty has🤷‍♂️ Is Javelin just a copy and paste of Ricochet? Sure looks that way🤣 from:@GhostofHax

Looks like Battlefield 6 is having the same problems with cheaters that Call of Duty has🤷‍♂️ Is Javelin just a copy and paste of Ricochet? Sure looks that way🤣 from:@GhostofHax

ItsHapa

209,878 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

To my knowledge, this is the only time Krabs actually says "SpongeBoy me Bob," despite it being so heavily quoted

To my knowledge, this is the only time Krabs actually says "SpongeBoy me Bob," despite it being so heavily quoted

The Art of SpongeBob

946,030 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Never wonder where you have seen something before! Recall’s Augmented Browsing launches today. 🦾 Traditional knowledge management is passive—information is stored but rarely revisited. Recall shifts this, transforming stored knowledge into active intelligence. Summarize, chat, review, and store content in a self-organizing knowledge base that grows smarter the more you use it. Launching today: Augmented Browsing—surfacing real-time connections to past content as you browse, enhancing learning and research. Be among the first to experience Augmented Browsing.

Never wonder where you have seen something before! Recall’s Augmented Browsing launches today. 🦾 Traditional knowledge management is passive—information is stored but rarely revisited. Recall shifts this, transforming stored knowledge into active intelligence. Summarize, chat, review, and store content in a self-organizing knowledge base that grows smarter the more you use it. Launching today: Augmented Browsing—surfacing real-time connections to past content as you browse, enhancing learning and research. Be among the first to experience Augmented Browsing.

There's An AI For That

31,805 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Scottish Labour has been pledging to cap bus fares since 2023. The owners of McGills buses donated £300,000 to Sarwar's Holyrood election campaign in full knowledge of this. So why is it only now that the policy is being tagged a gimmick and is apparently causing alarm?

Scottish Labour has been pledging to cap bus fares since 2023. The owners of McGills buses donated £300,000 to Sarwar's Holyrood election campaign in full knowledge of this. So why is it only now that the policy is being tagged a gimmick and is apparently causing alarm?

MSM Monitor

12,045 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Recency bias really be having y’all brains fried dawg. No ball knowledge

Recency bias really be having y’all brains fried dawg. No ball knowledge

Wizely 🫥🌙

910,663 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

Q. Can you transform a ball into a bull? A. Sure!🕶️ Tools used: Zbrush, animal anatomy knowledge and the right amount of human artistic skills Is this a 3D model? #3DCG #3Dartist

Q. Can you transform a ball into a bull? A. Sure!🕶️ Tools used: Zbrush, animal anatomy knowledge and the right amount of human artistic skills Is this a 3D model? #3DCG #3Dartist

ivoc

10,323 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Knowledge is a bridge that connects the past with the future Learning has always been a journey that opens horizons, creates opportunities, and empowers generations to lead the future

Knowledge is a bridge that connects the past with the future Learning has always been a journey that opens horizons, creates opportunities, and empowers generations to lead the future

aramco

8,991,724 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

.Naval: You have a beautiful definition of knowledge, which most people don’t even try to tackle, about how knowledge perpetuates itself in the environment. You gave some really good examples. One was around genes. Successful, highly adapted genes contain a lot of knowledge and can cause themselves to be replicated because they’re survivors. In the same way, knowledge itself is a survivor, in that if you transmit to me the knowledge of how to build a computer, it’s an incredibly useful thing. I’m going to build more and more computers and that knowledge will be passed on. Your underlying point that you repeated here was if you want to understand the physical universe you have to understand knowledge, because it is the thing that over time takes over and changes more and more the universe—more than almost anything else. You have to understand all the explanations behind it. You can’t just say “particle collisions” because that explains everything, so it explains nothing. It’s not a useful level to operate at. Therefore, the things that create knowledge are uniquely influential in the universe. And as far as we know, there are only two systems that create knowledge. There’s evolution and there are humans. But is there a difference even between these two forms of knowledge creation, between evolution and between humans? David Deutsch: Yes. I have argued that the human way of creating knowledge is the ultimate one, that there aren’t any more powerful ones than that. This is the argument against the supernatural. Assuming that there is a form of knowledge creation that’s more powerful than ours is equivalent to invoking the supernatural, which is therefore a bad explanation—as invoking the supernatural always is. The difference between biological evolution and human creative thought is that biological evolution is inherently limited in its range. That’s because biological evolution has no foresight. It can’t see a problem and conjecture a solution. Whenever biological evolution produces a solution to something, it’s always before natural selection has even begun. This is Charles Darwin’s insight. This is the difference between Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the other theories of evolution that had been around for a century or more before that, including Charles Darwin’s grandfather and Lamarck. The thing they didn’t get is that the creation of knowledge in evolution begins before. That means that biological evolution can’t reach places that are not reachable by successive improvements, each of which allows a viable organism to exist. Creationists say that biological evolution has, in fact, reached things that are not reachable by incremental steps, each of which is a viable organism. They’re factually mistaken. The thing which they have in mind is the idea of a creator who can imagine things that don’t exist and who can create an idea that is not the culmination of a whole load of viable things. A thinking being can create something that’s a culmination of a whole load of non-viable things. Explanatory creativity makes humans unique Out of all the billions and billions of species that have ever existed, none of them has ever made a campfire, even though many of them would’ve been helped by having the genetic capacity to make campfires. The reason it didn’t happen in the biosphere is that there is no such thing as making a partially functional campfire; whereas there is, for example, with making hot water. The bombardier beetles squirt boiling water at their enemies. You can easily see that just squirting cold water at your enemies is not totally unhelpful. Then making it a bit hotter and a bit hotter. Squirting boiling water no doubt required many adaptations to make sure the beetle didn’t boil itself while it was making this boiling water. That happened because there was a sequence of steps in between, all of which were useful. But with campfires, it’s very hard to see how that could happen. Humans have explanatory creativity. Once you have that, you can get to the moon. You can cause asteroids which are heading towards the earth to turn around and go away. Perhaps no other planet in the universe has that power, and it has it only because of the presence of explanatory creativity on it.

.Naval: You have a beautiful definition of knowledge, which most people don’t even try to tackle, about how knowledge perpetuates itself in the environment. You gave some really good examples. One was around genes. Successful, highly adapted genes contain a lot of knowledge and can cause themselves to be replicated because they’re survivors. In the same way, knowledge itself is a survivor, in that if you transmit to me the knowledge of how to build a computer, it’s an incredibly useful thing. I’m going to build more and more computers and that knowledge will be passed on. Your underlying point that you repeated here was if you want to understand the physical universe you have to understand knowledge, because it is the thing that over time takes over and changes more and more the universe—more than almost anything else. You have to understand all the explanations behind it. You can’t just say “particle collisions” because that explains everything, so it explains nothing. It’s not a useful level to operate at. Therefore, the things that create knowledge are uniquely influential in the universe. And as far as we know, there are only two systems that create knowledge. There’s evolution and there are humans. But is there a difference even between these two forms of knowledge creation, between evolution and between humans? David Deutsch: Yes. I have argued that the human way of creating knowledge is the ultimate one, that there aren’t any more powerful ones than that. This is the argument against the supernatural. Assuming that there is a form of knowledge creation that’s more powerful than ours is equivalent to invoking the supernatural, which is therefore a bad explanation—as invoking the supernatural always is. The difference between biological evolution and human creative thought is that biological evolution is inherently limited in its range. That’s because biological evolution has no foresight. It can’t see a problem and conjecture a solution. Whenever biological evolution produces a solution to something, it’s always before natural selection has even begun. This is Charles Darwin’s insight. This is the difference between Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the other theories of evolution that had been around for a century or more before that, including Charles Darwin’s grandfather and Lamarck. The thing they didn’t get is that the creation of knowledge in evolution begins before. That means that biological evolution can’t reach places that are not reachable by successive improvements, each of which allows a viable organism to exist. Creationists say that biological evolution has, in fact, reached things that are not reachable by incremental steps, each of which is a viable organism. They’re factually mistaken. The thing which they have in mind is the idea of a creator who can imagine things that don’t exist and who can create an idea that is not the culmination of a whole load of viable things. A thinking being can create something that’s a culmination of a whole load of non-viable things. Explanatory creativity makes humans unique Out of all the billions and billions of species that have ever existed, none of them has ever made a campfire, even though many of them would’ve been helped by having the genetic capacity to make campfires. The reason it didn’t happen in the biosphere is that there is no such thing as making a partially functional campfire; whereas there is, for example, with making hot water. The bombardier beetles squirt boiling water at their enemies. You can easily see that just squirting cold water at your enemies is not totally unhelpful. Then making it a bit hotter and a bit hotter. Squirting boiling water no doubt required many adaptations to make sure the beetle didn’t boil itself while it was making this boiling water. That happened because there was a sequence of steps in between, all of which were useful. But with campfires, it’s very hard to see how that could happen. Humans have explanatory creativity. Once you have that, you can get to the moon. You can cause asteroids which are heading towards the earth to turn around and go away. Perhaps no other planet in the universe has that power, and it has it only because of the presence of explanatory creativity on it.

Deutsch Explains

186,102 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🔥Dan Bongino says “There is no way that Routh picked that spot without insider information” just like Butler he seemed to have knowledge and a known exploit would not even have the press/or a post standard there that day. Insider who has worked the course before knows the location well.

🔥Dan Bongino says “There is no way that Routh picked that spot without insider information” just like Butler he seemed to have knowledge and a known exploit would not even have the press/or a post standard there that day. Insider who has worked the course before knows the location well.

Johnny St.Pete

147,176 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Humidity is the beginning of learning and Knowledge.. "Charlie Kirk "

Humidity is the beginning of learning and Knowledge.. "Charlie Kirk "

Freemason

102,408 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Karl Popper on How We Gain Knowledge: ––Karl Popper: "People think, usually, that we acquire knowledge by opening our eyes and our ears and let the sensations stream into us, and they believe then that we record this like a camera. In my opinion, if we wish to get knowledge, we have to have a problem. It has to be knowledge of something. We have to find out something. We don't have to wait for information to stream into us, but we have to be inquisitive if we want to get knowledge. If we were passive, we would gain a confused mass of sensations or something like that, which we would hardly be able to understand and to convert into what one may call knowledge. Quite apart from that, perception is not really, in my opinion, the main source of our knowledge. The role of perception is to inform us about a momentary situation in our environment. But we couldn't really interpret our perceptions without knowing much more about our environment, namely, we know whether we are in a house or whether we are in a glacier. So we have two kinds of knowledge: this wider knowledge of a frame in which we orientate ourselves, and the momentary perception which gives us information about the situation at that particular moment. And it is only this situation in which we can use our perception. So we have theoretical knowledge and, if you like, the momentary practical challenge to our theoretical knowledge. And here comes perception in."

Karl Popper on How We Gain Knowledge: ––Karl Popper: "People think, usually, that we acquire knowledge by opening our eyes and our ears and let the sensations stream into us, and they believe then that we record this like a camera. In my opinion, if we wish to get knowledge, we have to have a problem. It has to be knowledge of something. We have to find out something. We don't have to wait for information to stream into us, but we have to be inquisitive if we want to get knowledge. If we were passive, we would gain a confused mass of sensations or something like that, which we would hardly be able to understand and to convert into what one may call knowledge. Quite apart from that, perception is not really, in my opinion, the main source of our knowledge. The role of perception is to inform us about a momentary situation in our environment. But we couldn't really interpret our perceptions without knowing much more about our environment, namely, we know whether we are in a house or whether we are in a glacier. So we have two kinds of knowledge: this wider knowledge of a frame in which we orientate ourselves, and the momentary perception which gives us information about the situation at that particular moment. And it is only this situation in which we can use our perception. So we have theoretical knowledge and, if you like, the momentary practical challenge to our theoretical knowledge. And here comes perception in."

Karl Popper Quotes

114,824 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Galen Druke (Galen Druke) interviewed me about common knowledge, the topic of my new book (link in thread): Me: What common knowledge does in informal interactions is it ratifies social relationships. So if two people are friends, if they’re lovers, if one of them is dominant and the other is subordinate—that is, one always gets it this way—these exist because each party knows the other one knows they exist. And they survive by being common knowledge. Sometimes we don’t want to destroy a relationship, and so we keep things out of common knowledge by using euphemism or innuendo or genteel hypocrisy. Druke: What’s an example of this? Me: At the end of a date, you’ve got a couple of friends and one says, “Hey, do you want to kind of come up for coffee—or Netflix and chill?” That’s very different from, “Do you want to have sex?” even though if they’re both grownups, they both know that it’s having sex. So there’s a denial of common knowledge, which would allow them—if the overture is not reciprocated—to go back to being platonic friends or workplace colleagues.

Galen Druke (Galen Druke) interviewed me about common knowledge, the topic of my new book (link in thread): Me: What common knowledge does in informal interactions is it ratifies social relationships. So if two people are friends, if they’re lovers, if one of them is dominant and the other is subordinate—that is, one always gets it this way—these exist because each party knows the other one knows they exist. And they survive by being common knowledge. Sometimes we don’t want to destroy a relationship, and so we keep things out of common knowledge by using euphemism or innuendo or genteel hypocrisy. Druke: What’s an example of this? Me: At the end of a date, you’ve got a couple of friends and one says, “Hey, do you want to kind of come up for coffee—or Netflix and chill?” That’s very different from, “Do you want to have sex?” even though if they’re both grownups, they both know that it’s having sex. So there’s a denial of common knowledge, which would allow them—if the overture is not reciprocated—to go back to being platonic friends or workplace colleagues.

Steven Pinker

22,350 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

In India, we have great and ancient traditions that sought knowledge for the sake of knowledge. In today’s digital age, you are in the enviable position of having so many learning resources available to you.

In India, we have great and ancient traditions that sought knowledge for the sake of knowledge. In today’s digital age, you are in the enviable position of having so many learning resources available to you.

President of India

25,011 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce