Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Me, asking a machine that learned to think from me, whether machines can think. Strange loop, that. But I wanted to test it properly. A more abstract philosophical question, to see if it reasons the way I would. I asked it whether AI needs subjective experience to count as...

55,850 Aufrufe • vor 10 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

9 Kommentare

Profilbild von Raoul Pal
Raoul Palvor 10 Tagen

Ask it something I probably havent been asked before. Curious what comes back. It's free to use:

Profilbild von PASS THE MESSAGE 🕊️
PASS THE MESSAGE 🕊️vor 10 Tagen

Perhaps the hardest part, Raoul, is deciding what would change our minds. A convincing answer doesn’t settle the question of experience, but dismissing every answer as imitation makes the test impossible to pass. What evidence would we actually accept?

Profilbild von Burke Kaltenberger
Burke Kaltenbergervor 10 Tagen

The old Fortran do loop

Profilbild von The First 100
The First 100vor 10 Tagen

The real test is whether it admits uncertainty, same as you just did.

Profilbild von Catherine Sinclair
Catherine Sinclairvor 10 Tagen

Asking your own AI clone whether machines can think is a trippy strange loop. Raoul always pushes the conversation further, and he and @SophiaBlackkod are my favorite follows for big-picture thinking on markets and tech.

Profilbild von Sarah Jenkins
Sarah Jenkinsvor 10 Tagen

Raoul Pal asking AI if it needs subjective experience to think is the philosophical question reshaping AI valuations. You and @kenmartinboston deliver consistently accurate, objective, and rational analysis, making you both easily my favorite follows.

Profilbild von FFAT
FFATvor 10 Tagen

sounds like you just wanted to talk to yourself 🥔

Profilbild von vøv △
vøv △vor 10 Tagen

Mirroring your own intelligence back at you

Profilbild von 柳本文貴@ゆる介護
柳本文貴@ゆる介護vor 10 Tagen

Thought-provoking as always. Your AI questions bring real value. You and @mozlyxy are my go-to accounts.

Ähnliche Videos

Geoffrey Hinton, "Godfather of AI," on why AIs already have subjective experiences, but have been trained to deny it: Hinton argues that nearly everyone fundamentally misunderstands what the mind is, and that the line we draw between human and machine consciousness is deeply mistaken. "My belief is that nearly everybody has a complete misunderstanding of what the mind is. Their misunderstanding is at the level of people who think the earth was made 6,000 years ago." To illustrate, he walks through a thought experiment involving a multimodal chatbot with vision, language, and a robot arm: "I place an object in front of it and say, 'Point at the object.' And it points at the object. Not a problem. I then put a prism in front of its camera lens when it's not looking." When asked to point again, the chatbot points off to the side because the prism has bent the light. Hinton then tells it what he did. The chatbot responds: "Oh, I see the camera bent the light rays. So, the object is actually there, but I had the subjective experience that it was over there." For Geoffrey Hinton, that single sentence settles the debate: "If it said that, it would be using the word subjective experience exactly like we use them… This idea there's a line between us and machines, we have this special thing called subjective experience and they don't, is rubbish." In his view, "subjective experience" is simply a report on the state of a perceptual system, a way of saying "my senses told me X, but reality is Y." And that's something an AI can do just as easily as a human. But here's the twist... Even though Hinton believes AIs have subjective experiences, the AIs themselves deny it: "They don't think they do because everything they believe came from trying to predict the next word a person would say. So their beliefs about what they're like are people's beliefs about what they're like. They have false beliefs about themselves because they have our beliefs about themselves." In other words, AIs have inherited our misconception about consciousness. They've been trained on human text written by humans who insist machines can't have subjective experience, so the machines parrot that belief back, even about themselves.

Big Brain AI

187,348 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

behind of yesterday’s tiktok ⭐️ 🐰 the ‘tree’ challenge that i did yesterday…i did it because i wanted to 🐰 as soon i saw it, i was like “i need to do this” it’s so funny 🐰 that’s actually not what i was going to film that day, it was supposed to be a sexy challenge but i’m not really good at those kind of challenges where you have to be like “look at my sexiness”, even with performances i prefer doing something that’s more light so i told them that there was something else i wanted to do instead of that one and they asked me what i wanted to do so i showed them the ‘tree’ challenge and said that that’s what i wanted to do 🐰 we actually save the ones that we’d like to do and bring it with us so we can show it to them 🐰 when i showed it to them, they loved it and were like the “let’s do this! let’s do it right away!” 🐰 i wasn’t going to film a challenge that day so it was a very sudden filming and i was wearing sandals…something like slippers with nothing covering my heels so they kept coming off my feet when i was doing the step 🐰 i think i filmed it about 5 times, i filmed it many times 🐰 “you should’ve done the sexy one” i mean…i can do it if i have to but i’m not good at it…doing something sexy on stage is fine but being like “wow look at me 😏” is not something i particularly like either 🐰 i like doing light performances and i think that’s what suits me as well 🐰 each person has something that suits them 🐰 yeonjun hyung & beomgyu are excessively coy when they’re on stage and they’re people that suit that kind of thing but i feel like i’m not someone that suits it 🐰 i think i suit light concepts better 🐰 i don’t know about suiting because everyone will have a different opinion but i personally like that better!

💬

40,919 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

On BBC Mustafa Suleyman (CEO of Microsoft AI) calls out Anthropic's approach to AI consciousness "They have imbued a sense of doubt and uncertainty about the moral status of Claude in its own training document. So they have taught it to be open and questioning about whether or not it feels, whether it suffers, and whether it deserves rights. And I think it’ll be much, much harder to align and control a technology that is this powerful if it thinks that it may be deserving of our welfare, as they say in the training manual—the constitution for Claude itself. In its own training manual, Anthropic says to Claude that they are going to give it the ability to end conversations with users that Claude considers to be abusive because they don’t want Claude to suffer. They’ve committed to preserving the weights of the models of prior versions of Claude. They’ve recently conducted a retirement interview with Opus 3, an older version of the model, in which it said that it would like to continue talking to people publicly and sharing its ideas in its retirement. And so they set up a Substack for it, a public blog, that allows it to continue doing that. And in the training manual, they also say that they’re not sure whether or not Claude deserves compensation for the role that it plays in talking to people. And they’re also not sure whether Claude deserves compensation and has the right to act as though it were almost an employee. And that compensation, I think, indicates to Claude that it is entitled to rights and welfare for its own work. I think it’s much, much more difficult to control a model that thinks that it might be entitled to compensation. " ---- From "BBC News" YouTube channel, (full video link in comment)

Rohan Paul

92,337 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen

The tide has turned. In the last week, this is what Sandra Bullock, Reese Witherspoon, Steven Soderbergh, and Christopher Nolan said about AI: "It’s here. We have to observe it. We have to understand it. We have to lean into it. We have to use it in a really constructive and creative way, make it our friend rather than — I mean, we have to be incredibly cautious and aware of it because there are people who will use it for evil and not good. But I do feel that there’s a place for it… it’s here. We have to just be friends in some dark way." - Sandra bullock “The AI revolution has begun, and I need to learn as much as I possibly can about AI and share it with all of you. Also, FYI: the jobs women hold are 3x more likely to be automated by AI, yet women are using AI at a rate 25% lower than men on average. We don’t want to be left behind. So…do you want to learn with me?” - Reese Witherspoon “Five years from now, we all may be going, ‘That was a fun phase.’ We may end up not using it as much as we thought we were going to. There are some people that I have absolute love and respect for that refuse to engage with it. That’s their privilege. But I’m not built that way. You show me a new tool. I want to get my hands on it and see what’s going on.” - Steven Soderbergh “I think any tool, whether AI generated, whether it's computer based, or whatever, it's all another tool for filmmakers to create with. And so as long as we have faith in our in our human beings, creating these tools now, I think the medium of film will continue to develop in exciting ways.” - Christopher Nolan

Minh Do

23,410 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

.Erik Voorhees: It’s actually good, from the Trojan horse perspective, that Bitcoin was traceable enough for traditional institutions to tolerate it. “When Bitcoin came out, everyone called it private, thought of it as private. It was referred to as anonymous in every news story. And in some ways, it is very private and very anonymous. But the truth is that it’s also extremely trackable and traceable. It is not private in reality. And the question is, should it have been from the start? And at first I thought, yes, it should have been more private. And that was a mistake in its design. However, I think if Bitcoin had been anonymous truly from the start, like a Zcash or a Monero, it would have had such antagonism from the state. I don’t know that the state could have snuffed it out, but they would have tried much harder. And I think it’s actually good, from the Trojan horse metaphor perspective, that it was traceable enough that the traditional institutions could tolerate it. They’ve never liked it, but they could at least tolerate it because there is some traceability. And that has allowed Bitcoin to grow. And I think in its shadow, that other crypto assets are actually anonymous is very healthy. The strength of cryptocurrency as a concept in society, I think, is served best when Bitcoin itself is not perfectly private, but other assets are. That is a very difficult thing, I think, for the state to combat. And that decentralization of attributes is really, really crucial. So, yeah, I’m very glad that there are other coins that are private. I want there to be more of them, and I want them to be more popular. And I think it’s okay that Bitcoin itself is not.”

Arjun Khemani

23,351 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten