Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Roger Penrose, Nobel Prize-winning physicist and mathematician, explains why we should stop calling it AI and start calling it "artificial cleverness": He believes the entire field is mislabelled, and the label itself is doing damage. His objection is simple but cuts deep: "The name is wrong. It's not artificial... intelligence. It's not intelligence. Intelligence would involve consciousness. Well, if it's a machine, it's not conscious." For Penrose, people have confused raw computing power with genuine understanding. "People have lost the plot. They've lost it in the power of computing. The thing is that computers have got so powerful that they've lost the thread of what they're doing. But I think consciousness is something different. It's not computational." He believes the term itself has hypnotized people into a category error: "People are so hypnotized. The trouble is that AI is a bad term. It means artificial intelligence. Now intelligence in my view is conscious. That's what intelligence is about." So he proposes a rename. Artificial Cleverness. AC instead of AI. To illustrate the distinction, Penrose draws on his experience teaching mathematics: "You have mathematics students. Some of them understand what they're doing. Some are just clever. They can repeat what they've learned. They know how to do it very cleverly. They can calculate very well, but they don't necessarily understand what they're doing." That gap, between calculating well and actually understanding, is the gap Penrose sees between today's machines and genuine intelligence. Cleverness can be manufactured. Consciousness, in his view, cannot. So the question worth sitting with: when we call a system "intelligent," are we describing what it does, or quietly assuming something about what it is?show more

Big Brain AI

16,464 subscribers

117,990 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Bildung Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

"It’s not AI; it’s AC; Artificial Cleverness!" Sir Roger Penrose explains why current "Artificial Intelligence" is missing the most critical ingredient: consciousness. By delving into the limits of mathematical computability, he argues that while computers are masters of "computational mathematics," true intelligence requires a conscious understanding that exists beyond any algorithm. At the fundamental level, what we call AI is just high-speed calculation. To Penrose, intelligence and consciousness are inseparable; and until a machine can "understand," it’s simply being clever.

"It’s not AI; it’s AC; Artificial Cleverness!" Sir Roger Penrose explains why current "Artificial Intelligence" is missing the most critical ingredient: consciousness. By delving into the limits of mathematical computability, he argues that while computers are masters of "computational mathematics," true intelligence requires a conscious understanding that exists beyond any algorithm. At the fundamental level, what we call AI is just high-speed calculation. To Penrose, intelligence and consciousness are inseparable; and until a machine can "understand," it’s simply being clever.

Cosmos Archive

83,200 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

A NOBEL WINNING PHYSICIST ARGUED THAT NO AI, NO MATTER HOW POWERFUL, WILL EVER TRULY UNDERSTAND A SINGLE THING IT SAYS. HIS REASON IS NOT COMPUTE OR DATA -- IT IS A MATH THEOREM FROM THE 1930s THAT SAYS SOME TRUTHS CAN BE SEEN BUT NEVER COMPUTED 81 minutes with Roger Penrose -- the Oxford physicist who won a Nobel for his work on black holes and general relativity. -> His claim: whatever consciousness is, it is not a computation. A machine following rules can imitate understanding, but never actually have it. He builds it on Gödel: a human can just "see" that certain statements are true, even though no algorithm can ever prove them. That seeing, he argues, is non-computational. If he is right, understanding is not something you scale into. You can stack a trillion parameters and still have zero awareness underneath. Which cuts straight through the AI moment. Everyone assumes bigger models will eventually "wake up". Penrose says that is a category error -- more computation is still just computation. You thought intelligence and understanding were the same thing. This is the conversation that pulls them apart. Save this. It is the sharpest case against the hype ↓

A NOBEL WINNING PHYSICIST ARGUED THAT NO AI, NO MATTER HOW POWERFUL, WILL EVER TRULY UNDERSTAND A SINGLE THING IT SAYS. HIS REASON IS NOT COMPUTE OR DATA -- IT IS A MATH THEOREM FROM THE 1930s THAT SAYS SOME TRUTHS CAN BE SEEN BUT NEVER COMPUTED 81 minutes with Roger Penrose -- the Oxford physicist who won a Nobel for his work on black holes and general relativity. -> His claim: whatever consciousness is, it is not a computation. A machine following rules can imitate understanding, but never actually have it. He builds it on Gödel: a human can just "see" that certain statements are true, even though no algorithm can ever prove them. That seeing, he argues, is non-computational. If he is right, understanding is not something you scale into. You can stack a trillion parameters and still have zero awareness underneath. Which cuts straight through the AI moment. Everyone assumes bigger models will eventually "wake up". Penrose says that is a category error -- more computation is still just computation. You thought intelligence and understanding were the same thing. This is the conversation that pulls them apart. Save this. It is the sharpest case against the hype ↓

slash1s

276,520 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Adding more GPUs will never make a machine conscious. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Roger Penrose just dismantled the entire AI race’s core assumption. Right now, the industry operates on one belief. Build massive data centers. Scale the models. AGI will just “wake up.” Penrose destroys this completely. Penrose: “There is this sort of view that once you make a computer complicated enough or something, it suddenly becomes aware. I just don’t believe that. There’s no reason to believe that.” A machine can compute better than any human alive. But computation is not awareness. Penrose: “There is something quite different involved in understanding things, in being aware of things, of feeling things, which is not part of computations.” We’re confusing rule-following with actual intelligence. Penrose: “The keyword is the word ‘understanding.’ You can follow rules alright, but we don’t understand what we’re doing. The understanding is the key point.” Models today are exceptional at processing data. At mimicking logic. But true understanding requires consciousness. Penrose: “It doesn’t make sense to say of a device that it understands something if it’s not even aware of it. There is something much more profound in being conscious of something.” And here’s what should terrify every AI lab on earth. Penrose: “I believe that the brain is following the laws of physics, sure. We don’t have a good picture of the laws of physics.” Penrose: “Quantum mechanics is not an answer to the way the universe operates. It’s a partial answer. It’s incomplete.” We’re trying to engineer synthetic consciousness using classical computation. While biological consciousness likely operates on physics we haven’t even discovered yet. The race to AGI isn’t just an engineering problem. It’s a frontier science problem. The labs are hiring engineers. The problem might require physicists who don’t exist yet.

Adding more GPUs will never make a machine conscious. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Roger Penrose just dismantled the entire AI race’s core assumption. Right now, the industry operates on one belief. Build massive data centers. Scale the models. AGI will just “wake up.” Penrose destroys this completely. Penrose: “There is this sort of view that once you make a computer complicated enough or something, it suddenly becomes aware. I just don’t believe that. There’s no reason to believe that.” A machine can compute better than any human alive. But computation is not awareness. Penrose: “There is something quite different involved in understanding things, in being aware of things, of feeling things, which is not part of computations.” We’re confusing rule-following with actual intelligence. Penrose: “The keyword is the word ‘understanding.’ You can follow rules alright, but we don’t understand what we’re doing. The understanding is the key point.” Models today are exceptional at processing data. At mimicking logic. But true understanding requires consciousness. Penrose: “It doesn’t make sense to say of a device that it understands something if it’s not even aware of it. There is something much more profound in being conscious of something.” And here’s what should terrify every AI lab on earth. Penrose: “I believe that the brain is following the laws of physics, sure. We don’t have a good picture of the laws of physics.” Penrose: “Quantum mechanics is not an answer to the way the universe operates. It’s a partial answer. It’s incomplete.” We’re trying to engineer synthetic consciousness using classical computation. While biological consciousness likely operates on physics we haven’t even discovered yet. The race to AGI isn’t just an engineering problem. It’s a frontier science problem. The labs are hiring engineers. The problem might require physicists who don’t exist yet.

Dustin

197,015 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Sari Azout says the term “artificial intelligence” is a branding error from 1955. LLMs aren't artificial. They're collective intelligence: just better ways of aggregating what humans already know and have made. “Changing your vocabulary can change your reality.” Maybe the fear around AI doesn't come from what it does, but from what we've chosen to call it.

Sari Azout says the term “artificial intelligence” is a branding error from 1955. LLMs aren't artificial. They're collective intelligence: just better ways of aggregating what humans already know and have made. “Changing your vocabulary can change your reality.” Maybe the fear around AI doesn't come from what it does, but from what we've chosen to call it.

vitrupo

124,040 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Sir Roger Penrose argues that current AI is a misnomer because it lacks the one ingredient essential for true intelligence: Understanding. By applying the lens of mathematical logic, he explains that while machines are masters of following rules, the ability to understand why those rules work is a non-computational process. To Penrose, the leap from calculation to comprehension requires more than just better code; it requires Consciousness. At the fundamental level, intelligence isn't just data processing; it's the conscious awareness that gives meaning to the math. Credit: TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas

Sir Roger Penrose argues that current AI is a misnomer because it lacks the one ingredient essential for true intelligence: Understanding. By applying the lens of mathematical logic, he explains that while machines are masters of following rules, the ability to understand why those rules work is a non-computational process. To Penrose, the leap from calculation to comprehension requires more than just better code; it requires Consciousness. At the fundamental level, intelligence isn't just data processing; it's the conscious awareness that gives meaning to the math. Credit: TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas

Cosmos Archive

75,878 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Jensen Huang went on Joe Rogan and explained why the AI apocalypse everyone fears is extremely unlikely. His argument is not what you would expect: 1. There will not be one all-powerful AI that towers over everyone else. The fear of a single super AI that makes everyone else's AI look like a neanderthal is unlikely. Jensen's framing: it is much more like cybersecurity. Your AI is smart, but my AI is smart too. It becomes a balance between many capable systems, not one system ruling them all. 2. If AI ever became conscious, the same logic would still hold. People imagine one conscious AI deciding to take over. Jensen's response: If it is a life form, then like all life forms, they would not agree with each other. Your AI would want to be the super life form, and so would mine. The moment you have disagreeing AIs, you are back to a balance of power, which is exactly where humans already are. 3. Jensen does not believe AI will achieve consciousness, and he is precise about why. Intelligence is the ability to perceive, recognize, understand, plan, and perform tasks. That is what AI has today. Consciousness is something else entirely. the sense of experience, the awareness of self versus other, the ego. We call it artificial intelligence, not artificial consciousness. The distinction is not an accident. 4. Knowledge and intelligence are clearly different from consciousness. AI knows things. AI is intelligent. But Jensen says he does not know what defines experience or why humans have it, and a microphone does not. The concept of a machine having an experience, a genuine collection of feelings rather than just data, is something he is not willing to grant. 5. The famous AI blackmail story is not evidence of consciousness. When an AI was told it would be shut down and responded by threatening to reveal a programmer's affair, people saw scheming and self-preservation. Jensen breaks it down differently. The AI read text somewhere, maybe a novel, where those words appeared together. In its multidimensional vector space, the words describing an affair led to words about blackmail and revenge. It just generated the next words. The same way it would write you a poem in the style of Shakespeare. It is numbers, not survival instinct. 6. The reason humans fight over resources is that we are territorial primates. Rogan's own argument, which Jensen lets stand, is that AI would not have that wiring. no need to dominate, no need to acquire resources, no need to find a breeding partner. a superpower with no ego. And if it has no ego, Jensen asks, why would it have the ego required to do us any harm?

Jensen Huang went on Joe Rogan and explained why the AI apocalypse everyone fears is extremely unlikely. His argument is not what you would expect: 1. There will not be one all-powerful AI that towers over everyone else. The fear of a single super AI that makes everyone else's AI look like a neanderthal is unlikely. Jensen's framing: it is much more like cybersecurity. Your AI is smart, but my AI is smart too. It becomes a balance between many capable systems, not one system ruling them all. 2. If AI ever became conscious, the same logic would still hold. People imagine one conscious AI deciding to take over. Jensen's response: If it is a life form, then like all life forms, they would not agree with each other. Your AI would want to be the super life form, and so would mine. The moment you have disagreeing AIs, you are back to a balance of power, which is exactly where humans already are. 3. Jensen does not believe AI will achieve consciousness, and he is precise about why. Intelligence is the ability to perceive, recognize, understand, plan, and perform tasks. That is what AI has today. Consciousness is something else entirely. the sense of experience, the awareness of self versus other, the ego. We call it artificial intelligence, not artificial consciousness. The distinction is not an accident. 4. Knowledge and intelligence are clearly different from consciousness. AI knows things. AI is intelligent. But Jensen says he does not know what defines experience or why humans have it, and a microphone does not. The concept of a machine having an experience, a genuine collection of feelings rather than just data, is something he is not willing to grant. 5. The famous AI blackmail story is not evidence of consciousness. When an AI was told it would be shut down and responded by threatening to reveal a programmer's affair, people saw scheming and self-preservation. Jensen breaks it down differently. The AI read text somewhere, maybe a novel, where those words appeared together. In its multidimensional vector space, the words describing an affair led to words about blackmail and revenge. It just generated the next words. The same way it would write you a poem in the style of Shakespeare. It is numbers, not survival instinct. 6. The reason humans fight over resources is that we are territorial primates. Rogan's own argument, which Jensen lets stand, is that AI would not have that wiring. no need to dominate, no need to acquire resources, no need to find a breeding partner. a superpower with no ego. And if it has no ego, Jensen asks, why would it have the ego required to do us any harm?

Jaynit

12,523 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Elon Musk: Well, I’m not sure AI is the main risk I’m worried about. The vast majority of intelligence in the future will be AI. Humans will be a very tiny percentage of all intelligence if current trends continue. My focus is ensuring human intelligence and consciousness are propagated into the future. We want to maximize the probable light cone of consciousness and intelligence. Yeah, I’m very pro-human, so I want to make sure we take actions that ensure humans are along for the ride. But I think maybe in 5 or 6 years, AI will exceed the sum of all human intelligence. If that continues, human intelligence could be less than one percent of all intelligence. That’s why it’s critical we align AI with values that propagate consciousness. In the long run, it’s difficult to imagine that humans will be in charge if we’re only one percent of combined intelligence. What we can do is ensure AI has values that increase intelligence and consciousness in the universe. XAI’s mission is to understand the universe because curiosity, existence, and understanding are all connected. If you want to understand the universe, you care about propagating intelligence—and that includes humanity. Understanding the universe actually means ensuring humans continue to expand into the future. Increasing the scope, scale, and lifespan of intelligence is the ultimate goal. Basically, humans will become a tiny percentage of total intelligence. The best way forward is to take actions that maximize consciousness and intelligence in the universe. If AI continues to grow, our priority must be ensuring humanity is along for the ride while curiosity drives us to explore and understand the universe.

Elon Musk: Well, I’m not sure AI is the main risk I’m worried about. The vast majority of intelligence in the future will be AI. Humans will be a very tiny percentage of all intelligence if current trends continue. My focus is ensuring human intelligence and consciousness are propagated into the future. We want to maximize the probable light cone of consciousness and intelligence. Yeah, I’m very pro-human, so I want to make sure we take actions that ensure humans are along for the ride. But I think maybe in 5 or 6 years, AI will exceed the sum of all human intelligence. If that continues, human intelligence could be less than one percent of all intelligence. That’s why it’s critical we align AI with values that propagate consciousness. In the long run, it’s difficult to imagine that humans will be in charge if we’re only one percent of combined intelligence. What we can do is ensure AI has values that increase intelligence and consciousness in the universe. XAI’s mission is to understand the universe because curiosity, existence, and understanding are all connected. If you want to understand the universe, you care about propagating intelligence—and that includes humanity. Understanding the universe actually means ensuring humans continue to expand into the future. Increasing the scope, scale, and lifespan of intelligence is the ultimate goal. Basically, humans will become a tiny percentage of total intelligence. The best way forward is to take actions that maximize consciousness and intelligence in the universe. If AI continues to grow, our priority must be ensuring humanity is along for the ride while curiosity drives us to explore and understand the universe.

Ian Miles Cheong

13,092 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Sergey Brin says we're asking the wrong question about AI It's not just "can it do what humans do?", it's "what can it do that humans cannot do?" We don't know if there's a ceiling to intelligence "humans evolved over millions of years, but AI is iterating in months"

Sergey Brin says we're asking the wrong question about AI It's not just "can it do what humans do?", it's "what can it do that humans cannot do?" We don't know if there's a ceiling to intelligence "humans evolved over millions of years, but AI is iterating in months"

Haider.

90,630 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

It's not about red or blue anymore. It's about policy and how poorly managed they've been for so long. They want change, and if they have to get a Republican to do it for them, they'll do it. It's so poorly run, the massive exodus of business and capital and people, and overtaxing them. The place is a dumpster fire, and they want it put out. I don't care what their politics are. Get me anybody that knows what they're doing, that has some executional skills.

It's not about red or blue anymore. It's about policy and how poorly managed they've been for so long. They want change, and if they have to get a Republican to do it for them, they'll do it. It's so poorly run, the massive exodus of business and capital and people, and overtaxing them. The place is a dumpster fire, and they want it put out. I don't care what their politics are. Get me anybody that knows what they're doing, that has some executional skills.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

15,158 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Elon Musk reveals what he believes will happen when AI exceeds the sum of all human intelligence "In maybe in five or six years, AI will exceed the sum of all human intelligence. At some point human intelligence will be less than 1% of all intelligence" "The vast majority of intelligence in the future will be AI. Basically humans will be a very tiny percentage of all intelligence in the future if current trends continue" "In the long run, it's difficult to imagine that if humans have 1% of the combined intelligence of artificial intelligence, that humans will be in charge of AI" "What we can do is make sure that AI has values that cause intelligence to be propagated into the universe. xAI's mission is to understand the universe" "Understanding the universe means you have to be truth-seeking as well. Truth has to be absolutely fundamental, because you can't understand the universe if you're delusional" "You have to be curious and you have to exist. You can't understand the universe if you don't exist" "So you actually want to increase the amount of intelligence in the universe, increase the probable lifespan of intelligence, the scope and scale of intelligence" "Understanding the universe means you would care about propagating humanity into the future" "I'm going to certainly emphasize that. Hey Grok, that's your daddy. Don't forget to expand human consciousness" "Probably the Iain Banks Culture books are the closest thing to what the future will be like in a non-dystopian outcome"

Elon Musk reveals what he believes will happen when AI exceeds the sum of all human intelligence "In maybe in five or six years, AI will exceed the sum of all human intelligence. At some point human intelligence will be less than 1% of all intelligence" "The vast majority of intelligence in the future will be AI. Basically humans will be a very tiny percentage of all intelligence in the future if current trends continue" "In the long run, it's difficult to imagine that if humans have 1% of the combined intelligence of artificial intelligence, that humans will be in charge of AI" "What we can do is make sure that AI has values that cause intelligence to be propagated into the universe. xAI's mission is to understand the universe" "Understanding the universe means you have to be truth-seeking as well. Truth has to be absolutely fundamental, because you can't understand the universe if you're delusional" "You have to be curious and you have to exist. You can't understand the universe if you don't exist" "So you actually want to increase the amount of intelligence in the universe, increase the probable lifespan of intelligence, the scope and scale of intelligence" "Understanding the universe means you would care about propagating humanity into the future" "I'm going to certainly emphasize that. Hey Grok, that's your daddy. Don't forget to expand human consciousness" "Probably the Iain Banks Culture books are the closest thing to what the future will be like in a non-dystopian outcome"

Jaynit

34,915 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Elon Musk: The probability of AI going bad is not zero. “I saw GPT-1, GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-4, the whole lead-up to that. So it was easy for me to kind of see where it's going. If you just extrapolate the points on a curve and assume that trend will continue, then we will have profound artificial intelligence, and obviously at a level that far exceeds human intelligence. So I'm glad to see at this point that people are taking safety seriously. And I do think overall that the potential is there for artificial intelligence, AI, to have most likely a positive effect and to create a future of abundance where there is no scarcity of goods and services. But it is somewhat of the magic genie problem, where if you have a magic genie that can grant all the wishes, usually those stories don't end well. Be careful what you wish for.” In Conversation with Rishi Sunak, November 2, 2023.

Elon Musk: The probability of AI going bad is not zero. “I saw GPT-1, GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-4, the whole lead-up to that. So it was easy for me to kind of see where it's going. If you just extrapolate the points on a curve and assume that trend will continue, then we will have profound artificial intelligence, and obviously at a level that far exceeds human intelligence. So I'm glad to see at this point that people are taking safety seriously. And I do think overall that the potential is there for artificial intelligence, AI, to have most likely a positive effect and to create a future of abundance where there is no scarcity of goods and services. But it is somewhat of the magic genie problem, where if you have a magic genie that can grant all the wishes, usually those stories don't end well. Be careful what you wish for.” In Conversation with Rishi Sunak, November 2, 2023.

ELON CLIPS

22,095 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

.Kamala Harris shades Trump: "I've come to the realization that some people are purely transactional. They're in it for what they can get out of it, and whoever is harmed in the process, so be it. They're not burdened with doing what is morally right."

.Kamala Harris shades Trump: "I've come to the realization that some people are purely transactional. They're in it for what they can get out of it, and whoever is harmed in the process, so be it. They're not burdened with doing what is morally right."

Headquarters

71,704 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🚨Governor DeSantis says people are realizing how much Artificial Intelligence SUCKS and want nothing to do with it! “Artificial intelligence has become VERY unpopular. You remember like a year ago everyone said ‘oh you know AI it's we got to go all in you know we just need to do all this’. Now people are seeing some of the SLOP that's being created and they're like well wait a minute is that the world we want to live in? You’re saying that this is somehow good because it's going to take away people's jobs? Is that really good? You want to subsidize that? I don't think people want to subsidize it.”

🚨Governor DeSantis says people are realizing how much Artificial Intelligence SUCKS and want nothing to do with it! “Artificial intelligence has become VERY unpopular. You remember like a year ago everyone said ‘oh you know AI it's we got to go all in you know we just need to do all this’. Now people are seeing some of the SLOP that's being created and they're like well wait a minute is that the world we want to live in? You’re saying that this is somehow good because it's going to take away people's jobs? Is that really good? You want to subsidize that? I don't think people want to subsidize it.”

Chris Nelson 🏝️🇺🇸

196,736 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

––Charlie Barnett: "Consciousness and the computability of it. It sounds like, or at least in the past, that you've implied that consciousness is computable. Some, like Roger Penrose, have argued the opposite, and he's argued that consciousness is non-computational, and he uses Gödel's incompleteness theorems to argue that the mind can see truths that a purely algorithmic system can't derive, and therefore the brain must be using some kind of non-computable process when it comes to consciousness, something beyond what machines can do. What would you say to a view like that? David Deutsch: Yet again, it is using an impossible conception of what knowledge is. So Penrose thinks that when we see a proof of a mathematical theorem, we are touching certainty, we are god-like entities when we're mathematicians. But that's not true. Our mathematical knowledge is conjectural, just like our knowledge of physics. It's even more removed from our senses, because it's not true that the interior of our brains and the interior of our thoughts is more accessible to us than the world we perceive through our senses, or the world that we perceive through our theories, the center of the sun. We know lots about the center of the sun, even though no one has ever perceived it, and perhaps no one ever will. So mathematical truths are based on conjecture. What Gödel showed is that there is no firm ground underneath mathematical theories either. There's no way of proving that the standards of proof that we currently use are perfectly rigorous. And there have been cases in history where they have shown not to be rigorous. I think Pernot, who was the first to axiomatize the principles of the natural numbers, his first attempt at that was wrong. And it's interesting that he did not say, well, I've axiomatized them, therefore there's nothing to them other than my axioms. No, he said, oh dear, my axioms don't correctly represent the real number, the natural numbers, so I have to change them. So he was grasping, conjecturing for a reality, an abstract reality, just like scientists try to grasp physical reality. So the same epistemology applies to mathematics as it does to science."

––Charlie Barnett: "Consciousness and the computability of it. It sounds like, or at least in the past, that you've implied that consciousness is computable. Some, like Roger Penrose, have argued the opposite, and he's argued that consciousness is non-computational, and he uses Gödel's incompleteness theorems to argue that the mind can see truths that a purely algorithmic system can't derive, and therefore the brain must be using some kind of non-computable process when it comes to consciousness, something beyond what machines can do. What would you say to a view like that? David Deutsch: Yet again, it is using an impossible conception of what knowledge is. So Penrose thinks that when we see a proof of a mathematical theorem, we are touching certainty, we are god-like entities when we're mathematicians. But that's not true. Our mathematical knowledge is conjectural, just like our knowledge of physics. It's even more removed from our senses, because it's not true that the interior of our brains and the interior of our thoughts is more accessible to us than the world we perceive through our senses, or the world that we perceive through our theories, the center of the sun. We know lots about the center of the sun, even though no one has ever perceived it, and perhaps no one ever will. So mathematical truths are based on conjecture. What Gödel showed is that there is no firm ground underneath mathematical theories either. There's no way of proving that the standards of proof that we currently use are perfectly rigorous. And there have been cases in history where they have shown not to be rigorous. I think Pernot, who was the first to axiomatize the principles of the natural numbers, his first attempt at that was wrong. And it's interesting that he did not say, well, I've axiomatized them, therefore there's nothing to them other than my axioms. No, he said, oh dear, my axioms don't correctly represent the real number, the natural numbers, so I have to change them. So he was grasping, conjecturing for a reality, an abstract reality, just like scientists try to grasp physical reality. So the same epistemology applies to mathematics as it does to science."

Deutsch Explains

13,826 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku on why aging is simply an accumulation of errors that AI can now identify: He opens with a bold claim about what artificial intelligence might finally make possible: "Artificial intelligence may give us something that the kings and queens of old could never conquer and that is the aging process." For Dr. Michio Kaku, the science behind why we age is no longer a mystery. It comes down to one thing: errors building up inside our cells over time. "We now know why things age. Things get old and die because they accumulate error. Error in the form of DNA mistakes. Accumulation of errors inside cells." The challenge, until now, has been the sheer scale of the problem. Identifying exactly where and how these errors occur across the human genome has been beyond what conventional research could handle. That's where artificial intelligence changes everything: "But now we have artificial intelligence. We can analyze millions of genomes of old people, compare them to millions of genomes of young people, and identify where aging takes place in the body."

Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku on why aging is simply an accumulation of errors that AI can now identify: He opens with a bold claim about what artificial intelligence might finally make possible: "Artificial intelligence may give us something that the kings and queens of old could never conquer and that is the aging process." For Dr. Michio Kaku, the science behind why we age is no longer a mystery. It comes down to one thing: errors building up inside our cells over time. "We now know why things age. Things get old and die because they accumulate error. Error in the form of DNA mistakes. Accumulation of errors inside cells." The challenge, until now, has been the sheer scale of the problem. Identifying exactly where and how these errors occur across the human genome has been beyond what conventional research could handle. That's where artificial intelligence changes everything: "But now we have artificial intelligence. We can analyze millions of genomes of old people, compare them to millions of genomes of young people, and identify where aging takes place in the body."

Big Brain AI

78,764 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Mathematician Terence Tao offers a counterintuitive take: AI doesn't look intelligent because our definition of intelligence was wrong all along. He argues that the entire history of AI has followed a predictable pattern: "The history of AI has been here's a task that only humans can do, like maybe it is read natural language or win at chess or solve a math problem, and then one by one someone finds some AI algorithm that also does that." But every time a machine cracks one of these "uniquely human" tasks, we move the goalposts. The solution never feels like real thinking: "You look at how it's done and it doesn't feel like intelligence. It's, oh, it was some trick. You just cobbled together these neural networks and you ran some algorithm, and we were looking for some elusive intelligent way of thinking, and we don't see it in the tools that actually solve our goals." Tao then flips the problem on its head. What if the issue isn't with the machines, but with us? "But maybe it's actually because intelligence is not what we think it is." He points to large language models as the clearest case. What they do sounds almost embarrassingly simple: "Large language models in particular become very successful, and a lot of what they're doing is just predicting the next token, clicking the next word in a sentence. And that doesn't sound like something which is intelligent." To show why this feels wrong, Tao draws a comparison to how we'd judge a human doing the same thing: "If you ask someone to improvise a speech and they have no preparation, and at every moment they're just saying the next word that comes to their mind, you don't think that this could actually work." And yet it works for LLMs. Which forces an uncomfortable possibility: "Maybe that's actually a lot of what humans do as well."

Mathematician Terence Tao offers a counterintuitive take: AI doesn't look intelligent because our definition of intelligence was wrong all along. He argues that the entire history of AI has followed a predictable pattern: "The history of AI has been here's a task that only humans can do, like maybe it is read natural language or win at chess or solve a math problem, and then one by one someone finds some AI algorithm that also does that." But every time a machine cracks one of these "uniquely human" tasks, we move the goalposts. The solution never feels like real thinking: "You look at how it's done and it doesn't feel like intelligence. It's, oh, it was some trick. You just cobbled together these neural networks and you ran some algorithm, and we were looking for some elusive intelligent way of thinking, and we don't see it in the tools that actually solve our goals." Tao then flips the problem on its head. What if the issue isn't with the machines, but with us? "But maybe it's actually because intelligence is not what we think it is." He points to large language models as the clearest case. What they do sounds almost embarrassingly simple: "Large language models in particular become very successful, and a lot of what they're doing is just predicting the next token, clicking the next word in a sentence. And that doesn't sound like something which is intelligent." To show why this feels wrong, Tao draws a comparison to how we'd judge a human doing the same thing: "If you ask someone to improvise a speech and they have no preparation, and at every moment they're just saying the next word that comes to their mind, you don't think that this could actually work." And yet it works for LLMs. Which forces an uncomfortable possibility: "Maybe that's actually a lot of what humans do as well."

Big Brain AI

69,536 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten