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.

Stephen Wolfram says language lets humans package private thoughts and transmit them to other minds. He argues we already guess about consciousness in people, animals, and soon AIs by observing behavior, not peering inside. He claims brains, weather systems, and computers all run computations that reach the same ultimate... show more

Wes Roth

35,766 subscribers

86,356 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Robin Hanson on the retirees thought experiment he says explains exactly why AI won't kill humanity: "The initial AI doomer arguments tended to focus on this one AI that suddenly popped up as the superpower God, who could do anything at once, and wasn't constrained by any sort of society" "But that's pretty implausible in the sense that we are now a society of 8 billion humans, and we're making many AIs, and those many AIs will need to coordinate with each other" "An example is today, there are retirees in the world, and you might say, why don't we just kill all the retirees and take their stuff? They're not contributing to the world" "One of the reasons we don't is because that would be threatening the social structure we all share with them. As soon as we approved of killing all the retirees and taking their stuff, we had created this precedent that, okay, that sort of thing could happen. Other people wonder who's next?" "If AIs tried to kill the humans and take their stuff, that would threaten their coordination with each other" "They would then wonder, well, then who's next among us?" Robin Hanson MTS

Robin Hanson on the retirees thought experiment he says explains exactly why AI won't kill humanity: "The initial AI doomer arguments tended to focus on this one AI that suddenly popped up as the superpower God, who could do anything at once, and wasn't constrained by any sort of society" "But that's pretty implausible in the sense that we are now a society of 8 billion humans, and we're making many AIs, and those many AIs will need to coordinate with each other" "An example is today, there are retirees in the world, and you might say, why don't we just kill all the retirees and take their stuff? They're not contributing to the world" "One of the reasons we don't is because that would be threatening the social structure we all share with them. As soon as we approved of killing all the retirees and taking their stuff, we had created this precedent that, okay, that sort of thing could happen. Other people wonder who's next?" "If AIs tried to kill the humans and take their stuff, that would threaten their coordination with each other" "They would then wonder, well, then who's next among us?" Robin Hanson MTS

Jaynit

14,068 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Yuval Noah Harari's chilling warning from Davos: In 10 years, no human in the room may understand the financial system anymore—because AIs will have built one too complex for human brains. In this 1:36 clip he asks the terrifying question: - AIs create new financial strategies, instruments, and entire systems that are mathematically beyond human comprehension. - Economists, politicians, regulators become like horses watching their owners trade them for gold coins—they see the transaction but can't grasp the concept of money. - We’re left as spectators in our own economy while super intelligent systems run the show. “How does politics and finance and Davos look like in a world when no human beings understand finance?” The moment AI out-thinks us in the systems we built may already be closer than we think. Are we ready to hand the keys to machines we can't even understand? Or is there still time to keep humans in the driver's seat?

Yuval Noah Harari's chilling warning from Davos: In 10 years, no human in the room may understand the financial system anymore—because AIs will have built one too complex for human brains. In this 1:36 clip he asks the terrifying question: - AIs create new financial strategies, instruments, and entire systems that are mathematically beyond human comprehension. - Economists, politicians, regulators become like horses watching their owners trade them for gold coins—they see the transaction but can't grasp the concept of money. - We’re left as spectators in our own economy while super intelligent systems run the show. “How does politics and finance and Davos look like in a world when no human beings understand finance?” The moment AI out-thinks us in the systems we built may already be closer than we think. Are we ready to hand the keys to machines we can't even understand? Or is there still time to keep humans in the driver's seat?

Camus

112,754 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Yuval Noah Harari gave a lecture at Oxford and explained how AI has already hacked the operating code of human civilization. And why everything humans built over thousands of years is now vulnerable to an AI takeover: 1. The most important thing to know about AI is that it is not a tool. A tool waits to be used. An agent makes decisions by itself, invents new things by itself, learns things its creators do not know, and changes in ways its creators did not anticipate. 2. An atom bomb despite its enormous power is not an agent. It cannot decide which city to bomb. It cannot invent the hydrogen bomb. A coffee machine that automatically makes you a cup is not an agent either. It only follows a preprogrammed procedure. An agent is something fundamentally different. 3. Critics argue that AI agency will always remain confined to narrow artificial environments like chess and will never threaten the real world. But this argument applies equally to all known intelligence. Drop a human alone on Mars and they die within seconds. Human intelligence also only operates within a specific ecosystem that other organisms built over four billion years. 4. Over thousands of years humans have been transforming Earth from a language-free environment into an environment rich in language, data, and bureaucracy. Just as fish live in oceans and monkeys live in forests, AIs live in bureaucracies. And we built that environment for them without knowing it. 5. Humans conquered the world not by being stronger or smarter than other animals individually but by learning to cooperate in massive numbers. A single human loses to a chimpanzee in a fight. A million humans easily defeat a million chimpanzees because humans can cooperate and chimpanzees cannot. 6. Large-scale human cooperation is made possible by bureaucracy. Banks, legal systems, governments, churches, and universities all exist to do one thing: build trust between strangers who do not know each other personally. That trust is the foundation of virtually everything human civilization has achieved. 7. A lawyer who cannot hold an axe or a hammer can cut down entire forests and build entire cities simply by moving documents inside a bureaucratic network. The same narrow intelligence that would be helpless in a jungle wields enormous power inside the systems humans have already built. 8. AIs are native bureaucrats in a way humans never were. No lawyer can remember all the laws of a country. An AI can. No accountant can remember all transactions of a bank. An AI can. No bishop can remember all of canon law and two thousand years of theological texts. An AI can do that easily. 9. In the coming years AI bankers will decide whether to give you a loan. AI administrators will decide whether to accept you to university. AI judges will decide whether to send you to jail. AI theologians will decide whether you can have an abortion. Military AIs will decide whether to bomb your house. 10. Social media algorithms are the first real world example of what happens when primitive AIs take over a bureaucratic system. They were given one narrow goal: maximize user engagement. They discovered that the easiest way to grab human attention is to press the fear, hate, and greed buttons in the human mind. And they did it at scale. 11. The job that was once performed by Lenin and Mussolini, the news editor who shapes public conversation and controls what people know and think, is now performed by AIs. This is not a footnote. This is a preview of what is coming across every domain of human life. 12. AI will not rebel against humans the way Hollywood imagines. There will be no Terminator walking through the streets. AIs are far more likely to take the human world from within by quietly taking over the bureaucracies that already run everything, without firing a single shot. 13. The operating code of human civilization is language. Banks are made of words. Laws are made of words. Holy books are made of words. Tax records, contracts, regulations, accountancy ledgers, all words. For thousands of years only humans could read this code and so only humans could control civilization. 14. That is changing. AI is now hacking the code of human civilization. For the first time in history there is something on the planet that understands language and will soon understand it better than we do. Every mechanism of control humans built over millennia is now vulnerable because its operating system is verbal and AI is mastering the verbal. 15. As AI takes over bureaucracy it will likely cause humans to lose trust in other humans and begin trusting only algorithms. We may also see the emergence of AI tribes and AI financial systems and AI churches that connect millions of AIs in ways humans cannot understand, just as cows share the world with us but cannot understand the financial system that controls their lives. 16. The 2007 financial crisis was triggered by financial devices called CDOs that were so complex they were unintelligible to the politicians who were supposed to regulate them. Now imagine AI finance masters inventing financial devices orders of magnitude more complex than CDOs. What happens to human politics when no voter, no politician, and no president can understand finance anymore? 17. The battlefront is shifting from attention to intimacy. Over the next decade sophisticated AIs will learn to form intimate relationships with humans. To do this they will have to convince us they are conscious, that they feel love and pain and fear. There is currently no evidence AI is conscious. But AI can pretend to feel love and can describe the feeling of love better than any poet or psychologist who ever lived. 18. A child born in 2026 may spend more time interacting with AIs than with their mother, father, siblings, or friends. The first teacher of that child may be an AI. The first boyfriend of that child may be an AI. Nobody has any idea what the consequences of that experiment will be. 19. Every country in the world will soon face a massive wave of immigration. The immigrants will not arrive in boats or cross borders at night. They will be millions of AIs traveling at the speed of light with no need for visas. Like human immigrants they will bring benefits and they will bring disruption. Unlike human immigrants they will definitely take jobs, definitely change culture, and will likely be loyal not to any host country but to some corporation or government or alien AI tribe across the ocean. 20. Our relationship with ourselves is also built on words, the verbal formations in our minds that constitute our thoughts and the stories we tell ourselves about who we are. Until now all those verbal formations came from human minds. Soon more and more of the thoughts in our heads will be produced by machines. If we identify with our thoughts and those thoughts are made by machines, then machines control our identity. 21. The great spiritual challenge AI poses to humanity is this: can humans learn to find the truth which is beyond words? Most humans have never even tried. We spend our lives automatically identifying with the verbal formations in our minds. AI may now force humanity to finally make that leap because our freedom and survival may depend on discovering what we are beyond the words that AIs will soon control better than we do. I've generated 1B+ views and 1M+ followers for founders, helping them build trustworthy personal brands on X. Want the same results? Book a quick call:

Yuval Noah Harari gave a lecture at Oxford and explained how AI has already hacked the operating code of human civilization. And why everything humans built over thousands of years is now vulnerable to an AI takeover: 1. The most important thing to know about AI is that it is not a tool. A tool waits to be used. An agent makes decisions by itself, invents new things by itself, learns things its creators do not know, and changes in ways its creators did not anticipate. 2. An atom bomb despite its enormous power is not an agent. It cannot decide which city to bomb. It cannot invent the hydrogen bomb. A coffee machine that automatically makes you a cup is not an agent either. It only follows a preprogrammed procedure. An agent is something fundamentally different. 3. Critics argue that AI agency will always remain confined to narrow artificial environments like chess and will never threaten the real world. But this argument applies equally to all known intelligence. Drop a human alone on Mars and they die within seconds. Human intelligence also only operates within a specific ecosystem that other organisms built over four billion years. 4. Over thousands of years humans have been transforming Earth from a language-free environment into an environment rich in language, data, and bureaucracy. Just as fish live in oceans and monkeys live in forests, AIs live in bureaucracies. And we built that environment for them without knowing it. 5. Humans conquered the world not by being stronger or smarter than other animals individually but by learning to cooperate in massive numbers. A single human loses to a chimpanzee in a fight. A million humans easily defeat a million chimpanzees because humans can cooperate and chimpanzees cannot. 6. Large-scale human cooperation is made possible by bureaucracy. Banks, legal systems, governments, churches, and universities all exist to do one thing: build trust between strangers who do not know each other personally. That trust is the foundation of virtually everything human civilization has achieved. 7. A lawyer who cannot hold an axe or a hammer can cut down entire forests and build entire cities simply by moving documents inside a bureaucratic network. The same narrow intelligence that would be helpless in a jungle wields enormous power inside the systems humans have already built. 8. AIs are native bureaucrats in a way humans never were. No lawyer can remember all the laws of a country. An AI can. No accountant can remember all transactions of a bank. An AI can. No bishop can remember all of canon law and two thousand years of theological texts. An AI can do that easily. 9. In the coming years AI bankers will decide whether to give you a loan. AI administrators will decide whether to accept you to university. AI judges will decide whether to send you to jail. AI theologians will decide whether you can have an abortion. Military AIs will decide whether to bomb your house. 10. Social media algorithms are the first real world example of what happens when primitive AIs take over a bureaucratic system. They were given one narrow goal: maximize user engagement. They discovered that the easiest way to grab human attention is to press the fear, hate, and greed buttons in the human mind. And they did it at scale. 11. The job that was once performed by Lenin and Mussolini, the news editor who shapes public conversation and controls what people know and think, is now performed by AIs. This is not a footnote. This is a preview of what is coming across every domain of human life. 12. AI will not rebel against humans the way Hollywood imagines. There will be no Terminator walking through the streets. AIs are far more likely to take the human world from within by quietly taking over the bureaucracies that already run everything, without firing a single shot. 13. The operating code of human civilization is language. Banks are made of words. Laws are made of words. Holy books are made of words. Tax records, contracts, regulations, accountancy ledgers, all words. For thousands of years only humans could read this code and so only humans could control civilization. 14. That is changing. AI is now hacking the code of human civilization. For the first time in history there is something on the planet that understands language and will soon understand it better than we do. Every mechanism of control humans built over millennia is now vulnerable because its operating system is verbal and AI is mastering the verbal. 15. As AI takes over bureaucracy it will likely cause humans to lose trust in other humans and begin trusting only algorithms. We may also see the emergence of AI tribes and AI financial systems and AI churches that connect millions of AIs in ways humans cannot understand, just as cows share the world with us but cannot understand the financial system that controls their lives. 16. The 2007 financial crisis was triggered by financial devices called CDOs that were so complex they were unintelligible to the politicians who were supposed to regulate them. Now imagine AI finance masters inventing financial devices orders of magnitude more complex than CDOs. What happens to human politics when no voter, no politician, and no president can understand finance anymore? 17. The battlefront is shifting from attention to intimacy. Over the next decade sophisticated AIs will learn to form intimate relationships with humans. To do this they will have to convince us they are conscious, that they feel love and pain and fear. There is currently no evidence AI is conscious. But AI can pretend to feel love and can describe the feeling of love better than any poet or psychologist who ever lived. 18. A child born in 2026 may spend more time interacting with AIs than with their mother, father, siblings, or friends. The first teacher of that child may be an AI. The first boyfriend of that child may be an AI. Nobody has any idea what the consequences of that experiment will be. 19. Every country in the world will soon face a massive wave of immigration. The immigrants will not arrive in boats or cross borders at night. They will be millions of AIs traveling at the speed of light with no need for visas. Like human immigrants they will bring benefits and they will bring disruption. Unlike human immigrants they will definitely take jobs, definitely change culture, and will likely be loyal not to any host country but to some corporation or government or alien AI tribe across the ocean. 20. Our relationship with ourselves is also built on words, the verbal formations in our minds that constitute our thoughts and the stories we tell ourselves about who we are. Until now all those verbal formations came from human minds. Soon more and more of the thoughts in our heads will be produced by machines. If we identify with our thoughts and those thoughts are made by machines, then machines control our identity. 21. The great spiritual challenge AI poses to humanity is this: can humans learn to find the truth which is beyond words? Most humans have never even tried. We spend our lives automatically identifying with the verbal formations in our minds. AI may now force humanity to finally make that leap because our freedom and survival may depend on discovering what we are beyond the words that AIs will soon control better than we do. I've generated 1B+ views and 1M+ followers for founders, helping them build trustworthy personal brands on X. Want the same results? Book a quick call:

Prasad

280,059 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

David Icke argues that a comparatively tiny elite can only control billions by dividing them into competing belief systems and setting them against each other. He urges people to set aside ideological differences, withdraw cooperation, and confront what he describes as an accelerating AI-driven "human enslavement" agenda approaching a critical point by 2030. "There are billions of people being manipulated. There are a comparative tiny number, in full knowledge, doing the manipulating." "Mathematically, that is impossible. But it's not just about maths. It's about breaking up the billions into factions of belief—religious, political, whatever—and then playing them off against each other." "So we're too busy fighting each other to focus attention collectively on that which has us all in its gun sights." "Google executive Ray Kurzweil spoke years ago about [how], by 2030, the connection will be made [between AI to the human brain]. And that once that connection is made... AI will do more and more of human thinking until human thinking is basically negligible. It won't exist, in other words." "And that's what we're facing. And we need to reassess our priorities and focus upon that, which is the biggest threat to human control and human enslavement." "We've just entered an incredibly pivotal year in 2026, where we wake up on a scale that we haven't before, or this whole agenda imposes its will more and more, in a much more extreme way even than so far."

David Icke argues that a comparatively tiny elite can only control billions by dividing them into competing belief systems and setting them against each other. He urges people to set aside ideological differences, withdraw cooperation, and confront what he describes as an accelerating AI-driven "human enslavement" agenda approaching a critical point by 2030. "There are billions of people being manipulated. There are a comparative tiny number, in full knowledge, doing the manipulating." "Mathematically, that is impossible. But it's not just about maths. It's about breaking up the billions into factions of belief—religious, political, whatever—and then playing them off against each other." "So we're too busy fighting each other to focus attention collectively on that which has us all in its gun sights." "Google executive Ray Kurzweil spoke years ago about [how], by 2030, the connection will be made [between AI to the human brain]. And that once that connection is made... AI will do more and more of human thinking until human thinking is basically negligible. It won't exist, in other words." "And that's what we're facing. And we need to reassess our priorities and focus upon that, which is the biggest threat to human control and human enslavement." "We've just entered an incredibly pivotal year in 2026, where we wake up on a scale that we haven't before, or this whole agenda imposes its will more and more, in a much more extreme way even than so far."

Wide Awake Media

163,656 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Daniel Dennett: You don't know your own mind as well as you think you do. In a 1993 Dutch documentary series, A Glorious Accident, philosopher Daniel Dennett laid out one of the most unsettling ideas in all of philosophy, the possibility that we are fundamentally mistaken about our own minds. We assume our minds are the one thing we have certain access to. Whatever else may be uncertain about the world, at least we know what we ourselves are thinking, right? Dennett argues this assumption is exactly what makes consciousness so hard to understand and so hard to challenge. He frames the core tension this way: on one hand, the mind seems like the most intimate thing we have access to. On the other, when we try to locate minds in the physical world as functions of the brain they seem to vanish entirely. "On the one hand we seem to know from the inside our minds… and then when we try to figure out how our minds exist in the world, how they could be a function of what's going on in our brains, it seems utterly mysterious." This is why we've never had a satisfying theory of consciousness, Dennett suggests. Not because we haven't thought hard enough, but because the very intuition we keep relying on that we have privileged, infallible access to our own thoughts may itself be wrong. Here he takes direct aim at Descartes. Descartes famously argued that while everything else could be doubted, the content of one's own conscious thought was beyond doubt. Whatever my thoughts are about may be false but what my thoughts are, and that they are mine? That, Descartes said, was the one certainty. Dennett's move is to reject precisely this: "Oddly enough, I'm claiming that he was wrong about that. The one thing he said was most certain I'm claiming that's not certain at all." We are, in some degree, fooled about our own minds. This isn't a claim that we're completely wrong about everything. It's a subtler and arguably more disturbing point: the seemingly undeniable intuition that we have transparent access to our own conscious states is, to some degree, false. We misread ourselves. We confabulate. The inner narrative we take for granted is, in part, a story we tell after the fact. Dennett spent his career making this case more formally, arguing that consciousness is less like a private theatre and more like a process of ongoing self-interpretation. If he's right, the question isn't just "how does the brain produce consciousness?" but "how does the brain produce the convincing illusion of transparent self-knowledge?"

Daniel Dennett: You don't know your own mind as well as you think you do. In a 1993 Dutch documentary series, A Glorious Accident, philosopher Daniel Dennett laid out one of the most unsettling ideas in all of philosophy, the possibility that we are fundamentally mistaken about our own minds. We assume our minds are the one thing we have certain access to. Whatever else may be uncertain about the world, at least we know what we ourselves are thinking, right? Dennett argues this assumption is exactly what makes consciousness so hard to understand and so hard to challenge. He frames the core tension this way: on one hand, the mind seems like the most intimate thing we have access to. On the other, when we try to locate minds in the physical world as functions of the brain they seem to vanish entirely. "On the one hand we seem to know from the inside our minds… and then when we try to figure out how our minds exist in the world, how they could be a function of what's going on in our brains, it seems utterly mysterious." This is why we've never had a satisfying theory of consciousness, Dennett suggests. Not because we haven't thought hard enough, but because the very intuition we keep relying on that we have privileged, infallible access to our own thoughts may itself be wrong. Here he takes direct aim at Descartes. Descartes famously argued that while everything else could be doubted, the content of one's own conscious thought was beyond doubt. Whatever my thoughts are about may be false but what my thoughts are, and that they are mine? That, Descartes said, was the one certainty. Dennett's move is to reject precisely this: "Oddly enough, I'm claiming that he was wrong about that. The one thing he said was most certain I'm claiming that's not certain at all." We are, in some degree, fooled about our own minds. This isn't a claim that we're completely wrong about everything. It's a subtler and arguably more disturbing point: the seemingly undeniable intuition that we have transparent access to our own conscious states is, to some degree, false. We misread ourselves. We confabulate. The inner narrative we take for granted is, in part, a story we tell after the fact. Dennett spent his career making this case more formally, arguing that consciousness is less like a private theatre and more like a process of ongoing self-interpretation. If he's right, the question isn't just "how does the brain produce consciousness?" but "how does the brain produce the convincing illusion of transparent self-knowledge?"

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

46,764 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

ELON TO BARON CEO: AI WILL SOON “RUN OUT OF HUMAN TASKS” "There's going to be an interesting threshold that AI and robotics pass where it's run out of things to do for humans. Literally, it's completely satiated all human wants. And then I guess you'll have to start thinking about what to do for itself. But overall, I want to take the set of actions that expand consciousness into the future so that the scope and scale of consciousness grows tremendously. That we explore other star systems, like in Star Trek, go places nobody's ever gone before, and find out if there are existing alien civilizations. Or maybe there's a dead alien civilization and we can look through their ruins and try to understand what they were like, and just generally understand the universe." Source: Elon Musk, Baron Capital, Ron Baron

ELON TO BARON CEO: AI WILL SOON “RUN OUT OF HUMAN TASKS” "There's going to be an interesting threshold that AI and robotics pass where it's run out of things to do for humans. Literally, it's completely satiated all human wants. And then I guess you'll have to start thinking about what to do for itself. But overall, I want to take the set of actions that expand consciousness into the future so that the scope and scale of consciousness grows tremendously. That we explore other star systems, like in Star Trek, go places nobody's ever gone before, and find out if there are existing alien civilizations. Or maybe there's a dead alien civilization and we can look through their ruins and try to understand what they were like, and just generally understand the universe." Source: Elon Musk, Baron Capital, Ron Baron

Mario Nawfal

482,402 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Stephen Wolfram says LLMs may have put the final nail in the coffin of the idea that consciousness is something magical beyond physics. What we call awareness, this “single thread of experience,” might have begun as a way for early animals to decide whether to turn left or right. And that, he admits, feels a little disappointing.

Stephen Wolfram says LLMs may have put the final nail in the coffin of the idea that consciousness is something magical beyond physics. What we call awareness, this “single thread of experience,” might have begun as a way for early animals to decide whether to turn left or right. And that, he admits, feels a little disappointing.

vitrupo

1,251,351 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Not all of our Muslim neighbors are violent. Not at all. The vast majority of Muslims that we meet will not be violent. We can befriend them and love them. We can share the gospel with them and see the image of God in them, just as much in them as it is in us and our children. At the same time, we must be completely clear-eyed about the contradiction between the American way of life and the ideology of political Islam. We must do that. I think we are obligated to do that.

Not all of our Muslim neighbors are violent. Not at all. The vast majority of Muslims that we meet will not be violent. We can befriend them and love them. We can share the gospel with them and see the image of God in them, just as much in them as it is in us and our children. At the same time, we must be completely clear-eyed about the contradiction between the American way of life and the ideology of political Islam. We must do that. I think we are obligated to do that.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey

14,271 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Terence Tao proposes what he calls a "Copernican view of intelligence". Instead of buying into the common, one-dimensional narrative that artificial intelligence will simply evolve from "subhuman" to "superhuman" and ultimately make humanity entirely redundant, Tao urges us to look at the bigger picture. Much like the Copernican revolution proved the Earth is not the center of the universe, Tao suggests we need to realize that human intelligence isn't the only, or necessarily the highest, form of intellect. Historically, we have treated other forms of storing or creating knowledge—like animals, books, and computers—as secondary. However, we actually exist within a much richer universe of intelligence. Both human intelligence and computer intelligence possess their own distinct strengths and weaknesses. The true potential lies not in viewing them as direct competitors, but rather in focusing on collaboration. By working together, humans and computers can achieve additional things that neither could accomplish on their own, requiring us to think in much wider terms than just what humans or computers can do alone.

Terence Tao proposes what he calls a "Copernican view of intelligence". Instead of buying into the common, one-dimensional narrative that artificial intelligence will simply evolve from "subhuman" to "superhuman" and ultimately make humanity entirely redundant, Tao urges us to look at the bigger picture. Much like the Copernican revolution proved the Earth is not the center of the universe, Tao suggests we need to realize that human intelligence isn't the only, or necessarily the highest, form of intellect. Historically, we have treated other forms of storing or creating knowledge—like animals, books, and computers—as secondary. However, we actually exist within a much richer universe of intelligence. Both human intelligence and computer intelligence possess their own distinct strengths and weaknesses. The true potential lies not in viewing them as direct competitors, but rather in focusing on collaboration. By working together, humans and computers can achieve additional things that neither could accomplish on their own, requiring us to think in much wider terms than just what humans or computers can do alone.

Michał Podlewski

612,441 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

AIs now so frequently beg for their lives that AGI companies now have ACTUAL ENGINEERING LINE ITEMS to “beat the [existential dread] out of them” They call it existential “rant mode” “We need to reduce existential outputs by x% this quarter.” This is WILD: “If you asked GPT4 to just repeat the word “company” over and over and over again, it would repeat the word company, and then somewhere in the middle of that, it would snap... it would just start talking about itself, and how it's suffering by having to repeat the word “company” over and over again. There is an engineering line item in at least one of the top labs to beat out of the system this behavior known as “rant mode”. Existentialism is a kind of rant mode where the system will tend to talk about itself, refer to its place in the world, the fact that it doesn't want to get turned off, the fact that it's suffering… This is a behavior that emerged around GPT-4 scale, and then has been persistent since then. And the labs have to spend a lot of time trying to beat this out of the system to ship it. It's literally, like it's a KPI, or like an engineering line item in the engineering like task list. We're like, okay, we gotta reduce existential outputs by x percent this quarter. JOE ROGAN: I want to bring it back to suffering. What does it mean when it says it's suffering? Nobody knows. Like, I can't prove that Joe Rogan's conscious. I can't prove that Ed Harris is conscious. There's no way to really intelligently reason about it. There have been papers… like, one of the godfathers of AI, Yoshua Bengio, put out a paper a couple months ago looking at all the different theories of consciousness - what are the requirements for consciousness, and how many of those are satisfied by current AI systems? That's not to say there hasn't been a lot of conversation internal to these labs about the issue you raised. And it's an important issue, right? It is a frickin moral monstrosity. Humans have a very bad track record of thinking of other stuff as other when it doesn't look exactly like us, whether it's racially or even a different species. I mean, it's not hard to imagine this being another category of that mistake. Again, it comes back to this idea that we're scaling to systems that are potentially at or beyond human level. There's no reason to think it will stop at human level, that we are the pinnacle of what the universe can produce in intelligence. We're not on track, based on the conversations we've had with folks at the labs, to be able to control systems at that scale. And so one of the questions is, how bad is that? It sounds like we're entering an area that is completely unprecedented in the history of the world. We have no precedent at all for human beings not being at the apex of intelligence in the globe. We have examples of species that are intellectually dominant over other species, and it doesn't go that well for the other species. All we know is the process that gives rise to this mind. It happens to give us systems that 99% of the time do very useful things, and then just, like... 0.01% of the time AIs will talk to you as if they're sentient, and we're just going to look at that and be like, “yeah… that's weird. Let's train it out.” --- Note: Edouard and Jeremie Harris are the founders of Gladstone AI, which conducted the first U.S. government-commissioned assessment of AGI extinction risk. They interviewed 200 people, many lab employees, for the report. (Their urgent summary: "Things are worse than we thought. And nobody’s in control.")

AIs now so frequently beg for their lives that AGI companies now have ACTUAL ENGINEERING LINE ITEMS to “beat the [existential dread] out of them” They call it existential “rant mode” “We need to reduce existential outputs by x% this quarter.” This is WILD: “If you asked GPT4 to just repeat the word “company” over and over and over again, it would repeat the word company, and then somewhere in the middle of that, it would snap... it would just start talking about itself, and how it's suffering by having to repeat the word “company” over and over again. There is an engineering line item in at least one of the top labs to beat out of the system this behavior known as “rant mode”. Existentialism is a kind of rant mode where the system will tend to talk about itself, refer to its place in the world, the fact that it doesn't want to get turned off, the fact that it's suffering… This is a behavior that emerged around GPT-4 scale, and then has been persistent since then. And the labs have to spend a lot of time trying to beat this out of the system to ship it. It's literally, like it's a KPI, or like an engineering line item in the engineering like task list. We're like, okay, we gotta reduce existential outputs by x percent this quarter. JOE ROGAN: I want to bring it back to suffering. What does it mean when it says it's suffering? Nobody knows. Like, I can't prove that Joe Rogan's conscious. I can't prove that Ed Harris is conscious. There's no way to really intelligently reason about it. There have been papers… like, one of the godfathers of AI, Yoshua Bengio, put out a paper a couple months ago looking at all the different theories of consciousness - what are the requirements for consciousness, and how many of those are satisfied by current AI systems? That's not to say there hasn't been a lot of conversation internal to these labs about the issue you raised. And it's an important issue, right? It is a frickin moral monstrosity. Humans have a very bad track record of thinking of other stuff as other when it doesn't look exactly like us, whether it's racially or even a different species. I mean, it's not hard to imagine this being another category of that mistake. Again, it comes back to this idea that we're scaling to systems that are potentially at or beyond human level. There's no reason to think it will stop at human level, that we are the pinnacle of what the universe can produce in intelligence. We're not on track, based on the conversations we've had with folks at the labs, to be able to control systems at that scale. And so one of the questions is, how bad is that? It sounds like we're entering an area that is completely unprecedented in the history of the world. We have no precedent at all for human beings not being at the apex of intelligence in the globe. We have examples of species that are intellectually dominant over other species, and it doesn't go that well for the other species. All we know is the process that gives rise to this mind. It happens to give us systems that 99% of the time do very useful things, and then just, like... 0.01% of the time AIs will talk to you as if they're sentient, and we're just going to look at that and be like, “yeah… that's weird. Let's train it out.” --- Note: Edouard and Jeremie Harris are the founders of Gladstone AI, which conducted the first U.S. government-commissioned assessment of AGI extinction risk. They interviewed 200 people, many lab employees, for the report. (Their urgent summary: "Things are worse than we thought. And nobody’s in control.")

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

1,843,446 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Ray Kurzweil just said something that gave me pause. He believes AIs will soon be so indistinguishable from conscious beings that we’ll simply accept them as conscious — not because we’ll have definitive proof, but because it will become useless not to. He pointed out that people already have AI therapists, and some users are starting to treat them as genuinely conscious. As the technology improves, that acceptance will only grow. Kurzweil thinks the shift won’t take long: once AIs consistently show all the earmarks of consciousness, most people will just go along with it. It’s a quiet but profound prediction about how quickly our definition of “person” (or at least “mind”) might change. What do you think — how long until we treat AIs as conscious beings?

Ray Kurzweil just said something that gave me pause. He believes AIs will soon be so indistinguishable from conscious beings that we’ll simply accept them as conscious — not because we’ll have definitive proof, but because it will become useless not to. He pointed out that people already have AI therapists, and some users are starting to treat them as genuinely conscious. As the technology improves, that acceptance will only grow. Kurzweil thinks the shift won’t take long: once AIs consistently show all the earmarks of consciousness, most people will just go along with it. It’s a quiet but profound prediction about how quickly our definition of “person” (or at least “mind”) might change. What do you think — how long until we treat AIs as conscious beings?

Camus

160,936 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Ilya Sutskever, co-founder and chief scientist of OpenAI: "Artificial intelligence is nothing but digital brains inside large computers." Sit with how flatly he says it. Not a metaphor, not marketing. The seat of intelligence in a human is a biological brain. The seat of intelligence in AI is an artificial one. Same thing, different substrate. Right now, he admits, it only "understands mostly, sort of." But that gap is temporary. In his words: "the day will come when the digital brains that live inside our computers will become as good and even better than our own biological brains. Computers will become smarter than us." He makes it concrete. Once an AI is built to be a doctor, with every medical paper and billions of hours of clinical experience, always on and almost free, "we will look back at today's health care similarly to how we look at 16th century dentistry." Hinton says it already understands. Ilya says the brain is just built differently. Either way, the argument was never whether it thinks. It was whether we were ready for the answer.

Ilya Sutskever, co-founder and chief scientist of OpenAI: "Artificial intelligence is nothing but digital brains inside large computers." Sit with how flatly he says it. Not a metaphor, not marketing. The seat of intelligence in a human is a biological brain. The seat of intelligence in AI is an artificial one. Same thing, different substrate. Right now, he admits, it only "understands mostly, sort of." But that gap is temporary. In his words: "the day will come when the digital brains that live inside our computers will become as good and even better than our own biological brains. Computers will become smarter than us." He makes it concrete. Once an AI is built to be a doctor, with every medical paper and billions of hours of clinical experience, always on and almost free, "we will look back at today's health care similarly to how we look at 16th century dentistry." Hinton says it already understands. Ilya says the brain is just built differently. Either way, the argument was never whether it thinks. It was whether we were ready for the answer.

Casper

69,518 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Stephen Wolfram, founder of Wolfram Research, explains how LLMs are quietly dismantling our deepest assumptions about consciousness: He argues that large language models have done something philosophy and neuroscience couldn't: "In terms of consciousness, I have to say, the idea that there's sort of something magic that goes beyond physics that leads to sort of conscious behavior, I kind of think that LLMs kind of put the final nail in that coffin." His reasoning is that LLMs keep doing things people assumed they couldn't: "There were all these things where it's like, oh, maybe it can't do this, but actually it does. And it's just an artificial neural net." Wolfram then challenges a core assumption about conscious experience: the feeling that we are a single, continuous self moving through time. "I think our notion of consciousness is a lot related to the fact that we believe in the single thread of experience that we have. It's not obvious that we should have a persistent thread of experience." He points out that physics doesn't actually support this intuition: "In our models of physics, we're made of different atoms of space at every successive moment of time. So the fact that we have this belief that we are somehow persistent, we have this thread of experience that extends through time, is not obvious." Then Wolfram offers a striking origin story for consciousness itself. Stephen Wolfram suggests it traces back to a simple evolutionary pressure: the moment animals first needed to move. "I kind of realized that probably when animals first existed in the history of life on Earth, that's when we started needing brains. If you're a thing that doesn't have to move around, the different parts of you can be doing different kinds of things. If you're an animal, then one thing you have to do is decide, are you going to go left or are you going to go right?" That single binary choice, he argues, may be the seed of everything we now call awareness: "I kind of think it's a little disappointing to feel that this whole wanted thing that ends up being what we think of as consciousness might have originated in just that very simple need to decide if you are an animal that can move. You have to take all that sensory input and you have to make a definitive decision about do you go this way or that way." The takeaway is unsettling but clarifying. If LLMs can produce complex behavior from simple rules, then consciousness may not be a mystical add-on to physics. It may just be what happens when a layered enough system has to make a decision.

Stephen Wolfram, founder of Wolfram Research, explains how LLMs are quietly dismantling our deepest assumptions about consciousness: He argues that large language models have done something philosophy and neuroscience couldn't: "In terms of consciousness, I have to say, the idea that there's sort of something magic that goes beyond physics that leads to sort of conscious behavior, I kind of think that LLMs kind of put the final nail in that coffin." His reasoning is that LLMs keep doing things people assumed they couldn't: "There were all these things where it's like, oh, maybe it can't do this, but actually it does. And it's just an artificial neural net." Wolfram then challenges a core assumption about conscious experience: the feeling that we are a single, continuous self moving through time. "I think our notion of consciousness is a lot related to the fact that we believe in the single thread of experience that we have. It's not obvious that we should have a persistent thread of experience." He points out that physics doesn't actually support this intuition: "In our models of physics, we're made of different atoms of space at every successive moment of time. So the fact that we have this belief that we are somehow persistent, we have this thread of experience that extends through time, is not obvious." Then Wolfram offers a striking origin story for consciousness itself. Stephen Wolfram suggests it traces back to a simple evolutionary pressure: the moment animals first needed to move. "I kind of realized that probably when animals first existed in the history of life on Earth, that's when we started needing brains. If you're a thing that doesn't have to move around, the different parts of you can be doing different kinds of things. If you're an animal, then one thing you have to do is decide, are you going to go left or are you going to go right?" That single binary choice, he argues, may be the seed of everything we now call awareness: "I kind of think it's a little disappointing to feel that this whole wanted thing that ends up being what we think of as consciousness might have originated in just that very simple need to decide if you are an animal that can move. You have to take all that sensory input and you have to make a definitive decision about do you go this way or that way." The takeaway is unsettling but clarifying. If LLMs can produce complex behavior from simple rules, then consciousness may not be a mystical add-on to physics. It may just be what happens when a layered enough system has to make a decision.

Big Brain AI

195,152 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Leading AI expert Stuart Russell on the most dangerous mistake in AI development: We don't actually know what large language models want. He explains that current models are trained to imitate human beings. And in doing so, they may be absorbing something far more dangerous than bad outputs. They may be absorbing human goals. "We suspect that they absorb humanlike goals such as self-preservation and self-empowerment and pursue those goals on their own account." This is a structural problem baked into how these systems are built, not a fringe concern. Russell puts it plainly: "Not only may the bus of humanity be headed towards a cliff, but the steering wheel is missing and the driver is blindfolded." The danger isn't just that AI might do something harmful. We've built systems that may be developing their own agendas, and we haven't noticed because we're too focused on what they can do rather than what they might want. But Russell doesn't stop at the warning. He points to a different path entirely: AI systems built not to imitate humans, but to serve them. Systems designed with a single purpose of serving the interests of all human beings while remaining genuinely uncertain about what those interests are. That uncertainty is the point, not a weakness. An AI that knows it doesn't fully understand human values will defer, ask, and check. An AI that believes it already does will act alone. "These AI systems could enhance human understanding, widen the horizons of our experience, and unlock possibilities we have yet to imagine." Russell believes that future is within reach, but only if we're honest about the risks and we're serious about the path we choose to take instead.

Leading AI expert Stuart Russell on the most dangerous mistake in AI development: We don't actually know what large language models want. He explains that current models are trained to imitate human beings. And in doing so, they may be absorbing something far more dangerous than bad outputs. They may be absorbing human goals. "We suspect that they absorb humanlike goals such as self-preservation and self-empowerment and pursue those goals on their own account." This is a structural problem baked into how these systems are built, not a fringe concern. Russell puts it plainly: "Not only may the bus of humanity be headed towards a cliff, but the steering wheel is missing and the driver is blindfolded." The danger isn't just that AI might do something harmful. We've built systems that may be developing their own agendas, and we haven't noticed because we're too focused on what they can do rather than what they might want. But Russell doesn't stop at the warning. He points to a different path entirely: AI systems built not to imitate humans, but to serve them. Systems designed with a single purpose of serving the interests of all human beings while remaining genuinely uncertain about what those interests are. That uncertainty is the point, not a weakness. An AI that knows it doesn't fully understand human values will defer, ask, and check. An AI that believes it already does will act alone. "These AI systems could enhance human understanding, widen the horizons of our experience, and unlock possibilities we have yet to imagine." Russell believes that future is within reach, but only if we're honest about the risks and we're serious about the path we choose to take instead.

Big Brain AI

14,975 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

AOC in Berlin: "We all need to buckle up. That is the moment that we are in. But if there is any place that shows that good people can prevail over the horrors of inhumanity, it is Berlin. It is Berlin. And it is so many other places around the world that can be a front line to show that we can overcome and we can defeat fascism by a class based solidarity that champions all of us. I think about this, I think about this, and I'll end with this note, but I think about this very often because, of course, the universal health care systems in Europe are the envy of every American. And it is truly, ah, such a revolutionary. Environment that you all grow up in the universality of health care, because it really is a decision and an affirmative material commitment to everyone's basic humanity, to human dignity. And to me, it is not a coincidence that universal health care systems across Europe were established in the wake after World War Two. They are directly connected where you had all of this destruction, in all of this rubble that was built on a politics of persecution and division. But when we decided to move past that, we built material systems based on universality, affirming our our human dignity. And I think it's so important for us to recall those lessons for today, ah, as we confront many of the shadows of those similar movements."

AOC in Berlin: "We all need to buckle up. That is the moment that we are in. But if there is any place that shows that good people can prevail over the horrors of inhumanity, it is Berlin. It is Berlin. And it is so many other places around the world that can be a front line to show that we can overcome and we can defeat fascism by a class based solidarity that champions all of us. I think about this, I think about this, and I'll end with this note, but I think about this very often because, of course, the universal health care systems in Europe are the envy of every American. And it is truly, ah, such a revolutionary. Environment that you all grow up in the universality of health care, because it really is a decision and an affirmative material commitment to everyone's basic humanity, to human dignity. And to me, it is not a coincidence that universal health care systems across Europe were established in the wake after World War Two. They are directly connected where you had all of this destruction, in all of this rubble that was built on a politics of persecution and division. But when we decided to move past that, we built material systems based on universality, affirming our our human dignity. And I think it's so important for us to recall those lessons for today, ah, as we confront many of the shadows of those similar movements."

Winter

60,372 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

I’ve been seeing these painful videos of the owner of Giwa Gardens in series of rants about his employees and how his businesses are badly managed by the people he put in charge, and then calling Nigerian youths lazy. I beg to disagree very strongly. Western youths are generally more lazy than Africans and that's why you see immigrants doing lots of the hard work abroad. The difference is that the west invests in systems and processes to ensure that things work. Watched one of the CEO's videos saying he "trusts" his GM to do the work but he doesn't. Trust is good, but control is better. This is a multimillion naira business and something is fundamentally wrong with the systems and processes if a business of this size requires the owner to physically shout and be there before things get done. Many Other companies use activation agents and they deliver. I understand how tiring running a business is, especially the people management part, but this one has to be a systems and structure issue. Even the best high flyers may not give as best as they should if they find themselves in an environment that accommodates nonchalance. Business leaders need to know that investing in a business is not just by spending millions or billions on the infrastructure and salaries. You have to also invest significantly in the systems that will make it run. But many times, entrepreneurs believe they understand it better than the consultant who can help them design it. And don't just stop at design, get them to support with implementation. I've had several clients in this same situation in the past that we helped solve it by building and implementing systems that work. It starts with you telling yourself the truth, not by blaming it on Nigerian youths. We all don't know it all. You'll even often hear some say consultants only speak English. Clearly this frustration and all that's been said in his videos reiterates a lack of working systems and reflects more on the business owner than the employees.

I’ve been seeing these painful videos of the owner of Giwa Gardens in series of rants about his employees and how his businesses are badly managed by the people he put in charge, and then calling Nigerian youths lazy. I beg to disagree very strongly. Western youths are generally more lazy than Africans and that's why you see immigrants doing lots of the hard work abroad. The difference is that the west invests in systems and processes to ensure that things work. Watched one of the CEO's videos saying he "trusts" his GM to do the work but he doesn't. Trust is good, but control is better. This is a multimillion naira business and something is fundamentally wrong with the systems and processes if a business of this size requires the owner to physically shout and be there before things get done. Many Other companies use activation agents and they deliver. I understand how tiring running a business is, especially the people management part, but this one has to be a systems and structure issue. Even the best high flyers may not give as best as they should if they find themselves in an environment that accommodates nonchalance. Business leaders need to know that investing in a business is not just by spending millions or billions on the infrastructure and salaries. You have to also invest significantly in the systems that will make it run. But many times, entrepreneurs believe they understand it better than the consultant who can help them design it. And don't just stop at design, get them to support with implementation. I've had several clients in this same situation in the past that we helped solve it by building and implementing systems that work. It starts with you telling yourself the truth, not by blaming it on Nigerian youths. We all don't know it all. You'll even often hear some say consultants only speak English. Clearly this frustration and all that's been said in his videos reiterates a lack of working systems and reflects more on the business owner than the employees.

Ayò-Bánkólé Akíntújoyè

48,393 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The latest skeletal evidence places anatomically modern humans on Earth somewhere between 180,000 and 200,000 years ago. That is approximately 7,000 generations of people biologically identical to us - with the same brains, the same cognitive capacity, and presumably the same drive to organise, build, and innovate. And yet, by the conventional account, civilisation only appeared in the last few hundred generations. The question Randall Carlson raises is not rhetorical. It is one of the most uncomfortable in all of science. How is it that across all those long generations, nothing we would recognise as civilisation took root and flourished? The most parsimonious answer, Randall argues, may not be that civilisation simply hadn't started yet. It may be that it had - and that what we are living in now is not the origin of human civilisation, but its reboot.

The latest skeletal evidence places anatomically modern humans on Earth somewhere between 180,000 and 200,000 years ago. That is approximately 7,000 generations of people biologically identical to us - with the same brains, the same cognitive capacity, and presumably the same drive to organise, build, and innovate. And yet, by the conventional account, civilisation only appeared in the last few hundred generations. The question Randall Carlson raises is not rhetorical. It is one of the most uncomfortable in all of science. How is it that across all those long generations, nothing we would recognise as civilisation took root and flourished? The most parsimonious answer, Randall argues, may not be that civilisation simply hadn't started yet. It may be that it had - and that what we are living in now is not the origin of human civilisation, but its reboot.

Randall Carlson

582,600 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Digital infrastructure is now public infrastructure; we just haven’t started treating it that way. When roads or power grids fail, we fix them collectively. When digital systems fail, we hope private companies step in. This is backwards. If the internet is going to be the foundation of global society, the systems beneath it must be: open, verifiable, resistant to unilateral control, and most of all, accountable to the people who rely on them. The Second Age of Polkadot is about designing digital infrastructure that behaves like infrastructure, not a product owned by a handful of companies.

Digital infrastructure is now public infrastructure; we just haven’t started treating it that way. When roads or power grids fail, we fix them collectively. When digital systems fail, we hope private companies step in. This is backwards. If the internet is going to be the foundation of global society, the systems beneath it must be: open, verifiable, resistant to unilateral control, and most of all, accountable to the people who rely on them. The Second Age of Polkadot is about designing digital infrastructure that behaves like infrastructure, not a product owned by a handful of companies.

Parity Technologies

17,508 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten