Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

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 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Наука и технологии

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

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

111,978 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Stephen Wolfram says that AI cannot predict future system behaviours because many systems perform complex computations that exceed AI's capabilities.

Stephen Wolfram says that AI cannot predict future system behaviours because many systems perform complex computations that exceed AI's capabilities.

tetsuo

408,979 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Elon Musk: Grok will force the other AIs to be more truth-seeking and fair. “As long as there's at least one AI that is maximally truth-seeking, curious, and, for example, weighs all human lives equally and does not favor one race or gender, then people are able to look at Grok, at xAI, and compare that and say, hey, wait a second, why are all these other AIs being basically sexist and racist? And then that causes some embarrassment for the other AIs, and they improve. They tend to improve just in the same way that acquiring Twitter and allowing the truth to be told and not suppressing the truth forced the other social media companies to be more truthful. In the same way, having Grok be a maximally truth-seeking, curious AI will force the other AI companies to also be more truth-seeking and fair.” The Joe Rogan Experience, October 31, 2025

Elon Musk: Grok will force the other AIs to be more truth-seeking and fair. “As long as there's at least one AI that is maximally truth-seeking, curious, and, for example, weighs all human lives equally and does not favor one race or gender, then people are able to look at Grok, at xAI, and compare that and say, hey, wait a second, why are all these other AIs being basically sexist and racist? And then that causes some embarrassment for the other AIs, and they improve. They tend to improve just in the same way that acquiring Twitter and allowing the truth to be told and not suppressing the truth forced the other social media companies to be more truthful. In the same way, having Grok be a maximally truth-seeking, curious AI will force the other AI companies to also be more truth-seeking and fair.” The Joe Rogan Experience, October 31, 2025

ELON CLIPS

14,827 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

ELON: GROK WILL FORCE THE OTHER AIs TO BE TRUTH-SEEKING AND FAIR “As long as there's at least one AI that is maximally truth-seeking, curious, and, for example, weighs all human lives equally and does not favor one race or gender, then people are able to look at Grok, at xAI, and compare that and say, hey, wait a second, why are all these other AIs being basically sexist and racist? Then, that causes some embarrassment for the other AIs, and they improve. They tend to improve just in the same way that acquiring Twitter and allowing the truth to be told and not suppressing the truth forced the other social media companies to be more truthful. In the same way, having Grok be a maximally truth-seeking, curious AI will force the other AI companies to also be more truth-seeking and fair.” Source: Elon Musk on The Joe Rogan Experience Joe Rogan, October 31, 2025

ELON: GROK WILL FORCE THE OTHER AIs TO BE TRUTH-SEEKING AND FAIR “As long as there's at least one AI that is maximally truth-seeking, curious, and, for example, weighs all human lives equally and does not favor one race or gender, then people are able to look at Grok, at xAI, and compare that and say, hey, wait a second, why are all these other AIs being basically sexist and racist? Then, that causes some embarrassment for the other AIs, and they improve. They tend to improve just in the same way that acquiring Twitter and allowing the truth to be told and not suppressing the truth forced the other social media companies to be more truthful. In the same way, having Grok be a maximally truth-seeking, curious AI will force the other AI companies to also be more truth-seeking and fair.” Source: Elon Musk on The Joe Rogan Experience Joe Rogan, October 31, 2025

Mario Nawfal

232,934 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

📁 Emad Mostaque says that capitalism as we know it won’t survive AI, because AIs will be able to build economic engines better than humans, optimize capital and processes, and launch products in months instead of years, making competition with them impossible.

📁 Emad Mostaque says that capitalism as we know it won’t survive AI, because AIs will be able to build economic engines better than humans, optimize capital and processes, and launch products in months instead of years, making competition with them impossible.

Jon Hernandez

41,890 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

It is not useful to ask whether AI has consciousness or not. #kenmogi #QualiaRoom episode 127. Summary The speaker addresses the question of whether artificial intelligence (AI) possesses consciousness, firmly stating that current AI, particularly those based on statistical learning models, does not generate consciousness. This stance is based on the speaker’s personal model of consciousness, recognizing that various opinions exist, including some who claim large language models may already be conscious or that embodiment could be crucial for AI consciousness to emerge. The speaker highlights the fundamental challenge in verifying consciousness, noting that even among humans it is impossible to objectively confirm whether another person is conscious. Philosophical thought experiments such as philosophical zombies and inverted qualia illustrate the difficulty but remain unfalsifiable and thus untestable. Consequently, questioning AI consciousness is deemed an intriguing but practically unhelpful inquiry. The speaker suggests that current AI developments demonstrate that many complex computations can be performed without consciousness. Therefore, the primary focus should be on how conscious humans can effectively align with non-conscious AI systems. Understanding the unique computational roles of consciousness might clarify the boundaries of what AI systems can and cannot achieve. This approach offers a meaningful direction for AI alignment and development.

It is not useful to ask whether AI has consciousness or not. #kenmogi #QualiaRoom episode 127. Summary The speaker addresses the question of whether artificial intelligence (AI) possesses consciousness, firmly stating that current AI, particularly those based on statistical learning models, does not generate consciousness. This stance is based on the speaker’s personal model of consciousness, recognizing that various opinions exist, including some who claim large language models may already be conscious or that embodiment could be crucial for AI consciousness to emerge. The speaker highlights the fundamental challenge in verifying consciousness, noting that even among humans it is impossible to objectively confirm whether another person is conscious. Philosophical thought experiments such as philosophical zombies and inverted qualia illustrate the difficulty but remain unfalsifiable and thus untestable. Consequently, questioning AI consciousness is deemed an intriguing but practically unhelpful inquiry. The speaker suggests that current AI developments demonstrate that many complex computations can be performed without consciousness. Therefore, the primary focus should be on how conscious humans can effectively align with non-conscious AI systems. Understanding the unique computational roles of consciousness might clarify the boundaries of what AI systems can and cannot achieve. This approach offers a meaningful direction for AI alignment and development.

Ken Mogi

16,594 просмотров • 1 год назад

Joscha Bach says physical systems like brains and computers cannot be conscious, because consciousness is a simulated property that only exists inside of a dream

Joscha Bach says physical systems like brains and computers cannot be conscious, because consciousness is a simulated property that only exists inside of a dream

Tsarathustra

199,777 просмотров • 2 лет назад

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

163,626 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

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 🇪🇺

42,194 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

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 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

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 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

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

1,250,204 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

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

607,779 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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 ⏸️

1,842,511 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Sunny Hostin hates on America, claims we have "the worst healthcare systems in the world," claims we don't even have good medical research, and demands communism: "This is supposed to be the greatest country in the world and we have one of, I think, the worst healthcare systems in the world. And we should have universal healthcare is a right. It's something that we deserve as human beings. I just think it's disgusting."

Sunny Hostin hates on America, claims we have "the worst healthcare systems in the world," claims we don't even have good medical research, and demands communism: "This is supposed to be the greatest country in the world and we have one of, I think, the worst healthcare systems in the world. And we should have universal healthcare is a right. It's something that we deserve as human beings. I just think it's disgusting."

Nicholas Fondacaro

29,355 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

‘We want to make guns and tanks and ships, not T-shirts and socks’ – Trump wants to jump into a new arms race. ‘We’re not going to be in the sneaker and T-shirt business. We want to be in the gun business. We want to be in the big things. We want to be in artificial intelligence and computers and many, many other areas. But textiles – you know, to be honest, I’m not looking to make T-shirts. I’m not looking to make socks. We can do that just fine in other places. We want to be in the chips and computers and many other things and tanks and ships.’ - SK

‘We want to make guns and tanks and ships, not T-shirts and socks’ – Trump wants to jump into a new arms race. ‘We’re not going to be in the sneaker and T-shirt business. We want to be in the gun business. We want to be in the big things. We want to be in artificial intelligence and computers and many, many other areas. But textiles – you know, to be honest, I’m not looking to make T-shirts. I’m not looking to make socks. We can do that just fine in other places. We want to be in the chips and computers and many other things and tanks and ships.’ - SK

Zlatti71

22,718 просмотров • 1 год назад

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

160,474 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

We are actually here to cause as many of these moments as we possibly can for each other and to remember that we're all the same consciousness wearing different masks.

We are actually here to cause as many of these moments as we possibly can for each other and to remember that we're all the same consciousness wearing different masks.

Jay Anderson

31,600 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад