正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

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 次观看 • 7 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

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 次观看 • 4 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 年前

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

163,627 次观看 • 6 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 8 个月前

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 次观看 • 8 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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

608,166 次观看 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 2 年前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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

194,750 次观看 • 2 个月前

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 次观看 • 4 个月前

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

48,382 次观看 • 1 年前

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 次观看 • 7 个月前

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

582,115 次观看 • 4 个月前

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

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

Big Brain AI

186,491 次观看 • 2 个月前

UFO expert Steven Greer says a secret war between advanced civilizations and humans has been going on, with humans as the bad guys. He says Earth has been visited by non-hostile advanced civilizations and that humans are the ones hostile to them. He says Matt Gaetz is correct about a secret hybrid breeding program between aliens and humans, with the goal of combining DNA. "We have downed at least a thousand or more of their spacecraft." "We have captured those bodies, some living and some dead." FOLLOW ME, THE NEXT DROP WILL BE SHOCKING.

UFO expert Steven Greer says a secret war between advanced civilizations and humans has been going on, with humans as the bad guys. He says Earth has been visited by non-hostile advanced civilizations and that humans are the ones hostile to them. He says Matt Gaetz is correct about a secret hybrid breeding program between aliens and humans, with the goal of combining DNA. "We have downed at least a thousand or more of their spacecraft." "We have captured those bodies, some living and some dead." FOLLOW ME, THE NEXT DROP WILL BE SHOCKING.

John F Kennedy Jr

107,251 次观看 • 1 个月前

James Talarico: "I believe Christianity points to the truth. I also think other religions of love point to the same truth. I think of different religious traditions as different languages, but we are all talking about the same reality. I believe Jesus Christ reveals that reality to us, but I also think that other traditions reveal that reality in their own ways with their own symbol structures. And I've learned more about my tradition by learning more about Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and Judaism. And so I see these beautiful faith traditions as circling the same truth about the universe, about the cosmos." You can believe those things, but you can't be a Christian and believe that all religions point to the same truth. In John 14:6, the Jesus that James Talarico claims to follow says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." Talarico is still a member of his childhood congregation, St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, which is a very progressive church in Austin. It shouldn't be surprising at all that in the church’s About Us page it says, "We are Christ centered, yet we respect and learn from all religions of love." That's not a Christian position. If God is love and we believe in the trinity: God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which no other religion believes in, then He is actually the only source of love. There aren't other religions of love in addition to Christianity. It doesn't come as a surprise that Talarico is essentially a universalist who claims to be a Christian and uses some Christian tenets, but actually doesn't believe in the exclusivity of Christ.

James Talarico: "I believe Christianity points to the truth. I also think other religions of love point to the same truth. I think of different religious traditions as different languages, but we are all talking about the same reality. I believe Jesus Christ reveals that reality to us, but I also think that other traditions reveal that reality in their own ways with their own symbol structures. And I've learned more about my tradition by learning more about Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and Judaism. And so I see these beautiful faith traditions as circling the same truth about the universe, about the cosmos." You can believe those things, but you can't be a Christian and believe that all religions point to the same truth. In John 14:6, the Jesus that James Talarico claims to follow says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." Talarico is still a member of his childhood congregation, St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, which is a very progressive church in Austin. It shouldn't be surprising at all that in the church’s About Us page it says, "We are Christ centered, yet we respect and learn from all religions of love." That's not a Christian position. If God is love and we believe in the trinity: God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which no other religion believes in, then He is actually the only source of love. There aren't other religions of love in addition to Christianity. It doesn't come as a surprise that Talarico is essentially a universalist who claims to be a Christian and uses some Christian tenets, but actually doesn't believe in the exclusivity of Christ.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey

11,548 次观看 • 4 个月前