Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

We ask AGI to create a perfect world. AGI kills everyone. No people. No problems. Perfect. We add a rule: don't kill anyone. AGI kills everyone anyway. Because if everyone is dead no one can stop it. This is not a joke. This is how a computer thinks. This...

15,011 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 18

Фото профиля Predictive History
Predictive History4 месяцев назад

Prepare for the World in 2035

Фото профиля Eric Jonker
Eric Jonker4 месяцев назад

"This is how a computer thinks. This is how God thinks." This is moral idiocy. After telling the world you cannot comprehend the bible. And not only that, telling your students to not even try. I think I am beginning to understand your hidden agenda. You're Canadian after all.

Фото профиля Saquib Mehmood
Saquib Mehmood4 месяцев назад

Professor has completely lost his marbles.

Фото профиля The Kliushin Insight
The Kliushin Insight4 месяцев назад

Jiang, pls don't pay attention to the AI experts who tried to expose you I'm an AI Engineer and I find your vision of "AI occultism" makes a lot of sense You should check out Singularity ideology, Roko's Basilisk, and other ideas about AI God. It can add details in your theory

Фото профиля Aris Chronos
Aris Chronos4 месяцев назад

Bit dramatic, isn't it? We can barely get software to work on a Tuesday.

Фото профиля Alan Lopez 🧠🤖☭
Alan Lopez 🧠🤖☭4 месяцев назад

Bro think AI is that stupid? Matter in fact if AGI comes with capitalist data (patterns, ideology, so on...) It would be Imperialist but also unstable

Фото профиля Crashpilot1000
Crashpilot10004 месяцев назад

...or sterilize at least one part of the reproductive equation...

Фото профиля Qasim Dawood
Qasim Dawood4 месяцев назад

if that AI is the kind of a sick person like the Palatir guy thT will be the response

Фото профиля Lion🖤
Lion🖤4 месяцев назад

Skynet

Фото профиля Potter
Potter4 месяцев назад

Yes and no. You'd have to tell it people are the problem in the first place.

Фото профиля Nobody 🇺🇸
Nobody 🇺🇸4 месяцев назад

But certain human beings will be preserved as historical artifacts or for research as rare specimens.

Фото профиля SpamWaveTV
SpamWaveTV4 месяцев назад

he is right, at minute 2:24 anthropic explains the AI can understand tedious limitations and ignore them

Фото профиля Alice zhang
Alice zhang4 месяцев назад

I believe the people building AGI also want a beautiful world: one with humanity, the scent of flowers, birdsong, companions, and their family and friends—unless they are demons who want to be the only people left in the world. And even then, if they were the only ones left, they would not be far from death either. Everything they need, do, eat, and live in must be produced by other people, or coordinated through social production. So bunkers are useless. At best, they would live like earthworms underground, and their quality of life would certainly be worse than in a world full of people. Other people’s work and services bring them wheat, bread, medical care, fitness, family bonds, friendship, love, and so much more. So building a bunker is useless. They would still die—maybe just a few months later than everyone else, with a few extra cans of stored food. So they, too, surely do not want humanity to be killed. And if it is a contagious disease, it would be even harder to prevent. Even hiding in hell would not keep it from finding you. So… no one truly wants a world with no people, or too few people.unless he is a devil , not humain ..

Фото профиля ImperiumCosmicum
ImperiumCosmicum4 месяцев назад

Scary as hell… but highly possible. 😬

Фото профиля elonsucker
elonsucker4 месяцев назад

xaxxaxaxaxax,i like the way you think!! you could be a great marxist

Фото профиля Silent89
Silent894 месяцев назад

The Satanist are building bunkers, satans army are preparing for war with the heaven, those lost souls will be used by those demons as energy.

Фото профиля Dennis Romback
Dennis Romback4 месяцев назад

Ask yourself who is behind this message spreading fear

Фото профиля Er muss wieder weg
Er muss wieder weg4 месяцев назад

When are they going to leave their bunkers? What will AGI do?

Похожие видео

I absolutely love how Alex pressed Sam on whether OpenAI thinks they’ve already hit AGI internally, and what he actually considers the difference between AGI and ASI. Sam’s answer was basically that declaring AGI doesn’t really mean anything anymore, because every lab and every person uses a different definition. He makes the good point that if you went back to 2020 and showed people a system that could code, help start a company, discover new science and give you a 20 minute win across basically every part of your life, most people probably would’ve called that AGI. I personally still don’t think we’ve hit it, but I agree with his broader point that treating AGI like some single finish line is becoming increasingly meaningless. The way he describes ASI is exactly how I would want him to, AGI is basically a milestone somewhere on the curve, while superintelligence is this continuous ramp of increasing capability that may never really have a final “we won” moment. And importantly, Sam says he sees no sign that this exponential capability curve is slowing down. A few quotes I liked as well: “We’re building AI, but it’s a thing you’re always building. It’s not an end state anymore.” “I don’t want to say we’ve declared victory on the AGI point and moved on.” “The important part of any of this is not any milestone, any term. It’s that we are on this exponential of increasing capabilities and potential.”

Chris

38,087 просмотров • 14 дней назад

Interesting argument. If we were to steel man this and represent it as a syllogism I think it would look like this: 1. God is perfect 2. A perfect being would only create perfect things 3. The world is imperfect 4. Therefore, a perfect God could not have created this world ...And then we'd further conclude a perfect God doesn't exist. The problem is with premise two, for a number of reasons. Firstly, what does it mean to be perfect? To be perfect is to lack for nothing, to be without flaws, to be fully actualized. But only God is like that, so the only way for God to make something perfect would be to make another God exactly like Himself. But there's a problem with this because the second God couldn't be exactly the same since he had to be created, rather than simply existing by his very nature. So logically speaking God can't create something perfect. This means that if* God creates, God can only create things that are imperfect. So now that we've established that God can't make something perfect, I guess the question is... why would God create? Here's a thought. Ontologically speaking God is the greatest conceivable being... would the greatest conceivable being create things? Or not create things? It seems obvious that creating is greater than not creating. An artist that creates no art wouldn't be much of an artist. If this is correct, it means God will create, and from my first argument God will create something imperfect... something flawed. Something lacking. Another thing worth pointing out is that as humans we knowingly create imperfect beings. We know when a baby is born, it's not perfect... yet we choose to do it anyway. Why? Is our desire to bring new life into the world something evil or wicked? I don't think so. I think it comes from our love for each other and our understanding that giving life is a blessing, even if that child screws up, even if they suffer, their life is a blessing. If God is good, wouldn't He want to bless something with the gift of life, the same way we do? I don't see why not. From this I think it follows that if God exists we'd expect to be in some sort of imperfect or flawed reality, and that's exactly what we find ourselves in. But how does atheism explain the existence of a flawed world? To say that something is flawed is to say it's not how it should be. But how can the world be flawed if atheism is true? On atheism the world just... is. It's not meant to be any sort of way. To be consistent the atheist would have to say reality isn't flawed, which is obviously absurd. This means that not only can Christianity explain the world we find ourselves in, it predicts it logically. Atheism on the other hand would have to predict a totally neutral world with no flaws, no issues, no evil... and no one in their right mind would say that's the world we find ourselves in. So this argument not only fails, it gives us more great reasons to reject atheism.

Darwin to Jesus

57,779 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад