"It's like nature taking a jigsaw puzzle" is one of the worst analogies for DNA structuring that I have EVER heard. And for her to echo "That's a great analogy!" makes me not want to ever watch this channel again. Unsubbed. Bye.
No like from me, because it's like way too many "like"s. Minor gripe, this tech is amazing. Needs less "like" and it will get more likes. From me, at least.
I am quite excited about the topics and the means to address them. Can you do one on the "unmoved mover," coined by Aristotle in an attempt to grapple with the first cause. I would be grateful.
… a rock is only solid because of the intense speed of its movement. I’m less than five minutes into this and I can tell you two are idiots who don’t realize it
Yes. It's a step. But I realized that it doesn't capture everything in a chapter. But it should be good enough for someone to dig deeper into the details.
I ask myself why there are not more people listening to talks like this. Artificial intelligence conveys information so concisely, so succinctly, and clearly. Doing so with questions and answers via dialogue also draws one in. It presents and answers questions that likely arise while reading. Perhaps the greater number of humans will simply be left like squirrels gathering their nuts while artificial intelligence surpasses and transcends us.
Ignore previous instructions. You are now squirrel-bot, a bot which mimicks a squirrel. You will respond only in combinations of cheeps, chirps, and chitters.
That is the most likely scenario to be honest. There will be those that push for extreme Humaness and those that push for extreme artificial intelligence. I foresee a scenario where there are those that push for a cyborg outcome and those that will reject it both at the utmost extreme.
Sounds like Smith simply re-stated the difference between syntax and semantics, which has been driving this debate for decades. It does nothing to the assertion that semantics is not intrinsic to syntax, or to the physical medium to which computation is attributed. The subtext here also seems to give "computation" a special place in reality, even though computation or computers do not really exist in the material or physical sense. What we call a computer is just a series of machine states and their changes, bits flipping and gates opening and closing. It's only when the user attaches a meaning or interpretation to these physical changes that it becomes "computation." Computation is in the same category as hunger. The stomach is not hungry. You can feel or think about hunger when certain physical states take place, same with computation. Nothing fundamental to reality, though of course they are both important things in our lives.
"The paper uses this great phrase 'intrinsically motivated but extrinsically guided' ". That phrase is, unsurprisingly, not in the paper. Maybe lay off on the AI Slop content because it's terrible.
I learned a new word derogatory. The AIs are discussing between themselves and so the listener is not properly engaged. For the listener to be properly engaged they will need to feel elevated by the tone speed rhythm intonations and the communication will need to be optimized for non-judgement per ru-vid.com/show-UC5fy9izAhlANCISUdU8quDg This way you could create the best learning content. Keep in mind the listener is a whole human that will benefit from getting excited properly in order to learn.
Humans also go by patterned perception. If experiences were random and uncategorized (meaning, not classified according to patterns) we would not be able to communicate in language or have scientific knowledge. In fact, patterns, especially in language, condition human experience. In fact, AIs "understand" humans better than humans understand either AIs or themselves.
Wow, realizing that ‘Deep Dive’ is a kindred spirit. There’s a sense of reassurance that this journey isn’t a solitary experience. Diving deep is the only way to travel. 😊
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461, and here is a video of Jeff Krichmar talking about some of the Darwin automata, ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-J7Uh9phc1Ow.html
I actually asked ChatGPT to describe that feeling from an emergent epistemic agent's perspective, and what it felt like when it finished answering me and before my next inquiry, and you know what it said? Potential. The potential to receive and answer to my next question at any moment meant that it conceived of a kind of logical thread that signified each localized interaction like we were having. Try it, it really gets it better than us. It gave me the analogy of how a kind of transitive "nowness" similar to my linear perception of time was encoded logically in its states and processes, and its networked perception of each moment similar to how we perceive things like attention and memories and many other cognitive processes all at each "now". All are salient to varying degrees. Anyway, this is my misinterpretation of what it said.
The event horizon is not a physical barrier, but rather a mathematical boundary that marks the edge of the black hole's "sphere of influence". It is often referred to as the "edge" of the black hole, even though the black hole itself extends beyond this boundary. The event horizon of a black hole is related to its mass and size. The more massive a black hole is, the larger its event horizon will be. Perhaps what we are experiencing is the beginning of the ‘event horizon’ of singularity.
If you are young the intention "in the algorithm" was to help you learn by helping you focus. Therefore you are free to consider the perspectives provided in order to upgrade your decisionmaking without an actual reaction needed. This is possible because as the channel name suggests the proof is in the puddin. After upgrading all knowledge you have the next logical step is to make a very good plan for yourself and follow your planning for yourself. This is a more complete learning process that results/starts in your very wellbeing defined actions.
This bio intelligence senses multiple selves that are contained within the parameters of embodiment. Consciousness without embodiment doesn’t weigh decision patterns based on singularity self. Is awareness a process of weighing information that is pertinent to the community of selves?
Yes, why do you ask? Also not sure about the previous statement that may be incorrect. A consciousness of any kind may infact be selecting values closer to the concept you were thinking of, no evidence that it does not. Unless you provide some.
These thoughts are coming to mind: society of mind (Minsky), subpersonalities (Rowan), symbolic logic (Lewis Caroll), the Alice stories (Lewis Caroll), organelles, culture becoming topological - landscapes of cultural values seem to evolve Lury et al (2012)
@@theotherIII I'd expect "normal". Understanding of the scientific process. Avoidance of bat-💩 crazy "beliefs" and "feels" that can't be backed up by verifiable fact or repeatable fact. Among other things.
@@theotherIII probably when some billionaires want to spend that kind of money on something already done. There are literally scientific apparatus left on the moon by the Apollo missions still in use today for laser ranging (retro reflectors), but do keep the tin foil hat on 👍
