Can Humanity Survive AI? | Rich Roll Podcast 

It's probably podcast from past. 👍

That beard really does make a difference!

Exactly. It's a tool like any other. ....even a hammer can be misused; it can either build, or bludgeon.

AI algorithms are written by humans, so at least for now they aren't 'objective' but biased. For example the most social media AI algorithms are biased toward left ideology because most big tech companies owners and programmers are democrats /post modernists, etc

@@hemant05 I agree with the first part. But algorithms are „biased“ depending on the individual. If someone’s is more interested in right wing or conspiracy content, the algorithm will inevitably show more ornatesten on their feed as well.

To clarify. I am not saying all AI is objective but only AI can be subjective. It can be programmed to be clinical, objective and unemotional. Done right it is also not corruptible. This is not theory. We have a QI set of Quantum Algorithms that only produce win win solutions with no collateral damage or cost. These algorithms have guided the shift of the world economy over to sustainable with the most obvious tipping point being when Amazon announced the purchase of Whole Foods.

Why would we want to explore and learn about something that we already know is perfect in every way?

@@annette4660 Unless your sarcastic, you've just proven my point...

@@stevohey1 I was indeed being sarcastic...I'm kind of horrified by how these guys think they can define what "good" information is for everyone. They have a huge blind spot.

I don't think "good" in this context is a moral call, and obviously actual conservative voices and thoughts are as critical in public dialog as anything from liberal angles, society needs right and left and other points of view. But, we all need basically the same factual information, sky is blue, two plus two is four, etc., before we can engage in debate (and, separate track, going through a screen or device tends to radicalize everyone on some level, whether the subject is reality-based or not - I have great conversations with colleagues and friends who hold really different opinions and perspectives from mine - the same kinds of folks - people in disagreement - just tend to attack and dehumanize each other on line... whole different topic...). There is a lot of very bad information on social media platforms, as in, made up, dangerous, not factual, and now it's viral and leveraged by the platforms, and that's dangerous and already harming us all. How Flat Earth theorists have suddenly multiplied exponentially over the past five years - the information that the planet is flat is bad, not factual. And tons of folks have spiraled away with it. Just one example.

@@hannahrl I appreciate your response. But I think you have to have some faith in people to be smart enough to finally decide their policies based on non-crazy information. It sounds like you would rather have flat-earthers silenced because they do harm? I think that's dangerous thinking. Have more faith in people, and let's hear all views, please.

@@annette4660 definitely not in favor of censorship, I just think it's a very valid point to discuss social media and the proliferation of essentially bad/wrong/false information. Flat earthers should get to say whatever the heck they want - they should not have currency in scientific conversation and the way social media is structured now - especially monetizing wilder, crazier and more outlying opinions and ideas - effectively brings this kind of thing a sort of status or authority for a potentially vast audience that is dangerous. Regulation of media platforms by themselves or otherwise is super dicey territory with regard to free speech, but there's a lot to unpick. Monetization, algorithms and the ability of targeted special interests to spread and leverage false and inflammatory disinformation for various reasons seriously has to be discussed right now, I don't think this was anticipated. I was in college at OU when Tim McVeigh blew up the federal building. It was horrifying. It was also clear to me and my friends that, although he was a white supremacist (which was far more marginalized to dark-web and pamphlet, grass-roots gang type stuff 25, 30+ years ago), he was also part of a group reacting to the federal actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco. We thought that the problem was that those voices were marginalized and discounted, that if society engaged them, the violence wouldn't erupt that way (not, mind you, as in just accepting hate group ideology or whatever, but especially giving some space for the real fears and anger around what the government was indeed often doing- ironically similar in the "left" at the time around US actions in places like Chiapas, etc. - all of that was real, knowable factual stuff, not "Q" type conspiracies or whatever that are complete fantasy, as are fueling God knows what now). Raised by a Constitutional law expert, I always also was taught that the antidote to evil speech was more speech, not censorship, and as the descendent of Holocaust survivors, and a German student, I also believed that the answer to neo-Nazi ideology was not censorship of Holocaust deniers as it is in Germany (where such specific speech is criminal). But social media platforms are private companies - not the government - that have become exceptionally pervasive and complex elements of our society. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know I want to live in a world where agreement on basic facts is at least somewhat restored. Everyone is certainly entitled to our own opinions, but no one is entitled to our own facts. We should also expect that no one knows everything all the time, and that through conversation, basic standards of journalism and so on, we can learn corrections where we've misunderstood, but now in the context of demonizing/dehumanizing everyone all the time, that kind of process is further away than ever. If only we could be more grown up, not constantly regressing. It's disheartening, honestly, but I also realize people have bemoaned society in similar ways since the dawn of society, so I reckon we'll soldier on regardless. I just hope we can see people's faces and humanity more to have the testy conversations, some day.

@@hannahrl I have a feeling we're on the same "side" of this issue, but one thing I can't get past is this idea of "agreement on basic facts" - since it's the Left who has total control of the narrative, it's now believed to be a basic fact that there was no election fraud, and so no discussion to the contrary is tolerated. It's thought that it is a basic fact that America is a racist country, and anyone who denies it is a racist. It's not about facts anymore, it's about who is winning the battle of the sound bite and catch phrase. And the Right is shit out of luck on this front.

@@annette4660 These are two really good examples, and I think very very different, actually. When Republican judges and election officials confirmed over and over again that there was not voter fraud - or errors - beyond what is kind of common in literally every election (if not even a bit less), that wasn't media spin, though, that was facts of process, counting and systems evaluation. The prominence of some "right wing" voices - and I am *very* reticent to align this particular thing with the right as it literally has nothing to do with moral ideologies, governance or economic theories, it just has been from that side right now - saying over and over again that ballot machines were rigged or other things that are in fact verifiable as true or false and have been verified as completely false - hence the billions-of-dollars lawsuits by the ballot machine maker against those outlets - represented by a *very* politically conservative attorney - that is outright lying and misinformation and leveraging high emotions from "the base" and is I think it's hugely damaging, has already shaken a lot of confidence in the basic integrity of our system. The second point about speech, labeling ideology and what leads to "cancel culture" is something I think is something really critical right now. Whether the US "is a racist country or not" is a kind of philosophical debate people can have. And the suppression of people wanting to debate about this at all is dangerous. I'd add other current "social" topics to that, too, that I often only feel "safe" talking about with my husband these days, frankly. I have always leaned left but had a mix of positions when it comes to governance, as I think most people actually do (and as I find is highly variable between local/state and federal levels, often highly oppositional), and I have a lot of opinions about what's going on in modern social interaction with regard to speech. I grew up in my deep soul feeling confident about the only sacred truth was that nothing was sacred in comedy, and now I feel that's kind of a blown truism and it really gets to me, and I can't joke around anymore, like at all. I honestly see that though from both the Right and the Left ("snowflake" BS), but a lot of Left voices emerging through academia over the past 10 - 15 years have really come to a point of threatening speech, careers and livelihood (often, ironically, of fundamentally liberal academics, like Jordan Peterson, for instance). Huge and upsetting topic in this household. So, that's all social argument that needs to happen. Now, whether ballot machines were "rigged" or more than three dead people "voted" in a state election (and, ironically, those handfuls of family members casting their mom's vote or whatever were largely right-wing votes...) - that stuff isn't philosophically debatable, it's completely factual and readily understood and evaluated. People in power just saying "widespread voter fraud" over and over doesn't make those allegations at all credible. I am now completely ranting. Anyway, I don't think any of these conversations work at all without the capacity for nuance, listening, and patience, and again, at the heart of a lot of this screen-interaction dynamic is the loss of exactly that stuff. Thanks for a good conversation, have a beautiful week.

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to the conversation.