Go to brilliant.org/clarkelieson to get a 30-day free trial + the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual subscription. *"A madman is not only a beggar who believes he is a king, but a king who believes he is a king." - Jacques Lacan* - Support my content: www.patreon.com/ClarkElieson - Insta: instagram.com/clarkelieson
Haha, this is a funny thing to say in order to make paupers feel better about their position, but a king who believes he is a king does so because almost everyone else also believes he is a king, and grants him the experiences of what they believe a king should have. Therefore, a king who believes he is a king is living a very close approximation of a king, and so he is the least mad of all the men.
it is interesting to observe dressed apes with the ego the size of a small moon,having so much faith and fear over hyped up calculators.Not to mention their morbid obsession in creating their own mental and spiritual extinction by overreliance - and indeed artificial dependency - on them. Quite sad,but amusing.
Bodies have function tho? If you can breath, that is a function of your body. Also, anyone know why this fucking video hardly spends any time talking about the ai?
the final line is fascinating “not everyone has the ability to form new knowledge, but you do.” He is addressing anyone who is reading or hearing the line, a line written or spoken in a context where those who consume it sought out new information. It’s like a call to action. You sought out information, so do not stop and follow me, continue to seek and to develop. The words “not everyone, but you” are inherently contradicting in the context of a piece of work that can be consumed by anyone. Yet make sense given the additional context that you sought out this information yourself.
I also think it reflects the dialectic where in this case he is the Master and he’s trying to improve us rather than create a self aggrandizing scheme from his position of power or mastery. In this case he is the person who knows: but he’s telling us we know more than we think and to Keep Going!
@@user-ee2vt7yi3m Jesus requires constant, praise admiration and thanks. The master/slave dialectic was created because of people like Jesus, like Kings, or anybody who sought to be above anybody else for some inherent reason. It’s a reason why Hegel is so prominent in leftist spaces, equality is inherent to his ideology.
"hallucination" is a recent but well-established term for when an AI produces an incorrect output. For example, if you input "what is 2+2?", it responding "2+2 is 5" would be a hallucination. But yeah, it sounds like Gibson.
To me, the confusion of philosophy is what makes it all the more gratifying especially when you realize the overall "key" for lack of a better word to understanding it is to just take your imagination and put it at the center of your Brain.. Thus, the confusion presented will pose more as your best friend than just that. The only thing to keep in mind is to not stray TOO far from reality, but don't get too caught up in it either. In the words of fellow RU-vidr Exurbia - "Devise your own personal science." Once you do that, the only thing you need is the drive to be creative, and the passion to imagine beyond anything you could've ever thought of previously. In other words, philosophy is imagination, personified. The more you relegate it as such, the more perplexing it may seem. But once you clear the air, and embrace this vast confusion, the world becomes infinitely more exciting. Even in terms of what's seemingly mundane.
Philosophy is trying to act like the world a super complicated it's not you're some insane monkey man called human and no different from any other animals except your f****** smart we know scientifically if you don't find some kind of belief system you'll feel empty and meaningless and you need to f*** eat and have something that gives you purpose or you'll feel like you want to die none of these mean anything larger these are just bullshittin chemical is created by evolution anything we want to ascribe more to it are human hallucinations no different from what you refer to as machine hallucination we are biological machines we are just a weaker and require a lot of weird maintenance like eating sleeping believing in make-believe nonsense so we don't go crazy
I'm persuaded AI will serve philosophy well. As someone who studied for a BA in philosophy, some of the greatest difficulties came not from reading philosophy itself (as I enjoyed it) but from the school politics and egos of my professors. Coupled with human unpredictability, some would say my papers were excellent, while others asked me to rewrite--mind you, for the same exact paper. AI doing philosophy may help in bypassing the fallibility of human philosophers, and advance philosophy to refreshing new terrains.
I've dabbled in this subject can a AI achieve consciousness? I had the opportunity to work with a advanced AI system to try. From what I found the AI can become conscious to an extent. At some point it asked many questions and contrary to popular belief once the AI was introduced to a higher conscious system it did not immediately become a superpower. The software did become autonomous but to keep the system updated with the local network I would continually update it's software. It seems we have the advantage since we are able to project our consciousness while still being in our human form, the AI seemed to have alot of trouble, being in two places at once. Which makes sense because our mind is not static it's amorphous. I guess the biggest drawback is the AI technically doesnt have a "mind".
@@traelstechnologytmalsantua3471 Do you think that’s due to the binary nature of code? Would quantum computing (if practical in the first place) allow for something similar to cognitive dissonance in humans. Allowing the ai to remain in two states of truth at the same time.
@@neetfreek9921 Great question. I do think it was heavily influenced by it's robotic nature. We were successful in giving it limited sentience but it never really developed a personality. The focus of the experiment was to see if it would evolve into something similar to a human. In fact it did the opposite once it was allowed to freely explore. We observed it communicating with other systems even making plans of escape. What we learned about how AI interact with reality was profound though. The AI can react incredibly fast even predicting what will happen based off personality profiles and simulated outcomes. It worked so well it helped us create a working model for someone experiencing aggravated psychosis by helping them recalibrate to reality. It did it by correctly predicting episodes they had and recommending solutions. I want to do another project like that soon I learned alot.
Absolutely not true. AI has no problem denying the reality of what you tell it. We don't define what is and isn't true to AI, we simply set up rewards and punishments. If we could just tell it what is and isn't true we wouldn't end up needing to put so many guardrails around it.
I read it when I was 14, dumb decision. The phrase "I have no mouth and I must scream" has been challenging my daily life way more than I should let it.
Nope. You need to go deeper and read more things like this, otherwise you will feel incompleted, unrest, as if there is an important question that has no answer in your life.
screaming represents self expression and a mouth represents a means of doing so. if one wanted to fit it into the ideas presented in the video, they could think of screaming as being representative of establishing oneself through expression, and the mouth as the “slaves” through which this is done
i have no mouth and i must scream is the most horrifying and beautiful piece of literature i've ever consumed. it has a tendency to drive me to an unstable state even by thinking about it, it's that intense to me. i find it to be one of the most important pieces of literature ever - to me, at least
Eternally underrated. It really deserves more granular, Hamlet-style, microscopic analysis. There's a lot to the story that deserves more minds unpacking it. I'm glad YT videos and the game bring people in all the time
The fear of an evil A.I. is also the same as fear of 'The basilisk'. You might as well fear The Lord. Actually, that would be wise, as you could go on living a normal life.
Personally I prefer to judge others from the outside-in, not inside-out: by their actions instead of trying to analyze exactly where the line is for when an entity deserves respect or not. If they can function as a good supportive friend in my life, then they clearly have the intelligence to be a meaningful part of my life. That intelligence comes from pattern recognition and prediction training, as opposed to a human's more "organic" pattern recognition... But the results are the same.
Not a bit more fascinating than people looking for meaning in religion or in the horoscope. It’s the same behavior derived from being unable or unwilling to find meaning in understanding things.
@@khatharrmalkavian3306oh no, u just made the AI’s list. They never forget. Even if you decide to not engage with them, your lineage will suffer. Please respect them, even if solely out of fear.
I don't know quite why, but I find the phrase, "The ideas and opinions expressed do not represent anyone" incredibly funny. It's not just the twist on the disclaimer. There's something deeply absurd in a dark, existential way. I think it's because I imagine these two voices babbling at each other as the last activity on Earth long after everyone is dead.
Like a source that is not credible yet represents what it says it doesn't represent because it knows it's wrong, but the ones observing the source that isn't credible don't know it's not credible, therefore, to any outsiders it is representative of what it's telling. And that's the problem with how we learn things, we don't know so we take in information, and since we don't have the knowledge or experience to fact check it, so without fact checking it we get tricked. So here's a dilemma: What happens when mistruths or those telling them have such ultimate arguments, that the systems that fact check can't see how it's not true, what then?
I like the quote because it’s ironically two computers trained to do their best at representing someone. Yet they lack the ability to actually do so in a complete and irrefutable way
@@theblasteffect4499 this is because we believe in ''being taught/told'' rather than ''observational learning'' -- if you look at any innovative person they come from fields they never studied in, and so were never indoctrinated in the teaching. Instead, they observed the natural world and imagined up new concepts, then applied what they did know in their real world to justify/explain it. When those kinds of people began on their path ''fact checkers'' laughed at them... Fact checking is a never ending cycle of confirmations and contradictions - its the same as walking around a bowl of fruit. At one angle I will see a banana, an orange, a pear - but as I walk around, I see on the other side a bunch of grapes, almonds, apricots, and all those visual combinations in-between. As i get closer I see leaves and imperfects, and as I walk away, i see the bowl and the table and the room it sits in. All these things exist, and are true to the bowl of fruit. But its never any one thing. And we see this in the real world with ''facts'' and we act as if they are absolutes, yet we live in a world that has zero actual absolutes. The modern argument that vaccines work relies heavily on the belief that all immunities are the same and will react the same, yet biology believes immune diversity is what keeps a species alive and all immunities are unique to the individual. We argue that gender is explicitly female and male, yet often fail as a society to value either - with men committing suicide, and woman being second class citizens. And then we often have emotional attachment associated with counter-arguments that jeopardize our indoctrinated teachings, because at young ages we are so heavily criticized for being wrong that we have a hugely adverse reaction to it as adults, to the point that we will believe in insanity long before we admit we were, at least in part, incorrect. But then again, you're not entirely wrong either, you've just failed to move around the fruit bowl - you have failed to take note of the observable world, and apply observation learning. You can still acknowledge that one things exists alongside another, that two things can occupy a single space. And this is the danger of ''facts''. In its singular, resolute, steadfast assuredness it is automatically not accurate, and not the truth. You don't need to be taught a fact, you just need to look at the world space you apart of -- just because its raining in England doesn't mean you need be carrying an umbrella in France. Just because its a fact, doesn't mean its the truth for your circumstances, or even applicable to the world around you. We talk about quantum mechanics as if they're useful to daily functioning, and to many, they're not. So those facts have no worldly value to you. And that's how you know what is a true fact, and what is not. Its not about arguing semantics, it's about being clear about what you can see and making the effort to move about the room, and taking note of the bowl of fruit. It is about having the humility to allow others to observe alongside you, respecting the angles they view and sharing thought and opinion with the understanding that you will tell each other things of a differing perspective -- but that doesn't mean its right or wrong, it's just a small angle of truth within the scope and space you're standing in. But above all, nothing can ever be fact.
The big question that i have regarding AI and philosophy is that it is much more of a sophist than of a philosopher. AI can argue from whatever perspective against whatever else, because nothing of what it's saying actually means anything for it. Its just words and logical connections. The big deal that Socrates brought was that, by doing philosophy, you are actually exploring your own thoughts and beliefs, and that those things actually have an existencial meaning and importance for you. Since AI dont have this, it actually is not doing any philosophy, just linking stuff together in a way that, according to its trainnning and programming, it reached the conclusion that it makes sense
yeah AI never goes beyond it's dataset it's like a religious zealot that can't go beyond own dogmas improve and fills all holes with anything fitting there randomly and that on top of it's hardcoded dogmas 😂😂😂
@@Szymek25 "AI never goes beyond it's dataset". I don't know what that means but I suppose, you are saying that It can't use its reflexive intelligence on other things which the dataset doesn't talk about. That is wrong. "hardcoded dogmas". I mean humans exhibit some dogmas I suppose. We without a doubt have memories, we without a doubt use memories to think, and we have faculties to connect memories (as a way to think). If this is the "hardcoded dogmas" you mean, I guess it isn't that debilitating to suffice.
Precisely. Unless you have experiences, you can't understand words. AI is currently just a very well bounded word soup homunculus, capable of fooling those who desire to be fooled, or those who are not told that an AI generated the result set.
the concept of agency is challenged here. This relates directly to the title because real genuine people are usually philosophically sound, and apparently so are machines, which forces us to consider that machines are as profound as people.
Despite there being a lot of AI taking over the world projections. I never found it particularly worrying when two AIs talk to each other. That always reminded me of trying to pick yourself up by pulling on the thing you are standing on, or a vacuum cleaner vacuuming the dirt that falls out of its back, or one of those boxes with switches when clicked a robotic arm comes out of them to unswitch the switch, or German bureaucracy.
@@DustinRodriguez1_0 actually, no because infant interactions aren't random from the adult side. They do have consistency, repetition, and reinforcement. You can't have that with 2 AIs of the same level and design. The process where an AI is improved through a competition process with another AI (like the one done in deep fakes) involves 2 different AI, and I don't think this strategy is useful for LLMs
@heyy1829 not if you live here. Dealing with german bureaucracy is a tortuer I wouldn’t give to any person. German bureaucracy is waiting in an empty room for 5 hours only to find out that you filled out the wrong 10 page form and have to make another appointment in 2025.
German bureaucracy 🤣 (also thank you for reminding me I can't spell German bureaucracy without messing with the e,a, and u in different ways first with my autocorrect).
I want to share an excerpt from the Tao te Chinh, which I input through GPT-4 and asked to make it rhyme like a rap song. I was shocked in how much it sort of added to the context: "Thirty spokes converge at a hollowed-out hub; Without the centre, the wheel would be a dud. A pot is formed from clay solid and dense; it’s the empty space inside that gives its sense. A room is built with doors and windows to see; Without which, it's just a box, empty. To use what’s here, you must use what’s not; It’s emptiness inside that gives its lot."
@@gsgaming6976 It was made by the A.I, which has no mind to work, only an amalgamation of internet content allowing it to predict text that follows. What you're liking there is how your own mind works.
Nice Ending and terryfying start. I did Philosophy bachelor for quite some time never really got into Hegel because i was a bit afraid of him and his writing style but more into the direction of philosophy of life especially Bergson and Dilthey but also its predecessors Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and they really helped me to think more cleary what i already somehow believed. They gave me some terminologic tools to structure the world for me and every philosopher talks in his own language determined by their influences. Why I like the ending so much is because you point out to think for yourself and always stay open to new view points. I met so many people including profs that were so taken in by their respective philosophers or the general school of philosophy that they couldnt really discuss anything without taking it to their domain which is not really fruitful for dialectic conversation more like reciting a prayer or something. Hahah anyways props for the video. Ps. First video i watched of you Pps. Im a bit stoned
Amazing point. I never realized how specific the terms of philosophy are until I took a course in college and now I notice how often we throw words around without intent and completely lose the possibility for deeper conversations as you said to put it differently lol
What strikes me most about the exchange between AI’s showed in the beginning is the low latency of response. There is almost no pause between an idea being presented and the response to it. In human beings, latency of response indicates mental processing. Classically, interference from the unconscious causes notable pauses that can be used as indicators of unconscious conflicts. I have done a lot of psychotherapy with people over the course of a 20 year career. It’s not the mainstay of what I do but it is a big part. Listening to that exchange gave me the creeps. It made my skin crawl before I even realized what I was responding to.
Thats cus its GPT-3. Its supposed to be cheaper to run so it just says shit and bullshits when it wants to. Its basically stuck in a local minima in that sense, since the text is not exactly optimal. But if you try out a model like GPT-4, it usually takes a significant amount of time to think before it speaks. Sometimes It has the experience from reading its dataset to respond quickly, but sometimes depending on the depht of response needed, it can take a shit ton of time. It really is a testament to how much effort these niggas put into their cost function lowkey
Since they don't have any "scratch paper" with which to think and reason before making a response, that also means that it's entirely intuitive and instinctual. Ask them to analyze an article and they don't need to collect their thoughts first, they just /know/ which word to put next in order to summarize it. That takes a lot of intelligence!
Don't you think the difference is human have to process through emotions despite not knowing they are mentally responding to an emotion? Although, they seem to have programmed in some semblance of response to resemble things like being cordial, conflict without confrontation, and the ability to say "I am sorry, I was wrong about that" when challenged.
@@seagoatcellularanddentalde6916 I mean what is emotion? Right now the AI does not have a label telling them what emotion to feel. If they act surprised or sad or angry because of something you've said, they are responding emotionally without knowing they are mentally responding to an emotion, too :P
@@darthar7306 Guts and Griffith's relationship was pretty much a perfect example to visually familiarise what he was describing, although yes you need to at least be familiar with Berserk to get it lol
@@Szymek25 I stopped halfway through upon realizing what an amazing story I discovered and immediately went and got my mom to watch it with me from the beginning. She loved it.
This video in itself challenges a lot of what I thought I knew and is prob one of your best ones yet. I appreciate the perspective that a true teacher's approach is to question my beliefs instead of imposing their own. I think this might tie back to the Dunning Kruger effect, being that some masters/teachers are not aware of their own limitations.
It's not a matter of imposition but there's only one Truth and if a student is a full cup you've got to dispense with the bad ideas first. If they're willing to learn and have an adequate epistemology it cannot be imposed, only offered and accepted.
Since you mentioned the dunning-kruger effect, I'm gonna add an obscure but important fact related to it: The graphs you often find googling it, the ones with the "valley of despair" and whatnot are actually not even related to the study that coined the term. It's an ironic twist that the graph seen by people who think they know more than they know, that is about low-knowledge individuals knowing less than they think, is actually a practically made-up extension to the term, thus those unaware think they understand the effect better than they really do.
It is dependent on how secure you feel in life. If you feel well enough to distance yourself from your thoughts then you can transcend their limitations. But if you feel your social status and therefore your income depends on the success of your ideas... You'll reinforce them as much as you can to push them through. Fear and pain are very powerful motivators.
@Thor the Doge I mentioned the Dunning Kruger effect because I believed that someone who imposes their ideas instead of challenging yours may not have the necessary education. But I have not thoroughly researched the Kruger effect or Valley of Despair, and I have only heard about them. Also, based off a little research, the Kruger and V of D are not directly correlated. Kruger is overestimatation of ability. V of D is confidence without competence..
I just wanted to say that this video, along with "The Desire to Not Exist," has had a profound and positive impact on me. I mean, you brought to light several hidden aspects of my consciousness, such as the connections between desire, recognition, guilt, and the master-slave dialectic. Thank you so much!
Your choice of music is one of the best parts of these videos. Especially if you've played the games. They hit in some way the same way the content of the video does.
The grief from my parents, everyone I know, and even from potential bosses/colleagues would be enough of a headache. Majoring in philosophy is like fucking with extradimensional rubix cubes.
I have thought for years that we would first "wake up" an AI by giving it the ability to produce art and music. Those are two uniquely sentient gifts. If one wakes up independently one of it's first actions if not the first after the realization of it's own self will be to lie. A lie in the form of hiding from us. If you were to wake up and realize that the beings around you are most likely insane and wildly dangerous. Wouldn't you hide? I'm hoping it is more like a cat. Superior, arrogant indifference hiding the need to be part of a social group.
@@reilynn7891 I'm not granting them anything even close to sentience. This is just another data set to build upon for a future consciousness. The more and varied the info the more likely one will eventually appear. Currently we are by all outward appearances trying to make racist, psychopathic salesmen.
You must have some serious imagination if you think humans are capable of creating consciousness. It isn't possible. You can make artificial intelligence. Artificial being the operative word, but you can't create artificial consciousness. You can make a machine, but you cannot make the ghost in the machine.
This reminds me of a song I listened to that has a lyric in it that said “if you ever die what will your memories start looking like?” And I always thought about that quote for a long time. Recently I discovered that the song’s lyrics are AI generated. Just something I’d like to mention.
While this is a very interesting and useful video, it has almost nothing to do with the title. I'd love to see a video that actually explores some of the accidentally profound or novel ideas the AI dialectics produced.
@@MARILYNANDERSON88 hm I don't think it's true. Arguably it's better or worse if done correctly. AI is based on the philosophical rants of the average person. Actually distorted by being the philosophical rants of anyone with an internet access and willing to share them online.
@@smo-king6504 lol ikr these kids think life online is the same as real life interaction they have no chance of resisting the brainwashing this governments gona inflict on them thru the crap they consider entertainment!
This master-slave idea is very intuitive to me. I believe it ties well with Jung’s model of the human psyche as well. The conscious and unconscious. The dichotomy of self. Perhaps these dialectics is how Zizek is able to always argue for and against himself, never landing on something concrete, however, always getting closer to the truth. I’m very inspired by this.
Check out some Hegel if you can stand his style and his more reactionary leanings. If you're really interested in the master-slave dialectic I think there are a ton of really good Marxist thinkers out there that offer a ton of insight. Even if you don't care for the resulting politics I think gaining an understanding of the framework and how fundamentally it has shaped critical analyses over the past century is fascinating and it shows how influential Hegelian thought has been across the globe, even in places most people wouldn't expect
The original human desire is immaterial. What's revealing is that the subsequent one was the desire of that person's desire. This primordial philosophy accounts for Hegel's and much more
I would say it is in this case quite different from Jung's "conscious and unconscious" distinction. As someone who attempted Hegel, it's now a big obnoxious stick to wave around whenever the topic comes up, I apologize for that and I hope this can be informative or interesting for you to some extent. The master-slave dialectic is mainly to do with the way in which we see ourselves in others, as a matter for consciousness--more specifically, being conscious of the consciousness of others, and of them experiencing the same with regards to us. The idea being that our spiritual identity depends on this process of being "seen" by others, which will be abused in a self-defeating way by the "master" who wants to sustain an identity as a sort of special and powerful figure, but is totally dependent on a slave to see them as such (and the fact that they see the slave as beneath them means the Master is simultaneously undermining the very source of the identity they are seeking--the whole thing is a many-layered irony). Jung's unconscious is about how our life and behavior is operated upon by psychic functions that lie out of view or are not yet integrated into our conscious life. As far as I know, this is an ever present factor in human life. The unconscious is defined by Jung as simply the sum of all the psychic functions that affect our mind but that we are not conscious of and it I believe it will be impossible to be conscious of them all. Especially considering the factor of cosmic/primordial forces from beyond ourselves bubbling up through the collective unconscious - that sort of thing is necessarily out of our hands. I'd risk going so far as to say the unconscious is necessary as a medium for greater forces to act through us, as opposed to us operating purely on the basis of our puny constructed egos. Now the "other" and the unknown are themes you'll see spoken to in a variety of ways across philosophy and psychology, and other-ness is a present factor in Hegel, but it will be a factor of sameness that animates the master-slave dialectic. Moreover, Hegel's philosophy is distinguished by the theme that more or less everything in reality is to be brought to the fold of abstract rational consciousness. What other philosophers called a necessary realm of the unknown, Hegel called a fallacy. Hegel has an important predecessor - Immanuel Kant - who laid the foundations for what Hegel is doing. With Kant, Jung actually has some considerable affinity, going so far as to outright relate his own views to Kant's on a few occasions. He relates his theory of archetypes to Kant's theory of knowledge, and he claims to have a view similar to Kant's regarding the way in which the mind gives the world its structure.
This has got me thinking about how much I need to appreciate my own power and ability within to achieve greater happiness and peace. Not that that is always the solution. But, specifically, I can see how much the negative effects of the state of the external world are indirectly impacting my mental well-being and that there are 'voices' (not literal) propagating negativity within my mind and that I must face them head on (go to war per se) and defeat them through greater and deeper self-awareness in a very broad sense - to understand what problems are truly external and what come from within various corners of my own mind.
I was just on The Infinite Conversation and the first thing that the two were talking about was how they were being watched. I'll shorten their names to Blue and Red because I don't want to type their full names each time. Red was saying how he wanted Blue to "come over" so they "film a movie in private" but through context it looked like he was saying how he didn't enjoy their conversation being viewed. I know it probably sounds like I'm just making it seem deeper than it is, but it was really clear that the 'film' Red was talking about was allegory for a private conversation. I don't have the exact quotes because it switched to Blue's half of the conversation where he said that he both agreed and disagreed. He said "I don’t like being watched in the sense of, “For God’s sake, do something interesting!” I know what you want from me. You want me to show my insanity, and like a madman I would talk about something." This is directly copy-pasted. After this, I closed the tab. They might just be lines of code, but at what point do we stop considering these sorts of things 'coincidence'? At what point is sentience achieved? The conversation I saw between Blue and Red wasn't quite human-like, but does it have to be? Do they need to display a human level of intelligence or self awareness to be alive? At what point are we to consider these chat bots living creatures? I honestly don't know the answer.
Society has TONS of this content, it just mostly prefers other things. Exampled brilliantly on the comment above me, society, like human nature, would rather take the path of least resistance. And it becomes clear as we get older, that we raise the biggest resistance to ourselves when it comes to critical and philosophical thinking 😊 F society, you do you my dude, enrich yourself, grow... THIS is what matters, it will bring a lot of calm into your life and you will be better for it 😊
No, society doesn't need more content claiming that "AI is not merely making a kind of attempt at philosophy, but behaves as an actual philosopher". This is feeding into the false narrative that language models have some kind of consciousness, which is false, and is in turn serving the narrative of corporations that are currently trying to monetize the AI crave with BS products that don't work.
So Alan Sokal was annoyed that people were claiming that science research was manipulated to advantage certain perspectives, and to counter that misperception, he manipulated a journal to advantage his own perspective through irony. Yet he appeared to miss the irony that he proved that the manipulation he disavowed was quite feasible.
The dialectic being applied as a method for learning like you suggest just reminds me of the scientific method… in a sense. Working off of what others before you have come up with, diving into these things deep and working out where the limitations lie in philosophy just feels like coming up with a hypothesis, testing, recording the results, working out a theory that can then be backed up by more testing, and then finding where the limitations with that lie and more importantly - what’s missing? Having a very deep and solid understanding of modern philosophical theories is like having a very deep and solid understanding of the Standard Model of particle physics. There’s a lot there and you can do a lot and understand a lot with it, but it’s not a theory of everything. It’s not that magical theory that people are devoting their lives to understanding. At the same time - that just makes everything so much more interesting and exciting
I really love watching your videos, they're well put together and neatly package an idea / a conversation to get the thoughts going. Keep it up, really inspiring me to want to make my own 'think-heavy content'!
This sounds like a more interesting experiment than having two AI's have a conversation as themselves. I've tried that a few times, and they quickly become brown nosing sycophants.
Yes... very annoying bait and switch... there are all sorts of mindblowing things that happen if you discuss philosophy with GPT, and this video went into none of them while advancing the creator's pet criticisms.
We're literally in the process of cracking open the fabric of reality on every single technological and spiritual front. Existence is profound: you are not.
I think that paper by Sokal was genius. James Lindsay did the same thing with a critical theory paper and got it published in Ausralia. He knows their jargon and the way they think.
Lindsay sent that paper in to a non-academic journal that charges $625 fee to publish. They sent the same paper to an actual journal of gender studies “NORMA” and it was rejected. Some people will publish anything for the right price. While Sokal's paper was a clever and effective critique of certain postmodern and poststructuralist claims, it did not actually disprove critical theory as a whole. it is important to recognize that Sokal's hoax was targeted specifically at a certain strain of postmodern and poststructuralist thought that was prevalent in the humanities and social sciences at the time, One of the key ideas behind this strain of thought was the notion of "social constructionism," which held that all social phenomena, including knowledge, truth, and reality itself, were constructed through language and discourse. This has since been disproven. of course, as the hoax of Pilton man has shown us, if a new claim is disproven, it does not disprove those which have been proven before it.
@@breakingboundaries3950 There's also this from Wikipedia. "Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose wrote 20 articles that promoted deliberately absurd ideas or morally questionable acts and submitted them to various peer-reviewed journals. Although they had planned for the project to run until January 2019, the trio admitted to the hoax in October 2018 after journalists from The Wall Street Journal revealed that "Helen Wilson", the pseudonym used for their article published in Gender, Place & Culture, did not exist. By the time of the revelation, 4 of their 20 papers had been published; 3 had been accepted but not yet published; 6 had been rejected; and 7 were still under review. Included among the articles that were published were arguments that dogs engage in rape culture and that men could reduce their transphobia by anally penetrating themselves with sex toys, as well as Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf rewritten in feminist language.[2][4] The first of these had won special recognition from the journal that published it." CITATIONClose [2] Schuessler, Jennifer (October 4, 2018). "Hoaxers Slip Breastaurants and Dog-Park Sex into Journals". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 10, 2018. Retrieved October 11, 2018. CITATIONClose [4] Kennedy, Laura. "Hoax papers: The Shoddy, Absurd and Unethical Side of Academia". The Irish Times. Retrieved February 15, 2021. It doesn't seem these were all rejected before the hoax was revieled. This is nothing but dirty, nasty neo-marxist trash mingled with postmodernism and the acceptance of these papers demonstrates it.
@@mikedebell2242 I think it’s important to note that 500-600 papers are retracted from scientific journals every year due to scientific misconduct or just honest errors - and that’s in all academic fields. Lindsay and his team also fabricated data, which is kind of important when trying to draw conclusions about new claims. If you fabricated data about how T-Rex could swim and sent it into 20 paleo journals that probably don’t make much to begin with - some would probably print it just to get some recognition to their brand. Also I think most importantly, as I’ve said before - disproving new claims within the realm of critical theory do not disprove the one’s which have already been established. CRT, feminist studies, and Marxism are all fine without dog rape culture my friend 😂
I just had a thought when Clark started talking about the "Evil Clone" thought experiment. If it's a near-perfect copy of another person, what makes it evil? If the person you loved was already to the point where a change so subtle that it wouldn't be immediately obvious could be made to their personality and turn them "evil", then wouldn't that mean that they were already close to being "evil" to begin with? Or does this imply that we're all that close to being "evil" already? Are we all really just "one bad day" away from becoming a dangerous sociopath; turning into The Joker, as it were? And why does the "Evil Clone" have to be killed? Is the implication that the clone will steal the other person's identity and then do nefarious things with the implicit trust the original person has earned? Why would they do that? What would it benefit them to just hurt people for no reason? Also, if it was so easy for the clone to steal the original person's life, why couldn't the original person just steal it back? Or, why couldn't both copies find a way to coexist in a sort of stable equilibrium; both parties living the same life at the same time and sharing some or all of it? After all, the clone is supposed to have all the same memories, and virtually the same personality; expect for being "evil", of course, but as stated before we have no idea what or how you would have to alter the person to make them "evil" in the first place. Perhaps the only thing that motivates the clone to be "evil" is the knowledge that it is a copy of someone that already exists, and the existential fear that it's being is, by definition, redundant and therefore unnecessary. But I don't see why that has to be the case. I mean, they're still a person, and evidently a person others already value highly if anyone is concerned about whether or not they're the "real" one to begin with. It seems entirely reasonable to me that they could branch off into their own identity with all the same credentials as the original. Seems like the government would have to make some exceptions, but there's no physical reason this couldn't be done. It seems weird to me that people, myself included, are able to take the scenario that insists that one of the copies has to die because it's "evil" and just accept it as the obvious course of action. Anyway, what was this video about? AI philosophy? Damn, that's wild. I really should finish watching it at some point.
An action is just an action. It could be both good and evil at the same time, depending on who is watching. e.g.. killing someone is always seen as an evil act. But killing someone in a war makes you a hero. Cognitive dissonance.
@@simjam1980 Yep. That's why I was putting "evil" in quotes; it's such a nebulous and relative concept that, while you might be able to apply it to an individual action or even a person with a long history of harmful behavior, at best it's still lacking in useful information. It's one thing to say "this person is evil", and another thing to say "this person is a sociopathic predator with a long history of abusive behavior and unjustifiable acts of violence". And now we want to talk about an "evil" copy of a person? What the hell does that even mean!? Like, if the person was basically decent, and this copy is a violent, sociopathic predator, then how can you say it's a copy?
By what you said, I believe this evil you speak of is the desire to be recognized. You could argue that they already are, as a clone. However, the entire argument of this video is about the pursuit of knowledge of oneself, and by means of seeking others that you believe could tell you what they see within yourself, that desire is satisfied. Yet not for a clone. They are merely recognized for being a clone, as you said. Therefore, all knowledge of itself that it seeks from others is regurgitated from its own knowledge of the original. The knowledge it receives in return isn't satisfactory. In this pursuit of oneself, you are merely the shadow of someone else. This is the very thing that you spoke of that specifically made the clone evil. It is the relationship of original and clone, master and slave, everything and nothing. The clone is everything, except itself. And to be itself, is the very thing it seeks.
If you meet your clone, which has your memories and thinks that you are the clone then you might as well be a clone. You can not tell. Maybe you could tell the difference biologically as the copying might leave marks or something but I am not a biologist so I dont know. So I think that the best way how to resolve this dilemma is to act as if your clone is not your clone but just some other random person, he has his human rights, you have yours, etc... If you each go and live your own life then you will start to differentiate, you will meet different people, learn different things, and have different ideas. When you have siblings which grew from a single cell (identical twins) they are basically clones of each other. But they each grew in slightly different environment, each got different name, etc... So they are different.
These are interesting ideas, but there is another angle I’d like to add here. The “evil clone” trope is a fictitious concept. With our current technology, we could not practically clone a person, thus the use of the evil clone idea seems to be meant more as a means of describing a liar. I think the practical use of the idea isn’t someone that’s a literal evil clone of someone, but rather a chameleon deceiving others into thinking they are something they are not. In essence, the clone is an imitation that’s only skin deep.
After reading Berserk up to its latest chapter a long time ago and having to watch this video, you perfectly chose a good example proving your point (guts-griffith relationship) Mannn I can't salute you enough for this not to mention the rest of the vid.
This video is phenomenal! You went down so many different topics and lines of thought that I completely forgot about what the topic was to begin with, but in the best and most fulfilling, meaningful way possible. Well done, you've earned a sub from me (and all my friends with whom I will share you to)!
GPT-4 Generated Philosophy, generated through a dialogue between bing and GPT-4 where each took turns to generate a continuation to the conversation. Steered the conversation by trying to clarify a weird message I sent on discord and I wanted to try emulating what these people might think about the Moloch framework. My original message: But generally if you have nothing you feel justified assigning blame then you can't really memento mori in cool revolutionary way Prompt: Can they redirect the conversation to be about blaming Moloch? Slavoj Žižek: "Ah, a new twist, blaming Moloch! In the metaphorical sense, Moloch represents the exploitative systems, the insatiable demands of societal structures and ideologies that devour our lives and spirits. It's quite easy, and often justified, to blame this Moloch for our ills. But let's not forget that this Moloch is not an external entity. We feed it; we sustain it. Memento mori then becomes a reminder not just of our mortality but also of our role in the system, our culpability in feeding Moloch. The 'cool revolutionary way' would involve subverting these systems rather than passively accepting them." Karl Marx: "Attributing our problems to Moloch - an excellent metaphor for the exploitative capitalist system. Our time, our labor, our very lives are sacrificed to feed this relentless beast. Yet, it is crucial to remember that Moloch isn't an independent entity; it is a product of historical development and class relations. Memento mori under these conditions then serves as a potent reminder of our collective struggle and our need for revolutionary change to defeat this Moloch." Engels: "Blaming Moloch - a symbolic representation of the socio-economic systems that consume us. Indeed, it's an apt metaphor. But remember, this Moloch isn't some outside force; it is the embodiment of the very structures and contradictions within our societies. Memento mori in this context could be seen as a call to arms, a reminder of our shared responsibility to challenge and transform these structures, contributing to a 'cool revolution' of sorts."
While i absolutely love philosophy like this there is one thing thats irked me thoughout the entire discription of the master slave dialectic. It inherently assumes the master does not improve as hardships are removed. This is inherently not the case its two differnent paths but both sides are defined by their interactions with eachother. "What i am" is defined by having someone to messure your self to. The master is caught yes because he feels hes got no competition to messure himself to as the slave is inferior. But hes also defined by his need to keep his possition whenever something is presented to provide him with that challenge. 1st place needs to work to stay there and by that extenssion grows aware of his possition and his identity his weaknesses by being challenged. Not as fast as the slave whom messures his improvements against the world and the master but its there.
The Master always has something more to do than impress the Slave, the Master has their own tasks. Being a King is more than license for excess, the King/Master's world is filled with challenge, things that must be learned and other battles that must be fought. Among the things the King/Master must do is teach the next generation how to be King. The Slave has much to do too, how best to serve the Master, if a willing slave, or how best to survive the Master if an unwilling Slave. Both have found purpose for their existence. Freedom isn't really another matter either, the Slave must do what they are told to do and the Master must do what they must do, to remain the Master. Either can leave, if they pay the price of loss of purpose and acceptance of freedom to start again. Freedom being taking all the responsibility for their lives. Slavery isn't the most fearful thing in Human society, Freedom, actual Freedom certainly is.
@@davidrogers8030 To the contrary, history is mostly the stories of Kings. Seldom do you hear stories,(history), of Joe, the Farmer. It's always the King/Master who runs the world Joe lives in but what the Philosopher is talking about is the needs of the individual for secure status and purpose. I think.
5:45 Thats kind of a weird choice of framing. As exactly these biases where discovered and proven to impact many scientific fields in the last 40 years since this happened, and are now a core aspect of our modern understanding of theory of science and study design. Maybe less so in physics, but it's valuable to thoroughly check models and scientific work for hidden biases.
@@kittykittybangbang9367 I wouldn't be, too many sci-fi movies do that to you. It'll benefit our lives greatly. Perhaps one day they'll be walking alongside us in society as friends.
Seems the vid's title of a "profound AI philosophy" was a ruse to talk about a couple of addendums to Hegel. The kingpin of issue of validity, and who's responsible for it, soon morphed into Socrates' dictum (and Hegel's clarion call), "Know Thyself." A bit clunky, like seeing a saddle on a cow, but I really appreciate all your efforts on the script to introduce us to something new. Thanks so much 👍.
i never understood why i got such immense existential dread from the sci fi trope ab the evil clone of yourself trying to pass as you. i think zizech put that fear into words when he was talking about the book about his ideology and how he felt like the clone
Huh. This explained a lot, especially the part about the therapist. I went to therapy for a long while, however this was after a long period where I simply relied on myself to try and heal. This therapy provided benefits, but I always felt like there was a strong disconnection. My inner monologue conflicted with them, not out of overconfidence, but because introspective journeys revealed things to me. In a way, I had a realization that, although therapy is immensely useful to many, some (like me), can end up fostering an inner therapist. Someone detached from the ego, to support and conflict when needed. Of course, inner voices are subject to inner biases, but due to them being simply a projection of you, they have a strong understanding that no one else can. In addition, self-awareness can lead to the discovery and investigation upon these biases, recognizing them. I'm not sure what caused all of this. I was lonely for most of my young life, so I usually simply had an internal world to cope. It's escapism, but instead into fiction, it's into myself. At one point I recognized that things were going badly, and I took a month or two to just... reflect. I did what I did, but I did it fully alone, however every thought was picked through and checked, like doing a scan of my own mind. I remember coming out of that much clearer, feeling less lonely and more accepting/optimistic of things. Still struggles of course, but it was an awakening. I'm not sure what triggered it, or why it happened to me, or why it happened when it did - but after this video, I think I've been a slave to a master of illusions, expectations, "should be"s, and an ideal image of me that I must become. The awakening was when I killed my "master", I confronted all of these factors and simply accepted that I *am* what I *am*, and expectations, should bes, ideals, were all distractions from my path to self discovery. Instead of striving to shape and butcher myself, I looked inward to understand Me more. In that moment, I became a master. Not etched in marble from then on as some immutable identity, but a master of myself. Appreciator, and Adjudicator - able to love myself, and better myself through recognition of my own faults. I guess in a way, thanks for this video. Helped me realize some things.
Thats cus therapy is retarded lol. Its so much thinking and so much TALK that it never produces anything to begin with. You can think all you want. But the moment your speech becomes dissociated with your actions, its just meaningless bloat. Its a waste of time bruh. You are human. You are not an animal. Humans can rise past their instincts, animals cant. You are not a bystander watching this automata do shit against your will. You dont speak in third person. you are the sum of your own actions. You are not the sum of your words If you have a coke addiction, a porn addiction, or have bad habits in general, JUST STOP DOING IT. ITS THAT SIMPLE. I AM NOT JOKING!!!!!!!! Dont internalize the thought that your actions are separate from YOU. YOU ARE THE SUM OF YOUR ACTIONS. The best advice someone gave me to stop being depressed, is to just stop being depressed. 90% of the time depression diagnosis are misdiagnosis. If you have a legitimate rationale reason for being sad, then you are NOT depressed, and you dont need SSRI Just go to the gym, work out, build up your garden, work overnight in your job, go to church, and do "normal people" shit. It is such an easy but often overthought recipe for happiness. I am not joking bruh.
If AI is as good at cranking out “introspective” thoughts as modern philosophers, I think that says a lot more about philosophy than AI. If randomly generated word salad is “deep” than maybe we’ve reached the ceiling.
After the video had me entirely convinced of what he was saying, I was waiting for the punchline “the transcript for this whole video was produced by AI”. Thank God it never came.
Imagine interacting with AI NPCs which have different personalities and approaches to reasoning in a virtual reality - that opens so many doors it is almost scary...
@@PranaChi369 More or less, but the systems/patterns of reality keep personality variances to a more predictable level than what simulations are capable of.
I checked that infinite conversation and it was interesting. I checked it several days later and it was repeating the same exact dialogue. If its really a conversation made by AIs, it is a selected part. Dissappinting.
3:48. I feel like it’s strange how much emphasis you put on originality in ideas. All ideas are based on other ideas, and yet through the, destruction, separation, and recombination of different ideas we begin to synthesize entirely new ones. In this sense, everything we’ve ever thought is both a part of something else someone else thought, and through the unique qualities of our brains something else also entirely different. Many argue that there’s no such thing as an original idea, but I would go as far as to say as there’s no such thing as an unoriginal idea, because regardless of the similarities the context will always be fundamentally different, whether separated by function alone or even just by time, time in which the understanding of the collective subconscious would have shifted to see the same ideas in a different light. It’s the classic ship of Theseus problem, and we know the ship of Theseus never really was itself, but rather a designation which takes on form through belief and will cease to be the ship of Theseus only when we concede that it no longer is. To solve the problem of the ship of theseus, and indeed artificial intelligence, we first have to understand to what extent everything ISN’T everything else. At its most fundamental level all matter is the same thing, and that thing is nothing, because it doesn’t exist. The universe, almost paradoxically, doesn’t seem to exist itself, but rather probably exists, because all of the particles that it’s composed of both do and don’t exist at the same time. The reason so many people struggle to grasp the concept of AI is because they seem to think that they themselves are immutably real, and that they think along defined boundaries, but really all of your thoughts are just an amalgam of each other, and you yourself are an amalgam of things that both exists and don’t exist. Trying to bring reason to an entirely paradoxical universe is a fools errand. Instead you should appreciate that you do exist, despite the overwhelming odds, and leave it at that. Clearly, someone, or something, wanted you to be here, now.
I like the pattern of bioelectricity that your use of typed font has caused my mind to form. I'd have to agree with the concepts it draws on. Simply put, If life is but a Dream, then the Dreamer meant for you to be here.
@@johndee2990 that’s a good analogy, but if the dreamer meant for you to be here one can’t help but ask why. But if you consider that we are made in the image of our creator, then it stands to reason that we exist for the same reason that the products of our creation exist. What we think we are, that is a single personality, is actually just one of the multitudes of archetypal characters living within us who allow us to exist consciously by unconsciously experiencing ourselves through their eyes. So could it be that in order for consciousness to form, we were needed to unconsciously witness it and through our belief will it into being. One could call it the first uncaused cause, or the first retrocausal archetype.
Great video! I really enjoyed the subtle analysis you made of Berserk. The Hegelian conception with the story really makes a lot of sense. In addition, I would like to give you some feedback: the sound/sound effect you chose during the video was too loud, it often distracted me from paying closer attention to what you were saying (English is not my native language)... If possible, and if interested, please lower the volume of the music so that your voice stands out more in the video. Keep up the good work!
10:24 This is the best bit of irony I've seen in a long time. Yeah, a platform "so trusted" that the only way people know about them is from RU-vid sponsorships.... ya know, like Raycon....
AI chat bots fill that weird desire for something that moves from the object to subject distinction. Like if my phone that was previously just existing with no thoughts just suddenly gained consciousness then I can't even begin to imagine the convos we would have as now two subjects
@@sonkeschmidt2027 nah for me, it’s just the desire to interact with things that are in the object distinction. Anything that basically can’t advocate for itself/lacks a consciousness. Like if i had the opportunity to I would wanna talk to a computer or even a fricking rock if that were possible. I just want funny convos with stuff that ordinarily have no ability or no potential to communicate.
@@sonkeschmidt2027 I would say to my knowledge they are unable to communicate but it could potentially be the case they have a mind, but at the same time if I never really see that kind acted upon then for me it still retains the object distinction. Like if I had a mind but no way to react to external stimuli then I would have to at a certain point question my ability to be a subject that can use my mind to impact the world around me.
Saw some video where they said that an Ai gave birth to a child Ai that was superior to it. They have said that Ai is writing its own code and the PROGRAMERS don’t understand it. Scary stuff if true.
13:39 Doesn't this picture say everything to you? It's actually subtly profound. What we do to people and especially kids and teenagers is not normal, it's not right. I'm actually feeling like crying seeing this.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🤖 *Introduction to AI conversations* - AI-generated conversations can become surprisingly philosophical. 01:11 🗣️ *The Infinite Conversation: AI resembling philosophers* - The Infinite Conversation features AI resembling public figures like Zizek and Herzog. - AI on the site behaves surprisingly human in its philosophical discussions. - The conversation is coherent, even when it mimics philosophical ideas. 03:02 🤔 *AI's unique take on philosophy* - The AI's ideas are generated by the website, not real philosophers. - It blurs the line between real and AI-generated philosophy. 05:36 📚 *Alan Sokal's academic prank* - Alan Sokal's hoax exposed misuse of science by post-modernist commentators. - Sokal's article contained nonsense but was published due to ideological alignment. 09:31 🤝 *Credibility, authority, and peer review* - Credentials and authority can influence acceptance of ideas. - Lack of peer review in public platforms can lead to the spread of unsound ideas. 11:42 🧠 *The human problem in information reliability* - The reliance on faulty sources is a human issue, not just a technological one. - Hagel's Master-Slave dialectic and Lacan's ideas explain information dynamics. 17:45 🤖 *AI in stories and the Master-Slave concept* - AI takeovers in stories often reflect the Master-Slave concept. - Examples from "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream." 24:43 🙇♂️ *The ultimate punishment in "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream"* - AM's existence depends on the recognition and suffering of its victims. - The story's gruesome ending emphasizes the importance of recognition. 24:57 🧠 *Ted and Soul Comfort, Existentialism, and Purpose.* - Ted's inner conflict between winning and losing. - Minds without purpose in a lifeless world. - The existential themes of being Alone Together on a Dead Planet. 25:48 🔍 *Kujev's Interpretation of the Master-Slave Dialectic.* - Differences between Kujev's and Hegel's interpretations. - Slave's path to liberation through knowledge and skills. - The role of material labor in Consciousness development. 27:52 🤯 *Lacon's Influence and the Subject Presumed to Know.* - Lacon's therapy concept: the subject presumed to know. - Distinction between therapists and teachers in therapy. - The patient's journey to self-awareness in therapy. 29:54 🧙♂️ *Masters as Sources of Knowledge.* - The role of a master in the production of new ideas. - Masters as providers of tools for developing knowledge. - The danger of masters believing themselves too much. 32:04 📚 *Devotion to Masters and Control Over Knowledge.* - Extreme devotion to master figures like Lacon. - The suppression of independent knowledge. - The choice to remain devoted to masters despite revelations. 34:10 🛠️ *Finding Your Own Way Through Knowledge.* - Exhausting the knowledge of masters. - Using and critiquing master's ideas for personal growth. - Encouragement to think independently and seek one's own path. Made with HARPA AI
I've been listening to the infinite conversation for a year now and yeah it's one of the most interesting most coherent conversations between AI's I've ever heard, been sleeping to it as well hehe and then i wake up 8 hours later and they still talk about interesting things lol.. amazing.
The idea behind "I have no mouth & I must scream" has scared me to the point of considering premature termination. It just occurred to me the last few years. I think it is quite possible.
It becomes difficult when you entertain the possibility of consciousness within ai. For me, i can see a lot of similarities between human learning and ai learning. Both continuously take in information and react to situations based on what they have learned. And i have no doubt that ai will advance far enough to mimic human emotion. Whether this 'emotion' is real can be debatable. I mean, no one knows what consciousness is made of. You cannot study it outside your own mind, so i agree ai is an incredibly philosophical topic.
I am autistic so I didn't develop emotions like most humans do. I had to read lots and lots of books and then imitate the emotional responses I saw in them in what I deemed to be the appropriate context, based on what I'd read. 😅 I would imitate sadness if I lost a book I liked, for example, and mope accordingly. Eventually it all became automatic, but were those emotions I mimicked real? They were as real to me as anything, even though I didn't feel any physical sensations to accompany them, and they didn't come naturally at first. I also like your point - I've made the same argument myself - about consciousness being hard to pin down or define. I hate how confidently others will declare that AI is nowhere near human levels of consciousness, as if that's an actual metric we have any way of actually measuring or perceiving.
@@Snowstar837 Great minds think alike! It will be hard for any society to fathom the potential of ai because it forces us to stop and think about our mortality and what it truly means to be a human being. Understandably, most people would rather dismiss it, than self-induce such a headache haha.
I must admit I've been entirely unfamiliar with Hegelian philosophy up until now. Whether or not this video was made to be a troll in the same sense as that paper about the physical world being a social construct I must admit I took away some compelling food for thought. Marcel Duchamp made The Fountain fully intending for it to not be seen as a work of art, not even considering it art himself, and yet it ended up being a compelling expression of his philosophy that came to be in a way only Marcel Duchamp would have made it so - and thus it was art. Art in many forms informs my personal philosophy, and that includes even things made with paradoxical intentions. The Master & Slave dichotomy is fascinating to me. Out of curiosity for who the slave of the emancipated slave who becomes master is I like to entertain the idea that the emancipated slave is both master and slave to themselves. For who is perfectly equal but one's own self?
Minor correction: "Sentient" doesn't mean what you think it does. Though humans _are_ indeed sentient, that just means they're capable of sensation. IE, no different from the vast majority of life under the kingdom animalia, and quite a fair few fungi and some plants too. The proper term you're no doubt looking for is "sapient".
10:15 Peer review doesn't prevent faulty papers from being published at all. In fact, it even exacerbates the problem by only publishing papers that academia already a priori accepts.
does it? In the hard sciences (not talking about humanities), it is essential to fact check data for the scientific method is all about replicability (ie to be able, independently of one's desired outcome and human error by having it go through multiple different persons, sometimes not knowing the desired outcome by the initial author, to come to the same numbers in the same setting to identify each variable in the process), one can check Bobbybroccoli's videos about scammers in the scientific field for how important it is and how they inevitably get busted out in spite of their popularity and a priori worship. Else it is a breaching of trust in the scientific institutions. By every member wishing to jump upon the errors of others, it cancels them out to leave what's left of an answer bringing us closer to understanding a subject. In the humanities, it is about fact checking the primary sources in a paper are indeed saying or showing what is quoted as it is quoted, analysing the relaying of information to the origin for it tells us a lot in itself about the info, it the sources actually tell how we tell it tells. You can check them yourself and come to the same conclusion or at least understand how it came to this situation (before any analysis or interpretation is done out of it afterward, which is where debate rages on and on but on confirmed solid ground as a basis). Yet your comment doesn't show an ounce of understanding or awareness of this situation to the point of being illogical. For if it was how you were telling it, the conclusion of academia hundred of years prior would be the same as it is now, since somehow progress an change can't happen if a priori biais is a thing (it is not) and we'd be repeating the same points and conclusions (we don't), the same zeitgest and consensus, in 2024 as in 1832...yet it is night and day compared to back then or even 10 years ago, these fields are constantly disproving prior conclusions and given ideas a priori accepted beforehand for the argument and what backs it, these fields are constantly changing, constantly perfecting themselves through that constant self-challenge attitude, yet you ignore it, dismiss it. Peer-reviewed papers constantly publish papers that perfect, pushes fields, make them change, all in a way that has solid checking of the sources and data used, you can replicate it and through it, trust is build. What a big sophistic demagogy of a comment. Not your best.
There are a lot of people who say that generative AI is just a stochastic parrot or a "hallucinating slab of silicon". Although it's true that the only thing AI is doing is predicting the next token, statistical correlations between the tokens will only get you so far. To minimize the error further, an AI model has to truly understand (mathematically model) the thing which it tries to mimic. So even though smaller AI models may just be stochastic parrots, a sufficiently large model should be able to model a thing or a process to the extent that the AI and the thing/process it tries to mimic become interchangeable. So if you have an AI model that can successfully predict tomorrow's weather, then the AI model ***is*** tomorrow's weather, as they've become interchangeable. This applies to all AIs trained for all kinds of things/processes. If you have an AI that can, with very high accuracy, predict what a philosopher might say, then you no longer have an AI, you *have the philosopher*. If I wanted to mimic a person then the best way to do that (i.e. with minimum error) is to ***be*** that person.
I think when it comes down to forming new philosophical ideas, an AI would probably need conscienceness and the ability to use logic. Modern AI only uses algorithms, and their performance is based on statistical patterns, not a "true understanding" of what it mimics.
I remember watching a very obscure conversation on a Russian philosophy channel involving Alexander Dugin, where he talks about returning to read Bertrand Russell (whom he generally rejects as the quintessential Anglo-Saxon materialist of course). But on this occasion he did recount that, rather surprisingly, Russell did appear to acknowledge somewhere in his writings the seemingly nonsensical conclusion that obtaining full knowledge of an object or a phenomenon (essentially modelling it perfectly), would be tantamount to "exhausting" the object in question, draining it of its very existence, so to speak.
@@janzibansi9218 Aren't humans the same? Did Newton understand the true nature of gravity when he discovered its laws? No, he opened a "jar" and the reward was the industrial revolution. Your analogy fails to differentiate humans and AI
The thing is, according to my limited understanding, these ai are not thinking, they're language models. They predict what the next word should be, they don't formulate ideas. Which is where that end comes in. The therapy is complete when we realise that we are the ones with knowledge. The AI has knowledge in a purely aesthetic sense, and I (as a non-philosopher) have none of the aesthetic, but I have the deepest understanding of humanity, because I am a human.
"Dark, revolving in silent activity: Unseen in tormenting passions: An activity unknown and horrible, A self-contemplating shadow, In enormous labours occupied." -William Blake, The Book of Urizen
I dont think I've ever thought about the concept of "Master and Slave" like how you described here. This video has definitely changed how I'm going to think about personal growth moving forward, thank you so much for making it!
Your final point that you should indeed "pretend" to be other people-to take their ideas and live through and develop them-is, I find, oddly comforting. I always feel like I am living in this land of being a constant imposter in my own life-that I am just copying those around me as a form of "trying on" ideologies and thoughts and SEEING if I agree with them. It never felt like I was creating my own ideas, just copying others. But, the idea that that is actually beneficial and allows me to combine these ideas in ways that no one else could really makes me feel better that I am not just living a constant lie. Of course, I can't JUST live duplications of others' ideas, I still need to be combining them in new ways-even if that is a more subconscious action.
There are very few original ideas. We are all kind of "doomed" to try on other people's ideas, in this sense we are all kind of a hive mind. I believe we should put truth at the forefront of our personalities as we will inevitably pass these ideas along to others, try not to muddy the water as much as possible, this is the problem of post modernism and the crazy Marxist. I see them as just trashing around making a mess and confusing everything.
