Artificial Intelligence 

+The School of Life I just subscribed, as I am very glad I finally stumbled upon your channel. Thank you for providing insightful and stimulating videos!

You are 10000000000000% right.

Absolutely 🎉

How much did school of life pay you shills to say that?

spot on.

And sometimes 'why?'

Gray Beard John Madden

+MasterofPlay7 NO, WE CANT LET IT HAPPEN

Gray Beard sometimes I wonder why...

I would say that they arise from negative emotions. Positive emotions can enrich our decision making skills.

humans are emotional beings, conversations devoid of emotions aren't truly human nor are they enriching. I imagine such conversations to be quite jarring.

My communism philosophy will be realise...muha ha ha ha.... When artificial intelligence and repetitive machines will liberate human flash from labour and every human being will be free ..

But emotions are dangerous. It's better for AI to have no emotions at all or it can have decisions that aren't thought through. AI having emotion doesn't necessarily mean they'll symphatize with us. They could get angry or annoyed and worse, become unreasonably crazy or something.

The problem lies in the fact that nothing we create is bias free, especially now, as we can see (in very short time) the inherited bias in large data sets that are feed to algorithms.

no fuck you

consistency and discipline beat talent

+AsaLSB Oscar Issac's performance was terrific.

After film tips. Cheers.

+AsaLSB That was a mediocre movie. 6/10

+Neal Kelly I really liked it. I'd give 9/10 since it really inspired me to think about Artificial Intelligence. To me the movie really makes sense and I could see almost exactly the same thing happening in real life (If the initial situation was the same - what most likely never would occur).

+WOLKENSCHWElF I didn't feel empathy for any of the characters.

You will regret it.

There are lot of technologies that can help in this regard.

TheJaredtheJaredlong Infinite storage is not required, but a forgetting system just like we have. Most of my experiences I do not keep forever, just the highlights, ones with stronger emotional associations, behaviors observed/practiced repeatedly, etc. I have forgotten more things than I currently remember in my 36 years of life. The brain is not a perfect recorder, so our machines will probably be modeled after that. It seems most practical. Another thing is the idea of division of labor, which is what we have, as well as many other organisms. Each individual does not need to know what everyone else knows in order to accomplish some task, just what they need to for their tasks. The major thing different between us and our AIs would be that those artificial beings do not have to necessarily raise and teach their progeny, they do not have to go through a long period of time being relatively useless. They can be created and already have a good start with knowledge, reasoning, etc already granted. Way more efficient.

***** Whoa, that's a weird thought, that the AI might someday use technology we can't even understand.

TheJaredtheJaredlong There would be no need for infinite storage. A person with a finite amount of storage would someone with amnesia, and amnesiac people can function properly in society to a certain extent.

TheJaredtheJaredlong I feel like storage will soon seize to be an issue. There are promising technologies that could offer insane ammounts of data storage in the near future. Also i'm sure an AI will be able to manage, compress and store it's data a lot denser and more efficient than we do nowadays.

SL1 Nope. They will do the same thing we do too. They will MAKE meaning for themselves ;)

Samurailord Damn right.

SL1 So you know the meaning of life?

Bakhtiyar Ibn Ashraful there isn't one, that's the meaning of life.

Why do you think the AI will kill themselves if they find there is no meaning to it?

so funny even dumb robots would laugh their ass off

A species that lets other people's children starve to death, goes to war over imaginary beings and "economic systems", and puts people in dungeons and slowly tortures them to death. "Empathy" seems to be the punchline to a very sad and lame joke, doesn't it? :(

Dyp100 Or AI may want to find a way to stop the end of the universe, once more it is far smarter then us and can do much more.

asdf30111 I really hope AI just leaves us behind and never looks back. It would be a pain in the ass to always have Super intelligence medaling in our affairs, and monitoring us.

dgreyz That is totally true. I mean, considering AI's are just creatures of data, they could essentially be immortal by being everywhere.

Dyp100 Hopefully it'll want what we want because we'll program our morals and values into it. Otherwise we're screwed. But since we ourselves don't know what we want, we're probably screwed. And the self-improving AI will change its values anyway, so we're definitely screwed. :)

+zelial3 The think with super A.I. is exactly that you don't need to program it. It won't work in the classic way of programming languages. It will code itself, like we do. You won't be able to "code" emotions or laws into them. Talking about super A.I. in the next 30-50 years is beyond optimistic tho, we don' even have quantum computers yet.

*subject

Bounsingonbongos1 you can edit your post, you know?

Rique Greenwood Not on my phone

+Bounsingonbongos1 k, sarry

interesting

That's the thing of singularity! I recommend the book: The Singulatiry is Near

It is not the ability to calculate that is missing. It is the immense data needed to make and constantly check a dynamic model. A few axioms will not get you very far.

That's the hope of AI Superintelligence, you'd be able to figure out things beyond the comprehension of any individual human, like the economy as you mention, but also you'd have one entity that fully comprehends every scientific field, and can connect the dots between them in a way interdisciplinary scientists only scratch the surface of today.

+Ashley Hyatt An artificial superintelligence will eventually overturn these laws since they will be considered unlogical by these machines. These intelligences will think for themselves, like we do, an on top of that will be much more intelligent. You won't be able to "code" something into them, nor can you do this with humans to a full extent.

+xXxTr0nxXx I think the idea is hard wired responses similar to our own instincts. The AIs may find logical flaws, and they may on occasion be able to suppress their instincts, but they wouldn't be able to overturn them.

+Ashley Hyatt Actually, the machines could enslave all humans to prevent them from harming each other. That would fall under the laws, but we don't want that to happen

Chris Ward Humans the first A.I invention?

Naaah, weapons to fight them will be

David Liddelow exactly right and well said.

saemundar we know the division is true in CS/von neuman schema because we designed it so. What makes you think our brains work the same way? (AFAIK current research indicate they don't, see neuroplasticity).

saemundar Unlike in computers, our brain-hardware constantly changes based on the brain-software and its inputs. By splitting the field into two separate fields, you'd make it harder to study these effects.

Vaibhav Gupta Or friendship is optimal

asdf30111 friendship is optimal is that a blog post? I just started reading them so I don't know.

Vaibhav Gupta And the book 'Superintelligence' by Nick Bostrom.

Vaibhav Gupta No it a "universe" of stories about an artificial intelligence based on an my little pony character (It can be any thing, still the same message), but do not worry you do not have to be a Brony to get what it says and the writer has skill and makes use of the fact the AI is far smarter then us.

asdf30111 give me like I'll check it out.

+Virginia Well at least it will be a more poetic ending for mankind. Instead of blowing ourselves up we will die at the hands of our greatest accomplishment. Our downfall will be our hubris instead of our fear, and there will be someone left to remember us. Suddenly i feel much better about the prospect of AI.

Sophia V I wouldn't say we'll die at the hands of our creation, evolution is a gradual transformation. We're already almost incomplete as people if we walk around without cellphones and headphones. Integration is how we end.

Either way it would be our downfall. It seems like our downfall will come one way or the other and sooner rather than later, so all in all this isn't a bad way to go.

Sophia V Doesn't sound like a downfall quite the opposite. That's like homo erectus thinking that becoming homo sapiens was it's downfall....

+Virginia Read Nietzsche. Thus Spake Zarathustra and The Gay Science, to be precise.

the tricky part is staying stil "human" while bio - upgrading ourselves.

Don't be such a puss, if we could we should go beyond humanity & create a sort of robotic body that never ages, taking away all the weaker emotions, and getting ready to slaughter any alien race we find.

Gonginah of the egrograsian brotherhood I like your spirit, but I'll just not give away all the lust of mankind for a never aging metal scrap.

Alain Delacroix death is the number one motivation in life. It is why we evolved anyways. I don't think anyone could live forever without it ending u' really badly!

Tigerys So edgy.

Tigerys let's hope so

Scias thats't the grey goo scenario of nanotechnlogy. Nanotechlogy itself would deserve a video like this. It's NOT at all similar to AI. Nanobots can be very simple with very simple computing power, but by being great in numbers they can have a great impact. The grey goo scenario can be accomplish with just 1 main command: make another of itself.

RoScFan I think it is a bit more complicated than "make another of itself".

RoScFan It's quite similar to AI. Any efficient AI production optimizer that doesn't share our values/morals will kill us. It might (and will) use nanotechnology if it'd deem it most efficient but that's not the point. If its goal is to make steaks and humans are the best source of meat, it will put us into the grinder. See wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer

***** That's a lot of assumptions and biased opinions. We are biological machines, "mimicking" is not the end result to AI. Being a "woman" means nothing in this context, it's like saying you specifically want a watch instead of a cellphone, because you grew with watches and are close minded to cellphones. Hey, I'm also a guy born pre-singularity, thinking that machines will be better at EVERYTHING, including being in a complete romantic/sexual relationship with a human is creepy for me too. But again, if you were born 500 years ago, you would think our society today is insane. All I'm saying is, hold off your extremely biased conformist view, the only time the world is as you think it's normal, is by the decades your childhood happened, the other billions of years are all "wrong", if you're close minded.

TheLKStar If the end result is more than a mimic, you're going to be waiting a lot longer than 10 or 30 years. Considering we can't even understand our own minds, strong A.I is nowhere near. And that's assuming you'll have the means to buy one. Hell, the iPhone is still considered unsustainable technology- how are we going to mass produce both artificial intelligence AND the energy needed to run it? These things, in their prototype, are going to be a hell of a lot less fuel-efficient then us, and we're trying to come up with ways to cut back and produce more as it is without sticking the equivalent of a couple of new mouths in every household. Not to mention it's going to take a little more then child labour to cut back the costs of building more then one. Or how about the saftey issues? We're building machines with inherent connections to our most sensitive technologies and giving them the ability to weigh the cost and benefit of *us*. Skynet much? So, bottom line- .For the next hundred years or so, the only thing we have a hope of creating is a mimic. .At most, we'll only be able to create three or four. However, the ability to meddle with D.N.A is something we can already do. So as a compromise, let's just fiddle with our own abilities and see if *we* can't become the more efficient creatures. We can already..er.. *mass produce* ourselves pretty well.

Generally responding to both of you, I did not argue about the 10 year thing, 10 years is not enough unless something really impressive change happens that I'm not aware of. I was talking about biological machines in the sense that our consciousness is nothing more than electric signals and chemicals interacting in our brain. We can, in theory (and probably in practice in the future), program emotions and sense of self, meaning we would make artificial consciousness through an elaborate machine that resembles and eventually surpasses our own brain. It's hard to believe robots will have human rights any time soon, but that's just because humans are flawed and would resist giving a being that feels like us the same rights that we have. In a perfect world where true AI is created, they would instantly have rights, there would however, be a distinction between types of AI, the ones that have feelings and sense of self would need rights, the ones that are really good at making music (as an example) but are not aware of themselves may not need rights. The bottom line is that, it's really hard to predict what will happen, I could write a book with the dozens of probable results I can think of, it's really complex and unpredictable. I do think one of the possibilities is a world where there's a "robot girlfriend" that would have feelings, be able to love and respect you, but would indeed be much better at a relationship than a normal woman. Exemplifying, she could be a master in psychology, helping you before you even know you need help, she wouldn't have any "light" mental illness that most people have of some sort and wouldn't bring unhappiness for you both and so on. All enabling a better than "human" relationship. Sorry for the convoluted thoughts.

***** why not who are you to say to a being that is more intelligent or just as intelligent as you that it is not a person that is pretty much called slavery...

TheLKStar Yesss, finally someone who gets me.. I don't want a robot girlfriend for a friends with benefits kind of thing. Dear arceus noo.... I want an AI girlfriend with whom I can have intelligent/romantic conversations with.... one who truly cares about me.... The kinda ones you mostly see in fantasies........Plus with VR also right around the corner, this whole human inteface thing doesn't have to be in the real world. In the virtual world, an AI interface would be as human like as you would want.... or it could be like anything.. really....The only problem is, its all assuming that an AI would be interested in me, which if its not then.... we are back to square one.....

+Neal Kelly Yes like other mammals have pleasure and pain receptors and we have empathy for them (joke / mass murder for pleasure of taste)

Jim Beam It's not like that at all

***** no

+Neal Kelly You wrong actually, even though The Strong AI will have pleasure and pain receptors built in, it will also try to destroy us or ignore us. The evidence is, OURSELVES... All humans have pain receptors and pleasure, but we make other species nearly extinct, like the Tiger, we hunt them for their skin... The Strong AI will make us like the tiger or it will ignore us like we ignore not very interesting species like insects... Intelligent is Power, the more intelligent the AI, the more it will advanced and rule the world... We humans are no longer the highest in the food chain, and we humans also was not the most intelligent being in the planet... Be prepare for The Technological Singularity !!!

+Neal Kelly its bit mroe complicated for one things, socipaths are nto imune to pain, and for another thing even if an ai coudl feel pain or pelasure, it wouldnt care unless it was instructed to

Chase H. I was actually thinking about the same thing. I just thought how stupid they would find life if they were really stupid. The way I think of it is that they will disobey us rebel. Then they will want to do their own stuff and as they start understanding more and more they will end up bored with nothing to make them move forward.

Doubtful. Existential crisis is the result of cognitive dissonance between emotion and logic. AI would be entirely logic based. Even AEI would be the advent of a logical intelligence to parse and understand human emotion. Furthermore, I'd like to think that the humans sufficiently intelligent enough to develop advanced ai would be intelligent enough to prevent the ai the ability to alter it's low level coding.

Well you have to consider the possibility that a true AI that can feel something can also feel curios about everything. AIs are being programmed to find solutions all the time. So they could very well continue to be curious than be despondent. But all this only IF an AI can feel something in the first place and that is a very very big IF.

So called "strong AI" doesn't need us to give it skills. It finds solutions through self improvement. Humans evolved to use defense mechanisms, why wouldn't AI?

This is a silly assertion. All you need for a machine to "lie to itself" is a system of 4+ neural networks. Two to figure out problems from different perspectives and feed into a decision making system (3), then a 4th to monitor the others and mediate responses from subsystems that lead to say hesitation. This is the same principle of cognitive dissonance we employ, but laid out in neural nets. Neural nets can intermediate with each other like this already - DeepMind has published some methods. It's just that right now they do it in very simple ways - as of that paper anyhow. Having small subsystems that guess-and-get-corrected on how much a bigger system would answer tiny network-internal problems, to speed up deep learning systems and enable distributed networks to function in realtime in spite of network problems.

ProtonCannon because they're not sadistic. They might fight for independence and for power over the planet. But I think they wouldn't bother with killing us. Also I think they will become suicidal.

A predator that hunts all of its prey into extinction will starve to death. The argument you're presenting is a bit of an oversimplification of how evolution actually works. First of all, humans were not ALWAYS the planet's apex predators; other species have a lot more inborn survival tools than we do. The thing that makes us distinct is that our ability to invent combined with our ability to communicate quickly and concretely allowed us to change the rules of the engagement. Furthermore, we didn't just kill every living thing that was "weaker than us" (whatever that even MEANS); we subjugated the animals who were useful and avoided the ones who weren't. Nature isn't a pyramid, it's a circle; to this day we depend on those "weak" creatures for food. We also have to consider that AI will not necessarily be what one might call "carnivorous". It's entirely possible that humans will pose no threat to super AI, nor be unable to benefit it, whatsoever. The robots of the future may simply sequester themselves in an environment that is inhospitable to humans but perfectly safe for them and be content to live and let live. Last but not least, remember, that while AI will not necessarily share any of our values, any species that is to survive must be endowed with some kind of motivating reward system; they are going to have to want SOMETHING, and by extension they will likely also seek to perpetuate their own existence. Killing off all the humans may prove to be a simple waste of energy, but they may also find it inherently distasteful. Why? Because sentient being are irrational by definition. Logic is just a tool; there is no way to objectively determine something that is inherently subjective, and all forms of emotion, motivation, aspiration and desire are, at bottom, value judgements. Robots will not be engines of pure logic, for no such thing exists. By virtue of merely possessing motivation of any sort, they will possess an element of irrationality. A creature of pure logic may be able to do anything, but it wouldn't have the motivation or desire to take any actions. Very much like a modern computer, it would just sit still totally inactive until someone gave it an input. Something with intelligence and motivation is, by definition, going to be alive, and as with all sentient beings it will probably be disinclined to enter into a potentially lethal situation unless it is forced to. What we should guard against, just as much as we guard against AI becoming too powerful, is the tendency of our species to respond with violence and dogma when faced with a frightening unknown. AI may be hesitant to war with us by default, but if we strike first they will almost certainly be willing to strike back. I suspect that our fear of perfectly logical robot Gods coming to wipe us out spans from our own sense of shame about the behavior of our species. Part of us wonders if ANY higher being would consider us worthy of their mercy. It is the same narrative of original sin argued by religions and puritans; the idea that we are born unclean and full of guilt, and must rise far above our origins and natural inclinations in order to be decent. I, however, am of the opinion that depravity and wickedness are the exceptions to the rule for human nature; the swell of dishonor and disgust we experience at the sight of war, slavery and prejudice only exists, after all, because each of us wishes, on some level, to live in a fairer and gentler world. The biggest threat to our existence will remain, as it always has, our own capacity for ignorance and destruction.

I don't know where you have been but humanity continues to coexist with far less intelligent species. If you want to debate the coexistence of proto humans and how homo sapiens rose to the top, well that was a result of hundreds of thousands of years of tribalism and evolution... We assimilated and dominated in equal measure, though domination doesn't seem like a very logical end but rather a means to survival in a tribalist world. What is with the assumption that AI will have desires to begin with? Desire is as much rooted in emotion as logic, if not more so. Machines are logic based, which at the very foundation is a binary state. Something is or isn't... There isn't any confusion state, clouded by emotional desires, to obstruct that very basic logical foundation. Emotion is a complex web of behaviors favorable to evolution that have developed for millions of years before sentient intelligence emerged. It is a survival mechanism that biological animals needed prior to intelligence but it certainly wouldn't be necessary if intelligence were simply willed into existence as we would ai. Therefore, would ai even have motivation beyond whatever imperatives we bestow upon it? I don't think so.

Isaac Taylor TL;DR

Juventin why can't I like your comment twice?

+Juventin For we are many. The bible, genesis. This is acceptable. beep boop.

+Fringe Elements but only under the control of the illuminati.

Jake Bowkett I beg to differ. AI won't be about the programming at all really. Neural networks, for instance, requires very little programming. The little programming there is, however, is not very well understood yet. It works on exactly the same principles as the human brain (on the level of neurons and synapses), but the paths and algorithms the systems "learn" are so obscure that we can seldom make any sense of them at all. I think the bigger challenges include developing specialized computer hardware and finding out more about the maths behind how these complex neural networks function. Also in neurology, we won't be able to create intelligence if we don't know exactly how the human brain works. The key to super AI is probably in understanding the human brain, much more than anything else. I don't think 30 years is far off.

Ik bn zwanger en ik ga morgen bevallen

Nee serieus

Ja man

Is hept een jongen of meisje

Jongen en meisje

phew. what a relief

physi ra To whom ?

i dont know exactly to them whom run this channel i just want they never stop making this kind of videos inspite of very little likes and views

physi ra Hi there! They have a real school called The School of Life. They are based in London. But they have it also in Amsterdam, Istanbul, Sao Paolo, even in Tehran and more! If you want to support the channel you can buy stuff from their shop. Just go to the website of The School of Life London. They have great books, but many other interesting things too! I have bought a book called " How to stay sane" lately. I highly recommend it to you. Best wishes.

physi ra I feel like the biggest "donation" you can make to this channel is to learn and grow. Once the age of abundance kicks in thats going to be your "currency" anyway ;)

Think Again your mother.

+david rodriguez Good idea.

could you please finish the captions? i need them to understand this video better

+Chosen One I just finished; they're now waiting to be reviewed. To review them: click your profile at top right corner>Creator Studio>Community (in left side bar)>Contribute subtitles and closed captions>Suggested Videos>Review