Artificial Intelligence Isn't Real 

Thanks for tuning in to today's video! The first 100 people to use code SOMETHING at the link below will get 60% off of Incogni: incogni.com/something

I'm opposite of *Artificial Inteligence* , because I'm *Natural* and *Stupid* .

As a programmer that studies AI, we almost never actually use the term artificial intelligence, we usually just say machine learning, as this more accurately describes what is happening.

Personally what pisses me off is when someone takes one of those AI chat bots, and gives it some random character from any show, and goes "Omg this is basically the character" and it just gives the most basic ass responses to any question

As a programmer, thank you. It's annoying to have to explain to people that AI is not intelligent, it's just an advanced data sorting algorithm at the very most. It has no thoughts, it has no biases, it has no emotions. It's just a bunch of data sorted by relevance. This isn't to downplay the technology, the technology behind it is stunning, and it has good applications but to call it intelligence when it isn't is absurd.

"Behaving perfectly like a human doesn't mean they are intelligent" is a sentence that can be used on quite a lot of people too lol

artifical intelligence is when the computer contolled trainers in pokemon use a set up move instead of attacking

I've done a PhD in machine learning, I design machine learning system as a job * Yes, AI is a very poorly defined word, which have been stripped of the little meaning it might had because how much it was stretched in all directions * Intelligence is not a boolean feature, it's a continuum. Where do we put a virus ? The most simple unicellular organisms ? Industrial control systems are on the level of a simple bacteria in term of complexity and abilities, minus the self-replication ability (3d printers are this close to cross that gap) * Your cat example is a very good explanation of what statistical inference. * You can implement statistical inference in various ways, one of which is neural network. Neuron network can have internal models that does what you call "the intelligent way". That internal model is not set by the programmer, it's built by accumulating training on randomly picked examples aka stochastic gradient descent. * The Chinese Room argument have its critics, some of which are really interesting And yes, there are tons of cringe bullshit on this topic, to the point I carefully avoid mentionning I do AI, I say I do statistical modeling

The only fear I have for current "AI" is companies betting too hard on it, and having it destroy them. Not by some high tech high intelligence AI takeover, but by the AI being poorly implemented and just immediately screwing over the company, like "hallucinating" and setting all company salaries to 5 billion dollars.

Robotics/AI researcher here, you're definitely right to suggest that AI is being completely blown out of proportion by the media. That being said, certain things you mentioned computers not being capable of they certainly can do, it's just a case of that they're currently still the kinda things that are being developed in research institutions and therefore not viewable by most people. For example, the fat cat example could be tackled by a combination of causality and semantic modelling could represent the relationships between feeding the cat and its weight. Furthermore empathy modelling is also an idea within reward-based agents/robots, effectively having the robot reason about whether an outcome would be optimal from the perspective of another being (e.g. a cat). Of course we're still a long ways off, but that is more of a software/theory issue than a hardware issue, in a sense, we have all of the machinery we need to make it happen, it's just a matter of knowing how to structure the inner workings of the AI that's the difficulty. With regards to the Chinese room thought experiment, it's worth mentioning that only one school of thought precludes this disproving consciousness. I'm fairly certain that if a baby could talk, and you were to ask it whether it understood anything it was experiencing, I doubt it would, yet I don't think anyone is arguing that babies are not conscious. Even that aside, I think what ultimately sets aside human intelligence, and what will ultimately set aside future AI, is the ability to reason about reasoning, or in other words meta-reasoning. This is currently quite difficult considering the biggest fads in research right now involve throwing a neural network at problems, effectively creating an incomprehensible black box, but there's definitely the baby steps there of making this happen. All that being said, I totally get why you made this. The way everyone's talking these days you'd be forgiven for thinking the machine revolution is due next Tuesday.

Incredibly brave of Adam to stuff his cat with food to the point of morbidty obestiy just to prove the limits of AI, that's real dedication.

If people insist on using "AI," I propose we call it "Algorithmic Intelligence" because that's far closer to what it really is than Artificial Intelligence

I once passed a basic french speaking exam with essentially no comprehension of what I was saying. Just copied the tense structure of the question, added a few stock phrases and conjuctions, and sprinkled in some random nouns and adjectives that I couldn't for the life of me tell you what they meant, only that my brain somehow decided they were in the same topic. They were testing for compression; I used a different method to have the appearance of it. AIs work with similar logic, doesn't matter how you get the results within the task, so long as the results appear correct.

I disagree: people are scared by AI not because they think they're seemingly "human", but because perfectly acting like one without understanding the meaning behind it can lead (in the future) to real life consequences. If you teach an AI to hack your computer and delete all your data it doesn't matter if it understands what it's doing as long as the action is being done. Not having free will doesn't mean not creating consequences; if anything, it's worse.

I have an MSc in Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence and I can say that how we use these terms and how the media uses these terms are very different. "AI" is a huge field that refers to basically anything that a computer does that's vaguely complex. So when your map app tells you the shortest path from A to B, that's AI, specifically a pathfinding algorithm. We we talk about stuff like chat gpt, we wouldn't really call it AI, because AI is such a general term. It's Machine Learning, more speficially Deep Learning, more specifically a Large Language Model (LLM). Stable diffusion is also Deep Learning, but it's a diffusion model.

I'm a data engineer for a company you've heard of. I fully agree that the general public doesn't really understand or properly use the terms "AI" and "Machine Learning". However, I would argue that in so many cases neither do the "tech people".

You can choose a definition of intelligence that fits just about whatever argument you want to make, so it really is important to make clear which one you're using before making your point. Kudos for doing that, and for stating that you chose it for the purpose of this video.

As someone in the field, I think this is a bad take. You dismiss these AI models because of their simplicity; I ask you to look at it in exactly the opposite way. We get extraordinary results from these models, _in spite of_ their simplicity. GPT models give incredibly good answers, despite their memory literaly consisting of only what has already been written in the conversation. That makes them more impressive, not less. Right now, many reseachers are focused on creating more complex models around (e.g. consisting of) GPT models. Considering how effective these simple models are, what can we expect from more complex models? Many researchers think that human-level performance from these models might not be unreasonable. The chinese room experiment is actually very controversial to philosophers of mind; I, as do many philosophers, find the concept of 'true understanding' to be misguiding. You can find counterarguments against the chinese room experiment on Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You should certainly not have brought it up as the be-all and end-all of the notion that machines can be intelligent. I agree that we need far more nuance in the conversation about AI, but I don't believe that you succeed in bringing that nuance here. AI researchers are discussing whether we might be near artificial general intelligence, and I believe that this video only diverts the attention of your viewers from the opinions of subject experts.

The thing I'm afraid of is that corporations couldn't care less, as long as they don't have to pay actual humans for being artists, programmers, etc etc, they will be using AI even if everyone knows it actually has no idea what art or code is

The cat should make more appearances in your videos

Thanks for the video. My main worries over this are that executives believe that this can replace human workers, apply this "AI" to everything fire a lot of people and then they end working the remaing ones to death when those "AIs" fail in doing their tasks because nobody would know if its outputs, and/or inputs, are accurate enough; or if, the heavens forbid, they gave IAs any type of decission power.

As a CS Student I agree with the main point of the video, but I'll just throw it in the room that we actually don't know what "real intelligence" really is. So maybe at some point AI will actually become "real" without any way to tell it apart. We just don't know.

I've been a software engineer for the past 9 years - these days I work in the Linux kernel but my undergrad was to take a high-performance deep conv. neural net, chop off its output neurons, attach a new set of output neurons, and re-train the network to do a different, but conceptually similar task. This is called "fine-tuning", and at the time (libraries have advanced now), required direct, low-level modifications to the matrices of neurons, and the training process was very manual. While I have a HUGE problem with how the media conveys AI, how they try to humanize it, construe its behaviour as sentient, etc, I need to speak out and say that I also increasingly have a problem with people saying "AI is mundane, stupid, plain maths and nothing more". The only honest answer we can give is that we don't know. We don't know how our brains work, we don't know how WE are sentient, therefor, we cannot conclude ANYTHING is sentient or not. I know this is philosophical and non-mathematical, but it's the only answer that is not disingenuous. To this day, despite all our technology, we don't know if sentience is "computational", that is, arising from the "computation" of inputs inside our brains by neurons, or something else entirely, maybe involving quantum interactions betweem certain chemicals within the neurons. Until we know this, we therefore cannot know if any other computational network is "experiencing" its inputs. In terms of neural nets, there is another complication which is that the "neurons" are not even physical things, but rather abstractions placed ontop of sets of numbers in a chip. What set of conditions are required for this to be sentient? We have no idea. Some people argue that we are sentient and NN's are not because brains are actually way more complicated, but I also find this answer wholly insufficient - it doesnt answer *what* is causing the sentience, but merely conjectures that it lies elsewhere in our brains outside of the computational parts. In that sense the argument merely kicks the can down the road. I think it's very important to keep these media outlets in check by reminding them of the mundanity of what they claim is sensational, but it's a very dangerous road when you go too far - one day we may well be witnessing the birth of consciousness, and disregarding it entirely because we tell ourselves that it is not "biological" enough, "human" enough, or for some other over-confident reasoning. Anyways sorry for the rant and hopefully it was interesting for someone 😂

Though the chinese room example shows that the room operator doesn't understand chinese, someone could say that an understanding of Chinese is being created. Understanding as an emergent property of all the elements and arrangements. The operator doesn't have to know chinese, just as individual neurons in the brain don't really understand anything or are conscious. We really don't know what kind of a thing consciousness is so the only useful way to recognise it is by a thing's behaviour regardless of the underlying mechanism. Just want to point that out, not saying that what ppl are calling ai now is actually conscious or something.

And also, after a series of unfortunate marketing events - big tech layoffs, NFTs, the metaverse, and so on - marketers had to come up with something that sounded new and exciting, quick.

Artificial Intelligence is a nebulous term that means whatever the marketeer wants it to. It generally translates to "bleeding-edge computer algorithms that don't work very well right now". I recall a time when Autopilot in Aircraft were called "Artificial Intelligence" when they were new; the moment they began working, we renamed it. The same will happen with ChatGPT, MidJourney,etc. In ten years, when the tech is mature, we'll call these types of software text generators and image generators, because that's what they are. And of course, the bleeding edge'll be called A.I

As a software engineer I'm honestly very excited about these new models. They open whole new ways for us to handle user inputs, and lets us deal with MUCH more vague concepts than before. Like before, users had to click specific buttons or input specific text inputs, leaving room for very little variance in user interactions, whereas now we can use these models to map vague user inputs to actions in software, making it not only more accessible, but more useful in general. That is, assuming that tech bros don't ruin this whole thing trying to replace us all with what is basically an oversized prediction engine.

I'm so glad someone is making a video about this, as a research student who works with machine learning, its exhausting hearing people overhype what current AI can do, when we're not even anywhere near actual smart driving or anything like that.

While doing a PhD in machine learning a while ago we avoided using the term AI as way too buzzy and imprecise. Now I reckon it's a useful term saying a machine *seems* intelligent. There are lots of ways to make a machine seem intelligent, only some of them involve any kind of tricky algorithm. TBH It's a sociology term more than a comp sci term -- as much to do with the interface as with the underlying engine.

A human also learns by getting vast amounts of data and making associations that form the concept cat. The process is not as different as you imply imo. That said, yes Al is currently still way less sophisticated than humans and not really sentient or general intelligence. Imo the biggest difference isn't about hardware but in the sophistication of the software, as well as the lack of embodied cognition. Evolution had millions of years to form behaviours like cognition, sentience and consciousness. We don't yet really know what those things are well enough to replicate them (or make processes that lead to them being replicated).

Chinese Room is a masterful piece of sophistry. It sneakily assumes what it's trying to prove (that you can't get semantics out of syntax alone) and hides that with a misuse of intuition.

The example reminds me of when Nigel Richards won the 2015 french Scrabble world championship by memorizing the french dictionary, without being able to speak a single sentence in french. Its the same as current "AI", it has a data set so big that any question you ask it has most likely been answered by several humans before, whose works are in the data set(a lot without permission), this is why greedy companies like OpenAI are so desperate to regulate it, they know that anyone who can gather a similar amount of data(ironically, this can be done using ChatGPT) can replicate their precious money printer.

Tell me there is a video out there somewhere with John Cena trying to convince China he has ice cream in mandarin.

Important caveat to Chinese room: if it *actually* worked, the room and person inside *together* now form a system that "understands" Chinese. Otherwise you could point out a single brain cell, demonstrate that it doesn't understand language, and then argue that humans don't actually understand language.

I believe the sentience of AI is not the primary concern. The crucial factors lie in the potential consequences of AI models being widely implemented, leading to the displacement of human workers in various industries, as well as the risks associated with AI systems becoming uncontrollable or behaving unilaterally.

4:25 The funniest part is that finding the optimal path to a destination is a textbook problem you would learn in a university AI course, the tech bros have just co-opted the term AI so much that it's meaningless now.

My counter thought experiment to the chinese room is what if a person is sealed in a room that says "AI computer" on the outside, and they can only communicate through little notes, and they keep writing, "Help, I'm a person trapped in a room, I'm not a computer!" But everyone outside the room has watched this video, and is really tired of tech bros, and don't believe him, laughing and saying, "Ha stupid AI thinks it's a human, it isn't intelligent at all." I'll call it "The something room".

I think it's dangerous to underestimate the disruption this tech will cause. I also think we might be conflating ideas of intelligence, awareness, consciousness, etc.

The issue with the Chinese room thought experiment is that in real life, it would be more like this: "every single person is inside a room, consulting their own private dictionary and writing all the correct symbols. You can't leave your room and enter anyone else's room. So, how do you know ANYONE can speak Chinese, if you can never talk to them directly?" Basically, the thought experiment acts like a gotcha, but it can only do so because it posits some "ideal" mode of communication where we can be certain that the other person is really communicating, and not just following deterministic logic. Taking its argument seriously leads to solipsism, because we can't enter other people's brains and verify that they're really thinking and feeling - maybe they're just perfectly emulating thought and emotion? What criteria do they propose for verifying that someone is really speaking Chinese, if everyone is stuck in a room and can never leave to check? But yeah, main point still stands. Tech journalists overhype everything, making it sound like we've developed A.G.I. or something.

In one of Mentour Pilot's video about A.I. and commercial aviation in his Mentour Now channel, he interviewed Marco Yammine, who is an expert in the subject of A.I.. Yammine simplfied A.I., at least at its current state, as being a case of "fake it 'till you make it" on steroids

It's extremely nice to see Adam doing another video.

I personally think you should have talked about neural networks and artificial general intelligence (AGI). There might be an issue of semantics, because AI colloquially now refers to any machine learning application whereas AGI encompasses the way you understand 'true intelligence'

I am worried about AI, not because the Terminator robots will kill us all, but in case i get a phone call one day from an AI pretending to be my mother pretending to be kidnapped demanding "ransom money"

I've always been quite adept at computers, I just picked them up quick. And something I have always seen, is people who don't understand computers will overestimate what they can do. So often I have explained limitations of a programme to someone older than me. And they will get angry and say "well why can't it do that?".

I enjoyed your use of audio and video from System Shock 2, because it is very cool and atmospheric, but I was outraged that after all that you didn't include SHODAN in your list of AIs!

I definitely appreicate the video critiquing how people and the media have fear mongered and misunderstood ai, but I think focusing on whether or not ai is or is not actually intelligent or conscious misses the point, and other commenters have mentioned this too. We have plenty of tools that are not intelligent and are still dangerous, what matters more is its effect. Hal 9000, for example, decided to kill the crew to fulfill its ultimate obiective. I would pisit that ai is dangerous, in large part, because it lacks consciousness and it will rigorously and strictly follow its assigned prerogatives.

Big fan of the videos however thought I would put this here, 'AI' does indeed need references to be able to determine things and as you say humans do that on their own which I think is not fully accurate. Everything we know was also taught to us either through garnering info or observational learning (with the exception of reflexes). The only part where I could see this not being completely accurate by itself would have to be emotions although there is a point to be made that for linking events to emotions it does also require this link to be learned.

Honestly this video was refreshing. Every time I see some goofy headline screaming about AI coming to kill us in our sleep, I roll tf outta my eyes lol. 12/10 would watch a man pet a cat again

Ik this is beyond the subject of this video, but it would be nice if there is going to be a video about Bucharest and how Ceaușescu demolished an entire neighborhood to build his megalomaniac palace. But this is kinda related to the video about "when urban planning tries to destroy an entire city" because that's pretty much what happened to bucharest after 1977

While there is a lot of hype around AI, and the majority of it is bullshit, you also missed the point that intelligence and self-consciousness are different, and the notion of "understanding" is not well defined. One could argue that there is no difference between a collection of carefully ensembled atoms going through the motion to create a Chinese person, and the setup described in the Chinese room thought experiment. Thumbs up for using System Shock's music and SHODAN's image!

The problem with the Chinese Room Experiment is that if you apply the same standard to the dumb meat fibers and cells that just send and react to electrical and chemical signals in the brain, what you end up with is the idea that *people* can't actually understand Chinese, because no part of their brain when you zoom in far enough to examine its physical operations "understands" Chinese. And yet people "feel" like they understand. They can't look inside their own wetware and trace the origins of their understanding any more than a camera can look inside and take pictures of its own lenses, so a feeling is all they have. Rather than a gotcha that shows AI isn't here yet, all the CRE shows is that its framework fails to capture how human intelligence could possibly arise out of the three pounds of meat sitting inside your skull. It doesn't prove or disprove artificial intelligence one way or the other.

People have been misusing "AI" for decades. Some video games refer to bots in multiplayer as "AI".

I kind of especially was amused by the whole "AI drone turns on creators" thing. It showed up on reddit with a lot of people commenting on how this was proof that AI's are "evil" and out to destroy us. In actuality the AI is not "evil." It just doesn't know what the fuck it's doing and doesn't understand the fundamental concepts of task, purpose, and morality surrounding war that are so innate to humans that I guess the operators didn't feel the need to specify this to an "intelligence" and it attacked it's commander in a simulation because the commander was telling it to not attack a certain target, even though it's programming told it that attacking said target was it's goal, so it simply went to finding a solution to the problem and didn't understand why people started calling it a "bad AI"

As an IT person myself hearing more and more normies throw around the term AI and wrongly explain it has been mildly infuriating ever since ChatGPT released.

THANK YOU ADAM FOR MAKING A VIDEO ABOUT THIS. I'm actually grateful.

Current "AI" is usually just highly complex machine learning: as it's being "trained", it's fed a bunch of data, attempts to deduce relationships based on its initial algorithm, then uses some method of scoring the outputs (either by humans or another algorithm), with the highest scores used to tweak its own algorithm, to the eventual extent the original programmers aren't entirely sure how it works. Note this isn't just systems badged as AI, but things like social media recommendation algorithms. To be fair though, that's similar to how a lot of pre-school learning happens: a youngster may see a bunch of different breeds of dog, which all look radically different from each other (e.g. compare a pug, a daschund, a bulldog and a retriever), yet we individually work out enough common features to both be able to identify breeds we've never seen before as dogs, and differentiate them from other creatures with four legs and a tail. But if you taught an algorithm to recognise dogs, if you gave it an image of a dog, would it be able to tell you how it knows it's a dog? Similarly with inanimate objects e.g. chairs / stools / tables and being able to both identify them and tell them apart. Aside from those questions, there are also more ethical questions, e.g. chatbots not being able to research their answers to check the veracity of the information they're dishing out, and potentially giving out biased information due to a large part of their training data taken from social media sites and blogs; and image generators extracting and reusing portions of copyrighted images (as the programmers didn't bother to check the licensing on the images they fed it, hoping the resultant works would be sufficiently different from the source images to make it impossible to trace whose works they'd "borrowed"). The real "fun" will come when someone decides to apply similar algorithms to music composition, given how litigious record companies are (and even with PD scores, almost all recordings will be copyrighted, so unless it's fed MIDIs with a decent soundont...)

With the term AI being primarily used for buzz, I now just read it as "Artificial Idiot." Seems to fit better for most of the news stories that overuse it.

Programmer here working for an AI company. I actually think almost the opposite. I feel like "AI" is currently both underappreciated and overrated by the general public. Some parts are completely blown out of proportion, like how quickly the systems will improve and some over the top extrapolations of future abilities based on past improvement. However what is underappreciated by the general public and also your video is precisely understanding. The current AI systems aren't stochastic parrots and most likely have some actual deeper understanding of the things they do. We can't even fully exclude AI having some level of subjective experience when processing things. The most important leaders within the AI field including the grandfather of neural-net backpropogation and extremely respected scientist: Geoffrey Hinton. And AlexNet co-inventor Ilya Sutskever. These two people are the Einstein and Stephen Hawking of Machine Learning. If they speak, you listen what they have to say. And both of them are very clear and adamant about the modern state of AI actually having some understanding and internal subjective experience according to Sutskever and Hinton. For the sake of fairness and objectivity there are also two prominent AI experts that have different view of things: Andrew Ng and Yann LeCunn. Andrew Ng doesn't believe modern AI systems have internal subjective experience but he recently changed his stance and now does believe that they do have proper understanding of the things they are doing and not simply parroting in a dumb statistical way. Yann LeCunn keeps hardcore rejecting both subjective experience and understanding within these systems. However he has not provided a clear argument to explain away certain behavior the AI displays that according to Hinton, Sutskever and Andrew Ng would require understanding. Not saying you are wrong and you very well could be right. However I think for the sake of clarity you should at least tell your viewers that your video is a very unorthodox view and not shared by most AI experts.

I asked ChatGPT once: "How to use the Ablative case in Russian?" and it gave me 10 highly detailed paragraphs about the exact use of that grammatical case. Mind you, Russian does not have an Ablative case, hence my amusement. I am terrified of AI.

Maaan, the amount of dandruff i have tried to wipe off the phones screen before realising it

As a ML nerd, my only complaint is that you should have talked about neural networks, which are tuned and taught (and subsequently used) just like a typical "brain" filled with interconnected neurons :shrug:

The way the Chinese Room Experiment is described reminds me of that guy who is master at Scrabble. He managed to win at French Scrabble without knowing a single word in French.

At the core of this is a simple misunderstood concept surrounding computers, which is the following. We don't teach computers anything. What we do is code and provide algorithms which when given appropriately embedded data sets with appropriate instructions which will eventually minimise a difference function between what we want and what the machine outputs. We have hundreds of ways of doing this from approaches like linear regression up to the enormous generative AI frameworks which stack dozens of layers on top of each other and use vast data sets. It all reduces to the same problem though. We have different ways of attacking it. We can even play agents off against each other. At some point it all becomes a math problem that needs a tensor solver.

THANK YOU, i think people on the internet really need to hear this, your basic explanation is so damn clear i love it

I don't think the human in the chinese room experiment understands chinese, but the system as a whole does. The human is just a conduit for the information to pass through. Would be like saying neurotransmitters in a brain don't understand what they are doing but the whole brain as a system does.

The chinese room thought experiment has the problem that it relies on a special pleading fallacy combined with a circular argument to work. Its basically a theologians argument. Because it assumes that "understanding" something is some special sauce in our brain that cannot be replicated by something that does lack said special ingredient to begin with. But according to this logic a child could never learn any language, because you basically deny that the line from "no understanding" to "understanding" can ever be crossed. Our brain is surely special in some ways. But it doesn't contain any part that knows no artificial counterpart. The special pleading has no ground to stand on.

the criticism at 5:25 is not really valid as that is the same thing we do, we cannot understand empathy or the affects of a bad diet without being taught it, its no different with ai. We are not born with the understanding that obesity is a bad thing. Moreover, the implication that ai is not intelligent because its just "going through the motions" is how all humans learn to communicate, a baby does not understand what "Mommy" is until the concept is enforced by having english speaking parents who use the word often enough. The concept of understanding language is just a byproduct of experiencing the spoken word and written word often enough. You understand what you say just as much as an ai understands what its saying, the concept of understanding a language as described in this video is an arbitrary distinction between words said by an ai, and words said by a human. All intelligence is on a spectrum and the argument could be made by a hyper intelligent ai that humans dont "understand" language because they dont think as highly as it does.

There are a lot of interesting extensions to the Chinese Room argument. Some people argue that the "room" itself could be considered to "understanding" Chinese. Basically, the system of person + extensive books with rules about the language. If the Chinese room could 100% produce intelligible and human responses no matter the input, I am inclined to agree with this argument, however strange the concept may be. I think the simpler argument is just that current AI simply can't 100% replicate human intelligence. One very simple example is that current AI can't multiply large numbers no matter how much training they get. Yes, they could learn to use some calculator plugin like a human would do with a physical calculator, but any human with elementary school knowledge could also use pen and paper to write out and solve any multiplication problem, regardless of number of digits.

I understand your point, but i dont see how the "ai" not understanding what it does makes it less of a threat. It doesnt need to have a conscience to pose a serious problem in our lives

That one was a fail Adam. There is so much more to the topic.

I get the feeling that, when this video is over, that cat is NOT going on a diet.

The problem with the chinese room experiment is: why does it matter? My hands dont understand what they are typing, but they are part of an inteligent system either way. Similarly, even though john cena doesn't understand what's happening, the system itself is inteligent in the end since it can emulate the conversation.

the biggest issue of your entire video is that you assume that even intelligence by itself has a clear definition without any grey areas. but it's all actually pretty vague

I'm more disturbed that almost half of a youtube video runtime is ads at this point.

I’m taking a class for Machine Learning, noone uses the term “Artificial Intelligence”. Machine Learning is a much more accurate term.

as being part of the group you refer to as "IT People", i can say the biggest problem is that current "AI" isnt even AI, its just more fancy algorithms that need less hand holding to perform the task given to them. however its not actual "AI" in the sense its not aware like humans are. thats also why it cant understand concepts, what it does or come up with something new thats accurate because all it does is follow patterns that the algorithm established during training it should follow when certain conditions are met. which is basically the same as what you called "Pre AI", just that now we have a software that does the act of "writing" these instructions for us. true AI would probably be more close to how the human brain works, except that AI will for sure be specialised in individual tasks rather then being all rounders like the human brain. i have to admit that for the first nearly 6 minutes until it became clear to me what your trying to say, that i was afraid your misrepresenting "AI" the same way as many other people do. Apologies for the dislike during the first half of the video. Edit: I feel the part that it gets annoying, i spend the first few months trying to explain "AI" to people to stop them from being wrong about it and talking bs, then i moved over to trying to explain why its not real AI and now i just have given up. there is way too many people who either on purpose talk bs about it for whatever reason that may be or people who cant be bothered to learn what something is and just repeat the same talking points of the first type of people i described in this paragraph. Its the same as with Artists and non Artists claiming AI would be harmful to them, meanwhile its basically just drawing by colors using more advanced filler tools to fill in the apropiate color for the pattern it "drew". While im on that topic, i also have to let out how incredible furious it makes me as someone who is passionate about IT and Technology in general that people are so quick to blame the "AI" thats basically just a tool like photoshop but nobody would blame fotoshop for stealing a picture or art style, people would blame the person. im sure this will pass with time and people will treat AI the same way but that wont be in my lifetime any more and it just so upsets me that people make so outrageous claims over something they refuse to learn about to know if its even true what they claim. Also if you want to restrict "AI" so bad, the correct way would be to restrict the "AI" Companies. its the Companies who just Data Mine the whole internet and feed there "AI" with it, its not the "Ai"s fault for what its beeing fed, as we established in the video already it doesnt know concepts such as ethic. so it will just accept happily anything your giving to it like a baby. Actually thats a good analogy, "AI" during training is like a baby leaning the basics of living, when "AI" is out its like a toddler that just keeps following learned patterns and combines new things together. So eventually we will get the "AI" equivalent of a child, where it understands some more of the things that separate it from true Intelligence and then we get the AI equivalent of a Human Adult, who understands not only "most" things they need in life but also why they are the way they are and is capable of adapting to new situations and expand on established patterns. Sorry for the rant, i just had to get it out of my system and hopefully for the first time without a negative or a lack of interest/care reaction. The whole Situation just sucks if your very passionate and looking forward to what will come in the future.

"Artificial Intelligence Isn't Real" ...Isn't that exactly what an AI trying to pass itself off as human *would* say?

4:44 I love how you say "in ACTUAL intelligence" simultaneously with the dropped pic of your cat. I'm picking up a strong hidden message here that your cat is more intelligent than A.I.

So... long story short its Virtual Intelligence (VI) from Mass Effect. Less having a real conversation with an EDE like construct, more navigating the Avina terminals for directions on the Citadel.

OK, so call it something like "Artificial Cleverness" instead then. Does it matter what we call it? It's still scary for its potential capacity to replace a lot of human jobs.

In the Chinese room example, the human inside doesn't understand Chinese, but the complete system consisting of the human and the books actually does understand Chinese! This is similar to how no individual ant understands how to build, defend, and maintain its entire nest, yet the colony as a whose does seem to act with unified intention. A human neuron isn't intelligent, but the entire brain is. Just because you can show that a part of a system is "stupid" doesn't mean that the system itself cannot be "intelligent". This is why we say that intelligence "emerges." The whole can be greater than the sum of its parts.

As someone that work with AI development, I don’t agree this video at all, example 4:59 when you describe how a human work you are also pretty much exactly describing how a modern AI neural network works, also the argument that an AI only knows because a human have established that information before hand, can be argued for humans as well, only reason you know anything is because other humans lived before you and taught you that information. And modern AI can absolutely infer new original information on its own . And don’t forget about emergent behavior, even if as system is built by simple components when scaled large enough it can express complex behavior that emerge by it self. You might say media overhype AI but honestly not really, AI will progress way faster then mores law.

As someone who work in IT, most of the people in my field don't consider it as "artificial intelligence". It is used as more of a marketing term and is more of complex algorithm in the form of machine learning. Useful tool, but we're still a long way away from true artificial intelligence.

About the chinese room experiment, I get its official argument is to say the person inside doing the algorithm doesn't understand chinese. But personally I interpret it as "isn't the algorithm itself the understanding part?" Aren't our brains big machines too? We can't tell our individual neurons understand anything after all. Anyway there is mind breaking phylosophy about consciousness out there. Otherwise, even if I don't agree with your reasoning, I get why it's annoying to see articles everywhere that claim "AI will take over the world". I still think this new kind of AI is a first step towards the so called "true intelligence/consciousness" though, even if there is still a long way to go.

When you are born, you spend few years of your life before you understand a human language. It's the equivalent to being exposed to chinese to me. You just start to pick up subconsiously until you develop the skill to speak your mother tongue. And connected to that, around the same time you start to understand your existence and abstract concepts (become conscious). So yes, machine learning isn't consious yet, but I wouldn't be so bold to say it surely wont be.

Some people were fooled by Joseph Weizenbaum's ELIZA (1966) and thought it was actually "intelligent", or at least close.

Adam, when your body will be turned into paperclips, you won't give a damn if the agent doing it is genuinely conscious..

THANK YOU, I've felt like I was going crazy with how much people were regurgitating this marketing scheme

Very strange that you equate sentience, with the ability to perfectly emulate sentience. An AI doesn’t actually have to be experiencing anything to be indistinguishable from a human. I’m not really sure what your were trying to say in this video.

0:50 Insert > here AI suppose to do they own Also AI : have flying movement like Mihaly Dumitru Margareta Corneliu Leopold Blanca Karol Aeon Ignatius Raphael Maria Niketas *A.* Shilage

I was waiting for this.

Adam, most of your videos are good, but this misses the mark, you seem to misunderstand what intelligence is. With the cat example, the only reason you or I can tell what a cat is, or that it's overweight, is because of our experiences and learning in the past that have formed those connections between neurons. An AI is essentially a computer trying to replicate that process, but doing so a lot faster and a lot more haphazardly. Sure, as a result of this haphazardness current AIs still miss the mark, but there is no evidence to say that AI won't ever be able to replicate human intelligence. After all, what makes the 'chemical computer' that is our brains any different to a silicon one? The misguided belief that consiousness is an immesuarable phenomenon unique to humanity? That's hilariously unscientific, and sounds a lot like what religion would say.

Open language models are just very good autocomplete

A significant number of people I meet also just spew out a series of outputs based on inputs, with no real understanding of what they are saying.

Ok, first of all, there was a recent paper published which gave evidence to the fact that language models trained for next token prediciton do actually learn meaning (Well, specifically the study set out to adress these hypotheses: LMs trained only to perform next token prediction on text are (H1) fundamentally limited to repeating the surface-level statistical correlations in their training corpora; and (H2) unable to assign meaning to the text that they consume and generate. and the team that worked on the paper said they see these two hypotheses as having been disproven through their work - I cant give links or YT will take the comment down, but search "Language models defy 'Stochastic Parrot' narrative, display semantic learning" and you will find a nice summary of the paper). So these transformers are actually able to assign meaning to the text they consume and generate, whats stopping this from leading to a fundamental understanding of the concepts that are represented in its training corpus (and of course just saying shallow semantic representations isn't going to cut it, their is evidence that they aren't just limited to repeating the surface level statistical correlations, so this can mean they may actually be able to exhibit deeper semantic understanding)? But also, you provide no actual evidence other than "It isn't AI because it can't do X", which isn't actually evidence but is a statement and you don't even give evidence to back up your claim, its basically saying "Just trust me bro". And I would argue that, yes, GPT-4 is not comprehending the same way we humans are comprehending information, however I wouldn't completely say that GPT-4 doesn't understand what it is doing, and fundamentally, we actually do not understand how and why the transformer architecture works so well (i.e. gpt-4 was able to score a 90% on the BAR exam, and if most of the questions weren't in it's dataset then how could it possibly of done so well, i just don't think shallow semantic representations would be nearly enough for that)

the thing is that at some point, whether ai is actually conscious or not, will not matter. Even if ai arent conscious (which i believe that ai never will be), the fact that we would not be able to differentiate them, would cause havoc among how we deal with ai regardless of whether we actually should or not, and we will probably end up dealing with them as if they were conscious, the fact of the matter being completely irrelevant.

Hey Adam have you seen that AI is training more and more on AI-generated data, which cuts it off from learning new information, and enshrines some typical AI-made errors without fixing them? Literally inbreeding x) .

The past year of videos have been really consistent and I like that, but the way the backgrounds sort of lag/go at 10fps is a little unnerving, sometimes. Stilol good content tho..

It's like that guy who slipped the word "quantum" into every sentence and everyone was like "what a genius!"

As a lawyer, the sentiment around AI has basically gone from "oh man are we gonna get replaced in 10 years?" to "another lawyer is being sanctioned because they used ChatGPT to write a brief and it citeda bunch of fake cases"