I suppose it depends of what you want out of your interview, if you want just to get someone to talk as much as possible. Definitely. If you want to get some specific information, get to some important points, maybe challenge some opinions in detail. Then not at all lol
@@diegog1853 You get a lot of specific information about important points from Niel. That is not an issue. So if you are saying he gives you too much, then maybe. But he is going on there to talk.
@@Maximustard oh no, ppl shilling science and education, how horrible. This comment was brought to you by raid shadow legends. Like wtf is even the problem.
Nah that isnt "passion", just because you are passionate about smth doesnt mean you have the right to be this fucking unhinged. Hes a fucking r-*ard, he constantly interrupts everyone because he loves to smell his own farts and his ego makes him think hes on a way superior level than everyone else, he literally ignores what the other person is saying while acting extremely condescending like if the other person has the brain of a child compared to him
Isn't that what a good interview should be, i.e. the guest doing most the talking as long as he/she sticks to topic? Too many interviews are high jacked by the interviewer.
@@misterocain No, he is filibustering so the interviewer can't ask followup questions to challenge is ideas. I happen to agree with Neil's, perspective, but come on:)
What a time to be alive, having grown up with Alex and his channel. All of these guests, and the history his channel has; thus leaving his mark on this platform, and taking us for the ride. Which is quite remarkable.
Neil view on AI seem a bit naive. First there is no shifting goal posts, but mainly confusion about rapid evolution in the field AI. As impressive as all recent advancement seem, we are still talking about narrow AI which is in a sense is still a very elaborate calculator, a tool. The fear is about artificial General intelligence (AGI) and ultimately ASI. The concerns are that (1) We begin to see sparks of AGI (2) We do not understand how AI work any more than we understand our own brains, nor what constitutes consciousness, and likely will not be able to tell when or if AI passed the singularity threshold (3) there are a lot of incentives to developed AI, from the usual economic incentives to global power arm race, which may result in AGI created intentionally or unintentionally. (4) Contrary to Neil claim, we already building AI robots including in human form, form companionship to military application. (5) many AI systems are given autonomus functions and are able to collect information from the outside world not just the internet. (6) AI are being integrated into more and more system to deal with vast amount of data, arguably an AI integrated into something like Chinese extensive surveillance would be as close possible to omnipotence. (*) btw to expand on #3 even current narrow AI can exacerbate many problems on the internet (from your usual scams to disinformation, propaganda) and it becomes much more accessible, able to run by anyone on any laptop (lets see you turning that off) and without any safety measures. err.. I kinda runoff here no time to improve I am already in the tldr area sorry
Depends on your definition of humble lol. He might think he’s the most important human to ever exist while also knowing that human toil is insignificant when juxtaposed against the vastness of the universe.
Imagen inviting a person and than being surprised that person is himself. 1 Neil would not be invited if his personality wasn't so outspoken. 2 If you want to interrupt him you still can.
I think it's charming in a way Plus, he did respond to the host's questions. Just in a lengthy way that highlights possible trails of thought you could run the question down.
its honestly really refreshing and inspiring to hear someone talk so passionatly as neil does here- also i feel like neil is answering more the questions of the viewers rather than the questions of cosmic. hes just another listener like us rn hehe
Very serious experts are very concerned about existential risks from AI. You should interview Paul Christiano, former head of OpenAI's large language model team and current head of the Alignment Research Center. You could also interview Robert Miles (runs *the best* RU-vid channel on AI risk), Richard Ngo (on OpenAI's governance team), Ajeya Cotra (Senior Research Analyst at Open Philanthropy), or Kelsey Piper (journalist at Vox). They are all knowledgeable/expert enough to have very fruitful conversations about AI risk.
I'm no AI specialist but I think its pretty likely there's at least some reason to be concerned because it is genuinely very different from past technological revolutions. This is the first time we will have a highly generalized intelligence as opposed to something more specialized like a calculator or computer. Due to generalized, autonomous intelligence (or at least semi-autonomous initially) it definitely seems to be possible that programming it not to do something wont be enough once it reaches a certain point because it will probably be able to override anything and it will be far more intelligent in every way than anything that's ever lived on earth, making it very hard to predict what its capabilities, motivations, or intentions will be (if it goes on to develop any). AND it will be capable of increasing its own intelligence - to what level, who knows The ai threat is also easier to accidentally stumble into than something like nuclear annihilation because of the less-explicit danger, the exponential progression, and much greater unknowns involved as higher levels of complexity are reached. A nuclear apocalypse is also survivable by humans, the majority would just die off and a small population would live underground. On the other hand, just about nothing would be able to hide from a sufficiently advanced ai
Alex should try to interview someone like Robert Miles, who has been creating educational RU-vid videos about AI risks for years. Even appeared on Computerphile a couple times.
@@user-md3wm7vu1f Great points, I second pretty much everything you said. I'll add that scientists fail to predict how quickly technologies will advance -- all the time. A particularly stark example was Enrico Fermi thinking that a sustained nuclear fission reaction was 50 years off... just a few short years before he accomplished it himself. This is important because one way people assuage themselves and dismiss existential AI risks is by saying artificial general intelligence is "at least 50 years off," as though even that is enough time. I'll probably make a video about AI risk on my channel at some point.
One of the most difficult things about being human is realizing that we are both comically small, and one of the largest living things in the known universe. It's both. We are small, and we are big.
I've never seen Tyson give a good long-form interview. He tries to convey deep philosophical insights, while also seemingly making them up on the spot, and never allows for good back-and-forth dialogue.
To be fair this was an interview, you can clearly tell that this is not a debate format. Interviews are normally meant to extract information from the person you are interviewing
@@TheAxeter Much of the time, you will have noticed -- surely? -- that NGT most of the time refused to let Alex O'Connor finish his question before NGT was off and running with another windy soliloquy.
In ancient Greece they called this kind of people Sofistes. Half knowledgeable, self promoting. I never liked the guy and multiple times I ve heard inaccurate or just wrong things from his mouth. He is good at faking the scientist. But he is not one.
@@thomasthompson6378 yeah he definitely did, maybe he's just too excited, it seems to be a flaw of his but I'm not perfect either. I do appreciate that he didn't dodge the questions at all.
Absolutely true. And i don't think the "almost" is really needed... even if someone _knows_ about their lens/biases (which is quite rare IMO), there's not much they can actually do about it.
@@Firehazard159 Isn't the point of a podcast to have a 2 sided conversation? I'd find it more interesting if Neal engaged with Alex without being arogent and controlling
@j8acob1 @Firehazard159 @whoisandrewblack5679 @stevem83 One thing was said in these comments with which I agree: "I really like Neal and his insight is fascinating." The rest is gobbledygook (had to spellcheck that) Apart from entertainment, the intention of the interviewer is to challenge the guest. The degree to which the guest is threatening, "arogent" or controlling, is the failure of the interviewer. However, I think that Alex did just fine, because he seems to me, to be agnostic to the assertions.
I have a lot of respect for Neil and have seen him three times lecture on various topics. His perspective is certainly thought provoking. Enjoying the new format as well!
One of the things that occurs to me when it comes to world ending threats that I would like to see more discussion on, is how to deal with people who have ideas/perspectives that are different to your own. It seems to me the biggest issue is passionate people fighting first and asking questions second.
The beginning is amazing. He’s exactly right. This is why people who had a spiritual/curious start to this world always see the world beyond of themselves. You get a greater and deeper understanding of who we are and can be. To the greatest discoverers, innovators, spiritual leaders can’t be who they are without this level of insight. Humans have the power to see the world from outside themselves, and once we do our world will become better because of it.
24:49 Woah, he actually apologized for interrupting, and he does seem to be letting the interviewer speak for some time. I wonder if someone talked to him about his tendencies.
Alex is pushing his worry in the discussion even though Neil has stated numerous times that it is not the way he's looking at this. So I am not surprised that Neil reminds Alex about that.
I respect Neil a lot, he's dont a bunch of good education work. But damn man is it impossible to have a conversation with him. I never get to hear his thoughts or ideas beyond the surface level because he never lets ppl get there. Nice try Alex
@@peterm1240 neither are the 99% of the other interviewers are that he does. Thats not an excuse, Neil made a career off educating ppl who have no "science training". He should be able to do it.
@@peterm1240 This is largely supposed to be a philosophical/meta-discussion about science. They're not actually writing conjectures or theorems. Alex generally asked thought-provoking questions, although NDT never allowed the interview to move beyond a certain depth.
i think thats just his nature, some people are like that. it does not necessarily indicate narcissism and isnt necessarily rude or insulting, but in a podcast setting with very limited time it can be annoying
@@basedmase777 NGT tries to explain complex scientific Ideas in simple and comedic language that most people should understand. His answers seem low bar due to the fact that it's usually the level of those he is talking with. NGT is extremely confident and knows that when he is being interviewed that he "IS" the centre of attention.and the interview is about him and he generally conducts interviews on his terms. In otherwords he is controlling the agenda not the person asking him the questions. That confidence may come across as arrogance or narcissism but it's more likely his way of not getting tied up in pointless small talk.
He started with a very sensible "I am not an expert of AI, and I will not present myself as an expert", that made me think "Oh nice, maybe he will be more humble about this, and discuss the point carefully". Boys I was wrong. The part when he proposed "to just unplug it" if it went out of control was cringe worthy...
@@morbidmanmusic Lol, only positive commentary are allowed? Or are you trying to defend his ignorant position? Are you also convinced like Neil that you will always be able to just unplug an AI "because they need electricity"?
What's the point of interviewing a person if he doesn't talk through his point, that's just stupid cancellation culture, you are talking out of your emotion and you feel your fragile ego threatened by someone you have never talked to and doesn't even know you
@@DarthVaderfr its not an interview dummy. Its a podcast and a discussion first and foremost. Neil is unable to converse back and fourth and just completely runs over the pod allowing Alex like 2 or 3 words every now and then
I've always thought that Tyson had an unthoughtful view of vegetarianism and veganism. Alex would have been a great interviewer for that domain but we missed the boat for that conversation. But... such is the nature of things. People change.
I was thinking the same thing. Neil has such a misguided perspective about veganism, and it would have been perfect if Alex could have pushed him on it. Very disappointed.
When I opened up the video I was kind of expecting this to happen, unfortunately. I think Tyson is a person who sculpts his public profile a lot. He has learned from his twitter escapades and he doesn't want to get to deep into particular issues that he knows will make him unpopular. I think it's entirely possible this is because he genuinely wants to be a successful science communicator and in order to do that he needs to appeal as widely as possible. So he puts the spicy tweets in a secret file. However, I think he knows that there are certain issues he can just blabber on about without much consequence to his career (or perhaps with positive consequences to his career). I think veganism and many other social justice causes that are outside of the mainstream fall into that category, but perhaps one day he will have to either re-evaluate veganism or end up a disliked reactionary geezer. I don't think Tyson is an particularly strong anti-vegan force in popular culture, but of course it would be very nice to have him either stop what he's doing or have his mind changed and become a vegan advocate.
@@notme5744 yeah. I worked in PMA--Physics, Math, and Astronomy division--at Caltech and male astrophysicists are the worst. It made me glad I didn't pursue that career path.
@@jacobus57 That's strange that astrophysicists specifically would be worse than others. I can imagine most math based fields attracting a lot of competitive or even arrogant guys for obvious Testosterone based reasons, but it's weird that astrophysicists would be worse. Kind of funny though. It's a shame you left if that was something you were really interested in. What do you do instead?
I don't think he's arrogant or narcissistic, he's just a sort of radio personality in the way that he talks. I admire that he takes a scientific approach to understanding how groups think, choosing to see how people react to his thoughts on Twitter and adjusting, rather than saying that his opinion is A) true, or B) unwavering.
It's incredibly humble to be willing to adapt/learn like that, especially given his age and status. A lot of people have way too much pride to do anything of the sort.
I highly recommend the book "the emperors new mind" for anyone interested in A.I and consciousness. I'm only a few pages in tbh, but it's pretty amazing so far. Oh yeah, btw, Roger Penrose would be an amazing guest on your podcast!
@@charbelbejjani5541 my god i loved ENM read it like twice and now 'Shadows' is just sitting on some page on my desk because I sabotaged my attention span
I presume there was some lag in this conversation. The amount of interruption in a conversation increases dramatically as the delay between parties increases, because people don't stutter or stop as you start speaking. It's very tough interrupting people when there's lag, because it means you have to speak over them for twice as long before it causes them to stop talking.
I very much respect and admire Neil being that he was a huge influence on me growing up. His dissemination of scientific ideas and rhetoric inspired many people in my generation, just like Carl Sagan inspired him when he was growing up. However, regardless of accolades, he really is arrogant and stubborn, but understandably so. He is a person who will argue and debate until the cows come home no matter how incorrect or incongruent his logic may be.
yea when he said that it made me almost spit out water i laughed so hard. he is insanely egotistical, and apparently has no self awareness or sense of humor either.
@@TheAxeter Egotistical. I assume that's what you meant. He said astrophysicists are the MOST humble people. Keyword: most. Implies he thinks they are better than other people. Which is evident he believes that of himself at least.
I cracked up how the intro plays out. Alex starts posing the point and within seconds gets interrupted. Pretty much the expectation with Neil, but happened impressively fast. Great clip to pick for setting the mood of the interview. 🎉
@@morbidmanmusic I mean, it wasn't meant to add anything, I just noted an observation. Your comment adds little and that's absolutely not a problem in the slightest. Overall I enjoy listening to NDT, it's just that his style of communication is more suited to TED talks and presentations, not so much interviews/conversations. And that's absolutely fine too :) The internet is a serious place these days!
@@tschorsch I guess. It feels super polarising, all vs all, lol. Although I spend most of my time online learning for free so I won’t complain too loudly!
I loved it! One of my favorites you’ve done. Oh, I’ve watched you interview atheists, theists and philosophers. Was hoping you’d have NGT weigh in. You’ve earned my respect by not being as contentious as you some times can be. Next you should have someone talk about the history of spirituality in music - the oldest and most important of religions, to relate NGT’s thoughts on mathematics being the “language of the Universe.” Music is arguably the language of the universe, with math being the version humans came up with.
The most humble. We’re great at being humble. No ones as humble as us. It’s so impressive how humble we are. We should be worshipped for our amazing humility.
Him revealing people add value judgements through their perspective to what are essentially valueless facts is pretty obvious. It amazes me he had to learn that through twitter, it’s a great lesson but we’ve known it for at least 2000 years.
Cosmic Skeptic, Alex, and Dr. Tyson! Great conversation. At the quote, and talk of Cosmic Perspective I thought of the movie Enemy Mine. 2 warring species stuck on a planet. Shipwrecked. And it showed, as 'stories' always have, that once the ignorance is gone, so is the hatred. And as for self driving cars, we could put all roads underground. Animals and people saved. 👍💖💙🥰✌
Yep, maybe we should even stick the cars together to make these "megacars", where numerous people can fit, to solve traffic jams. Talk about killing 2 birds with one stone hehe. Elon musk should really adopt this idea I feel like. He is very smart with new technologies afterall.
I love Neil! And I'm sure he's a busy guy, but I really wished there was more space to breath in this interview. Alex, you did an amazing job and Neil was interesting as always :)
I have no idea why so many comments are attacking him. He interrupts a lot, but that's not really an issue if he's conversing with someone patient like Alex (kudos to Alex for remaining patient). He seems like delightful company.
@@nezar-6889 it's a hip new thing to hate on him. I used to listen to him more, but don't like his style that much anymore. He's still a nice guy and doesn't deserve the hate he's getting.
@@nezar-6889 I use to be a huge fan of Neil years ago when he was considered an educator and proponent of science. However, I listened to an interview years ago on a topic I'm pretty close to, and his off the cuff comments, and dismissive attitude toward an mere idea, seemed really unscientific. He hasn't spent a lick of time studying the topic, but had already concluded it was absurd. He was too invested in a certain conclusion, and went as far as to slander the reputation of others rather than reinforce his viewpoint with evidence. After that, it seemed like his career/attitude turned on a dime, and now we have a NDT who seems obsessed with his own celebrity. Such a shame... As I am writing this, he's saying "the end of the world is coming, come and join my cult", mocking others but unaware of the climate change campaigning he's done in his own career... The irony is strong with this guy...
@@nezar-6889 "so many comments are attacking him" why do you call it "attacking"? Commenting on the attributes you perceive to be negative isn't attacking. And I don't agree it isn't an issue with someone like Alex, to me it seemed Alex found it unpleasant, as most people would I think.
I love it when someone makes an observation that everyone knows but we just never think about it. It hides in plain sight. At 31:15 Tyson says AI only knows what's on the internet. I knew that, but it needed to be said! (And if AI gets as hateful as the internet, we are screwed.)
Technically, it's not _absolutely_ true... NdGT being able to discover that new piece of knowledge means that any "sufficiently-advanced" AI would be able to, as well.. Hopefully, we have Turing to thank for his insight that no automated system is able to "compute" everything, so even if the AI discovers that same info, it might very well be diluted into the ocean of other stuff it discovered over time. :-)
I'm a big fan of both these guys. How totally refreshing to hear intelligent conversation. Alex is among the best of interviewers because he knows how to ask good questions and then get out of the way of the answers. Neil is wonderful to listen to because he's always at the ready with a passionate cluster of enthusiastic arguments for remaining optimistic about the future. I could listen to these guys go on for hours more.
Gosh was that a fun and enjoyable ride. First time I got to see Neil in something longer than a short clip. Alex, as usual, in my opinion, got the very best of Neil in the way he always does with pure, exciting weapon grade respect for the person he's interviewing. AI is just the hottest topic for me at the moment. Extremely grateful for this dialogue.
I enjoy seeing and hearing Tyson talk.... He is very illustrative and exemplary in his speeches to enable even the most simple minded person understand complex stuff and i adore him for that.
"What is this AI thing that everyone fears? Is it a computer, in a room, that has control over every other computer in the world? ...Well, why would you grant it that access." Neil seems to not understand that a computer that is smarter than its creators will either be able to figure out how to gain whatever access it may desire on its own, or be able to convince or trick people, through its superior intelligence (whether through promises of better lives or through threats or lies), to grant that access to it.
Later he said, "[The AI] runs on electricity... [It's] not going to stop me from unplugging [it]." He's wrong about this too. Once an AI has access to its own programming, which is necessary for its self-improvement, it will be able to copy itself and proliferate itself through wireless means, probably through wifi signals or bluetooth, but it could also use its own hardware to create radio signals. If it is connected to the electrical grid, it can send signals through the grid itself, which itself could be instructions for replication. So if you are even thinking about "unplugging" it, it is already too late. Now one could try to completely isolate such a machine, but then, what good is it? So no engineer will be incentivised not to connect it to other systems, whch themselves are likely to have vulbnerabilities, such as the electrical grid. There will always be that black swan idea that the superintelligence thinks about that we do not.
You are giving biological needs to a toaster. Human feelings are a by-product of evolution, of our mortality and need to accumulate wealth. That said, when AGI will exist in the future, it would be a wise decision not to give it access to nukes. For now we just have LLMs, and they are not thinking agent, so they won't ever have "desires."
@@orangestapler8729 I think the point NGT was making was metaphorical. The suggestion of pulling the plug wasn't so much his lack of understanding more over that the developers of AI ensure that there is a plug to pull. Hence the comment "Why would you do that?" The implication being that those that develop AI must be aware of the risks and unless they are absolutely nuts they are not going to relinquish control to something that has the potential to outsmart them and end humanity.
@@Tjomsasen The distinction between a philosophical discussion and a technical discussion, is not the logic or reason that leads to a conclusion. The distinction is in the nature of the conclusion itself: a conclusion made from a technical discussion does not need to point to any kind of shift in our perspective, while a philosophical discussion often asks us to question our perspective. This does not mean a philosophical discussion is somehow "less rigorous" or not logical, on the contrary, a technical discussion does not demand from us any thinking at all: only calculating; albeit with an emphasis on improving precision.
I think part of what Neil wasn’t getting is that the idea of artificial intelligence is that part of the goal is for it to be a judgement making, and therefor decision making, entity. So when he says “who programmed it to do that, did it program itself?” The answer may LITERALLY be yes. Someone programmed it to learn from feedback and negative outcomes, then change its future decisions based on those lessons. It’s judgement is nowhere near as nuanced as ours YET. But the capabilities are growing by the day. Though, I also take issue with this sentiment that creating something superior to us would be bad. That’s ego talking. What is so valuable about being a flesh and blood human being? I think that’s our emotions and fears talking. If one day technology advances so far that we create living, thinking machines that are better than us at everything (smarter, stronger, more efficient, less prone to violence, won’t die of old age, can be restored after death in many cases, doesn’t need to consume other things to survive, the list goes on and on) isn’t that just humanity’s next step? If whatever monkeys we came from saw a smarter monkey and decided to end them out of fear, humanity, the most advanced life we are aware of, would never have existed. Why are we trying to stand in the way of what comes next? Because they won’t have meat bodies like us? Because they won’t have DNA like us? Our brains, our DNA, our digestive system, circulatory system, hormones, so on are just highly complex machines. A MASSIVELY complex system that self regulates. If we can make a better one, and it in turn, can make a better one than that, why stop the progress?
You raise an excellent point that part of our worries are the result of human ego. In the end, it all comes down to who the major decision makers are for the future of AI, and what they value. But the way you described AI learning by "feedback and negative outcome" scared me. It made me think of AI as a child who learns by navigating the outcomes and takes a lot of influence from the parents feedback, and I saw all of the beta testers as incompetent parents who could unknowingly sabotage how a certain AI model will make decisions later on. Would that analogy be relevant or should I stop worrying?😅
@@jt9300 the issue isn't so much that the beta testers/trainers are incompetent, but that it's extremely hard to predict the outcomes of a given set of goals, or even to pick the goals that correctly align with human values (which may itself not even be feasible, given the breadth of conflicting values). I'd recommend researching the "alignment problem". Robert Miles has some great videos on this topic.
You've forgotten about guardrails. Nuclear bombs appear now more like toys. Who is afraid of AI? Provided people like Elon Musk and Putin are not in control of AI, we'll be fine.
In addition to zooming out to a macro view, orienting the viewer at the center of the known universe; it is also possible to zoom in to a micro view, orienting the viewer at the circumference of the known universe; and how both methods of inquiry are complementary. AWESOME answer, Neil!
I can't help but notice NGT employing bravado more than what used to seem like genuine curiosity. It's like he's straining through his teeth to convince himself of his position. Not exactly the same guy I used to enjoy listening to from time to time.
@@holadonkey I didn't ask for your criticism, keep the cliche to yourself, you hypocrite. You saw the thumbnail, you shouldn't have clicked the video if you already thought that of Dr Tyson. I don't watch Alex's videos because I think he's wise, who the f*CK cares, I'm intrigued by his perspective on religion and faith and I watch Dr Tyson because I'm intrigued by his perspective on matters of the universe even if he sometimes interrupt the host, that's no reason for me to become a cliché. He's always overly excited, and clearly doesn't think himself better than anyone else. He even agreed to talk to Alex, a relatively small RU-vid channel. It's a good thing that his success is independent of obnoxious people such as yourself.
I think this kind of conversation is always a good thing. Having scientists perspective only makes a better and larger public debate. However, at the same time we have to recognize that politics is, by definition, the realm of situated issues. As soon as you look at the bigger cosmic picture human affaires disappears. So, a cosmic view cannot help us directely to make a better world. It might give us a new way of seeing things, but it is useless to act on a daily basis. So, using his same example, one could say that those astronauts on the surface of the moon could help each other and have a good and not a conflict relationship just until they (and I'm talking here about a community, not just two individuals) have to make decisions about their life in common.
I hope Alex gets to speak with the physicist/philosopher David Deutsch on his podcast. That would be such a fun conversation. Their intellects need to meet!
Some logical oversights from Neil off the top of my head: - If the tweet can be interpreted in multiple ways, then someone who disagrees with any of those ways is valid in criticizing it - no matter if their critique is solid or not. - If there are positive things that we're potentially missing about AI, then there might also be negative things that we're missing about AI. So don't paint too rosy of a picture. - Trying to wait for the public to mature to a point where they're able to handle the contents of a certain tweet/message without exposing them to said content to learn from doesn't work. - I find it odd that Neil says his biggest worry is the threat from asteroids and then follows it up by saying that the biggest impact we need to fear isn't big enough to be an extinction event. So, does he then think that there are no threats to humanity that are at level of an extinction event?
@@morbidmanmusic How do I prove the military is working on this? I'll take my smartphone down to the nearest research base and ask them to give me a tour. There isn't a single new technology that the military hasn't weaponized; we just don't learn about it till after the fact.
dang, this is a struggle to watch lol. Alex, sorry you didn't get much speaking time. It seems like you wanted to have a conversation, but Neil thought he was being interviewed for his book. Or, maybe he had a hard time hearing you on his end, or expected you to push back more aggressively to interject yourself.
my real oppinion - NDT is a good thinker and researcher, but not really built to debate and converse with, his strong suit is lectures and stand alone stuff
@@alden2205 The best thing to do is consider the situation from the victim's perspective, and then what is right will be obvious. Stay strong, man, the animals need you.
@@alden2205 It might be worth looking into what happens to the chickens from the hatcheries they get their eggs from. They all come from the same factory farms. And the trouble is it's still supporting an industry of animal abuse and perpetuating the idea that animals are here for our use which ultimately leads to factory farms as it's the most efficient way of producing them. With fish it's even worse. Don't you see the pain in their eyes whilst you're suffocating them to death? Surely if you're against animal suffering, to torture them to death for DHA that you can get from a supplement seems a bit, I dunno, against what you stand for?
I'm a fan of Neil, but was yelling at my phone (listening to the podcast) for you to mention AIs biggest current threat is all the misinformation! But I'm sure he'd have a snappy answer for that too.
Unfortunately, we do not have good arbiters to determine what is misinformation. Both sides of the political aisle are disseminating information that is not established fact, and both sides of the aisle have influence over the experts they use. Both sides have vested interests in promoting their own “truths,” but some of their interests appear to be rooted purely in power and wealth, and not necessarily in the good of humanity. Until we can remove political and monetary influence from things, we will always have misinformation.
@@InigoMontoya- I agree that misinformation comes from all sides and sources, but only one side has been proven to actively and knowingly pay hundreds of millions with the specific purpose of spreading misinformation.
70 million people voted for Trump without the assistance of AI. People spent 1,000's years burning witches before the machines AI runs on were even dreamt of. I don't know if requiring critical thinking skills as a condition for graduating from school would help. I'm sure lots of perfectly competent professionals - mechanics, programmers, doctors and the like - who could not function without dealing rationally with the physical world still voted for someone who said hundreds of times he was going to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it. Complete nonsense to anyone who knows anything about Mexican/US history or even human nature but not an issue for his voters.
Yes , we human beings really need to develop this Cosmic Perspective and observing the earth from space not seeing the earth divided up like in a political map would be awesome ! Astronauts who have gone out to space have reported this almost transcendent experience that holds hope for us as a species !
In the last part of the AI conversation it brought this to mind: AI is the type of tool that would be amazing at sorting through shitloads of extinction level asteroid threats and data so that we could actually intercept it. Stuff like this makes me think that responsible application easily outweighs the dangers.
I think you do not know all the dangers or you are a follower of longtermism. And even if the latter is true I still don’t really think you’d reach yoyr conclusion.
@@derAtze The problem there is that meteors and astrological data isn't alive, isn't sentient, and has no right to privacy. So yes, it's totally worth it to have AI tracking astrological phenomena to make sure it doesn't collide with earth or create some threat. If someone proposes to use AI to go through all our communications, that's going to be a big no, and hopefully people will be against it enough that anyone with that idea will be voted out as a warning to others. However... If it was a decision between my messages being read by a person or an AI, I'd rather have the AI do it. But the whole danger is not the AI itself, it's what idiot humans decide to do with it.
@@derAtze I don't think having AI analyze astrological data is a terrible means, but I can see humans using it in other questionable ways, promising a positive outcome that may not be worth the means. I still feel like AI will be an incredible tool, even though people may use it wrong. Really, I feel like it's not a question of "should we" or "shouldn't we", I feel like the evolution of AI is inevitable, just part of our progression. I feel like it will be necessary to get past certain plateaus in our technological advancement.
Whoa. Sympathetic, OG New Atheist listener here, and I just gotta say, NDT comes off as older, grumpier, and ever more get-off-my-lawn-ier than ever, which is saying something