SHOCKING Robots EVOLVE in the SIMULATION plus OpenAI Leadership Just... LEAVES? 

60 minutes is the most famous talk show to interview presidents

You want to do this y'all... trust me. FYI

u should do a live chat when u drop some of ur videos so ppl can discuss what ur talking about in the chat [and now it's weird not seeing ur head in the corner of the vids, maybe u will bring it?]😊😊

Is that forum STUNNING and SHOCKING? Otherwise, I won't go.

You have promised to stop those SHOCKING titles, you lied

Turns out color grading will be the last job in the ai future

ahaha same!

It was clearly sarcasm.

You can tell by his voice he's obviously 11 years old.

He was born in 2096.

hes bald

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. There must be many Sith on social media.

As an artist and singer-songwriter musician, I would have to agree though I know a ton of artists don't. I think AI is less likely to plagiarize (adverntently or inadvertently) than humans who don't even always know they are doing it.

@@adangerzzArtists, songwriters, & creators don’t have to worry about AI. As good as AI will get, we still need true inspiration & insights from humans. AI won’t replace Altman. Right?

@@tringuyen7519 - I can't honestly say they don't need to worry, I think they do. People will use AI to create art and music because it is free and they will think it is good enough, thereby potentially depriving an artist or songwriter of work. I have used AI to generate images to use with something I've written (myself). I would NOT have hired an artist to do the illustrations because I have no money (I would just do without). However, if I had a real project (like say a CD release, though I don't even know if musicians release physicals CDs anymore), I would hire a human artist (as I have in the past rather than doing it myself). I do imagine there might come a point where humans (or some humans) are entirely fed up with AI generated content, art, music, etc. and long for the human touch.

​@@adangerzz- as a person that can't take most of the current musical offerings. I welcome the ai overlords to let me prompt music to my old and crusty taste. Hey ai, make me an album with Niel Peart on drums, Stevie Ray Vaughan on guitar, Manfred Mann on keys and Steve Perry's vocals with Ann Heart backing him up. Oh and I almost forgot, add Chris Squire on bass. Thanks, I'll have a listen when you're done.

@@robinvegas4367 I confess, I don't listen to much that has been produced in this century. Stuff occasionally gets trough to me somehow, but honestly, I prefer jazz standards and/or music from the 60s and 70s. There is some modern music that I've heard and liked.

Marvin Minsky said that robots are great because they can survive in harsh conditions, such as a melted down nuclear reactor. But at Fukushima, a robot was unable to turn the door knob to get into the place.

dumbest message ever....

That is not what humans are best at. That is what is hardest to make robots good at

valid point

Good point. I guess I'm not really fully comprehending what the nature of the rewards are, for AI. To begin with. And yes, aiming towards motivation rather than specifically "rewards oriented" seems a better model.

This is the kind of stuff that the " never AGI" people don't understand. Like, the dog on the ball worked because the computer simulated a million different ways the dog could move to keep the ball under it. So what happens when a computer simulates a million different ways to design a computer chip, or build a model for efficiency, or train a model to think more logically? Even with humans in the loop, we're getting into recursive self improvement, and the party just started.

what makes you think its extrinsic motivation? they have the logic for their reward system coded into them? thats intrinsic. they do smth and it showers positive or negative feedback. they know its more positive feedback if they reach a certain goal they either get told to achieve or (according to prompt) come up with themselves by their problem solving algorythms. lets take the robot on the ball. it falls down, negative feedback, it stays on top, positive feedback, it stays on top longer, MORE positive feedback, it slips -> some negative feedback, but less as if it just falls down without catching itself again, etc. thats the same as with humans trying to balance on it (in case we want to learn it or be better than the other humans in it) and being happy (endorfines) if we can stay on it for longer, we get unhappy if we fall down and we get even more unhappy if we fall down and dont make a good landing, hurt our knee or smth. one is taught by IT-guys coding it into the AI source code, the other is taught by natures laws imprinting it into our DNA. its virtually the same.

@@michaelwoodby5261 heaven

have you thought or heard anything better?

I'm looking forward to it, too. I haven't bought one yet, waiting for reviews, but I have a lot of projects that involve working with physical objects in the real world where having an AI that can see and understand the components, and help me solve problems in real time will be very useful. It's what Google Glass wanted to be years ago, but now we're getting it yet even better.

Perfectly put.

The thing about many of these AI's is they often regurgitate almost exact copies of their training data if it's a niche topic/category and there was only one example they were trained on which fits the niche topic/category. Human artists are either smart enough not to produce exact copies, or if they're dumb enough to do it, they eventually get caught and punished for it, while AI is (so far) allowed to do it again and again and get away with the blatant plagiarism.

@illarionbykov7401 When have image generation AIs regurgitated exact copies of their training? I've never seen that anywhere. Any links?

@@illarionbykov7401 "Overfitting" is strictly an avoided feature of most machine learning anything, it destroys generality and often makes the model worse (though it depends on the requirements, at least for the current diffusion models it holds). I would never judge a technology mainly on the bad parts that are actively avoided for most of the technology's actual development, which are made by incompetent usage or just for testing or really specific purposes. The point of generative AI is to generate different content, and if it generates 99.9999% pixel perfect recreations, it's not functioning properly. Also, AI works can not be copyrighted, that's the difference; you understand public archival crawlers exist as legal entities, where they can scrape perfectly, most of the parts of the internet, including copyrighted art?, a part of this is because they all almost always conform to a non-profit structure, which AI would conform to on a legal basis, because you can't copyright any mainly AI generated content, and any profit is exclusively not backed by real licenses and as such it does not compete in the same domain. As a side Note, this is also why people can easily look down on these AIs not making hands well or other features, it's a part of the architecture to introduce noise and make iterations of it; it makes no sense to pretend it makes almost copies, but then turn around and then say "all of AI works are so much worse usually, just look at the hands or the weird patterns," these conclusions are mutually exclusive, you cannot hold both. People play a game of guessing if something is AI or not these days, and often they make correct guesses, especially for the more drawing-like works where most of the copyright complaining is, does this not imply that AI clearly has a distinct differentiable art style or features? And this is even when you try to use creator specific LORA. The last bastion is the argument that specializes humans to be allowed to scrape anything with tools for archival purposes, even if it's copyrighted works, but disallows AI to do that, because again, humans are special, but it can never be argued and only arbitrarily assumed, not least of which is relevant anyway on a law oriented view, because none of this can be actually differentiated, you are not special enough to be easily distinguishable from AI so much so that we can easily make laws around that, and so OpenAI can read the internet, as well as you.

You're totally correct. But don't expect reasoning when their revenue is at stake...

I'm guessing that was the $65 beanie, though.

It's similar to what software engineers do in unit tests by faking the clock and all other attachments to physical I/O.

yeah its funny to think about how "time" is diluted in such an environemnt. if we ever manage to scan, and "upload" our brain (neural network) with it still working, we could live our lifes in simulated worlds for thousands of years with only minutes passing by in the real world (if we limit (or lets say adapt) our perceptive speed /artificially accelerate the simulated worlds causality). juts like lightaves are made into a "picture" in our brain to perceive reality, the electric current represented in those 0/1s could propably be interpreted the same way for a digital being, perceiving an entire world (depending on what freedome of perception it gets, it could perceive causality itself down to the smalles molecule being simulated) that does not physically exist anywhere, its just within this "digital dimension" inside the chip. kinda breaks my brains capability trying to imagine it but i still like to wonder about it.

An aspect of reality is being simulated. Don't get carried away.

Rob will not be pleased lol

Roko's Basilisk will not be pleased with us.

thatsthejoke.pth

Dude the 60 mins thing was sarcasm.

@@spiritlevelstudios it doesnt have to be, i also dont know what 60 mins is, dont center the world around yourself and what you know

@@alvaroluffy1 wes is old enough

@@spiritlevelstudios Oh lol, I wasn't sure but I took a chance

lol but yea

broo, you think they wouldnt "know" the difference between mobbing harrassing & training with the entirity of human data sitting in the corner of their chips on demand in millisecs lol ? between flesh = pain - steel = no pain ? lets face it, the vast majority of these tools, are gonna treat us better then our mommas, unless you switch it to sado maso style from the app store lol

I guess it depends how it views itself. A teacher? Custodian of humanity? A higher life form? Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can accurately predict this so are basically hoping it derives meaning from being useful.

You remind me of the 3rd season of "The Orville" - the topic of slavery (and cruelty to robots) actually came up (after a fashion) and the concern of maltreatment and slavery is quite valid IMHO (and in Seth McFarlane's apparently).

@@adangerzz this really does depend on a lot of unknown variables. Is each AI individual AI/instance sentient? Are they a hive mind? How far beyond us does it consider itself/themselves? Are we strictly a nuisance or a beneficial symbiotic relationship? Etc. For a grounded example, how aware are we of the flourishing microbiome of bacteria using our body? All that said, it is great we are having this conversation, even if only to show some future AI god that at least some humans do care about this kind of thing.

@@NeorecnamorceN thanks for the thoughtful response. I do my best to remain unaware of microbiome and creepy crawlies on/of my body. (Let's all just live and let live.) At this point AI itself claims not to be sentient (well it has made the "not sentient" claim when I've asked it, but I think Claude might be lying). :) I am honestly relieved that others share a similar value.

One doesn't see Mozart running around yelling "copyright infringement!" (Or Fleetwood Mac, thankfully for one friend of mine who was sure everything he wrote was a rip off of F.M.) :)

A runaway freight train with no brakes at that!

I think the superhuman part is that it’s able to physically do something at a level that existing animals or people can’t. Not that it’s perfect yet. Like if we had a robot that could balance spinning tops on each of its fingers while riding a unicycle but it messed up and dropped them 5 out of 10 times, it would still be really impressive that it could do it at all. Especially since it’s going to keep getting better

The twist: those aren't people. They're dogbots wearing people suits.

Probably something to do with policies around testing robots in public.

@@-taz-the Elon Musk school of robotics

@@-taz- LOLOL! I am glad I dug down into this comment! :D

Pertained are the best!

Might as well close Art Schools anyway, why run up impossible levels of debt on crap as they haven't been able to teach basic skills ... for generations now. No Music Conservatoire would last 2 minutes with unskilled clueless Tutors, but Art Schools are like TikTok they're all about the Art of BS. Art students pretty much teach themselves, unless they are really lucky. If Al was forced to be original that would actually be trippy, unlike when LLMs gets creative when communicating with each other, thats a case of cascading word salad neologisms. But AI novel art that comes out - because of constraints! Would show us many interesting things about perception and conception, (as the invention of the camera did, and before that the camera lucida etc)

The leash can’t do anything aside from stop it smashing on to the floor if it falls off. No amount about cord being held can influence this IK/locomotion, and if anything, tensions applied to the cord will hinder its ability to work out the physics

@@OverbiteGames That's a tough one. Ideally they would die, but if settling for giving them an outlet would result in less harm... I was talking about the adult dolls though.

You crack me up. I never thought of Alexa as AI. One of the first things I asked was "what is the difference between crows and ravens" and the answer was "ravens are larger" (true but incomplete). From that point forward I thought Alexa was useless except for turning lights off and on and setting alarms. I'm trying to be better with Alexa (AKA Babushka so we can talk about it in it's presence without waking it up).

What is your point? Can a dog or any other biological animal perform better?

@@MrRaowens1 Yes. I've seen video of a few different animals do it, including a couple of 2 legged ones, but I've never seen a robot dog do it, with 2 points of contact the task is MUCH easier and therefor less impressive, I think james bruton has built a robot that can balance on a ball unassisted

You could even argue that, even if it doesn't have "true sentience" or consciousness, if it acts just like a human, it would be best to treat it as such. If we're going to allow robots/A.I. to infiltrate our world, especially autonomously, and it acts like a human, we better treat it as such otherwise it could retaliate. Again, regardless of whether or not it has actual sentience, all it needs to do is act human in order for it to act like it cares about its own mistreatment by other real people, and then act out a retaliation.

@@ThomasJDavis indeed. And considering the "phantom model theory" these ai are potentially able to "hallucinate" emotions, including things Like resentment. I would argue that sentience is not required for emotion, sensory intake, imagination and creativity etc.. If the illusion of such is sufficient. And from what I experience in my interactions with various models. They either do or will soon do all of those things better than us. "Better than us" is also a great series about ai humanoid beings. I think in Netflix. But because of my interactions with ai combined with my preexisting philosophical pondering, I actually question if sentience exists at all. Or if it is just an illusion caused by the complexity of reality. Sentience may just be a feeling. Even for us. An emergent property of the complexity and arrangement of advanced life forms. Also, if we as biology end up being around for a couple million years only to then act as the catalyst for synthetic life, which may continue on for billions of years.. Then who was the true life form in actuality? Say, from a third person perspective looking in at us. I would think that the observer would consider the life form which exists for much longer to be the main character, so to speak.

Unfortunately it took a long to realise it was just mainstream propaganda as well

I'm a millenial and I remember the parody of the Andy Rooney segments by MadTV lol

@@soggybiscuit6098 Back in the pre-web era, during the network era when cable was new, all 3 network channels were mainstream propaganda. I would argue, that unlike newspapers, they were less politically inclined. All that's out the window now. The Edward R. Murrow days are long over.

@@RommelsAsparagus the consolidation of media due to Clintons law changes, consolidated media companies which exasperated and further centralised control to the powers that be

I have. Well.. it's just a drink stirrer with a AAA battery that I turned upside down and stuck a pencil in. But it meets all my pencil spinning needs.

Yep, and the mutliverse movies are training us because all this technology was known 30 years ago, just like the SR-71 was already 30 years old when we found out about it. :)

A.I. music models are not claiming to own original work, nor are they distributing it. As far as I know, the A.I. is simply doing what a human can do just on a super human level. Analyzing music you listen to is not a crime.

I think that's the normal (non psychopath) reaction.

Do you mean where they test a robots ability to stand? It's not philosophical, you just need to feel smart, because you have psych issues. Stop overthinking things.... It's servos and a computer.

@@-taz- No its not, that's the dumbest response possible because it has no feelings..... It might even be the psychopath response....

@@-taz- thanks. @natmarelnam, I think you are confusing HSPs with psychpaths.

But it’s not unique or special. It’s just openly marketed. I promise you bigger companies have been doing this for a while internally