Stephen Fry describing our future with artificial intelligence and robots 

And he didn't

And box, these days, also means something different, and Pandora just happens to be female.

Van Dis is the best ‘host’… don’t forget.

Yet he has no education when it comes to AI.... but he is being taken as an authority. Odd.

@@haidengeary8277 Cambridge University teaches the ability to communicate and reason.

@@haidengeary8277 He isn't considered an authority in the science or the maths behind AI. He is well regarded for his thoughts on the ethics, morals and philosophy around the technology. He doesn't need to be a Black belt Mathematician or CS expert to play that role. An understanding of its implication is enough. Mr Fry seems to have that.

Haiden Geary i dont think hes made any exorbitant claims. nothing that a large part of computer scientists would likely agree with him on.

@@felixpotter6420 He displayed foolishness by saying that humans weren't created, he's saying that humans are god-like for creating robots yet we couldn't possibly be the result of creation despite being infinitely more complex and beautiful than machines?

Fry is not free-thinking, he's free of thinking. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.

Your completely misunderstanding how science works. It is not a be all and end all like your religion. This is the major fallacy religious thinkers make. All of science indeed could be wrong or in error somehow, its constantly updating and changing as we change. You insert your beliefs in without real concrete reason then try to work them out, but insist they must be right by trying to disprove "science"

@@2fast2block There's no troll like a self-deluded religious troll !

Exactly. If the op reads what scientific principles are they would understand their statement makes no sense!

@@2fast2block To accuse him of not thinking is moronic. Your brainwashing is complete. How depressing.

It's pretty scary! I hope they are never given "fire".

Call me a pessimist but I don't see it as an argument against anything, more a very well reasoned guess as to what can happen. And if it does, so be it. It seems inevitable.

It's Fry that is mindless. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.

​@@2fast2block It is you who are mindless by invoking the "God of the gaps" argument! Even advanced theologians say that's a weak argument, and it's not only flawed logically, but empirically as well. All of what you just described doesn't point to anything other than: "we don't know yet" - naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena always remain possible, especially in the future where research may uncover more information. "Do yourself and your faith the honor of saying it's faith. Don't say it's science-based - you won't get away with it!" ~Christopher Hitchens

@@iceape7 "Even advanced theologians say that's a weak argument, and it's not only flawed logically, but empirically as well." And it's weak by your evidence of... "we don't know yet" We KNOW those laws and have NO doubts about them, BUT...we really don't know those laws somehow. We don't know 2 + 2 = 4 even though we know it for sure. And you know things by not knowing yet. I have a weak argument by you not knowing how. Do tell this time what we don't know and why we should doubt those laws. Then when done with that, also throw in how we can get laws of nature without a Lawgiver. In others, give me a laugh since you're just a joke.

@@2fast2block No, it's weak, because theists' arguments for the existence of God are weakened every time scientists fill the "gaps" with real knowledge. Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn't understand (and now we do understand). If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem. "We KNOW those laws (...) BUT...we really don't know those laws somehow" How is that even a sentence!?. Just because YOU don't know about them, doesn't mean that other people don't. I never claimed to KNOW anything - you do, by your affirmation of faith! "Do tell this time what we don't know and why we should doubt those laws" How can I tell what you (or anyone else) don't know? Well, it would seem you don't know the first thing about science, based on your "arguments" (if they even can be called that...). If you have a good REASON to doubt the laws, then go ahead, but YOU DON'T. "how we can get laws of nature without a Lawgiver?" - because there is no compelling evidence for its existence, and the laws work by themselves anyway. A quote from Richard Feynman this time explains it best: "God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time - life and death - stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out."

@@2fast2block From the fact that the world exists and scientific methods of investigation are successful, in no way follows that the world is the work of God. The laws of nature are relationships that are derived from the very properties inherent to objects themselves; they are not some higher layer of reality on top of the objects that leads the objects to behave in a certain way. That is, the laws of nature are what they are because the things whose behavior they describe are what they are. It must be said that the world is an extraordinary, special reality that is difficult for us to comprehend. It is very possible that in its constantly changing form the world has existed forever, even before the so-called Big Bang. But the conviction that everything must have its cause can be applied at most to objects existing within the world, and not to the world as a whole. The world has the features of an indestructible reality, existing forever, self-existent, not created by anyone. However, today there is no sufficiently justified scientific theory answering the question of why and how the world came into being, or whether it exists in some form eternally. What then? One should honestly say "I don't know". There is no point in repeating ancient myths that the world or anything else owes its existence to God. The belief that the world is the result of God's design, God's plan, lacks justification that can be acknowledged without compromising the human capacity to think.

He's a loser who does not care about evidence. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.

Get a room

"it's incredible what you can learn from smart people when you let them talk.". That has to be one the most amazing statements I have ever read. I just wish more people could read this.

@@dombyfraser I read it and see Fry for the empty person he is. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.

i think he is brilliant too but come on. He hasnt displayed anything here other than a basic reading of greek mythology. Its not his knowledge thats impressive but how articulate he is.

Akram Choudhary if you’d like to dig deeper he has written two books on Greek mythology « Mythos » and « Heroes » which I have read since and are far from basic, although self admittedly written as a non-expert in the genre. Again just atrociously humble.

@@xsuploader What he demonstrates is much more and much deeper than simply knowledge. He demonstrates how to use knowledge for finding interconnections, tying up seemingly loose facts and thus to make amazing conclusions. That is the mind of a genius.

Adrien, Fry is a loser. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.

@@xsuploaderwww

Joy L the

He is an extraordinarily perceptive human being of our time. I am glad to see what he has to say about anything.

@@coopernickerson370 He displayed foolishness by saying that humans weren't created, he's saying that humans are god-like for creating robots yet we couldn't possibly be the result of creation despite being infinitely more complex and beautiful than machines?

@@coopernickerson370 He's an empty mindless joke. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.

coughcoughsigh leave it to Stephen Fry to do that 😂

HAL. ; )

Why is that wierd?

I prefer Sam

I'm watching this now and then I looked at the date. 5 years! Stephen saw the future even then. I only learnt about chatgpt at the beginning of this year.

AI today is almost no different than AI 5 years ago. the technology of chatGBT has been around for a long time the only difference is that they made it widely accessible and easy to use

@@meyr1992 I think ChatGPT took everyone by surprise just a couple of months ago.

ChatGPT was launched in Nov 2022.

@@ksc743 that may be so, but it went from relative obscurity to 100M+ users very quickly this year, taking everyone by surprise (except yourself perhaps?)

Well said.

No, he represents a clueless joke. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.

@@2fast2block Everybody has different views. That's a hard fact. A lot of people (including me) view what Stephen Fry just said as very wise. Replying negatively to every single comment that praises him isn't going to change that. You have a different view? Fine. Just post a negative comment of your own and go away. No need to ruin people's mood.

It's needless tinkering as Box sounds better

Fry is a joke. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.

@@2fast2block Says the guy who believes in God, lmao..

@@FreakieFan so this is somehow a good comeback to you that got around the clear science I gave... "Says the guy who believes in God, lmao.." Fry would be proud of how you both chose to be losers.

@@2fast2block Mindless people hey? Kettle?

Fry is a loser. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.

lol ur so gay u love a man

He's simply a loser. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.

His friend Douglas Adams

@Conrad Wolf he talks about it somewhere, they went together but Douglas gotnjos first

Wow, did everybody else use Windows? ;-)

@@tjm3900 Maybe everyone else used MS-DOS? I don't know if there were any other computers or operating systems around back in the 80s and 90s ;)

No he wasn't. He may have been one of the first to possess an Apple Macintosh, but my college had an Apple II several years before the first Mac was released. Read Fry's piece in the Telegraph regarding his claim to be the 2nd in the UK to own a Mac. He himself admits that it is a dubious claim.

He's a clueless joke. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.

Hawking was a loser and Fry is too. Hard to believe people follow these misfits. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.

How do you feel now?

@@guyincognito8440 On this subject, I agree

Spot off. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.

Yep.

Thank you! That's a point I've been trying to make for years in discussions like these. It isn't that AIs _wouldn't necessarily_ want to destroy us, there would be absolutely _no reason_ for them to do so. Yet most people, when they think about this -- if they think about it at all -- think that if a machine were to become sentient, its first and most overriding impulse would be to destroy Humanity. But that doesn't follow at all. I as a human being am vastly superior to a garden rake, for example, and have no need for one; but that doesn't instill in me an implacable directive to destroy all garden rakes. But nobody thinks about that; it's more dramatic and thrilling -- and makes us feel more important -- to believe that robots would inevitably want to destroy us.

@@falcychead8198I blame movies like Terminator for making it a common belief that advanced AI will inevitably be "evil". It certainly could destroy us all, that's why we need to solve the Control/alignment problem, but it could also be the best thing we'll ever make.

But they might get rid of us because we are so destructive. It's hard to argue that the planet wouldn't be better off without us.

AI would not destroy us if we included Issac Asimov's three laws of robotics in the software. A machine is only as good or as bad as it is created.

I dont think so. I think powerful AI will EASILY overtake human intelligence within decades.

What people seem to forget in cases like this is the human factor.

Where does this quote fit in here? What is your point?

I'm pretty sure you made that quote up Charlie Morris

So silly and clueless. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.

@@2fast2block 🤣🤣🤣

Fry will be so pleased with everything you said AFTER the word 'God'.

Don't be. It's mainly Science Fiction. In "reality" we're *still* smart enough to make this little thing called an OFF switch! xD "Ah we're outmoded and irrelevant are we?" *CLICK* :3

@@mikejonesnoreally Thank you, I'm glad that I'm not the only one to see this option.

It may suit some people to create something that does not have an off switch; thinking they can control it but finding out too late that they can't.