@Hellstormkj64 999 what does being famous have to do with it? Did Neil say he wouldn't let anyone interview him unless they are famous? Where did you get that from? I'm truly just curious. ☺
I absolutely share Larry Kings admiration of Neil DeGrasse Tyson! The guy is highly intelligent AND charismatic - a winning combination! He is the people’s champion of science education!
20:34 & 21:32 and after scenes are the most interesting also watch Up next(autoplay) We might be living in a higher dimension... but our senses can't tell yet
Yeah I'm not listening to a half an hour of 'I don't expend much energy criticizing politicians", a typical non-answer from Tyson, to get another typical non-answer from Tyson on if we are in a simulation.
@@grantfoster8833 I think the hologram is the computer and the computer is the hologram and we are the realization of it. I don't know if there is something beyond us, if there is then we are a simulation. If there is not, then we are all of what reality will ever be. I don't think we are a simulation in terms of some other possibly humanoid-like beings even perhaps with higher dimensional abilities (Einstein at least thought a 4th dimension was possible, to explain gravity) creating a reality for us that we are just automatons in. I think the real question is if we are in a deterministic system or if there is some kind of real randomizer - all randomizers we have now are pseudo, and I do not know of a natural real randomizer. Something that interests me that I cannot find any kind of study of, is disabling the error coding for "divide by zero error" in digital Boolean algebra 3 logic gates working on binary bits computers. Evidently when you disable the code, the computer actually tries to perform divide by zero and "succeeds" returning random results within some range. Could this be a true randomizer and proof that the entire system is not completely deterministic?
Jasin, are you from this world?? don't you see every day, around you, MEN, of all ages, with dyed hair?? either you are blind or very-very old and horribly prejudiced... Besides, is that all you have to say as a comment to this interview?? Wow!... And
"Neil DeGrasse joins us from Norway" I am so sorry that I did not have the opportunity to go to Trondheim and listen to him. He really is a true source of inspiration and such an educated man. He gives (us....) young people the urge to look for something more. Neil, you are one of the greatest and a true source of inspiration.
"Oh great programmer in your parents basement, I beseech thee, grant my consciousness program unfettered access to all of your .EXE files, so that I might bend the direction of this simulation to my will."
You can. Ever heard of chaos theory? Ever heard of chaos magick? Its why they cant ever tell the weather patterns with 100% accuracy. Small causes can end up causing large changes in the environment. You learn how to do it, you can make those small causes. From here, everything you said is right.
@@shaggystone6397 is it like the butterfly effect, or something lile that, where something so small can affect such large things to occur idk im not really sport
Thank you so much, Mr. King, to asking Mr.deGrasse Tyson why peanut butter is so good with jelly, that remember me as the most simple things in our lives could have lots of value.
AI does not care to kill off humans because AI does not see humans as a threat, because AI is not an organism that has natural survival instincts, AI simply does not understand the meaning of survival instinct, therefore the notion that AI would see humans as a threat of any kind is a flawed thought process to begin with, especially when survival instinct is something that is woven very deeply into the human consciousness as well.
Couldn't you argue that it's not about whether or not we're seen as a threat, but about whether or not we get in the way of an AI's instructions? If an AI is motivated enough by its programming, it may do whatever it takes; even if it may be harmful to us or the world, to get the task done. I would also argue that a human with the right motivation could program an AI with a powerful survival instinct, perhaps for some sort of military or disaster recovery scenario. All it takes is one albeit powerful AI to get outside of our control to spell disaster for any number of individuals.
Tyson argues in this video that if it were to get out of our hands, we could just "shoot it", or "pull the plug". Anyone with experience in penetration testing or even virtualization software will likely tell you that there is no "perfect sandbox" and that a sufficiently intelligent AI could be working on an exploit to circumvent and escape. Anything can be hacked given enough time and resources. Don't mean to say you're wrong, just that it's a very big and complex issue.
While I understand what AI is supposed to do the biggest thing is it's learning capacity and adaptability and the single greatest threat to Any and Everything is the HUMAN SPECIES, we are already obsolete.
tammra blaine I know I wish he would change his mind though! I think he would put a lot of focus on education for this country. Which is really what we need haha
@Dirk Knight You are a typical distractor, and don't give me an answer. Prove me that Neil is wrong in his vision, if you can, then you may call me delusional. You are funny, entertaining, and make me smile. Keep that up ;-)
you can't stop a rogue AI by shooting it or shutting it down. That's the whole point of the Red Button Problem. You won't know to turn it off until it knows how to stop you from doing so.
His point is that we don’t fully even understand our own consciousness in that replicating one that will “know how to stop us from stopping it” is very very fictional at this point. Once we understand our own brain and can even come close to replicating it, then I can see that kind of AI. But that is very far off and who knows how smart we”ll be by then...maybe enough to out smart our own smartest AI!
I'm not advocating against the need for AI safety research, it's still the most underrated part of the whole field, but believing a super intelligence is ever going to creep up on us and be our doom is very narrow minded. AI might make it possible for humans to dominate the world like never before, and that is a real issue, but to assume it's ever going to have a spontaneous drive to get rid of us is too unrealistic. It's by no mistake I'm saying a "spontaneous drive", the AI would have to develop this desire long long after surpassing our own level of intelligence, because we'd notice Alexa and Google Assistant started fucking with us in weird ways and we'd investigate and crush it as the bug it is long before it ever becomes dangerous. AI might very well be dangerous, but rogue AI is just plot for good sci-fi.
Forgot to make one point: if it's not a bug given to the AI by us, why would it spontaneously develop the desire to destroy us? Why would it even have spontaneity? If it's a problem of how we code it, we'll know of a deadly bug long before it's deadly. If it's a problem of AI deciding we're useless, there's too many assumptions of anthropomorphization to get to that point. AI might not have an intelligence ceiling, but to think it'll ever think like humans do is incredibly anthropocentric.
SandroRocchi I somewhat agree with you but the problem is that A.I is designed to be more advanced than us. It constantly learns, adjusts and the fear that people have is that due to this eventually it can take full control of itself. In the early process our coding is essential but what happens if the A.I figures out how it functions and can eventually rewrite it's code? If A.I learns everything we know and we're expecting it to discover more than what we know that can be dangerous if the wrong person has other motives or if something goes wrong. Me personally, I don't really like the idea of A.I unless it's purpose is clearly stated from the jump. When A.I is used for war, simple things that we can already do etc.. I'm against it but if it's for discovering things about our planet that we are yet to discover or health care something that makes sense I don't mind it.
The idea of living in a simulated world raises intriguing questions about reality and our place in it. If AI continues to evolve, it might one day play a significant role in deciphering these mysteries or even in creating simulations of its own. As we advance AI technology, it's crucial to consider its impact on global issues like climate change, as outlined in agreements such as the US Paris Agreement. With AI's potential to drive sustainability, how can we ensure it contributes positively to environmental goals?
I also appreciate how down to earth Tyson is also. I don't mean to generalize, but often people so ridiculously smart as he is. Even if they don't mean to be, can come off as condescending or talk in a way where they are a little self righteous. Or better yet, not all too personable. He's very personable, but also imo quite humble for being so brilliant. Often brilliant people can carry a huge ego to them or wear it on their sleeves. He doesn't do that and it makes him likeable. Or he talks in laymen terms so it's understandable to larry and rest of audience, but does it so naturally that it doesn't feel like he's doing it because us average folks can;t understand or it's because it's down to our level. But because that personable side and understanding it's more translatable and personable that way as well as it's easier for him to do, due to his down to earth personality despite being a genius.
Well, there is an argument against the "simulation" conjecture. It's called Occam's Razor which is an important part of science. The idea is that if you are looking for an explanation for something, you should look for the simplest one able to account for all the facts. The reason is that the more unnecessarily complex it gets, the less probable it is the actual explanation. Here's why: Sometimes laws or rules that a universe follows are actually constraints on what can happen. Put in too many (complicate it too much that way) and you can constrain your reality out of existence (your model can't explain your universe). Other times, you might make so many things possible, in trying to be able to explain everything, that the amount of significantly different universes your model allows may be so immensely huge that the probability that it actually corresponds to your universe is infinitely small. Even more, that idea is related to a part of Physics called Thermodynamics, which explains why when you mix, say, water and sugar, the dissolved sugar never -on it's own- separates from the water again to form solid sugar crystals: A "state" is where each molecule is, how it's oriented, and what it's doing (rotating quickly in this direction, this part vibrating slowly, going quickly towards the right...) When you give the water and sugar the freedom of mixing, it opens up so immensely more actually possible sugar mixed with water states than there are possible sugar separate from water states that there is simply no significant chance that by random motion and change the sugar and water will reach a "being separate" state again. A "too free" model of the Universe will not give you your universe, but rather one of a much larger group. The "simulation" explanation seems to me as one of the latter, because while a simulation (purportedly "our universe") has to be simpler than the actual universe in which it is made, else it would not be computable, here the "actual universe" in this scenario would be a free for all of anything. Furthermore, this idea shouldn't make you lose sleep because even if you were in a simulation, as long as all those to which we relate are in the same and we are all truly sentient (conscious) and mortal, our relationships are real and an abrupt end to the simulation would simply be our turn to die. Additionally, it is questionable we even need to be truly conscious, as Bhuddists see ourselves as machines made of smaller parts, and if the parts are not conscious, there is no reason to think the whole is, so we only experience the illusion of consciousness. And yet they live their lives. As a final measure, you might also want to apply the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" criterion -emphasis on "reasonable"-. Now, does that simulation idea hit you as reasonable, versus our understanding of a coherent, physical / chemical / biological law-"abiding" universe? Which brings us back to Occam's razor.
I find some strong contradiction between the acceptance of the simulation hypothesis and that of being skeptical before the idea of AI developing consciousness...
I don't. He is basically saying we have the power to stop computers and we would have an understanding of how they compute. Now if we are a simulation we wouldn't have the first clue or understand of the outside world that created us.
@@rueben44 I am not sure I get your point, meaning that I do not see the link between AI developing consciousness and us having the power to stop computers/understand how they compute. In my view the term "Artificial" is very relative as we conceive ourselves as "organic" and for some magic the only ones to have the gift of consciousness. But if we do actually have a creator and if the sim hypothesis is correct then to our creator we may be no different from AI and if you see where I am going here, it is quite logical that we too have the chance of running new simulated universes in which the charachters may develop consciousness. Based on this idea, I do not see why AI should not be able to develop consciousness.
25:10...As a kid, sometimes I would spit on an ant hill just for fun to watch how it would disrupt the ants and how long it took them to return to normal. That's what it feels like someone is doing to us! I've always thought we could be the creation for a thesis project of a young science major on higher level!
Neil deGrasse Tyson is right about questioning whether AI machines magically become conscious, let alone will have the ability to rewrite their own code and expanding it's own intelligence that way. In a lot of ways, it's kind of technically impossible without any kind of break through. It's not as simple as 'polishing an algorithm' as some will lead you to believe. As smart as Hawkings is, he seems fairly unaware of how making code write other code and improve upon existing code in a truly complex and current programming language is fairly difficult, even when you use an evolution driven learning algorithm (which is currently basically the only way we know to even do such a thing; ie. we don't know enough about how our brain works to emulate true learning or reasoning. what we have now is assisted learning and deep learning, which is basically a clever way of confusing ourselves, as all we're doing is training a database in less time than it would had we assigned them labels manually. It has it's purpose, especially in terms of recognising people or objects, but it is far from true 'intelligence').
You continue on with your way of summarily dismissing any chance of AI ever evolving beyond man's control. Most dangerous move is ignoring the possibilites of anything that could be a threat be it man or machine.
The brain is an area of neurophysiology activity. Neurophysiology activity consists of electrochemical reaction. Thus at any given time, the brain state is defined by a subset of electrochemical reactions, derived from a large set of possible reactions. Consider the phenomenon of a. conscious thought. As at any given time the brain physical state consists of a collection of electrochemical reactions (events), it can be inferred that they are collectively responsible for the conscious thought. This means that at least in part, simultaneous events are responsible for thought. In other words, thought creates a connection between simultaneous events. This is in contradiction to the consequences of special relativity, which states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light and thus excludes the possibility of connection between simultaneous events. Consider the memorizing of, say, the value 5. This would necessarily involve more than 1 point in space as, say, if it is assumed a single electron records 5 by taking a particular potential. Then it by itself cannot define (or know) 5, as its magnitude would be defined only with respect to another datum or event defined as a unit potential, thus involving at least 2 simultaneous events. Consider the experience of vision. While we focus our attention on an object of vision, we are still aware of a background and, thus, a whole collection of events. This would mean at least an equal collection of physical events in the brain are involved. Take the experience of listening to music. It would mean being aware of what went before. Like vision, it would probably mean that while our attention at any given time is focused at that point in time, it is aware of what went before and what is to follow. In other words, it spans the time axis. Many great composers have stated that they are able to hear their whole composition. Thus their acoustic experience is probably like the average person's visual experience. While focusing at a particular point in time of their composition, they are nevertheless aware of what went before and what is to come. The rest of the composition is like the background of a visual experience. Experiencing the composition in this way, they are able to traverse it in a similar fashion to which a painting is observed. In this sense, an average person in comparison can be seen as having tunnel hearing (like tunnel vision) when it comes to music, thus making it very difficult for him or her to reproduce or create new music. It can be seen that consciousness is a 4-D phenomenon. If it is a physically explainable phenomenon, such an explanation would involve EPR type effects and as such physical explanations at a quantum level will be involved. philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS
Hey Larry, how are ya? do you know the name of festival of music that you and Tayson was talking in the begining ? I have a rock band !! And we talk about stuff like this in our music...
I'm only partially into science because I feel like it only matters to a certain extent. There are more important things to be devoted to but science is interesting sure.
@@Soupydragon Well I mean everything has its importance to each individual. I guess my main concern in life isn't creating AI or finding a planet with life on it. I think the most important aspect of science might actually be biology so we can cure certain sicknesses, but even that is almost redundant because new illnesses will always appear as bacteria grow stronger. Next, I would say psychology is the most important science (Because humans are extremely chaotic and impact the planet in all sorts of ways, even Neil said there's a certain breed of ignorance sweeping the nation) I guess my point is that there's a whole list of things that someone might want to focus on before talking about these topics, or keep these topics as a side note during their free time. The best thing that science ever told us is that we are killing the planet, like seriously destroying it, our most important goal should probably be reversing the effect we've had on it for the past thousand years.
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Look at vertical seaweed and shell fish farms to replace fish and help bring down C02. Also the seaweed can be turned into oil as well as being good to eat with omega 3, calcium et al.
@Great White it's not an "agenda" anymore than any mathematically derived scientific theory is. Also he isn't pushing it, he is musing on its possibility.
14:13 "They are assuming AI will become conscious. We don't even understand our own conscious" . True, but that's exactly the problem. We don't know, but we have it, so it's possible that we introduce consciousness in AI without knowing it or intending to. And yet that would have significant consequences regarding how we deal with AI. As in, do conscious robots have rights, and what are they ?
Exactly. I usually agree with everything Neil says, but he's knowledge of AI, machine learning and general computing doesn't seem to be great. First of all - we can't tell if an AI (a neural network in Neil's example) has thoughts of destroying humans, so by the time we found out, the AI could've already uploaded itself onto the Internet somehow, and now you have a huge problem. If you just run the AI locally (without an Internet connection), what could happen is the AI could try to mask it's hatred towards humans, and once an external drive is plugged into the computer it runs on, it could copy itself there - though this probably won't be able to happen since, in order for the AI to hate humans, it needs a source of information which would probably the Internet, so for it to develop in that way, it probably needs Internet, which in itself is bad. So AI should be kept very isolated from Internet and external drives, otherwise we could easily lose control over it (not even plugging the computer it runs on would work as Neil suggested) and who knows what happen.
As a journalist, and a science enthusiast, i must say, 4 years later, we lost 2 of the 3 beautiful persons this clip regards. You were an inspiration, Stephen Hawking and Larry King! Live long and prosper, reach out further than your table, as much as you can or may, Neil deGrasse Tyson. All the love from a romanian part of the pale blue dot, as seen today from perseverance rover on Mars! Godspeed!
Tundra14 I've had a thought of "our world" being a simulation since I've been young such as our world has been in something I would compare to a computer program even though we are "real" in our own mind our whole reality could be fake and that's why we only have a certain time in space that we can look to such as if you just started up a compter. The computer would have no memory of when it was off. And that's why I have a belief that our existence could be completely non real and just an illusion created by energy
This could be the golden age of astrophysics that inspires us all. I can not think of a better person who can carry Carl Sagan's torch better than NDT. We are witnessing great people like Michio Kaku, Bill Nye, Phil Plait and the list goes on and on. They all contribute incredibly. We are all witnesses greatness💪
![Neil deGrasse Tyson on Aliens, Mars & Why an Asteroid Might Flatten Earth [Full Interview]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PTqqiDQP02I/mqdefault.jpg)
25:10 title for the video, you’re welcome
thaintriguing1 THANK U
Thought that same thing. Lol. Surprised they put that as the title.
Thanks. I was looking for it
Thank you
Thank you
Larry was sharp as a razor blade all the way to the end.... He will be missed
Would kill for a Vsauce and Neil interview
@Hellstormkj64 999 if he can interview marques browlee then vsauce is up there
@Hellstormkj64 999 ummm marques bronlee 9.5mil sub and vsauce almost 15mil soo hows that dumb?
@Hellstormkj64 999 Didn't Neil do something with Vsauce3?
@Hellstormkj64 999 what does being famous have to do with it? Did Neil say he wouldn't let anyone interview him unless they are famous? Where did you get that from? I'm truly just curious. ☺
Neil already had one with Jake from Vsauce3
I absolutely share Larry Kings admiration of Neil DeGrasse Tyson! The guy is highly intelligent AND charismatic - a winning combination! He is the people’s champion of science education!
Larry king is so old , no one alive today has seen him when he was young.
I hear tell that he and Ruth Bader Ginsburg came over on the Mayflower together.
Threedog you heard correctly
He must have fantastic genes. He’s 108 years old without grey hair
@@Threedog1963 he has now passed away.
🤣
20:34 & 21:32 and after scenes are the most interesting also watch Up next(autoplay)
We might be living in a higher dimension... but our senses can't tell yet
Both these guys are legends. Great watch!
Get back to work Riven! Lol
@@mirahsan2 my bad! 😂😂
Yeah I'm not listening to a half an hour of 'I don't expend much energy criticizing politicians", a typical non-answer from Tyson, to get another typical non-answer from Tyson on if we are in a simulation.
@@johnphantom He gave his answers to those two topics. How would you answer those questions and why?
@@grantfoster8833 I think the hologram is the computer and the computer is the hologram and we are the realization of it. I don't know if there is something beyond us, if there is then we are a simulation. If there is not, then we are all of what reality will ever be. I don't think we are a simulation in terms of some other possibly humanoid-like beings even perhaps with higher dimensional abilities (Einstein at least thought a 4th dimension was possible, to explain gravity) creating a reality for us that we are just automatons in. I think the real question is if we are in a deterministic system or if there is some kind of real randomizer - all randomizers we have now are pseudo, and I do not know of a natural real randomizer. Something that interests me that I cannot find any kind of study of, is disabling the error coding for "divide by zero error" in digital Boolean algebra 3 logic gates working on binary bits computers. Evidently when you disable the code, the computer actually tries to perform divide by zero and "succeeds" returning random results within some range. Could this be a true randomizer and proof that the entire system is not completely deterministic?
I could listen to these commentaries, forever This is Absolutely excellent. It opens up so many avenues.
You cant help but love NDT, hes incredibly outspoken and likeable at the same time. His analogies are always on point too.
Yes, he's very eloquent. I like his confidence.
It's a joy and a wonder to listen to him :)
He’s an arrogant useless clump of cells
@@gregsmith5134
Wow you're everywhere bald guy.
Having a case of hair envy I see.
It's all good.
His curiosity, breadth of knowledge & enthusiasm is always infectious.
'All I am is a curious kid who happens to occupy an adult body, and when you do that you're a scientist'. Genius.
He Larry King got black hair again, I guess when you pass 200 it turns on you?????
Jasin Tairaidrissi it‘s from last year...
Probably the same brand Ronnie Raygun used...
He sucks the life of any person he interview.
No i just think we need a wide colorgamut HDR monitor to be able to see the white in his hair.
Jasin, are you from this world?? don't you see every day, around you, MEN, of all ages, with dyed hair?? either you are blind or very-very old and horribly prejudiced...
Besides, is that all you have to say as a comment to this interview??
Wow!...
And
Boy I love now he is able to communicate complex ideas in a simple way.
Einstein: "If you cant explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
CaptJohnny71 good quote 🙌🏼
@@captjohnny7131 yeah, great quote!
"Bringing the universe down to earth," 🙃
He speaks
23:45 - The name of the book is "Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming" by Paul Hawken.
Thank you so much, was looking for it.
thank you forever
Or perhaps one of these:
www.lomborg.com/publications
It’s always a joy to hear Tyson.
22:32 - _"I just got out-geeked"_ 😂
Neil asking Larry if a certain word was still hip was one of the funniest the I have ever heard
2:45
I don't know why, but that surprised look into the camera made me smile.
I cracked up too.
14:20 "Stop making so much sense!"... totally got me
"Neil DeGrasse joins us from Norway" I am so sorry that I did not have the opportunity to go to Trondheim and listen to him. He really is a true source of inspiration and such an educated man. He gives (us....) young people the urge to look for something more. Neil, you are one of the greatest and a true source of inspiration.
My true source of inspiration is GOD.
@@nathanpeterman2154 which one?
@@nathanpeterman2154Allah?
Neil degrasse Tyson wins science debates like Mike Tyson fights
Brio Brio they need to fuse to mike degrasse Tyson.Mike boxing 🥊 ability and Neil mind.
Alexander Palacio mike Tyson is actually very intelligent and aware
See Me 🤣😂
+See Me hahahahaha
Don't do the relationship to Tyson because he got his ass kicked all the time he fought the best of his era
I f**king love Neil deGrasse Tyson. An idol who shares many of my beliefs and just has such a good grasp on the most interesting things.
so when will we get another interview with this superstar? I saw 3 so far here and its such a pleasure to listen to
"Oh great programmer in your parents basement, I beseech thee, grant my consciousness program unfettered access to all of your .EXE files, so that I might bend the direction of this simulation to my will."
Stink Wrinkles in an alternate universe, probably
You can. Ever heard of chaos theory? Ever heard of chaos magick? Its why they cant ever tell the weather patterns with 100% accuracy. Small causes can end up causing large changes in the environment. You learn how to do it, you can make those small causes. From here, everything you said is right.
@@shaggystone6397 is it like the butterfly effect, or something lile that, where something so small can affect such large things to occur
idk im not really sport
@@shaggystone6397 but can you prove any of that?
King and Tyson pair so well. I am hooked!
What a coincidence, just yesterday I watched your other interviews with him. Thanks for another one!
it's not coincidence, youtube suggests videos to you based on what you watched previously
Oskar Göcmen I mean, that he posted new interview just after I watched the previous ones
Right there with you
I was hypnotized for 29 minutes and 40 seconds.
Thank you so much, Mr. King, to asking Mr.deGrasse Tyson why peanut butter is so good with jelly, that remember me as the most simple things in our lives could have lots of value.
I would love to smoke with Neil Degrasse Tyson.... and just listen
Wouldn't even need to smoke just sit there and he would wow you
Jacob Hayes I would like for him to smoke some gas ⛽️.... than talk about time travel 🧭..... 🤣🤣🤣
Ive taken magic mushrooms and watched his interviews and was blown away 🤯🤯🤯
Dani that would be epic 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼
I have a feeling no matter what,,,,,you wouldn't understand.
This was such a great and fun interview.
Okay I love the way he explained how peanut butter and jelly go together and the way both Larry and I just kinda- 😲 at the same time.
6:46, yall didn't hear that part. "America Inc"., which is im fact a corporation that we live in
DJ M.I.A. So you edited this comment, yet it still contains multiple grammatical errors? Hmmmm.
Causes me to take you less seriously, seeing as though you’re not too bright.
@@jasonmoore7223 way to add to the conversation Jason.
I enjoy watching these two talking to each other
AI does not care to kill off humans because AI does not see humans as a threat, because AI is not an organism that has natural survival instincts, AI simply does not understand the meaning of survival instinct, therefore the notion that AI would see humans as a threat of any kind is a flawed thought process to begin with, especially when survival instinct is something that is woven very deeply into the human consciousness as well.
Couldn't you argue that it's not about whether or not we're seen as a threat, but about whether or not we get in the way of an AI's instructions? If an AI is motivated enough by its programming, it may do whatever it takes; even if it may be harmful to us or the world, to get the task done. I would also argue that a human with the right motivation could program an AI with a powerful survival instinct, perhaps for some sort of military or disaster recovery scenario. All it takes is one albeit powerful AI to get outside of our control to spell disaster for any number of individuals.
Tyson argues in this video that if it were to get out of our hands, we could just "shoot it", or "pull the plug". Anyone with experience in penetration testing or even virtualization software will likely tell you that there is no "perfect sandbox" and that a sufficiently intelligent AI could be working on an exploit to circumvent and escape. Anything can be hacked given enough time and resources. Don't mean to say you're wrong, just that it's a very big and complex issue.
AI can only be stopped (unplugged) by Humans.
WE are the only threat.
Hence, "remove Humans to guarantee further existence".
u thinking about animal instinkt. stratigic thread is very much about intelligence
While I understand what AI is supposed to do the biggest thing is it's learning capacity and adaptability and the single greatest threat to Any and Everything is the HUMAN SPECIES, we are already obsolete.
What a great combination, Larry and Neil, producing a very interesting interview!
It hurts, finding out that Tyson was in Norway and I missed the opportunity to see him and listen to him :(
Can Neil DeGrasse Tyson please run for president?
Francine Arielle Even if he doesn't run we should all agree to write his name on the ballot.
He actually would be good at the job, he has a way of explaining things without ever offending any party.
He has said that he would never want to be president
tammra blaine I know I wish he would change his mind though! I think he would put a lot of focus on education for this country. Which is really what we need haha
This guy lies like a rug .What are you one of the idiot democrats .
God I love Larry King his facial reactions are priceless, and he's just good at what he does
a true legend
Man, I could listen to Larry and Neil all day. 😁
Neil your my DUDE!
Please stay on the scene and help bring science to the world
Lovely interview. High quality. We all live in a simulation (The universe) and we can do nothing about it. Feels completely true to me.
@Dirk Knight Prove me it's not true, Neil is crazy, and 'has a deteriorating mental state' ;-)
@Dirk Knight You are a typical distractor, and don't give me an answer. Prove me that Neil is wrong in his vision, if you can, then you may call me delusional. You are funny, entertaining, and make me smile. Keep that up ;-)
you can't stop a rogue AI by shooting it or shutting it down. That's the whole point of the Red Button Problem. You won't know to turn it off until it knows how to stop you from doing so.
His point is that we don’t fully even understand our own consciousness in that replicating one that will “know how to stop us from stopping it” is very very fictional at this point. Once we understand our own brain and can even come close to replicating it, then I can see that kind of AI. But that is very far off and who knows how smart we”ll be by then...maybe enough to out smart our own smartest AI!
I'm not advocating against the need for AI safety research, it's still the most underrated part of the whole field, but believing a super intelligence is ever going to creep up on us and be our doom is very narrow minded. AI might make it possible for humans to dominate the world like never before, and that is a real issue, but to assume it's ever going to have a spontaneous drive to get rid of us is too unrealistic. It's by no mistake I'm saying a "spontaneous drive", the AI would have to develop this desire long long after surpassing our own level of intelligence, because we'd notice Alexa and Google Assistant started fucking with us in weird ways and we'd investigate and crush it as the bug it is long before it ever becomes dangerous.
AI might very well be dangerous, but rogue AI is just plot for good sci-fi.
Forgot to make one point: if it's not a bug given to the AI by us, why would it spontaneously develop the desire to destroy us? Why would it even have spontaneity?
If it's a problem of how we code it, we'll know of a deadly bug long before it's deadly. If it's a problem of AI deciding we're useless, there's too many assumptions of anthropomorphization to get to that point. AI might not have an intelligence ceiling, but to think it'll ever think like humans do is incredibly anthropocentric.
None of it is mine. All these words were invented long before me and have been in use for longer than I've been alive.
SandroRocchi I somewhat agree with you but the problem is that A.I is designed to be more advanced than us. It constantly learns, adjusts and the fear that people have is that due to this eventually it can take full control of itself. In the early process our coding is essential but what happens if the A.I figures out how it functions and can eventually rewrite it's code? If A.I learns everything we know and we're expecting it to discover more than what we know that can be dangerous if the wrong person has other motives or if something goes wrong. Me personally, I don't really like the idea of A.I unless it's purpose is clearly stated from the jump. When A.I is used for war, simple things that we can already do etc.. I'm against it but if it's for discovering things about our planet that we are yet to discover or health care something that makes sense I don't mind it.
NGT: "I just got out-geeked in the moment." Gotta love that. Don't imagine it happens too often. That someone could actually out-geek him.
How can you watch this and not smile? Two great minds.
just binged all three of Neil interviews and sub'd to the channel. Can't wait for the fourth!
two of my very favorite men! GREAT, fun video, and yes, Neil, I will be ordering your new book. can't wait! ty for the video
The idea of living in a simulated world raises intriguing questions about reality and our place in it. If AI continues to evolve, it might one day play a significant role in deciphering these mysteries or even in creating simulations of its own. As we advance AI technology, it's crucial to consider its impact on global issues like climate change, as outlined in agreements such as the US Paris Agreement. With AI's potential to drive sustainability, how can we ensure it contributes positively to environmental goals?
Skip to 25:09 for the question about simulation
I also appreciate how down to earth Tyson is also. I don't mean to generalize, but often people so ridiculously smart as he is. Even if they don't mean to be, can come off as condescending or talk in a way where they are a little self righteous. Or better yet, not all too personable. He's very personable, but also imo quite humble for being so brilliant. Often brilliant people can carry a huge ego to them or wear it on their sleeves. He doesn't do that and it makes him likeable. Or he talks in laymen terms so it's understandable to larry and rest of audience, but does it so naturally that it doesn't feel like he's doing it because us average folks can;t understand or it's because it's down to our level. But because that personable side and understanding it's more translatable and personable that way as well as it's easier for him to do, due to his down to earth personality despite being a genius.
Why publish this in 2018 if it was actually published in 2017... getting me all excited & shi haha
Its called Timetravel
Why focus so much on it, just enjoy the video
Extradimensional travel
Ahaha yeah for sure
His next book the big one is out now. The fast version is the old from 2017
Well, there is an argument against the "simulation" conjecture. It's called Occam's Razor which is an important part of science. The idea is that if you are looking for an explanation for something, you should look for the simplest one able to account for all the facts. The reason is that the more unnecessarily complex it gets, the less probable it is the actual explanation. Here's why: Sometimes laws or rules that a universe follows are actually constraints on what can happen. Put in too many (complicate it too much that way) and you can constrain your reality out of existence (your model can't explain your universe). Other times, you might make so many things possible, in trying to be able to explain everything, that the amount of significantly different universes your model allows may be so immensely huge that the probability that it actually corresponds to your universe is infinitely small. Even more, that idea is related to a part of Physics called Thermodynamics, which explains why when you mix, say, water and sugar, the dissolved sugar never -on it's own- separates from the water again to form solid sugar crystals:
A "state" is where each molecule is, how it's oriented, and what it's doing (rotating quickly in this direction, this part vibrating slowly, going quickly towards the right...)
When you give the water and sugar the freedom of mixing, it opens up so immensely more actually possible sugar mixed with water states than there are possible sugar separate from water states that there is simply no significant chance that by random motion and change the sugar and water will reach a "being separate" state again.
A "too free" model of the Universe will not give you your universe, but rather one of a much larger group. The "simulation" explanation seems to me as one of the latter, because while a simulation (purportedly "our universe") has to be simpler than the actual universe in which it is made, else it would not be computable, here the "actual universe" in this scenario would be a free for all of anything.
Furthermore, this idea shouldn't make you lose sleep because even if you were in a simulation, as long as all those to which we relate are in the same and we are all truly sentient (conscious) and mortal, our relationships are real and an abrupt end to the simulation would simply be our turn to die. Additionally, it is questionable we even need to be truly conscious, as Bhuddists see ourselves as machines made of smaller parts, and if the parts are not conscious, there is no reason to think the whole is, so we only experience the illusion of consciousness. And yet they live their lives.
As a final measure, you might also want to apply the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" criterion -emphasis on "reasonable"-. Now, does that simulation idea hit you as reasonable, versus our understanding of a coherent, physical / chemical / biological law-"abiding" universe?
Which brings us back to Occam's razor.
LARRY KING AT HIS GREATEST MOMENTS WITH NEIL dEGrasse Tyson, how great !
After all I have learned in this video and all of the great questions asked and answered the PB&J was the best
i wish he was my Science teacher
He is
What a beautiful interview.
WHAT A WISE MAN!!! RESPECT!!!!
8:19 -28 Are those rats running back and forth and under the fence? (look mid-left on the screen)
Maggie Margaret It looks like someone’s reflection on the wet ground lol. I had to watch it 20 times to be sure😂
I find some strong contradiction between the acceptance of the simulation hypothesis and that of being skeptical before the idea of AI developing consciousness...
I don't. He is basically saying we have the power to stop computers and we would have an understanding of how they compute. Now if we are a simulation we wouldn't have the first clue or understand of the outside world that created us.
@@rueben44 I am not sure I get your point, meaning that I do not see the link between AI developing consciousness and us having the power to stop computers/understand how they compute. In my view the term "Artificial" is very relative as we conceive ourselves as "organic" and for some magic the only ones to have the gift of consciousness. But if we do actually have a creator and if the sim hypothesis is correct then to our creator we may be no different from AI and if you see where I am going here, it is quite logical that we too have the chance of running new simulated universes in which the charachters may develop consciousness. Based on this idea, I do not see why AI should not be able to develop consciousness.
@@videorizepreviews6590 I see your point
"All I am is a curious kid that happens to be in an adult body" You made me cry right there. Sooooooooooooo true. That is what science is all about.
25:10...As a kid, sometimes I would spit on an ant hill just for fun to watch how it would disrupt the ants and how long it took them to return to normal. That's what it feels like someone is doing to us! I've always thought we could be the creation for a thesis project of a young science major on higher level!
I agree!
PB&j was awesome! So funny and deep and meaningful at the same time, well done.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is right about questioning whether AI machines magically become conscious, let alone will have the ability to rewrite their own code and expanding it's own intelligence that way. In a lot of ways, it's kind of technically impossible without any kind of break through. It's not as simple as 'polishing an algorithm' as some will lead you to believe. As smart as Hawkings is, he seems fairly unaware of how making code write other code and improve upon existing code in a truly complex and current programming language is fairly difficult, even when you use an evolution driven learning algorithm (which is currently basically the only way we know to even do such a thing; ie. we don't know enough about how our brain works to emulate true learning or reasoning. what we have now is assisted learning and deep learning, which is basically a clever way of confusing ourselves, as all we're doing is training a database in less time than it would had we assigned them labels manually. It has it's purpose, especially in terms of recognising people or objects, but it is far from true 'intelligence').
You continue on with your way of summarily dismissing any chance of AI ever evolving beyond man's control. Most dangerous move is ignoring the possibilites of anything that could be a threat be it man or machine.
I have five "clocks" including a watch and still never know what time it is.
The brain is an area of neurophysiology activity. Neurophysiology activity consists of electrochemical reaction. Thus at any given time, the brain state is defined by a subset of electrochemical reactions, derived from a large set of possible reactions. Consider the phenomenon of a. conscious thought. As at any given time the brain physical state consists of a collection of electrochemical reactions (events), it can be inferred that they are collectively responsible for the conscious thought. This means that at least in part, simultaneous events are responsible for thought. In other words, thought creates a connection between simultaneous events. This is in contradiction to the consequences of special relativity, which states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light and thus excludes the possibility of connection between simultaneous events. Consider the memorizing of, say, the value 5. This would necessarily involve more than 1 point in space as, say, if it is assumed a single electron records 5 by taking a particular potential. Then it by itself cannot define (or know) 5, as its magnitude would be defined only with respect to another datum or event defined as a unit potential, thus involving at least 2 simultaneous events. Consider the experience of vision. While we focus our attention on an object of vision, we are still aware of a background and, thus, a whole collection of events. This would mean at least an equal collection of physical events in the brain are involved.
Take the experience of listening to music. It would mean being aware of what went before. Like vision, it would probably mean that while our attention at any given time is focused at that point in time, it is aware of what went before and what is to follow. In other words, it spans the time axis. Many great composers have stated that they are able to hear their whole composition. Thus their acoustic experience is probably like the average person's visual experience. While focusing at a particular point in time of their composition, they are nevertheless aware of what went before and what is to come. The rest of the composition is like the background of a visual experience. Experiencing the composition in this way, they are able to traverse it in a similar fashion to which a painting is observed. In this sense, an average person in comparison can be seen as having tunnel hearing (like tunnel vision) when it comes to music, thus making it very difficult for him or her to reproduce or create new music. It can be seen that consciousness is a 4-D phenomenon. If it is a physically explainable phenomenon, such an explanation would involve EPR type effects and as such physical explanations at a quantum level will be involved.
philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS
Amazing interview!
such a great mind, he's always amazing
23:47 Does anybody know which book he is referring to?
7:10 Neil's secret talent should be considered a magician as he has magically tied his watch around both arms....amazing.
???
"A physicist turned chef"! Wow I would really love to hear more about this person
Lol. Neil deGrasse Tyson is awesome. I wanna be like him. He says things how they are.
Hey Larry, how are ya?
do you know the name of festival of music that you and Tayson was talking in the begining ? I have a rock band !! And we talk about stuff like this in our music...
Science shouldn't be a fringe interest
It is not...but so few people have truly curious minds...I get that. Most of us that do are tortured souls.
A frindge interest that gets 100 people a day asking a scientist for an autograph.
I'm only partially into science because I feel like it only matters to a certain extent. There are more important things to be devoted to but science is interesting sure.
@@myopiniondoesntmatterbut6988 May I ask what you mean by more important
@@Soupydragon Well I mean everything has its importance to each individual. I guess my main concern in life isn't creating AI or finding a planet with life on it. I think the most important aspect of science might actually be biology so we can cure certain sicknesses, but even that is almost redundant because new illnesses will always appear as bacteria grow stronger. Next, I would say psychology is the most important science (Because humans are extremely chaotic and impact the planet in all sorts of ways, even Neil said there's a certain breed of ignorance sweeping the nation) I guess my point is that there's a whole list of things that someone might want to focus on before talking about these topics, or keep these topics as a side note during their free time. The best thing that science ever told us is that we are killing the planet, like seriously destroying it, our most important goal should probably be reversing the effect we've had on it for the past thousand years.
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Look at vertical seaweed and shell fish farms to replace fish and help bring down C02. Also the seaweed can be turned into oil as well as being good to eat with omega 3, calcium et al.
the millenium begin
Neil deGrasse Tyson is so cool, and personable !! I admire hime so much and am so PROUD of his Brain and Knowledge
Tyson is the only smart man in America according to him.what an egocentric fool.I do not bow to any man.
I wish King & Tyson had a weekly podcast together...
12:00 for artificial intelligence. Not the answer I expected
Awesome conversation between these two
Hey Neil.. you just justified a god with science.
I could watch this for hours!!
I don't understand how some people hate Neil.
There are people who can hate anyone and anything, mostly because of envy, feeling of unimportance or just stupidity.
@@f1oRlicious
You just described trump!!
@Great White it's not an "agenda" anymore than any mathematically derived scientific theory is. Also he isn't pushing it, he is musing on its possibility.
@Great White it's in a spreadsheet.
@Great White where's the evidence that is a scientific agenda?
was this recorded before steven hawking passed away?
Neil u need to watch the old Star Trek...episode: Ultimate computer....they thought they could just "turn it off" too.
What a pleasant time together !
14:20 King to Tyson: "Stop making so much sense" :)
Give me the "much sense" part.
@@2fast2block go to school. Get an education. After that, you won't have to ask such a question.
3:50 "right now"? When was this recorded?
NightCrawller In description
Birdofplay60a he was passed away few months back.
NightCrawller The description says (Published July *2017*
2 seconds to heat a pizza?
I'm off to Venus.
12345DJay 😂
Trondheim, my love, beautiful city, amazing landscape, walking in the snow covered highlands in winter, ... Nidaros (Trondheim) my love.
He visited my school 🏫 when I was younger that is why his face look familiar
14:13 "They are assuming AI will become conscious. We don't even understand our own conscious" . True, but that's exactly the problem. We don't know, but we have it, so it's possible that we introduce consciousness in AI without knowing it or intending to. And yet that would have significant consequences regarding how we deal with AI. As in, do conscious robots have rights, and what are they ?
Exactly. I usually agree with everything Neil says, but he's knowledge of AI, machine learning and general computing doesn't seem to be great. First of all - we can't tell if an AI (a neural network in Neil's example) has thoughts of destroying humans, so by the time we found out, the AI could've already uploaded itself onto the Internet somehow, and now you have a huge problem. If you just run the AI locally (without an Internet connection), what could happen is the AI could try to mask it's hatred towards humans, and once an external drive is plugged into the computer it runs on, it could copy itself there - though this probably won't be able to happen since, in order for the AI to hate humans, it needs a source of information which would probably the Internet, so for it to develop in that way, it probably needs Internet, which in itself is bad. So AI should be kept very isolated from Internet and external drives, otherwise we could easily lose control over it (not even plugging the computer it runs on would work as Neil suggested) and who knows what happen.
25:10 “I find it hard to argue against that possibility [that we’re in a simulation].”
14:11 Makes a great argument against it
I don't see how that's a great argument.
What if our programmers created laws where we don't understand our consciousness yet.
@@JohnDoe-zt3wr what if this simulation theory is a joke they made so they can laugh later with the fact how dumb people can be xD
As a journalist, and a science enthusiast, i must say, 4 years later, we lost 2 of the 3 beautiful persons this clip regards. You were an inspiration, Stephen Hawking and Larry King! Live long and prosper, reach out further than your table, as much as you can or may, Neil deGrasse Tyson. All the love from a romanian part of the pale blue dot, as seen today from perseverance rover on Mars! Godspeed!
Neil is an amazing person from all I've seen & heard of him online, on tv, etc. Just awesome!
he is funny, intelligent, easy going and not angry
If we are in a simulated reality, it's still part of reality.
I could argue this. But I'm a unique individual.
If I'm not, I don't know it.
Your wording is treacherous
Tundra14 I've had a thought of "our world" being a simulation since I've been young such as our world has been in something I would compare to a computer program even though we are "real" in our own mind our whole reality could be fake and that's why we only have a certain time in space that we can look to such as if you just started up a compter. The computer would have no memory of when it was off. And that's why I have a belief that our existence could be completely non real and just an illusion created by energy
Tundra14 ur gay
@@isaacesmoil4084 An illusion created by energy? Don't you think this is a little vague?
Dang keep working Larry, definitely motivating to see as a young man in America. Best of wishes.
Living Like Larry #LLL
"We don't even understand our OWN consciousness!" Lol that's true 🤦🏾♂️🤷🏾♂️😂
"And that is the meaning of life" That made me laugh😂...
Amazing interview, love this🥰🤗
22:35 Damn Larry a savage 😂
This could be the golden age of astrophysics that inspires us all. I can not think of a better person who can carry Carl Sagan's torch better than NDT. We are witnessing great people like Michio Kaku, Bill Nye, Phil Plait and the list goes on and on. They all contribute incredibly. We are all witnesses greatness💪
Manny bill nye is a narcissist honestly. He's a mechanical engineer that thinks he's a god
Cody Harris totally!! Bill Nye might as well be a vacuum salesman;
Larry king makes me feel sleepy.
🤣😂🤣😂🤣 it's so weird.
Wonderful. I appreciate this.