It is time for man to lay aside his irrational obsession with computer technology, and instead start studying the mind and the nature of consciousness. This study is infinitely more significant than quaint computers.
But what about _quant_ computers? ;D But for real, the answer is not to reject technology but to use it to study the mind and "the nature of consciousness".
there's two ways to freedom in the 21st century. one is return to nature, what I'd call the "Ted Kazinski" and the other is Julian Assange style, cypher punks. The assange style might work in societies that actually have functioning education systems, the US does not. Only 1/3 of the country has access to actual decent education. 2/3 of the country is functionally illiterate, how are they going to be cypher punks?
I really like this. We have improved our ability to collect data and indeed we are able to predict future events. The issue is that we collect data at a much faster peace than we digest it and understand the phenomena that these data represent. Lack of understanding and predictive ability don't go well together. They generate anxiety and a sense that our world lack humanity, it simply doesn't feel "home".
before he got to 3:09 about the A.I. giving sentences, i was just thinking about a show (anime) called PSYCHO PASS where they determine a crime coefficient for everyone, the scanners in the story are everwhere in convenient stores, malls, etc. and based on the crime coefficient, they decide loads of stuff like the whole city is run by their "sibyl system" as they call it. they put people in jail or therapy programmes before they even commit a crime. the anime is really good, 9/10 and the characters are people who enforce the sybil system and the main character is an investigator who has a clear psycho pass or "normal crime coefficient" no matter how stressful the situation is... highly recommended this anime
I just made a major discovery in three steps! * 1) This guy is way smarten than me 2) Smarter people know that they are smarter than me 3) Less smart people believe that they are smarter than me * Conclusion : I am the stupidest man alive (can't even count to four)
Very interesting. But "artificial intelligence" is not what people think it means. Like Noam Chomsky puts it with a question: "Does a submarine 'swim'? If you're not sure if a submarine swims, how can we say a machine 'thinks' or is 'intelligent'?" A computer is just a giant information processor, but people can't stop anthropomorphizing them.
Your argument is far too simplisitic, considering that machines make up a large part of the decisionmaking in our lives as we speak. Therefor the question isn't so much about how similar machine intelligence is to human intelligence (the one anthropomorphizing is actually you), but rather the fact that theyre actively delegated the role of coming up with solutions to human problems. It's not about the process but the fact that tech has more control over your life than you.
Brains are also information processors, if you train your software on racist data it becomes racist. Also never is a very strong word, but i think the true destruction of humanity will not come from not understanding neural net works in machines, it will come from understanding our on brains to a degree that we will become machines to each other.
You are assuming that humans are something _special_ lol. We could just as well just be a "giant information processor" and no doubt are in my mind. Consciousness might just be an illusive biproduct of that. To deny intelligence without understanding intelligence in one thing and then to immediately act like another thing is intelligent without understanding what intelligence is in general is foolish. I would also like to point out that human technology is inherently human as it was made by us. It is an extension of ourselves outside of our body.
James says two things that seem to contradict: (1). Don’t trust models. They are always insufficient. (2). At the start of the video it was clear that he believed in climate change. But climate change in the future can only be seen through models.
@@QuinnArgo go to around 2:40. There are two possibilities: (1) the discussion is a bit beyond you. His whole point is that despite copious amounts of data and models we cannot predict the world. (2) charitably, you rushed through the video and missed the salient points.
@@algoa456 I don't know how you're reading "don't trust models" into this. "The model is insufficient", sure, but insufficiency does not mean it holds no predictive power, it simply means there is information beyond scientific modeling that is also relevant to understanding a reality. This is not disbelief in the model, it is simply skepticism about a scientific model being able to fully encompass the different qualities created by a reality. Another misconception you are making is that this part isn't about "a model" per se but it is a point specifically about models created through mass aggregation of big data (which is the context given right before your 2:40 timestamp). So yes, James Bridle in this case can perfectly allow themselves to trust in the diverse set of models and theories we talk about as "climate change", because their criticism doesn't concern the totality of models, but specifically the faulty totalization of a specific data-collection oriented kind of model creation.
Data on itself is surely not enough, but we can know all that we wish to know. The problem however is not about the lack of data but our theories. Currently those which are most used, to interpret and make predictions with, are inadequate. We need to look for better theories.
In India for last 2500 years calculations to predict exact timings of ebb and flow of tides, rising and setting of Sun and moon, time of commencement of monsoon etc has been going on. But researchers never bother to find out what was happening outside Europe and falter in claiming that so and so person was the fish to use this method.
I became very interested in Bridle's thought and his book. However, it seems to be that these insights are to a very large extent already present in Heidegger's philosophy. I wonder if perhaps his work is being excluded in some academic circles given the personal and grave mistakes Heidegger commited in his political decisions. I think a lot can be gained from revisiting his works still.
In the book, Timothy Morton (who is a Heideggerian for what it's worth) is referenced to a good degree and clearly informs a lot of the thinking. So at least indirectly, Bridle's thought is related to Heidegger, though I'd also not be surprised to hear Bridle has read Heidegger themself.
Doubtful on "many". Shooting in the dark and hitting something every now and then, but also damaging a bunch of other things (institution, societal values, culture, etc) is incredibly crude and stupid. First, at least learn to think and understand the value of evidence before you start going on about how you like conspiracy theories. The video is definitely not saying they are a good thing, he's talking about how society tends to create conspiracy theories due to their need to rationalize or ground a complex world. That doesn't mean they are good, they are awful. What you should do is scientific investigation. Conspiracy theories are mostly just convenient ideas that usually fulfill the creator's or consumer's bias and have large gaps in information needed to support them.
Marx developed the theory of materialist dialectics that fundamentally fashioned mankind new eyes that gave a more profound manner to view the historic course of man.
Don’t think I’ll be buying the book on the strength of this video. Either it was very badly edited or this guy doesn’t seem to have anything very interesting or coherent to say.
prediction is one complex theory, it involves many aspects that need to be once again whittled down to get a solution that isn't set in stone, the time, complexity, how accurately its systems can be measured and the scale of the system. you cant say that a system based on bifurcation is chaos theory, we add the parameters and the computer does the large scale mathematics, it could be localised or world scale, we make the small scale changes and that isn't chaos theory. World scale changes do have some form of chaos, but we can work back and find where the error was and fix the bifurcation.
He's not really saying anything original and the western culture is to blame for everything trope is a tired cliche. Jean Baudrillard was miles ahead decades ago.
Sorry man. You’re clever and all but I wasn’t able to take this seriously after seeing those clown painted nails. I support style and art but save that stuff for your personal life or related scenarios.
It is time for man to lay aside his irrational obsession with computer technology, and instead start studying the mind and the nature of consciousness. This study is infinitely more significant than quaint computers.
In my point of view the only real path toward cultural enlightenment.
But what about _quant_ computers? ;D But for real, the answer is not to reject technology but to use it to study the mind and "the nature of consciousness".
there's two ways to freedom in the 21st century. one is return to nature, what I'd call the "Ted Kazinski" and the other is Julian Assange style, cypher punks. The assange style might work in societies that actually have functioning education systems, the US does not. Only 1/3 of the country has access to actual decent education. 2/3 of the country is functionally illiterate, how are they going to be cypher punks?
James is very clever. He is not just an artist, but an intelligent mind of our age.
Says u just look at ur name
He's a goober who cant even roll his Rs. "Im not a goobwah"
I really like this. We have improved our ability to collect data and indeed we are able to predict future events. The issue is that we collect data at a much faster peace than we digest it and understand the phenomena that these data represent. Lack of understanding and predictive ability don't go well together. They generate anxiety and a sense that our world lack humanity, it simply doesn't feel "home".
The machine maker knows the exact reason and order that machine made its decisions. This man's not correct.
the last few years, I have never felt at home. Miss the old days
before he got to 3:09 about the A.I. giving sentences, i was just thinking about a show (anime) called PSYCHO PASS where they determine a crime coefficient for everyone, the scanners in the story are everwhere in convenient stores, malls, etc. and based on the crime coefficient, they decide loads of stuff like the whole city is run by their "sibyl system" as they call it. they put people in jail or therapy programmes before they even commit a crime. the anime is really good, 9/10 and the characters are people who enforce the sybil system and the main character is an investigator who has a clear psycho pass or "normal crime coefficient" no matter how stressful the situation is... highly recommended this anime
I just made a major discovery in three steps!
*
1) This guy is way smarten than me
2) Smarter people know that they are smarter than me
3) Less smart people believe that they are smarter than me
*
Conclusion : I am the stupidest man alive
(can't even count to four)
onne to thuee for
Very interesting. But "artificial intelligence" is not what people think it means. Like Noam Chomsky puts it with a question: "Does a submarine 'swim'? If you're not sure if a submarine swims, how can we say a machine 'thinks' or is 'intelligent'?" A computer is just a giant information processor, but people can't stop anthropomorphizing them.
the81kid Yes!
Your argument is far too simplisitic, considering that machines make up a large part of the decisionmaking in our lives as we speak. Therefor the question isn't so much about how similar machine intelligence is to human intelligence (the one anthropomorphizing is actually you), but rather the fact that theyre actively delegated the role of coming up with solutions to human problems. It's not about the process but the fact that tech has more control over your life than you.
Brains are also information processors, if you train your software on racist data it becomes racist. Also never is a very strong word, but i think the true destruction of humanity will not come from not understanding neural net works in machines, it will come from understanding our on brains to a degree that we will become machines to each other.
You are assuming that humans are something _special_ lol. We could just as well just be a "giant information processor" and no doubt are in my mind. Consciousness might just be an illusive biproduct of that. To deny intelligence without understanding intelligence in one thing and then to immediately act like another thing is intelligent without understanding what intelligence is in general is foolish.
I would also like to point out that human technology is inherently human as it was made by us. It is an extension of ourselves outside of our body.
James says two things that seem to contradict: (1). Don’t trust models. They are always insufficient. (2). At the start of the video it was clear that he believed in climate change. But climate change in the future can only be seen through models.
At what point is he telling the viewer not to trust models? I think you might be due for a rewatch
@@QuinnArgo go to around 2:40. There are two possibilities: (1) the discussion is a bit beyond you. His whole point is that despite copious amounts of data and models we cannot predict the world. (2) charitably, you rushed through the video and missed the salient points.
@@algoa456 I don't know how you're reading "don't trust models" into this. "The model is insufficient", sure, but insufficiency does not mean it holds no predictive power, it simply means there is information beyond scientific modeling that is also relevant to understanding a reality. This is not disbelief in the model, it is simply skepticism about a scientific model being able to fully encompass the different qualities created by a reality.
Another misconception you are making is that this part isn't about "a model" per se but it is a point specifically about models created through mass aggregation of big data (which is the context given right before your 2:40 timestamp).
So yes, James Bridle in this case can perfectly allow themselves to trust in the diverse set of models and theories we talk about as "climate change", because their criticism doesn't concern the totality of models, but specifically the faulty totalization of a specific data-collection oriented kind of model creation.
Great man, totally admire work you done, to the point
In the grim darkness of the far future...may the Emperor Protect Us.
Data on itself is surely not enough, but we can know all that we wish to know. The problem however is not about the lack of data but our theories. Currently those which are most used, to interpret and make predictions with, are inadequate. We need to look for better theories.
Red Rascal "we need to change the system", that's what Greta Thunberg, the sweden teenager climate actvist, says and i agree.
In India for last 2500 years calculations to predict exact timings of ebb and flow of tides, rising and setting of Sun and moon, time of commencement of monsoon etc has been going on. But researchers never bother to find out what was happening outside Europe and falter in claiming that so and so person was the fish to use this method.
I became very interested in Bridle's thought and his book. However, it seems to be that these insights are to a very large extent already present in Heidegger's philosophy. I wonder if perhaps his work is being excluded in some academic circles given the personal and grave mistakes Heidegger commited in his political decisions. I think a lot can be gained from revisiting his works still.
In the book, Timothy Morton (who is a Heideggerian for what it's worth) is referenced to a good degree and clearly informs a lot of the thinking. So at least indirectly, Bridle's thought is related to Heidegger, though I'd also not be surprised to hear Bridle has read Heidegger themself.
The model ends up being used to control us in the worst ways. As he says “it demoralizes us”.
Twenty years ago I would laugh at conspiracy theories - until I saw many of them coming true.
Doubtful on "many". Shooting in the dark and hitting something every now and then, but also damaging a bunch of other things (institution, societal values, culture, etc) is incredibly crude and stupid. First, at least learn to think and understand the value of evidence before you start going on about how you like conspiracy theories.
The video is definitely not saying they are a good thing, he's talking about how society tends to create conspiracy theories due to their need to rationalize or ground a complex world. That doesn't mean they are good, they are awful. What you should do is scientific investigation. Conspiracy theories are mostly just convenient ideas that usually fulfill the creator's or consumer's bias and have large gaps in information needed to support them.
Am I missing the Amazon link under the video?
No. He doesn't believe in Amazon
is like millenial lectures and examples over the work of Virilio, Flusser and Deleuze.
This is an old argument: see "The Whale and the Reactor" by Langdon Winner. Also there are 50 other books currently on this subject
Gotta start somewhere unless you have a recommendation.
I bought this book on Amazon. I am part of the problem
Marx developed the theory of materialist dialectics that fundamentally fashioned mankind new eyes that gave a more profound manner to view the historic course of man.
I knew I’d find his name somewhere here
The next dark age comes when social media is something no one remembers.
Rome fell =dark ages for Europe , u.s. falls = dark age for all of planet earth every country nation and whole planet population sad 😖😥.
It isn't about US falling, but about the hole world falling
Don’t think I’ll be buying the book on the strength of this video. Either it was very badly edited or this guy doesn’t seem to have anything very interesting or coherent to say.
This is hardly a mystery. Chaos Theory predicted it with bifurcation (Mandelbrot sets) decades ago.
prediction is one complex theory, it involves many aspects that need to be once again whittled down to get a solution that isn't set in stone, the time, complexity, how accurately its systems can be measured and the scale of the system. you cant say that a system based on bifurcation is chaos theory, we add the parameters and the computer does the large scale mathematics, it could be localised or world scale, we make the small scale changes and that isn't chaos theory. World scale changes do have some form of chaos, but we can work back and find where the error was and fix the bifurcation.
He's not really saying anything original and the western culture is to blame for everything trope is a tired cliche. Jean Baudrillard was miles ahead decades ago.
Tell me what Baudrillard said that was better? I'm not picking a fight just genuinely curious.
Lol that's what you got out of this? YIKES
Sorry man. You’re clever and all but I wasn’t able to take this seriously after seeing those clown painted nails. I support style and art but save that stuff for your personal life or related scenarios.
Such a snowflake. You'll get over it.