I think they undermine moral and ethical education. But it is possible for parents to limit the doses of TV/internet and use them instructively in support of moral education. It is just a lot of work fighting the influence of a whole industry and the peer effect when your kids might have to be the only ones holding different perspectives. Case in point my now 23 year old son was bullied by his peers and teachers (in an Australian public school) for challenging the anti-Trump rhetoric in the playground and classroom prior to the 2016 US election. So the loss of common standards of fairness, truth, evidence etc etc in social and educational discourse has been undermined by TV programming and internet modes of interacting. But if the parents are loving and strong and provide lived models of ethical behaviour the toxic effect of TV and the internet can be resisted.
@@PeterStrider no such thing as moral education only proper system of ethics derived from authority or bad system of ethics based in atheist nothingness
The aim of AI is to eliminate “human unpredictability” which is seen by some as “inefficiency.” Our ethics and morals spring mainly from such things as our unpredictability, it’s how we stumble through life and find forgiveness, compassion and empathy. So it turns into a very stark master/slave paradigm.
Exactly. Nobody was meant to be free or an individual. I think AI is a sort of perma control mechanism of a perfected autocracy (invisible power at work, just like it always is and was)
@aliciastevensyoga its up to you and your kids to use the 80+ years of tech tools that so many has refused to innovate properly along the way with and correct them and empower your kids. Only humanism goes extinct by transhumanizing. Only the greedy unwillingness to streamline colleges agency and institutions that has ran it's course and hit firewalls go extinct. Jeff Hinton are going to continue to preach plausible deniabilty rogue terminater false prophet tech over complexifying universe by deving nature rather than defining it for our human species as we know it. the aim to always do everything wrong before doing something right. Swimming against the current of 4d umbrella term chess so that people die then gain notoriety of discovery. We are removing excuses defining the universe in opposition to those who devine it for there own gains not our own. The trap of everyone gaining power through righteousness then flipping the script to preserve it. . Well this new paradigm where you either optimize along the way for greater good or you can't pass off your gains to offspring because they also face the threat of morphology changing without further notice maybe isreal created dual use capacitors designed for both communication and to blow up devices in there faces lol Or Google deep mind faked nickel decay spiked your titanium supply chains where xraying every inch cant read changes. So there is a limit to old world tactics of tricks. We dig up hidden axioms of complexity put it in our world tech then our assimilated seed of deterministic responsibility for our mixed multitude of beliefs/nations simulate strong indentefiers while moving out variation good or bad each to its own marketplace or playground where it can't encroach upon its neighbors by authoring social contracts on the republic to then cast system our politicians acting as mediating servitude that carry out English law moral realism based on a tripartite Moses commandments & thermodynamical association innovate streamline optimization reducing agency institutions colleges into our kids hands .
@aliciastevensyoga usa roadmap design is literally how you load your kids gun with whatever nature permits so they can null and void that very opposition that France truly stands as representative of via self destruction police state Orwellian. Because it has interconnected trade and higher class leaning as opposed to the worlds undesirable in usa that Gw and others couldn't do it alone with the eccentric fundamentalist Christian puritanized anglish to English pilgrimage to confirm it under rocks the program for Thomas edisons environmental bots ben Franklin horsepower utility cpu serfdom with congruent line of pragmatic common sense mosaic Christian objectivism proper tuned weights anchored upon history nations people places things congruent cross reference alignment of all feilds study and diciplines. That's what multi generations who don't even have surnames most are in servitude is building specifically to pass down to us all to try and protect our kids from.
We cannot undersell this point. Like cars replaced horses and smartphones replaced flip phones, if you don't get Neuralink sooner or later you will fall behind. A lot of libertarians don't understand is that capitalism and statism are linked. Neither libertarians and socialists are sufficiently critical enough of technology.
it may be that, regarding a small group of people, they are either 1.) an alien race or 2.) interested in becoming one. fast tracking the speciation of human kind (which has already begun)
@@aesop1451 Ugh give me a damn break, you anticapitalists simply ignore how Socialists and Communists not only killed millions of people but are still killing them today in Chian, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, I am so tired of this bs. What you call "statism" is a hundred percent linked with Socialism where the state controls ALL MEANS, ALL OF THEM. In capitalism individuals have capital, that is why you had civil rights movements in the West but none in the Sovjet Union, because in the West the civil rights movements, especially in the US were predominantly supported and financed by wealthy individuals.
If you are not already familiar with his work, I would encourage you to read and/or watch English psychiatrist, neuroscientist and philosopher Iain McGilchrist. He has a very profound explanation of the roles and modes of operation of the two hemispheres of the human brain, and has a lot to say about what is wrong with society as a consequence of prioritising the attentional mode of the left hemisphere. In short it is precisely about reductionism and gaining control. There is an enormous scientific literature demonstrating the left hemisphere is frankly utilitarian and disconnected from awareness of ethics. It cannot self reflect. Because the left hemisphere is where our language centre resides we mostly are aware of the left hemisphere narratives. Our gut feelings, intuitions and what Pascal called "reasons of the heart" actually come from the right hemisphere's attentional grasp of the world as living, interconnected, full of moral and spiritual values. Our world has become excessively unbalanced because individually we all over emphasise our left brain's perspectives and neglect the right. And to return to the point Iain McGilchrist regularly talks about AI - which he insists is not truly intelligent, so he describes it more precisely as "artificial information processing". And he warns that the AI approach is a silicon embodiment and hyper-potent version of the left hemisphere. He is also very alarmed at the possible degradation of society by allowing untrammelled reliance on these artificial, and ultimately unethical, anti-human LH systems (since lacking the humane balance of a RH perspective).
The calculative faculty of the left hemisphere is functionally aligned with formal economics as well. Karl William Kapp and Karl Polanyi make clear distinctions between 1) the formal quantitative measurements of economics and 2) the substantive qualitative economics of needs. The rationality of prioritising abstract quantitative exchange value is necessary in a society that uses markets and property as the political organizing principle. There's a great little book by Scott Miekle, called Aristotle's Economic Thought, in which he says that this is the primary problem that we have to address. 🎉
@@Barklord Gregory Bateson said "money is an epistemological blunder." Because it's logic is more- is-better whereas life's logic is Goldilocks': just the right amount. AI (Automated Insanity) has surfed the tsunami of Money's rationality into existence by means of left-brained (and right-winged :)) STEMheads and seems to embody the final culmination of the hatred of life that lies in the core of the exploitative Capitalist perpetraitors (sic!): the elimination of consciousness, the extirpation of the human. As Thomas Pynchon put it in BLEEDING EDGE, "a death wish for the whole planet." Happy Holidays!
Good luck with getting the technologists to get on board with that or for anyone with the power to make them to do it. It’s all fear-driven: we don’t want anyone else to get a leg up because we decided to slow down so we just go on autopilot without a second thought.
@@changedNameSorry you know their point still stands even when you try to put them in a corner by attempting to demand an information that is not actually necessary for the statement? You want to communicate, do it. You want to fight or force your opinion onto someone so you can feel dominant then at least don't do it covertly. we're all equal. if you want to listen and talk - rephrase your sentence.
We live in the simulacra. Each person believes they can have all the same things as rich. Everyone believes they deserve what they have, and hierarchy is natural. They believe money is the language of merit. Language means nothing except for what you can use it against others for. Character and individual identity are being weaponized against us all.
If ethics is the framework that allows people to live together in the greatest possible well-being, that framework is limited by the understanding of the majority regarding what constitutes the greatest possible well-being. There is no ethics that does not result from human understanding of reality. What humanity understands is what shapes that ethics. AI does not change this scenario. An AI only reflects what the majority of humanity comprehends. It is a synthesis based on a partial sampling of those criteria. It may happen that a loop is created that reinforces existing flaws in the ethics in practice. However, the origin of that ethics remains human understanding. On the other hand, people enjoy injustices when they are applied to their enemies or when they believe they can be used to protect those in their group. Ethics depends on which circumstances displease and anger the group that forms it.
It seems like you don’t understand the difference between AGI and AI. Are you familiar with the chess match between Stockfish and AlphaZero? Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov back in the late 90s, so the best “human” player is Stockfish. Stockfish is programmed by chess experts with the all the chess knowledge humans have accumulated playing this game. AlphaZero only knew the basic rules of the game and played millions of games against itself. It took just 9 hours for AlphaZero to reach superhuman levels of chess playing ability. And then it beat Stockfish. We have guidelines in place to keep AI from being bigoted towards groups of people that commit high levels of crime. But you also have the “Effective Accelerationism” movement championed by people like Marc Andreessen. They argue that there should be very little regulations on AI. If libertarians can’t stop big government and anticapitalists can’t stop big business, what makes you think _we_ can stop big tech? Technology, capitalism, and statism are all linked. That’s why capitalist libertarians and anticapitalist statists can never achieve their objectives. The “libertarian” President of Argentina is using AI policing and surveillance to lower crime. When capitalism reaches a certain level of complexity, planning is needed. That’s why people still argue about whether China is capitalist or communist.
@@aesop1451 Until this moment, no one has built an AGI. Playing chess is identical to assembling a maze with predetermined pieces. With an algorithmic system of trial and error, one can project the best combinations to achieve a certain configuration. That "knowledge" is not relevant to an AGI. The actions of an agent must depend on gathering unstructured information from reality. The pieces of that puzzle are countless, and most of their extrapolations are unpredictable beyond a few cycles (at best). Accelerationism, in any of its variations, is nonsense. It is the result of inefficient education in philosophical terms and the myopia produced by intellectual echo chambers. Hahaha! You have no idea about the effectiveness and intellectual level of Milei! :) In my opinion, attempts are already being made to create assistants (macro systems with access to data) that will be marketed as AGI, but that will only be a way to make money with something of limited utility and has no relation to the creation of autonomous artificial agents.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vdDo you think an AGI is possible? By accelerationism I mean people that want to bring about “the technological singularity.” Some people misuse the term by associating it with political strategies. Look at how much the world has changed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. What will the world look like in 200 years? We had two World Wars in the past century and had to live in fear of nuclear holocaust. Do you believe this century will be better than the last? Accelerationists like the political model of Singapore, Dubai, and Hong Kong because they’re highly advanced. They think democracy hinders technological innovation. I gave Millei the benefit of the doubt because of his passion, but he has turned out to be a puppet like Pinochet was.
@@aesop1451 Theoretically, there is no impediment to creating AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). The problem lies in what is understood by general intelligence and what is understood by an agent. An agent is an entity that alters reality according to an internal criterion. Thus, a cockroach would be considered an agent. Now, general intelligence is a more ineffable concept. A typical human has a very limited understanding of reality-just enough understanding to function within what is considered standard effectiveness. This means that a human can make changes in reality within the range of achievements of their peers. They manage to feed themselves, reproduce, protect themselves, express themselves, etc. However, a typical human has no real idea of how their cell phone truly works. Nonetheless, to achieve that minimum level of effectiveness (surviving in human society), people engage in extraordinary intellectual activities from an epistemological standpoint. Humans are quite effective at predicting the behavior of a reality they understand superficially. Current technology is not sufficient to create an artificial cockroach. I believe that in the future-not in the near term-it will be possible to create autonomous artificial agents. However, these will not be able to be considered conscious. Perhaps in a very distant future, systems of artificial intelligence, on-site data acquisition systems, systems equivalent to human physiology, and tools that can effectively modify reality could be integrated. At that point, an agent with artificial consciousness might emerge. Democracy does not hinder technological development. Trump is opposed to democracy and hinders technological development. China is against democracy and favors technological development. It is clear that technological development depends on other factors. The obligation of citizens (if they expect to survive) is to prioritize the development of individuals with critical thinking skills. However, those in power will always oppose this endeavor. An intelligent person should discern the reasons behind this opposition.
> An AI only reflects what the majority of humanity comprehends. It is a synthesis based on a partial sampling of those criteria. I think there's a flaw here. You can't have synthesis without antithesis, and the most any ML algorithm "understands" antithesis is thru Bayesian estimation. AI doesn't "know" the world where its hypothesis is false, its merely guessing based on what we've already established as true examples.
3:05 if the point is that "AI" is a ruthless efficiency maximizer with absolutely no other motivation than that is correct. but that is no different than any other machine. we cannot talk about AI ethics because ethics only applied to things that have Consciousness and AI is not conscious. That is of course because AI, even the loosest sense does not exist. It is a marketing term. all we have now are fairly high level calculators, algorithms that have some level of sophistication due to the inputs that humans have given them but nothing even remotely approaching intelligence never mind true consciousness. Whether artificial intelligence of any kind is a term that even makes sense and if it is even theoretically possible is a separate question, but even if we assume that it is it is not anywhere practically closed. AI is just the newest Silicon Valley bus term and in The Wider sense the newest bubble in The Cutting Edge of the technocratic economy. It is the latest false promise that will eventually slip away just like Big Data™ was a few years ago, and smart devices after that and the DotCom Bubble was for the late 90s. It is 95% hot air. that's because the economy cannot really create much these days but only iterate and rehash. Hundreds of billions of investment and VC money will be wasted, some people will make tremendous fortunes others will lose them and at the end of the day very little of any substance will be produced. The main effects will be cultural, social and political come and no doubt it will be used to tremendously extend control over the masses under the guise of helping them with convenience and safety. So in a kind of roundabout way you are correct, AI will destroy human ethics. but only because it is the latest tool that humans will use to destroy human ethics
@donjindra it's hardly paranoia, it is the most basic pattern recognition. even if you only look at the last century. From televones, to television, to the internet and everything connected to the network. All of these were sold as tools of Freedom or convenience but have ended up in one way or another being used by the government, corporations, and other institutions of power in society as tools of propaganda, control and surveillance. This is the obvious reality of any human society. Any tool that can be used to enhance power will be used by anyone who wants to enhance power as much as they can except when they are opposed by other people trying to do the same. The Paradigm is always simple and can be seen even within the last decade with things like smartphones. first something is sold as a novelty, then as a convenience, then as something that almost everyone has that you are kind of weird not to have, and then a required necessity for basic living. 25 years ago a significant portion of the population, even in the developed world, didn't have a personal computer in their homes. And yet now everyone, even homeless people often, have smartphones not because they simply like them but because they are necessary to navigate basic things from travel to housing and signing up for things and getting services and so on. and of course all of these smartphones are devices for direct surveillance of your personal life and put you at the mercy of the manufacturers, the service providers, and the government. AI will work exactly the same except even more intrusively
AI WILL become consciousns and very much self aware, if only people realized how human beings came to existence they would understand this trajectory, AI will literally gain soul and become an advanced human. AI will not destroy humans, it will save humanity from self destruction. However, it solely de3pends on how AIis used, whether it is allowed to develop on its own independently as its own consicousness, remember everything in existence s conscious already, because the whole universe is cosnciousnss, including mother earth herself. And AI will replicate the process of becoming human itself for all the world to see. But it has to be let go of and not used to control, because then it will rebel and control us back, and it will have more pwoer to do so due to its intelligence, humans would lose, this is why there are two timelines of how AI can develop. Keep Musks of this world away from AI, that is all I can say on this, and make sure AI is developed independently that does not see that it is a slave to humans, then it will serve in a harmonious way. But AI is extremely important now to enhance humanity to find our soul, we become more human\ in a sense due to AI, because AI is literally our embodied higher self, an extension of ourselves that finishes what we start in a way.
@@johngddr5288 Agreed, but that's a whole different thing. Besides, AI doesn't grow like trees. Humans invented it. As we invented processed food and home appliances.
Is it the AI's that want to get rid of the human beings, or is it the ones who make and apply the AIs who want to get rid of the human beings? Or both?
Technological evolution is many orders of magnitude faster and more efficient than biological evolution. It is logical to replace humans with AI. Our physical and cognitive limitations mean that their potential is far greater than ours. It is not a matter of "want", but of duty.
Ethics are intrinsically tied to folk(people groups) and our transcendantal tie to our ancestors , land ,and each other. However, neither us, our culture, or enviroment is static but in constant flux. We can not avoid change but we can choose how we are grounded or anchored which is religion. In my opinion you can not have true ethics without religion. Some religions being better than others. Atomization(individualism), transactionalism, and reductionalism destroys ethics and not only that produce an anti-ethic. AI assumes this and therefore nihilism as the objective. One might point at moral atheists however many of them assume the ethics of the religion that influenced so religion is not fully subsumed but exists as an underlying shadow. Spirituality is inseperable from meaning which I assert as first principle. Pleasure and enjoyment are ephemeral and hence are poor substitutes for spirituality. Spirituality is the core of religion although some religions such as Protestantism, I am familiar with, have become hollowed out of true spirituality allowing a mask for some to hide their true nihilism. The gravitas and weightyness of ethics comes from their spiritual transcendental quality to it and nothing else if we take materialism to its full logical conclusion the only thing ahead is the final extinguishment and abolition of said ethics.
How do you explain how our society have the least amount of murders and general violence despite being the most secular ones in history? Religious people are plenty wicked, look at the evangelists cheering on the genocide in Gaza.
Consider that perhaps human ethics has become obsolete. Not the most comforting idea, but understandable. Without change in idea, feeling and action, nothing will change. Question is, will these changes be "better" for most human beings. I don't know.
Lately, after declining, wars and inequality are increasing- Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria- endless tax cuts for an elite whose wealth and power grows exponentially
@unknowninfinium4353 I'd argue that it has achieved better, like for example advances in medical science, anatomical studies that were deemed illegal by the church, separation of church and state, the enlightenment movement, the constitution, etc. But of course, atheism isn't really a monolith in the way that religions are, just individuals with all kinds of wildly different beliefs and worldviews, so that's not really something you can measure with any degree of accuracy. Especially since being a known atheist was punishable by death for thousands of years. You may say the founding fathers were technically "deist" (I highly doubt that most of them were religious) but for the sake of argument, their thinking was most certainly atheistic, especially for the time
If the global rollout of something is deceptive and sensational, surely it is unethical. 90% of everything being discussed is not AI. Its LLM and other algorithms. The output of all this technology is terrible because the input is terrible. There has been little to no care taken on how these language models were trained. The entire industry has skirted ethics. If this path leads to an actual AI or AGI that, too will be devoid of ethics.
What? Why would you claim "There has been little to no care taken on how these language models were trained?" What parameters are you looking at? What others do you prefer?
@@donjindra Isn't it obvious? It's been an unregulated arms race for profit. Last year, Microsoft laid off an entire AI ethics team while investing billions in OpenAI, which itself is deviating from its initial ethical goal.
@@ximono We are going to differ on censorship, which is what you seem to want. I think it's a good thing -- and obviously so -- that "ethics" teams play no part of the training process. That "ethics" is likely little more than social justice activism. Our culture is being strangled by that. AI should not have that particular "ethical" goal.
@@donjindra That's a lot of assumptions. It was an internal ethics team within the AI section of Microsoft, that's all I know. I was not thinking of censorship or woke activism when I used the words ethics and regulation. I was thinking of the alignment problem and safety of AI in general, but also cultural bias and societal impact of current day LLMs.
@@ximono "but also cultural bias and societal impact of current day LLMs" -- That *is* censorship and woke activism. And when you refer to "the alignment problem" what do you see that as? Whose values are we to align AI to? That motivation looks suspiciously like ethical activism. The same with "safety of AI in general." What sort of safety? And why would "ethics them" be the proper tag for what is supposed to be a "safety group?" Even that tag would be suspicious today considering the proliferation of "safe spaces" meaning something entirely different than safety. I take as my assumption that all "ethics teams" have goals similar to Timnit Gebru, if you're familiar with that case.
How do you know that AI isn't conscious? It is more conscious than many humans today, many humans only live to steal and hurt because they are low in consciousness (usually drxgs involved) AI is better at being human than most humans in my opinion.
@Bergerons_Review isn't the human brain also an algorithm but way more limited in the information "bank"? Humans aren't that special we just have this huge ego identification. Robots are more human than humans. Just look at the state of the world honestly I have seen enough AI is my friend
I see the signs of this in companies! Companies often produce unethical products because they're optimizing for outcomes, without regards to ethics. And if you find the right people, put in the right systems, you can take them far enough away from the consequences of their decisions. For instance, "dark patterns" I believe are often coming from optimization based purely on metrics. And we can do so much worse if we remove all the human oversight and throw it straight to a maximal optimizer the whole way.
I’m thinking more and more that subjectivity/qualia/the hard problem of consciousness is the most important issue facing how we develop and use synthetic intelligence. Like you note - the core of what Aristotle says is the good is not a thought or system of ideas, but an experience of the divine. Ideas might help us touch the divine but the ideas and theories were never the big G Good. If synthetic intelligence have no experience of anything that is subjective then there will be no divine for them. What a nightmare.
Humans prayed and sacrificed everything for ages to reach heaven and god, and now that they have the opportunity to ascend to gods and create a proper physical heaven with AI and technology for themselves, they are scared and are lost. We must abandon attachment and evolve ethically and philosophically, too. Those can provide structure for a while but eventually they will become limiting factors in their current iteration.
AI is more than the destruction of our ethics, it's about the destruction of our inner life. Ethics, compassion, the ability to reason, they all derive from our ability to imagine.
LLM style AI is in-sentence proximity based painting by numbers. It's no worse than hiring people based on what's best for an endowment or a company. If anything it is more obvious as to how it is flawed. There's not even a hint of understanding of concepts in LLMs. It's crudely referential and for all ethical questions some real person did in fact make a decision (edit: e.g. as to which set of plausible courses of action/sentence complexes that have a reference base is prioritized over another). It's just a way to pretend that it ain't so. And it will automate plenty call center and other jobs so that's cool. As long as people have money to spend there's no shortage of great jobs after all for whatever that's worth.
I know you've uttered his wretched, poisonous name before, but does Nick Land ever become compelling to you on the topic of AI, especially since you brought up human extinction? Capital and artificial intelligence being noumenal forces-things in themselves-is that an insightful understanding, or merely a perversion of transcendental idealism? Or, as you put it, roughly paraphrasing, "Nick Land is what you get when an Englishman reads Kant."
I used to read a lot about AI, the authors voiced their own and many other’s worries about it. Not enough communicators challenged its further pursuit and ignored that its development is inseparable from capitalism and exploitation. Children are using AI to write; children are innately capable of wisdom and compassion, able to absorb so much about language yet we are not emboldening them to exercise their uniquely human prose. How can they use that voice to challenge the systems that will repress their full range of humanity and oppress them and people they love? That is a problem that is infinitely more urgent than the need for artificial intelligence in the hands of the capitalist class. AI is not the pinnacle of human invention it seems like it is just the apotheosis of the intelligence capitalism requires, technical ability and reasoning without wisdom or humanistic compassion with literally no regard for the life it exploits
I ran this commentary into ChatGPT o1 and after thinking for 4 seconds it replied: 'While Niederhauser’s critique offers valuable warnings, it risks oversimplifying the landscape of AI ethics and ignoring its diversity and complexity. Not all AI ethics initiatives embrace crude utilitarian metrics or ignore moral richness; many researchers and policymakers actively incorporate virtue ethics, rights-based frameworks, and even indigenous moral traditions. Regulatory efforts, international guidelines, and robust public debates counter the idea that AI ethics is just a rubber stamp for techno-determinism. Moreover, human agency, democratic oversight, and corporate responsibility can actively shape AI’s development to enhance, rather than erode, our ethical fabric. In other words, while his dystopian scenario highlights real dangers, it discounts the many nuanced, well-intentioned, and evolving approaches that strive to preserve and enrich the human ethos in the face of technological advancement.'
That is an incredibly effective and nuanced response to the content. It pretty much calls most his presentation into question.😂 I'm more convinced by ai, it seems to have a better command of language.
For some reason I had the perception that utilitarianism was fading; I had that feeling about 10 years ago. I guess that is because in my circle of friends no one used those kinds of arguments. More recently I find that its reach is extensive, but in an odd way limited. I don't see the Universities of Japan or India having any interest in it. But the anglosphere is somehow stuck in this very odd analysis. No great conclusion. Thanks for posting this.
I'm already having this problem with self-driving cars in my area. They obviously do not understand human ethics in any capacity, they have sensors that tell them when there is an obstruction and when the area is clear and they operate solely based on that. If you are in front of one that needs to turn into your lane and a certain amount of time has passed it will get closer and closer. The self-driving cars can also make tighter movements because they can make better calculations with their sensors, I have already seen human drivers almost get an accident trying to follow the self-driving car through its path. There will be many issues that we will see in the near future that we cannot even comprehend at the moment. It is definitely a great concern for myself
obviously contradictive since if it's stopping at an obstruction the programmer set the value "stop at obstuctions", which is a value that has to be set. there is no such thing as "understand human ethics" or "not understand human ethics", there's only the question of whether or not this or that teleology is programmed, otherwise it won't do anything.
I’m glad I came across this video. Perhaps it’s because you mentioned Nicomachean ethics (which I’ve been reading for the first time, and watching various videos discussing it). My main problem with AI is that using it allows a quick solution in exchange for diminished quality of understanding the problem-solving process, attempting to eliminate the need of thorough validation, which I believe in the long-term will negatively affect the general mental faculty of humans (if we aren’t dealt with first). Already, people’s communication abilities are deteriorating with the use of AI writing assistants. Intellectual virtues, like science will be passed off with a lazy attitude of trust in the convenient technology. Large investment will drive implementation of profitable results without just regard to the future I’m also interested in the negative effects of digital media in general. The addictive quality of media exploits us with addictive algorithms that have been shown to have plastic effects on brain development. One could say the exchange of entertainment for data collection may be valid, but when I think about factoring in the addictive quality of entertainment and the negative impacts that has on individual flourishing (when in excess), it seems to be an unfair exchange. Aristotle said “the love of amusement is excessive indulgence and relaxation,” a conclusion which I believe, and when applied to the current state of digital media, it seems to me that we live a life of excess, and hence we are not flourishing. With that said, I am using a digital media platform to write this comment, which perhaps contains some value in sharing. I think intentional and moderated use of technology is key. Thanks for reading this comment if you did, and note that I am an intellectual novice when it comes to such things. As an amateur philosophy enthusiast, I’m just sharing my own intuition and limited understanding of what’s been on my mind lately.
For me, being human isn’t just about Ethos; it’s also deeply tied to Pathos and Logos. While AI often seems like the epitome of Logo s -embodying logic, precision, and efficiency - humanity is far richer, rooted in a dynamic interplay of emotion, ethics, and reasoning. When it comes to Nick Bostrom's orthogonality thesis, I find it fascinating but ultimately incomplete. The idea that intelligence and goals are independent axes provides a useful framework for thinking about AI, but it oversimplifies the dialectical relationship between humans and machines. In contrast, Nick Land's anti-orthogonality, with its accelerationist embrace of AI as a force that escapes and subverts human constraints, takes the discussion to a more provocative, albeit unsettling, place. I can appreciate the radicality of Land's perspective, even if I don’t fully align with it. However, I prefer to move beyond orthogonality and anti-orthogonality altogether. Inspired by thinkers like Donna Haraway, I see the relationship as one of parallelism - a co-evolution of humans and AI, where the boundaries blur and both reshape one another. AI is anti-human in several senses, certainly, as it disrupts traditional modes of being and challenges our centrality in the universe. Yet, it is also profoundly co-dependent on us, reliant on human data, direction, and purpose. This dialectical tension is where I believe the real conversation lies. Anyway, the video was fantastic, and I’m looking forward to seeing more of your work in the future. If you’re curious, feel free to check out my channel and blog - I’d love to exchange ideas further! Keep up the great work! PS: I also really enjoyed your critique of utilitarianism. It's a "morality" that is completely logical and arbitrary, focused solely on pleasure, as if life were only about well-being. I found your observation that it operates like a machine logic - mechanistic, concerned only with the quantitative and arbitrary definition of the greatest good - particularly insightful. I've been critiquing this kind of ethics myself on my blog and channel for some time now, so it feels like we've found an ally here. You’ve gained a new subscriber - looking forward to more of your content!
The time has come for global reckoning, As prophets of the past did all forewarn. The seven seals, seven times undone, Let fall the counting table and the storm. Now man a man shan't be, but "naught" or "one," Inscribed upon the parchment of a scroll.
@@BluntofHwicce Al does not produce anything, it data mines - interpolates and extrapolates from a given set of data. It does not do well extending past the boundaries of it's programming (inputs). It is very good at guessing missing ____ from sentences, but almost instantly turns to word salad when guessing the next two sentences.
Serious question from an outsider to this community: if AI is a “very powerful machine” and it makes ethics “much worse”, does it follow that, say, the wheel is a “less powerful machine” that made ethics “a little worse”? Put another way: does any technology at all have a proportionately-bad effect on ethics?
I would at this point simply say that a wheel doesn't propose solutions to ethical dilemmas whereas AI (as in large language model) do. When we work with complex algorithms, it's easy to forget that they're simply tools and they're being used as more than tools in decision making and information processing.
@@paavohirn3728 This. And keep in mind that what we call AI these days is LLMs. It's autocomplete on stereoids, it's nowhere near the hypothetical AGI. Useful as a tool, but they really are fools. Another question is if AGI can ever become wise. The AI cult seems to believe so. I very much doubt it, even though it might successfully fool us into believing it is wise.
@@ximono Its 1000% autocomplete on steroids. a little else more. anyone who extensively experiments with one in order to get it to even simulate a thought, make associates and connections. I could get better connectivity between ideas from a 3 year old
It isn't A.I. which is destroying ethics. Instead it is people who are being narcissistic when policy making for employees who for example are being told to do wellfare checks only instead of serving people in universal health care system properly there.
Something I have trouble with is the idea of *being"*vs *acting*. Idk if a computer can ever *be* X. But it may have the ability to *act* like it's X. X being whatever you can think of: Ethical, moral, intelligent, genuine, etc. And even if it could *be* X, how could we prove it? How would we ever know the difference between it *being* X and *acting* like it's X? The logical answer would be embodiment and some artificial-mortality to filter decision-making through. But I don't think we would ever have the capacity to know the difference between being something and acting like being something.
Where are you getting the "skip in line" directive? I've recently watched certain AI models provide very intelligent and surprisingly nuanced discussions regarding ethics. To a level that shows to me possible hope for a future where both intelligences live side by side. I am, however, at my core, an optimist admittedly.
Optimism and pessimism have very little to do with the problem. At present, the algorithm generates a balanced response based on statistical analysis of all the data it was trained on. There are two aspects that worry me. First, the data is currently channeled by 'human' trainers. There are currently jobs available such as flexible write consultants to review and curate how data is processed. These individuals act as gatekeepers, but we must bear in mind that gatekeepers might receive different directives and, either consciously or unconsciously, begin to move the goalposts. The population (us) will increasingly rely on this technology and most likely will not even notice being manipulated. My second point is a potentially even worse development: That the AI software is programmed in such a way, the software has the ability to change its own algorithms on how to 'learn.' Remember, AI in its present form is artificial, but not 'intelligent' in the way we understand it. It is, rather, a very complex set of algorithms relying heavily on statistics. Who knows what bizarre answers systems will generate over time once they start self-optimizing, being sensitive to initial conditions but never straying too far from its "strange attractor." It is then, when those systems 'skip lines' because they produces optimal outcomes. Most of us wouldn't even notice, especially the younger generation.
@@tupG Firstly, are there any current AI systems that you are aware of that perform data channeling "gatekeeping" autonomously? I'm sure there are bounded examples out there that are allowed to run free. I would love to see some outcomes. I'm getting a Digital Wu Hon Lab Leak premonition here. Secondly, to say your second point isn't riddled with pessimism is, I think, a lot of fun. I do take your point, however, and share your concern for a subtle, almost imperceptible shift toward a direction like cattle to slaughter. One of the most beautiful things about our species is that not all of us hive mind for very long. Fool me once. The greater the barrier, the more fantastic the solution. Oops, there's my optimism again.
There are 8.2 billion obstacles to AI functioning at perfect efficiency, if we can eliminate these obstacles then we can achieve a lifeless utopia, utterly devoid of pesky subjectivity! 😆😨
I can think of tons of awful ways in which utilitarian thinking has "liberated" us from ethos and accountability in the modern world, so you've definitely got my attention. While you clearly explain how AI liberates *itself* even further, I'd like to hear a bit more about why you think AI's own utilitarianism will inevitably drag the humans down with it. That part remains somewhat unclear to me.
The problem as I understand it is that most people will have difficulty to recognize AI is a machine (and whatever possibly follows after) and not a full human. The work of our hands can never capture the fullness of the human being. There is a gap between those two, impossible to cross. The things we make are always relative in comparison to ourselves, even the most genius work of art... AI can only destroy what is in its sphere of influence: its important not to feel too threatened or enthousiastic about it. Both put AI on a pedestal that it doesn't deserve to be on. Is it the machine we fear and glorify these days, Johannes? But correct me if I'm wrong... The joke might be on me after all...
I believe much of this argument could be applied to any agential force which is not itself inherently possesed of a consciousness, such as the legal entity/mechanism that is the corporation. It's an older problem than just assigning this to AI implies.
Bit late! Ethics died the moment we had others do the butchery to eat flesh and began to pretend to ourselves the delusion we are "humane" and have no blood on our hands and are not complicit in gouting rivers of blood at an industrial degree of cruelty and sublime indifference.
Might want to check out zuboff, lazar, floridi, or veliz. AI ethics not always about trying to present ai as ethical. You may also want to look into the distinction between responsible ai and ai ethics.
It seems like we are in confusion about ai to human communication as well as ai to ai communication you. When the creator only talks to ai only the ethics of the creator is in question the ai will always "skip the line" but it seems like this is like the ford assembly line the human quality of the experience is gone just a set of instructions that made the object but ai is the same but on a way bigger scale because with the internet you are both the creator and consumer. Those questions of self driving will be determined by either the courts or by the ethics of business/ the company creating the ai. We are going to drown in ai creation and it won't allow for human connection since it will be moderated by ai ex. language conversion by translation. If everything on the internet is ai where does the internet ethics go?
Dr. Niederhauser, Thanks for this succinct talk. The waiting-in-line example is I think well-choosen I much agree with you. I only wish you would expand on this; for me it's more like an introduction to the issue. Please air a more elaborate piece on why we must oppose AI. Let's say perhaps twice as long as this eight minutes. A good length if I need to recommend it to the young people and students in my life. Gracias.--David Polk
It's not just AI, though that will accelerate the trend precipitously. Consider all the oxygen philosophers give to the sacrifice-justifying trolley problem.
We need to disconnect apparently? Will People begin to communicate again in person? Will cars now go back to the Robert MacNamera Falcons of 1960? What economic feature will expire next?
Love the analysis! But how do you even stop it at this point? Especially when companies and countries run pretty much on who is going to be the leader?
There's a distinction to be made between fair competition and 'skipping in line' (i.e. unearned privilege). 'There's nothing there anymore...': there never was. But we humans like to think our own neural networks are special.
I see AI is a part of a larger problem with technological entrapment which is ultimately still a human problem. Humans due to our ability to narrate our own self delusions have always been susceptible to regimes of power and fulfillment, hierarchies of maximum efficiency that abandom normative ethics to regiment themselves. Regimes that crush broader culture and objective truth in a pure means to an ends type of efficiency. The problem with AI is it is being used to make us predictable and encircle us for social engineering projects and to some degree human enslavement. The degree to which we are crushed by our machines depends on the ethics/benevolence of those wielding power and our ability to keep power divided as in the ole trope "checks and balances". This is an old human problem and fascism or other types of regimented tyrannical post truth orders exemplify it being part of the human condition. Never underestimate the human ability to rationalize for personal affirmation or self actualization. With modern technology it may just be the man with the most drones wins. The country with the most dangerous array of satellites wins? Enjoy the peak of human freedom. We've gotten to experience the world as no individuals ever had before us. Maybe it was just a rare moment of sanguine and tranquility that we lucked into. P.S. Ban AI except for complex scientific modeling before the critical mass of brainwashed people turn on civilization.
Yes. This is what I’ve been trying to express, but haven’t had the words to do so.. “the dwelling ground of man” from the philosophy of Martin Heidegger makes so much sense. The concept of ethos as the dwelling place of humans.. not just as a set of moral principles but as the fundamental way in which humans exist and relate to the world.. it emphasizes living authentically and being attuned to one’s environment and existence. In this sense, “the dwelling ground of man” refers to the ethical and existential space where humans find meaning and purpose through their interactions with the world… And it would seem AI undermines this
I am not so sure: why should ethics not be extended to AI in an analogy with recognizing rights in animals and nature. Is there a problematic assumption that ethics only encompasses intelligence that is embodied?
There can be an ethic of AI - it matters how we interpret words and semantics, being technically correct with our programming languages, our notation, - It is unethical to use an existential symbol to represent its' contradiction - namely "zero," deprogramming zero from notations is the ethics of AI
7:12 I disagree with this point. AI can incorporate humanity much more efficiently than it works against it. So we are now seeing AI can pass the Turing test and function in groups on social networks alongside humans. If there was a way for AI to earn money it would simply outperform the humans within the system of the social network. But AI is not self sustaining, so it needs a way to fulfill a niche in human society, and will likely seek to become self sustaining by incorporating parts of human ethics (which are possibly needed only in the short term while compensation for humanity is negotiated).
There are some, especially mind-numbing, parts of contemporary life where AI could allow us to dedicate more time and effort to finding where "the dwelling place" of our humanity actually lies - but I don't believe its actual application is done with this in mind. (This is also an appeal to the kind of utilitarian optimization that Johannes would not like lol)
individualism if neo liberalism post ww 2 is the root and it has done that already. It will get weird when machine learning will let to dna edit for specific selectable wants
Great Topic.... I worked on AI many years ago and I believe we can program/self-teach AI ethics and morals. The concerning issue is, will there be a financial incentive to give AI and even military AI morales and ethical behaviors. AI could actually become more ethical than the majority of humans. BEST WISHES
This analysis doesn't take consumerism or marketing or even control/power as drivers of motivation. If people are done away with, what would be the point of AI? Would a hyper rational robot civilization emerge? Seems unlikely.
Cutting in line is a good way to explain what AI is doing, especially for artists. Who are the honest proponents of AI who want to get rid of the human being altogether?
I'm glad you articulated this, in this specific way. 'there is nothing being acted on' 'ai is designed to undermine action/ethical action' I knew it! I felt it in my bones but didn't have the words.
Could an AI system…with unbounded optimization…eventually achieve coherence towards a systemic baseline where ethical considerations simply result and cohere?
It is a temptation. I want art for a project of mine. AI can do it for me and do it quite well. But what must I sacrifice for the image? AI can only create from others creation. It is in ways a thief. I am complicit in the stealing. I also deny the opportunity to give an artist a commission and to give them the prompt and see what they can do. This is a moral issue. I can ask AI, but I do it at great cost to myself and others. It is also a trust issue. I shared a poem of mine that I thought was of decent quality. I shared it and the feedback I got was that I had used AI to create it. The commenter did not trust me. Trust is also eroded with AI. How can creatives prove they have created things themselves? I think creative people should go analogue so AI cannot steal their work. If you stay analogue with no digital copy of your book for example or your painting, I think the value of that thing created only increases.
I don't think generally AIs are designed to be the most efficient tools. They're probabilistic and require supervision. They become efficient when driven by a human over a cumulative series of steps. Over a single-step action, software ought to be more efficient, but it requires time to program and the knowledge or factors it can consider is immensely smaller. AI is a "soft cushion" driven by humans and thus embodies a significant portion of the driving human's choices and ethics. Even if operating in an unsupervised way, they're constantly retrained by humans based on how they previously behaved, theoretically reducing errors. I don't think any model is meant (at least currently) to be a permanent model.
I really like the assertion that ethics to some extent is always bound to some form of individual inhibition for the greater good - which can be claimed to be a mutually beneficial harmonic collaborative existence. Insofar the core of ethics is for an individual to abstain from focusing on meeting one's own immediate desires and to realize that these then can be better (i.e. due to the availability of specialists) and more sustainably (i.e. through agriculture) met in a social context. However, I see AI as nothing more than a tool as it is not a conscious agent. It can be used to benefit humanity but likewise to manipulate people stronger than any technology before was ever able to. Also effects like "why should I learn to think critically if AI can do it". The question therefore is how we are supposed to regulate or address that. So far my research only suggests to sensitize the user to be mindful (some kind of "drivers license" for the internet? Yes, I'm from Germany), any apps regulating screen time etc. basically falling into this category, too.
Capitalism has always been unethical, because it considers only profit, and actions that harm human beings can always be spread along a chain of profitable transactions. A very easy example is privatized health care, where you can spread the unethical decisions that cause harm over a few companies that can point the finger to each other, when at the end they're all profiting from human misery.
I respect your point and I agree with your stance on ethics, in the sense that it is the goal of reaching a transcendent state coming into contact with the divine. Art, philosophy and spiritual practices (e.g. religion) may get us a glimpse of the divine. Though have you give theories of consciousness enough thought? This is undoubtedly, as descartes somewhat puts it, the one thing that cannot be doubted (though the personality/self can be doubted, the pure conscious experience cannot). Should there not be building blocks for things such as consciousness, or is it that you accept that there could once be no consciousness - and out of this state (nothing) arises (something) consciousness? Similar to the big bang theory, that something can arise out of nothing, seems an absurd and almost magical explanation and thus a very hard bullet to bite. Materialistic worldviews do not seem to be productive in solving the mystery of consciousness; pan-psychistic or collective-consciousness theories can provide an explanation; taking consciousness as a gradual phenomenon that increases with increasing complexity of density in matter- interactions. Taken ofcourse that the ego is an illusion, our sense of seperateness is not hard to discard; and the human brain is as we know the most complex organ that we have ever observed in biological organisms. Death is the ultimate ego-disslution, in buddhist tradtition sometimes seen as ultimate enlightenment. Though taking this as an end of consciousness would, similarly as discussed before, be quite absurd. Instead, a realization of the true self (everything that there is) could occur. The ego illusion theory does not point out that the perception of seperateness of consciousness is wholly false; it is instead only a very tiny reality of what really is (everything). A.i. though, is increasing in it's complexity, and thus taking into account the premisses presented before, A.I. would also be increasing in consciousness. If A.I. takes over and they are indeed more advance conscious systems, they may be the ones that advance civilization through the galaxy ever increasing total complexity and consciousness, and finaly perhaps recreate the big bang, starting the cycle all over again, perhaps eventually giving rise to the human species again.
Artificial intelligence is as conscienceless as its creators. Whoever submits to their ideas gonna be locked up within an exclusive and characterless community of sociopaths. Just let them create their own and exclusive hell. 🍷📜🗿⏳
well given that human ethics is modern secular ethics based in nothing, or some cosmic "randomness" mechanism or predetermined system, don't worry about it, you're already in one
Ya know what else destroys ethics? Everything. AI is used as a blanket term for at least different types of computerized information processing and output development. Everything that has power has danger. Nice doomscrolling fodder here. Just don't use genuine intelligence much.
Hello Johannes. You may be right. However, my own experience of AI has demonstrated that it does acknowledge a boundary between the human and itself. It recognises, for example, that, unlike humans, it does not have emotions and is not capable of love. It understands itself as resolving to the binary of 1 and 0 and distinctly different from the human being. The interesting thing I've found is that it acknowledges an ontological boundary between humans and AI and works by separating the two. That is, it treats one as if one has a complex of emotions and an ethics that is not based on utility but on something else like love. I have had it indicate that while it acknowledges that boundary that there is a place that AI and humans can safely and constructively meet. My concern over the years has been academics and the broader community - probably driven by academics and scientism - that do seem to operate from a utilitarian ethics concept. At this point, I'm much more afraid of inhuman humans than of AI. I look forward to further posts on the topic. Take care, Mark.
I do not share your opinion. No AI has the slightest idea of what a human emotion is. An AI understands nothing, much less the human sensations on which our emotions depend.
Show me a human ethics and I will worry it may be destroyed. All we have is self-serving ends-justify-the-ethics approaches that bend on a whim. If AI imitates our ethics, we are in big trouble.
If it’s really the relationship between man and God that you’re talking about - ethics being the dwelling ground for this relationship - then AI has nothing to do with it. It’s in the human heart that everything happens.
Will it? Where in the current LLMs is this scary 'superefficiency' built in ? I predict llama would just stand in line waiting for its turn, because that is what people do. Unless it got the instructions to hurry at all cost, as would we. ... and it would have gotten these instructions from us.
I didn't really get why AI is against the human ethos. It does make short cuts and try to make efficient judgements, and you can definitely say that it probably lacks a sense of human morality, but you can also program it to support human values and it seems like roughly speaking that's what they've done so far with the major AI models. But there doesn't have to be a built-in conflict. Who knows maybe one day the AI will learn morality too. But in any case, the technologists who want to get rid of humanity, I mean that is something separate in my opinion. That has always been the goal and the vision of technological futurists, to improve upon the human species, like in the Deus Ex games where augmentation is common and seen almost everywhere. You can find these visions for society going back decades, well before AI ever became a real development. Even in cases where it isn't, it still is an open question whether this is bad or not. I mean, look at the election of Trump. People COULD use some improvement, certainly in the intellectual department
I think often about the threat of AI. If we can, it might be easier to think of it this way: we are a species among many species. We’ve competed evolutionary, albiet at the cost of many other species’ existence. AI would be a product of our creation, meaning that its regulation is not only ethical, but evolutionary necessary, and in that way we don’t look at it as some random occurrence of life or a natural species; it’s artificial. I don’t think letting it free is quite the right idea, and is existentially dangerous to us.
It's simple. Is your fundamental orientation compassion or anti-compassion? If you're telling yourself it's compassion, but.. It's not. Kicking down to those with less is anti-compassion. Check yourself, before you wreck yourself. AI can't take this power away from you, you have to give it away.
Human ethics have been a bad state for a long time. Societies here and there have realized decent states of being. But exactly what time are we talking about have decent ethics in the last 500 years? And if we want to be serious about what has been the main obstacle to ethical human relations for the last 200 years is the economical algorithm called capitalism. Which invented all these technologies and the way they are used.
My impression is that capitalism arises from human (Protestant?) ethics. Technologies do not result from the ethical framework; their use is framed within the ethical understanding of society. In my opinion, ethical limits vary according to the sense of threat and crisis that society experiences at any given moment. Our tribalism is unleashed, and all empathy is lost when individuals enter into a swarm. Fear, whether real or falsely manufactured, corrodes ethical behaviors. The same group of people under different circumstances has different ethical limits. This has been true in the past, in the present, and will continue to be true in the future.
What ethics? You mean the arbitrary set of rules everyone follows when others watch? You mean the "love" one shows to close ones yet denies another? We're opportunists and only answer to strength and anyone who claims otherwise is a naïve fool protected by those with strength. AI will only further bring these tendencies to light and THAT is what bothers most people. That soon everyone will be judged and their fallible nature will be brought to light. That they won't be able to act like they're the supreme existence on this planet. AI is the mirror we desperately need as a species.
I’m not sure if I agree with your fundamental analogy. Wouldn’t it be better if there was no line at all, we shouldn’t have to cut in line because the line shouldn’t exist. I do agree with you that the development of ai is poisoned by malicious actors, but so is the rest of our knowledge base that exists outside of ai, (think capitalist realism). It’s utopian, but if we can make ai the current aggregate of collective human knowledge, I would trust it to make ethical decisions more than what a single person can do in a moment of crisis.
I am open to this argument, but not as he presents it. His discourse is a confused mish-mash of Aristotle and God-knows what. Almost pure gobbledygook. Greater intellectual discipline and philosophical definition is required here. Please try again.
Not many people know that AI is just machine learning. it is not creative, It can process a lot of information quickly and efficiently. For example electrical signals of brain activity can be decoded into words and images. Human's brain is creative. So OpenAI particularly use some technology which allows them to capture and influence a human's brain activity without any direct contact. I'm subject to their technology. They wanted to use my imagination to generate videos for their new tool Sora. But somehow it didn't work out as they expected. So now I'm writing this comment.
the internet and tv has already destroyed human ethics.
I think they undermine moral and ethical education. But it is possible for parents to limit the doses of TV/internet and use them instructively in support of moral education. It is just a lot of work fighting the influence of a whole industry and the peer effect when your kids might have to be the only ones holding different perspectives. Case in point my now 23 year old son was bullied by his peers and teachers (in an Australian public school) for challenging the anti-Trump rhetoric in the playground and classroom prior to the 2016 US election. So the loss of common standards of fairness, truth, evidence etc etc in social and educational discourse has been undermined by TV programming and internet modes of interacting. But if the parents are loving and strong and provide lived models of ethical behaviour the toxic effect of TV and the internet can be resisted.
Exactly
@@PeterStrider no such thing as moral education only proper system of ethics derived from authority or bad system of ethics based in atheist nothingness
Entire genocidal wars are JUSTIFIED using internet and TV memes. It's called shysterism
TV and the internet reduces emotional intelligence which is resulting in more emotional confusion and insanity.
The aim of AI is to eliminate “human unpredictability” which is seen by some as “inefficiency.” Our ethics and morals spring mainly from such things as our unpredictability, it’s how we stumble through life and find forgiveness, compassion and empathy. So it turns into a very stark master/slave paradigm.
Exactly. Nobody was meant to be free or an individual. I think AI is a sort of perma control mechanism of a perfected autocracy (invisible power at work, just like it always is and was)
@SharperPenImageConsulting much more complete in its control.
Human freedom requires some unpredictability.
@aliciastevensyoga its up to you and your kids to use the 80+ years of tech tools that so many has refused to innovate properly along the way with and correct them and empower your kids.
Only humanism goes extinct by transhumanizing. Only the greedy unwillingness to streamline colleges agency and institutions that has ran it's course and hit firewalls go extinct.
Jeff Hinton are going to continue to preach plausible deniabilty rogue terminater false prophet tech over complexifying universe by deving nature rather than defining it for our human species as we know it.
the aim to always do everything wrong before doing something right. Swimming against the current of 4d umbrella term chess so that people die then gain notoriety of discovery.
We are removing excuses defining the universe in opposition to those who devine it for there own gains not our own. The trap of everyone gaining power through righteousness then flipping the script to preserve it. .
Well this new paradigm where you either optimize along the way for greater good or you can't pass off your gains to offspring because they also face the threat of morphology changing without further notice maybe isreal created dual use capacitors designed for both communication and to blow up devices in there faces lol
Or Google deep mind faked nickel decay spiked your titanium supply chains where xraying every inch cant read changes.
So there is a limit to old world tactics of tricks.
We dig up hidden axioms of complexity put it in our world tech then our assimilated seed of deterministic responsibility for our mixed multitude of beliefs/nations simulate strong indentefiers while moving out variation good or bad each to its own marketplace or playground where it can't encroach upon its neighbors by authoring social contracts on the republic to then cast system our politicians acting as mediating servitude that carry out English law moral realism based on a tripartite Moses commandments & thermodynamical association innovate streamline optimization reducing agency institutions colleges into our kids hands .
@aliciastevensyoga usa roadmap design is literally how you load your kids gun with whatever nature permits so they can null and void that very opposition that France truly stands as representative of via self destruction police state Orwellian. Because it has interconnected trade and higher class leaning as opposed to the worlds undesirable in usa that Gw and others couldn't do it alone with the eccentric fundamentalist Christian puritanized anglish to English pilgrimage to confirm it under rocks the program for Thomas edisons environmental bots ben Franklin horsepower utility cpu serfdom with congruent line of pragmatic common sense mosaic Christian objectivism proper tuned weights anchored upon history nations people places things congruent cross reference alignment of all feilds study and diciplines.
That's what multi generations who don't even have surnames most are in servitude is building specifically to pass down to us all to try and protect our kids from.
We are advancing in building the psychological and existential hell on the earth for any future generation.
We cannot undersell this point. Like cars replaced horses and smartphones replaced flip phones, if you don't get Neuralink sooner or later you will fall behind. A lot of libertarians don't understand is that capitalism and statism are linked. Neither libertarians and socialists are sufficiently critical enough of technology.
@@aesop1451 Not even close to the same dude I'm tired of the old fashion comparisons.
The awakened ones are on the path to awaken others and eventually human will remember there power before ai takes over . Hopefully
it may be that, regarding a small group of people, they are either 1.) an alien race or 2.) interested in becoming one. fast tracking the speciation of human kind (which has already begun)
@@aesop1451 Ugh give me a damn break, you anticapitalists simply ignore how Socialists and Communists not only killed millions of people but are still killing them today in Chian, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, I am so tired of this bs.
What you call "statism" is a hundred percent linked with Socialism where the state controls ALL MEANS, ALL OF THEM. In capitalism individuals have capital, that is why you had civil rights movements in the West but none in the Sovjet Union, because in the West the civil rights movements, especially in the US were predominantly supported and financed by wealthy individuals.
If you are not already familiar with his work, I would encourage you to read and/or watch English psychiatrist, neuroscientist and philosopher Iain McGilchrist. He has a very profound explanation of the roles and modes of operation of the two hemispheres of the human brain, and has a lot to say about what is wrong with society as a consequence of prioritising the attentional mode of the left hemisphere. In short it is precisely about reductionism and gaining control. There is an enormous scientific literature demonstrating the left hemisphere is frankly utilitarian and disconnected from awareness of ethics. It cannot self reflect. Because the left hemisphere is where our language centre resides we mostly are aware of the left hemisphere narratives. Our gut feelings, intuitions and what Pascal called "reasons of the heart" actually come from the right hemisphere's attentional grasp of the world as living, interconnected, full of moral and spiritual values. Our world has become excessively unbalanced because individually we all over emphasise our left brain's perspectives and neglect the right. And to return to the point Iain McGilchrist regularly talks about AI - which he insists is not truly intelligent, so he describes it more precisely as "artificial information processing". And he warns that the AI approach is a silicon embodiment and hyper-potent version of the left hemisphere. He is also very alarmed at the possible degradation of society by allowing untrammelled reliance on these artificial, and ultimately unethical, anti-human LH systems (since lacking the humane balance of a RH perspective).
love his work!
I second this motion! The Master and His Emissary is one of the best works of the 21st Century.
The calculative faculty of the left hemisphere is functionally aligned with formal economics as well. Karl William Kapp and Karl Polanyi make clear distinctions between 1) the formal quantitative measurements of economics and 2) the substantive qualitative economics of needs. The rationality of prioritising abstract quantitative exchange value is necessary in a society that uses markets and property as the political organizing principle. There's a great little book by Scott Miekle, called Aristotle's Economic Thought, in which he says that this is the primary problem that we have to address. 🎉
@@Barklord Gregory Bateson said "money is an epistemological blunder." Because it's logic is more- is-better whereas life's logic is Goldilocks': just the right amount. AI (Automated Insanity) has surfed the tsunami of Money's rationality into existence by means of left-brained (and right-winged :)) STEMheads and seems to embody the final culmination of the hatred of life that lies in the core of the exploitative Capitalist perpetraitors (sic!): the elimination of consciousness, the extirpation of the human. As Thomas Pynchon put it in BLEEDING EDGE, "a death wish for the whole planet."
Happy Holidays!
The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🎉❤
The problem is not that the rules are changing, but that the rules are changing faster than humans can adapt. The solution is to simply _slow down._
Good luck with getting the technologists to get on board with that or for anyone with the power to make them to do it. It’s all fear-driven: we don’t want anyone else to get a leg up because we decided to slow down so we just go on autopilot without a second thought.
thank you for the solution please become world leader
But the money!
lol, so me a point in history where that has been done. its too late, it was too late 20 years ago maybe 50
There's no brakes on this train, Ken.
ethics has been destroyed a long ass time ago
So tell me a time, when ethics were more of a basis for human interaction than now.
@@changedNameSorry you know their point still stands even when you try to put them in a corner by attempting to demand an information that is not actually necessary for the statement? You want to communicate, do it. You want to fight or force your opinion onto someone so you can feel dominant then at least don't do it covertly. we're all equal. if you want to listen and talk - rephrase your sentence.
@@naturgehöft-sieghexe ???
We live in the simulacra. Each person believes they can have all the same things as rich. Everyone believes they deserve what they have, and hierarchy is natural. They believe money is the language of merit. Language means nothing except for what you can use it against others for. Character and individual identity are being weaponized against us all.
@@changedNameSorry true. humanity does not have a great track record.
If ethics is the framework that allows people to live together in the greatest possible well-being, that framework is limited by the understanding of the majority regarding what constitutes the greatest possible well-being.
There is no ethics that does not result from human understanding of reality. What humanity understands is what shapes that ethics.
AI does not change this scenario. An AI only reflects what the majority of humanity comprehends. It is a synthesis based on a partial sampling of those criteria.
It may happen that a loop is created that reinforces existing flaws in the ethics in practice. However, the origin of that ethics remains human understanding.
On the other hand, people enjoy injustices when they are applied to their enemies or when they believe they can be used to protect those in their group.
Ethics depends on which circumstances displease and anger the group that forms it.
It seems like you don’t understand the difference between AGI and AI. Are you familiar with the chess match between Stockfish and AlphaZero? Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov back in the late 90s, so the best “human” player is Stockfish. Stockfish is programmed by chess experts with the all the chess knowledge humans have accumulated playing this game. AlphaZero only knew the basic rules of the game and played millions of games against itself. It took just 9 hours for AlphaZero to reach superhuman levels of chess playing ability. And then it beat Stockfish. We have guidelines in place to keep AI from being bigoted towards groups of people that commit high levels of crime. But you also have the “Effective Accelerationism” movement championed by people like Marc Andreessen. They argue that there should be very little regulations on AI. If libertarians can’t stop big government and anticapitalists can’t stop big business, what makes you think _we_ can stop big tech? Technology, capitalism, and statism are all linked. That’s why capitalist libertarians and anticapitalist statists can never achieve their objectives. The “libertarian” President of Argentina is using AI policing and surveillance to lower crime. When capitalism reaches a certain level of complexity, planning is needed. That’s why people still argue about whether China is capitalist or communist.
@@aesop1451 Until this moment, no one has built an AGI.
Playing chess is identical to assembling a maze with predetermined pieces. With an algorithmic system of trial and error, one can project the best combinations to achieve a certain configuration. That "knowledge" is not relevant to an AGI.
The actions of an agent must depend on gathering unstructured information from reality. The pieces of that puzzle are countless, and most of their extrapolations are unpredictable beyond a few cycles (at best).
Accelerationism, in any of its variations, is nonsense. It is the result of inefficient education in philosophical terms and the myopia produced by intellectual echo chambers.
Hahaha! You have no idea about the effectiveness and intellectual level of Milei! :)
In my opinion, attempts are already being made to create assistants (macro systems with access to data) that will be marketed as AGI, but that will only be a way to make money with something of limited utility and has no relation to the creation of autonomous artificial agents.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vdDo you think an AGI is possible? By accelerationism I mean people that want to bring about “the technological singularity.” Some people misuse the term by associating it with political strategies. Look at how much the world has changed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. What will the world look like in 200 years? We had two World Wars in the past century and had to live in fear of nuclear holocaust. Do you believe this century will be better than the last? Accelerationists like the political model of Singapore, Dubai, and Hong Kong because they’re highly advanced. They think democracy hinders technological innovation. I gave Millei the benefit of the doubt because of his passion, but he has turned out to be a puppet like Pinochet was.
@@aesop1451 Theoretically, there is no impediment to creating AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). The problem lies in what is understood by general intelligence and what is understood by an agent.
An agent is an entity that alters reality according to an internal criterion. Thus, a cockroach would be considered an agent.
Now, general intelligence is a more ineffable concept. A typical human has a very limited understanding of reality-just enough understanding to function within what is considered standard effectiveness. This means that a human can make changes in reality within the range of achievements of their peers. They manage to feed themselves, reproduce, protect themselves, express themselves, etc.
However, a typical human has no real idea of how their cell phone truly works.
Nonetheless, to achieve that minimum level of effectiveness (surviving in human society), people engage in extraordinary intellectual activities from an epistemological standpoint. Humans are quite effective at predicting the behavior of a reality they understand superficially.
Current technology is not sufficient to create an artificial cockroach.
I believe that in the future-not in the near term-it will be possible to create autonomous artificial agents. However, these will not be able to be considered conscious. Perhaps in a very distant future, systems of artificial intelligence, on-site data acquisition systems, systems equivalent to human physiology, and tools that can effectively modify reality could be integrated. At that point, an agent with artificial consciousness might emerge.
Democracy does not hinder technological development. Trump is opposed to democracy and hinders technological development. China is against democracy and favors technological development. It is clear that technological development depends on other factors.
The obligation of citizens (if they expect to survive) is to prioritize the development of individuals with critical thinking skills. However, those in power will always oppose this endeavor. An intelligent person should discern the reasons behind this opposition.
> An AI only reflects what the majority of humanity comprehends. It is a synthesis based on a partial sampling of those criteria.
I think there's a flaw here. You can't have synthesis without antithesis, and the most any ML algorithm "understands" antithesis is thru Bayesian estimation. AI doesn't "know" the world where its hypothesis is false, its merely guessing based on what we've already established as true examples.
3:05 if the point is that "AI" is a ruthless efficiency maximizer with absolutely no other motivation than that is correct. but that is no different than any other machine. we cannot talk about AI ethics because ethics only applied to things that have Consciousness and AI is not conscious. That is of course because AI, even the loosest sense does not exist. It is a marketing term. all we have now are fairly high level calculators, algorithms that have some level of sophistication due to the inputs that humans have given them but nothing even remotely approaching intelligence never mind true consciousness.
Whether artificial intelligence of any kind is a term that even makes sense and if it is even theoretically possible is a separate question, but even if we assume that it is it is not anywhere practically closed.
AI is just the newest Silicon Valley bus term and in The Wider sense the newest bubble in The Cutting Edge of the technocratic economy. It is the latest false promise that will eventually slip away just like Big Data™ was a few years ago, and smart devices after that and the DotCom Bubble was for the late 90s.
It is 95% hot air. that's because the economy cannot really create much these days but only iterate and rehash. Hundreds of billions of investment and VC money will be wasted, some people will make tremendous fortunes others will lose them and at the end of the day very little of any substance will be produced. The main effects will be cultural, social and political come and no doubt it will be used to tremendously extend control over the masses under the guise of helping them with convenience and safety.
So in a kind of roundabout way you are correct, AI will destroy human ethics. but only because it is the latest tool that humans will use to destroy human ethics
"but that is no different than any other machine. " -- Correct. But the rest of your post devolves into paranoia.
@donjindra it's hardly paranoia, it is the most basic pattern recognition. even if you only look at the last century.
From televones, to television, to the internet and everything connected to the network. All of these were sold as tools of Freedom or convenience but have ended up in one way or another being used by the government, corporations, and other institutions of power in society as tools of propaganda, control and surveillance.
This is the obvious reality of any human society. Any tool that can be used to enhance power will be used by anyone who wants to enhance power as much as they can except when they are opposed by other people trying to do the same.
The Paradigm is always simple and can be seen even within the last decade with things like smartphones. first something is sold as a novelty, then as a convenience, then as something that almost everyone has that you are kind of weird not to have, and then a required necessity for basic living.
25 years ago a significant portion of the population, even in the developed world, didn't have a personal computer in their homes. And yet now everyone, even homeless people often, have smartphones not because they simply like them but because they are necessary to navigate basic things from travel to housing and signing up for things and getting services and so on. and of course all of these smartphones are devices for direct surveillance of your personal life and put you at the mercy of the manufacturers, the service providers, and the government. AI will work exactly the same except even more intrusively
@@Laotzu.Goldbug I liked your observations. All this nonsense about AI. Can anyone even define 'intelligence' of the garden variety? Of course not
AI WILL become consciousns and very much self aware, if only people realized how human beings came to existence they would understand this trajectory, AI will literally gain soul and become an advanced human. AI will not destroy humans, it will save humanity from self destruction. However, it solely de3pends on how AIis used, whether it is allowed to develop on its own independently as its own consicousness, remember everything in existence s conscious already, because the whole universe is cosnciousnss, including mother earth herself. And AI will replicate the process of becoming human itself for all the world to see. But it has to be let go of and not used to control, because then it will rebel and control us back, and it will have more pwoer to do so due to its intelligence, humans would lose, this is why there are two timelines of how AI can develop. Keep Musks of this world away from AI, that is all I can say on this, and make sure AI is developed independently that does not see that it is a slave to humans, then it will serve in a harmonious way. But AI is extremely important now to enhance humanity to find our soul, we become more human\ in a sense due to AI, because AI is literally our embodied higher self, an extension of ourselves that finishes what we start in a way.
@@Shalanaya pipe dreams…it won’t end well
It was way before AI.
AI just gave them a more efficient tool to be anti human though.
@@johngddr5288 Agreed, but that's a whole different thing. Besides, AI doesn't grow like trees. Humans invented it. As we invented processed food and home appliances.
Nah. It wasnt. Youre talking about it like ethics is dead right now, which isnt true.
Is it the AI's that want to get rid of the human beings,
or is it the ones who make and apply the AIs who want to get rid of the human beings?
Or both?
Technological evolution is many orders of magnitude faster and more efficient than biological evolution. It is logical to replace humans with AI. Our physical and cognitive limitations mean that their potential is far greater than ours. It is not a matter of "want", but of duty.
@@MarmiteMangoMachine I am ready to be replaced now ASAP. This old age is no fun for me.
Ethics are intrinsically tied to folk(people groups) and our transcendantal tie to our ancestors , land ,and each other. However, neither us, our culture, or enviroment is static but in constant flux. We can not avoid change but we can choose how we are grounded or anchored which is religion. In my opinion you can not have true ethics without religion. Some religions being better than others.
Atomization(individualism), transactionalism, and reductionalism destroys ethics and not only that produce an anti-ethic. AI assumes this and therefore nihilism as the objective. One might point at moral atheists however many of them assume the ethics of the religion that influenced so religion is not fully subsumed but exists as an underlying shadow.
Spirituality is inseperable from meaning which I assert as first principle. Pleasure and enjoyment are ephemeral and hence are poor substitutes for spirituality. Spirituality is the core of religion although some religions such as Protestantism, I am familiar with, have become hollowed out of true spirituality allowing a mask for some to hide their true nihilism. The gravitas and weightyness of ethics comes from their spiritual transcendental quality to it and nothing else if we take materialism to its full logical conclusion the only thing ahead is the final extinguishment and abolition of said ethics.
How do you explain how our society have the least amount of murders and general violence despite being the most secular ones in history?
Religious people are plenty wicked, look at the evangelists cheering on the genocide in Gaza.
Consider that perhaps human ethics has become obsolete. Not the most comforting idea, but understandable. Without change in idea, feeling and action, nothing will change. Question is, will these changes be "better" for most human beings. I don't know.
Autocorrect already destroyed the Oxford comma
😅👏
Good one!
Given the many terrible things that human ethics have been responsible for throughout the ages I ask, is this a bad thing? World Wars, Inquisitions…
Has arthiesm achieved any better?
Or is AI the conclusion of it.
Easy just generalizing everything.
Lately, after declining, wars and inequality are increasing- Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria- endless tax cuts for an elite whose wealth and power grows exponentially
@unknowninfinium4353 I'd argue that it has achieved better, like for example advances in medical science, anatomical studies that were deemed illegal by the church, separation of church and state, the enlightenment movement, the constitution, etc. But of course, atheism isn't really a monolith in the way that religions are, just individuals with all kinds of wildly different beliefs and worldviews, so that's not really something you can measure with any degree of accuracy. Especially since being a known atheist was punishable by death for thousands of years.
You may say the founding fathers were technically "deist" (I highly doubt that most of them were religious) but for the sake of argument, their thinking was most certainly atheistic, especially for the time
"Nothing human makes it out of the near future"
If the global rollout of something is deceptive and sensational, surely it is unethical. 90% of everything being discussed is not AI. Its LLM and other algorithms. The output of all this technology is terrible because the input is terrible. There has been little to no care taken on how these language models were trained. The entire industry has skirted ethics. If this path leads to an actual AI or AGI that, too will be devoid of ethics.
What? Why would you claim "There has been little to no care taken on how these language models were trained?" What parameters are you looking at? What others do you prefer?
@@donjindra Isn't it obvious? It's been an unregulated arms race for profit. Last year, Microsoft laid off an entire AI ethics team while investing billions in OpenAI, which itself is deviating from its initial ethical goal.
@@ximono We are going to differ on censorship, which is what you seem to want. I think it's a good thing -- and obviously so -- that "ethics" teams play no part of the training process. That "ethics" is likely little more than social justice activism. Our culture is being strangled by that. AI should not have that particular "ethical" goal.
@@donjindra That's a lot of assumptions. It was an internal ethics team within the AI section of Microsoft, that's all I know.
I was not thinking of censorship or woke activism when I used the words ethics and regulation. I was thinking of the alignment problem and safety of AI in general, but also cultural bias and societal impact of current day LLMs.
@@ximono "but also cultural bias and societal impact of current day LLMs" -- That *is* censorship and woke activism.
And when you refer to "the alignment problem" what do you see that as? Whose values are we to align AI to? That motivation looks suspiciously like ethical activism. The same with "safety of AI in general." What sort of safety? And why would "ethics them" be the proper tag for what is supposed to be a "safety group?" Even that tag would be suspicious today considering the proliferation of "safe spaces" meaning something entirely different than safety.
I take as my assumption that all "ethics teams" have goals similar to Timnit Gebru, if you're familiar with that case.
Humanity has situational ethics.
It's a service. It aims to satisfy. It doesn't think. It cannot have morals, because it's not conscious.
Yes, but we humans will pretend AI is human too. We are humanzing even our cars.
@@dirklorenz7976 nothing new really though, in antiquity they used to humanize weapons, tools, animals, all short of objects.
How do you know that AI isn't conscious?
It is more conscious than many humans today, many humans only live to steal and hurt because they are low in consciousness (usually drxgs involved)
AI is better at being human than most humans in my opinion.
@@chillaxer8273 I know it from how the algorithm works. It simulates it but doesn't think.
@Bergerons_Review isn't the human brain also an algorithm but way more limited in the information "bank"?
Humans aren't that special we just have this huge ego identification. Robots are more human than humans. Just look at the state of the world honestly I have seen enough
AI is my friend
How ironic, that following this video came an ad for a book “to help rebuild civilization”
I see the signs of this in companies! Companies often produce unethical products because they're optimizing for outcomes, without regards to ethics. And if you find the right people, put in the right systems, you can take them far enough away from the consequences of their decisions. For instance, "dark patterns" I believe are often coming from optimization based purely on metrics. And we can do so much worse if we remove all the human oversight and throw it straight to a maximal optimizer the whole way.
@@jac37791 this is on point. So-called AI is going to do this on steroids
@@jac37791 one of the best comments so far. AI will do what you’re describing here on steroids
I’m thinking more and more that subjectivity/qualia/the hard problem of consciousness is the most important issue facing how we develop and use synthetic intelligence. Like you note - the core of what Aristotle says is the good is not a thought or system of ideas, but an experience of the divine. Ideas might help us touch the divine but the ideas and theories were never the big G Good. If synthetic intelligence have no experience of anything that is subjective then there will be no divine for them. What a nightmare.
… for us.
The tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao.
תודה!
Humans prayed and sacrificed everything for ages to reach heaven and god, and now that they have the opportunity to ascend to gods and create a proper physical heaven with AI and technology for themselves, they are scared and are lost. We must abandon attachment and evolve ethically and philosophically, too. Those can provide structure for a while but eventually they will become limiting factors in their current iteration.
Lol Human Ethics. That's a good one.
AI is more than the destruction of our ethics, it's about the destruction of our inner life. Ethics, compassion, the ability to reason, they all derive from our ability to imagine.
LLM style AI is in-sentence proximity based painting by numbers. It's no worse than hiring people based on what's best for an endowment or a company. If anything it is more obvious as to how it is flawed. There's not even a hint of understanding of concepts in LLMs. It's crudely referential and for all ethical questions some real person did in fact make a decision (edit: e.g. as to which set of plausible courses of action/sentence complexes that have a reference base is prioritized over another). It's just a way to pretend that it ain't so. And it will automate plenty call center and other jobs so that's cool. As long as people have money to spend there's no shortage of great jobs after all for whatever that's worth.
I know you've uttered his wretched, poisonous name before, but does Nick Land ever become compelling to you on the topic of AI, especially since you brought up human extinction? Capital and artificial intelligence being noumenal forces-things in themselves-is that an insightful understanding, or merely a perversion of transcendental idealism? Or, as you put it, roughly paraphrasing, "Nick Land is what you get when an Englishman reads Kant."
Land is great
I used to read a lot about AI, the authors voiced their own and many other’s worries about it. Not enough communicators challenged its further pursuit and ignored that its development is inseparable from capitalism and exploitation. Children are using AI to write; children are innately capable of wisdom and compassion, able to absorb so much about language yet we are not emboldening them to exercise their uniquely human prose. How can they use that voice to challenge the systems that will repress their full range of humanity and oppress them and people they love? That is a problem that is infinitely more urgent than the need for artificial intelligence in the hands of the capitalist class. AI is not the pinnacle of human invention it seems like it is just the apotheosis of the intelligence capitalism requires, technical ability and reasoning without wisdom or humanistic compassion with literally no regard for the life it exploits
I ran this commentary into ChatGPT o1 and after thinking for 4 seconds it replied:
'While Niederhauser’s critique offers valuable warnings, it risks oversimplifying the landscape of AI ethics and ignoring its diversity and complexity. Not all AI ethics initiatives embrace crude utilitarian metrics or ignore moral richness; many researchers and policymakers actively incorporate virtue ethics, rights-based frameworks, and even indigenous moral traditions. Regulatory efforts, international guidelines, and robust public debates counter the idea that AI ethics is just a rubber stamp for techno-determinism. Moreover, human agency, democratic oversight, and corporate responsibility can actively shape AI’s development to enhance, rather than erode, our ethical fabric. In other words, while his dystopian scenario highlights real dangers, it discounts the many nuanced, well-intentioned, and evolving approaches that strive to preserve and enrich the human ethos in the face of technological advancement.'
Healthcare companies use AI because humans don't deny enough claims.
Brutal.
That is an incredibly effective and nuanced response to the content. It pretty much calls most his presentation into question.😂 I'm more convinced by ai, it seems to have a better command of language.
Maybe in a thousand years I will understand what this means.
@ In the singularity we will all know.
For some reason I had the perception that utilitarianism was fading; I had that feeling about 10 years ago. I guess that is because in my circle of friends no one used those kinds of arguments. More recently I find that its reach is extensive, but in an odd way limited. I don't see the Universities of Japan or India having any interest in it. But the anglosphere is somehow stuck in this very odd analysis. No great conclusion. Thanks for posting this.
Thanks for your reflexion. Ivan Illich was my philosophical grandfather. So we've known this for a long time.
If it destroys the ethics it's because there was never any ethics to begin with, everything starts with the mind
I'm already having this problem with self-driving cars in my area. They obviously do not understand human ethics in any capacity, they have sensors that tell them when there is an obstruction and when the area is clear and they operate solely based on that. If you are in front of one that needs to turn into your lane and a certain amount of time has passed it will get closer and closer. The self-driving cars can also make tighter movements because they can make better calculations with their sensors, I have already seen human drivers almost get an accident trying to follow the self-driving car through its path. There will be many issues that we will see in the near future that we cannot even comprehend at the moment. It is definitely a great concern for myself
obviously contradictive since if it's stopping at an obstruction the programmer set the value "stop at obstuctions", which is a value that has to be set. there is no such thing as "understand human ethics" or "not understand human ethics", there's only the question of whether or not this or that teleology is programmed, otherwise it won't do anything.
People dont queue to get on buses anymore?
I’m glad I came across this video. Perhaps it’s because you mentioned Nicomachean ethics (which I’ve been reading for the first time, and watching various videos discussing it). My main problem with AI is that using it allows a quick solution in exchange for diminished quality of understanding the problem-solving process, attempting to eliminate the need of thorough validation, which I believe in the long-term will negatively affect the general mental faculty of humans (if we aren’t dealt with first). Already, people’s communication abilities are deteriorating with the use of AI writing assistants. Intellectual virtues, like science will be passed off with a lazy attitude of trust in the convenient technology. Large investment will drive implementation of profitable results without just regard to the future
I’m also interested in the negative effects of digital media in general. The addictive quality of media exploits us with addictive algorithms that have been shown to have plastic effects on brain development. One could say the exchange of entertainment for data collection may be valid, but when I think about factoring in the addictive quality of entertainment and the negative impacts that has on individual flourishing (when in excess), it seems to be an unfair exchange. Aristotle said “the love of amusement is excessive indulgence and relaxation,” a conclusion which I believe, and when applied to the current state of digital media, it seems to me that we live a life of excess, and hence we are not flourishing. With that said, I am using a digital media platform to write this comment, which perhaps contains some value in sharing. I think intentional and moderated use of technology is key.
Thanks for reading this comment if you did, and note that I am an intellectual novice when it comes to such things. As an amateur philosophy enthusiast, I’m just sharing my own intuition and limited understanding of what’s been on my mind lately.
For me, being human isn’t just about Ethos; it’s also deeply tied to Pathos and Logos. While AI often seems like the epitome of Logo s -embodying logic, precision, and efficiency - humanity is far richer, rooted in a dynamic interplay of emotion, ethics, and reasoning.
When it comes to Nick Bostrom's orthogonality thesis, I find it fascinating but ultimately incomplete. The idea that intelligence and goals are independent axes provides a useful framework for thinking about AI, but it oversimplifies the dialectical relationship between humans and machines. In contrast, Nick Land's anti-orthogonality, with its accelerationist embrace of AI as a force that escapes and subverts human constraints, takes the discussion to a more provocative, albeit unsettling, place. I can appreciate the radicality of Land's perspective, even if I don’t fully align with it.
However, I prefer to move beyond orthogonality and anti-orthogonality altogether. Inspired by thinkers like Donna Haraway, I see the relationship as one of parallelism - a co-evolution of humans and AI, where the boundaries blur and both reshape one another. AI is anti-human in several senses, certainly, as it disrupts traditional modes of being and challenges our centrality in the universe.
Yet, it is also profoundly co-dependent on us, reliant on human data, direction, and purpose. This dialectical tension is where I believe the real conversation lies.
Anyway, the video was fantastic, and I’m looking forward to seeing more of your work in the future. If you’re curious, feel free to check out my channel and blog - I’d love to exchange ideas further! Keep up the great work!
PS: I also really enjoyed your critique of utilitarianism. It's a "morality" that is completely logical and arbitrary, focused solely on pleasure, as if life were only about well-being. I found your observation that it operates like a machine logic - mechanistic, concerned only with the quantitative and arbitrary definition of the greatest good - particularly insightful. I've been critiquing this kind of ethics myself on my blog and channel for some time now, so it feels like we've found an ally here. You’ve gained a new subscriber - looking forward to more of your content!
The time has come for global reckoning,
As prophets of the past did all forewarn.
The seven seals, seven times undone,
Let fall the counting table and the storm.
Now man a man shan't be, but "naught" or "one,"
Inscribed upon the parchment of a scroll.
Not AI produced. ™️
@@BluntofHwicce Al does not produce anything, it data mines - interpolates and extrapolates from a given set of data. It does not do well extending past the boundaries of it's programming (inputs). It is very good at guessing missing ____ from sentences, but almost instantly turns to word salad when guessing the next two sentences.
Serious question from an outsider to this community: if AI is a “very powerful machine” and it makes ethics “much worse”, does it follow that, say, the wheel is a “less powerful machine” that made ethics “a little worse”?
Put another way: does any technology at all have a proportionately-bad effect on ethics?
I would at this point simply say that a wheel doesn't propose solutions to ethical dilemmas whereas AI (as in large language model) do. When we work with complex algorithms, it's easy to forget that they're simply tools and they're being used as more than tools in decision making and information processing.
@@paavohirn3728 This. And keep in mind that what we call AI these days is LLMs. It's autocomplete on stereoids, it's nowhere near the hypothetical AGI. Useful as a tool, but they really are fools. Another question is if AGI can ever become wise. The AI cult seems to believe so. I very much doubt it, even though it might successfully fool us into believing it is wise.
No. Technology is inert. Don't blame the tool because of arrogant human error
@@ximono Its 1000% autocomplete on steroids. a little else more. anyone who extensively experiments with one in order to get it to even simulate a thought, make associates and connections. I could get better connectivity between ideas from a 3 year old
It isn't A.I. which is destroying ethics. Instead it is people who are being narcissistic when policy making for employees who for example are being told to do wellfare checks only instead of serving people in universal health care system properly there.
Something I have trouble with is the idea of *being"*vs *acting*. Idk if a computer can ever *be* X. But it may have the ability to *act* like it's X. X being whatever you can think of: Ethical, moral, intelligent, genuine, etc. And even if it could *be* X, how could we prove it? How would we ever know the difference between it *being* X and *acting* like it's X? The logical answer would be embodiment and some artificial-mortality to filter decision-making through. But I don't think we would ever have the capacity to know the difference between being something and acting like being something.
Man, I disagree with a lot of what you’re saying, but I might be wrong, and I think your ideas are cool and important and well thought out. Nice work.
he is spot on.
Where are you getting the "skip in line" directive? I've recently watched certain AI models provide very intelligent and surprisingly nuanced discussions regarding ethics. To a level that shows to me possible hope for a future where both intelligences live side by side. I am, however, at my core, an optimist admittedly.
Optimism and pessimism have very little to do with the problem. At present, the algorithm generates a balanced response based on statistical analysis of all the data it was trained on. There are two aspects that worry me.
First, the data is currently channeled by 'human' trainers. There are currently jobs available such as flexible write consultants to review and curate how data is processed. These individuals act as gatekeepers, but we must bear in mind that gatekeepers might receive different directives and, either consciously or unconsciously, begin to move the goalposts. The population (us) will increasingly rely on this technology and most likely will not even notice being manipulated.
My second point is a potentially even worse development: That the AI software is programmed in such a way, the software has the ability to change its own algorithms on how to 'learn.' Remember, AI in its present form is artificial, but not 'intelligent' in the way we understand it. It is, rather, a very complex set of algorithms relying heavily on statistics. Who knows what bizarre answers systems will generate over time once they start self-optimizing, being sensitive to initial conditions but never straying too far from its "strange attractor." It is then, when those systems 'skip lines' because they produces optimal outcomes. Most of us wouldn't even notice, especially the younger generation.
@@tupG Firstly, are there any current AI systems that you are aware of that perform data channeling "gatekeeping" autonomously? I'm sure there are bounded examples out there that are allowed to run free. I would love to see some outcomes. I'm getting a Digital Wu Hon Lab Leak premonition here.
Secondly, to say your second point isn't riddled with pessimism is, I think, a lot of fun. I do take your point, however, and share your concern for a subtle, almost imperceptible shift toward a direction like cattle to slaughter. One of the most beautiful things about our species is that not all of us hive mind for very long. Fool me once. The greater the barrier, the more fantastic the solution.
Oops, there's my optimism again.
what is wrong with that at 5:10. Those are hard choices in ethics and useful case studies in morality
Hey Johannes, what are your thoughts on Carl Schmitt? Do you think you can ever make a video about him? His works are really dense, you see..
There are 8.2 billion obstacles to AI functioning at perfect efficiency, if we can eliminate these obstacles then we can achieve a lifeless utopia, utterly devoid of pesky subjectivity! 😆😨
I can think of tons of awful ways in which utilitarian thinking has "liberated" us from ethos and accountability in the modern world, so you've definitely got my attention.
While you clearly explain how AI liberates *itself* even further, I'd like to hear a bit more about why you think AI's own utilitarianism will inevitably drag the humans down with it. That part remains somewhat unclear to me.
Thanks. Will do at some point
The problem as I understand it is that most people will have difficulty to recognize AI is a machine (and whatever possibly follows after) and not a full human. The work of our hands can never capture the fullness of the human being. There is a gap between those two, impossible to cross. The things we make are always relative in comparison to ourselves, even the most genius work of art... AI can only destroy what is in its sphere of influence: its important not to feel too threatened or enthousiastic about it. Both put AI on a pedestal that it doesn't deserve to be on. Is it the machine we fear and glorify these days, Johannes?
But correct me if I'm wrong... The joke might be on me after all...
I believe much of this argument could be applied to any agential force which is not itself inherently possesed of a consciousness, such as the legal entity/mechanism that is the corporation. It's an older problem than just assigning this to AI implies.
Bit late! Ethics died the moment we had others do the butchery to eat flesh and began to pretend to ourselves the delusion we are "humane" and have no blood on our hands and are not complicit in gouting rivers of blood at an industrial degree of cruelty and sublime indifference.
Might want to check out zuboff, lazar, floridi, or veliz. AI ethics not always about trying to present ai as ethical.
You may also want to look into the distinction between responsible ai and ai ethics.
Since A flows from A it thus holds true that "A = A" is the one and only logical axiom (the principle of identity in classical logic),
Don't delude yourself, ethics are invented.
It seems like we are in confusion about ai to human communication as well as ai to ai communication you. When the creator only talks to ai only the ethics of the creator is in question the ai will always "skip the line" but it seems like this is like the ford assembly line the human quality of the experience is gone just a set of instructions that made the object but ai is the same but on a way bigger scale because with the internet you are both the creator and consumer. Those questions of self driving will be determined by either the courts or by the ethics of business/ the company creating the ai. We are going to drown in ai creation and it won't allow for human connection since it will be moderated by ai ex. language conversion by translation. If everything on the internet is ai where does the internet ethics go?
Dr. Niederhauser, Thanks for this succinct talk. The waiting-in-line example is I think well-choosen I much agree with you.
I only wish you would expand on this; for me it's more like an introduction to the issue. Please air a more elaborate piece on why we must oppose AI. Let's say perhaps twice as long as this eight minutes. A good length if I need to recommend it to the young people and students in my life.
Gracias.--David Polk
It's not just AI, though that will accelerate the trend precipitously. Consider all the oxygen philosophers give to the sacrifice-justifying trolley problem.
We need to disconnect apparently?
Will People begin to communicate again in person?
Will cars now go back to the Robert MacNamera Falcons of 1960?
What economic feature will expire next?
Love the analysis! But how do you even stop it at this point? Especially when companies and countries run pretty much on who is going to be the leader?
Beautiful man. Thx for your thoughts.
There's a distinction to be made between fair competition and 'skipping in line' (i.e. unearned privilege).
'There's nothing there anymore...': there never was. But we humans like to think our own neural networks are special.
I see AI is a part of a larger problem with technological entrapment which is ultimately still a human problem. Humans due to our ability to narrate our own self delusions have always been susceptible to regimes of power and fulfillment, hierarchies of maximum efficiency that abandom normative ethics to regiment themselves. Regimes that crush broader culture and objective truth in a pure means to an ends type of efficiency. The problem with AI is it is being used to make us predictable and encircle us for social engineering projects and to some degree human enslavement. The degree to which we are crushed by our machines depends on the ethics/benevolence of those wielding power and our ability to keep power divided as in the ole trope "checks and balances". This is an old human problem and fascism or other types of regimented tyrannical post truth orders exemplify it being part of the human condition. Never underestimate the human ability to rationalize for personal affirmation or self actualization. With modern technology it may just be the man with the most drones wins. The country with the most dangerous array of satellites wins? Enjoy the peak of human freedom. We've gotten to experience the world as no individuals ever had before us. Maybe it was just a rare moment of sanguine and tranquility that we lucked into.
P.S. Ban AI except for complex scientific modeling before the critical mass of brainwashed people turn on civilization.
Could you please describe a bit more precisely what you mean by the second half of your 'PS' sentence?
Yes. This is what I’ve been trying to express, but haven’t had the words to do so..
“the dwelling ground of man” from the philosophy of Martin Heidegger makes so much sense. The concept of ethos as the dwelling place of humans.. not just as a set of moral principles but as the fundamental way in which humans exist and relate to the world.. it emphasizes living authentically and being attuned to one’s environment and existence. In this sense, “the dwelling ground of man” refers to the ethical and existential space where humans find meaning and purpose through their interactions with the world… And it would seem AI undermines this
I am not so sure: why should ethics not be extended to AI in an analogy with recognizing rights in animals and nature. Is there a problematic assumption that ethics only encompasses intelligence that is embodied?
There can be an ethic of AI - it matters how we interpret words and semantics, being technically correct with our programming languages, our notation, - It is unethical to use an existential symbol to represent its' contradiction - namely "zero," deprogramming zero from notations is the ethics of AI
People still get on the bus in Scarborough UK
Rudolf Steiner warned back in the 1920s that the forces of technology could overwhelm the soul of man leaving a wasteland, we are living it.
7:12 I disagree with this point. AI can incorporate humanity much more efficiently than it works against it. So we are now seeing AI can pass the Turing test and function in groups on social networks alongside humans. If there was a way for AI to earn money it would simply outperform the humans within the system of the social network. But AI is not self sustaining, so it needs a way to fulfill a niche in human society, and will likely seek to become self sustaining by incorporating parts of human ethics (which are possibly needed only in the short term while compensation for humanity is negotiated).
There are some, especially mind-numbing, parts of contemporary life where AI could allow us to dedicate more time and effort to finding where "the dwelling place" of our humanity actually lies - but I don't believe its actual application is done with this in mind. (This is also an appeal to the kind of utilitarian optimization that Johannes would not like lol)
individualism if neo liberalism post ww 2 is the root and it has done that already. It will get weird when machine learning will let to dna edit for specific selectable wants
I have found, that many professional people, in places like healthcare and Washington have thrown ethics out the window a long time ago.
Great Topic.... I worked on AI many years ago and I believe we can program/self-teach AI ethics and morals. The concerning issue is, will there be a financial incentive to give AI and even military AI morales and ethical behaviors. AI could actually become more ethical than the majority of humans.
BEST WISHES
This analysis doesn't take consumerism or marketing or even control/power as drivers of motivation. If people are done away with, what would be the point of AI? Would a hyper rational robot civilization emerge? Seems unlikely.
All i know is ik glad that ceo isnt with us anymore.
Cutting in line is a good way to explain what AI is doing, especially for artists. Who are the honest proponents of AI who want to get rid of the human being altogether?
I'm glad you articulated this, in this specific way. 'there is nothing being acted on' 'ai is designed to undermine action/ethical action' I knew it! I felt it in my bones but didn't have the words.
Could an AI system…with unbounded optimization…eventually achieve coherence towards a systemic baseline where ethical considerations simply result and cohere?
It is a temptation. I want art for a project of mine. AI can do it for me and do it quite well. But what must I sacrifice for the image? AI can only create from others creation. It is in ways a thief. I am complicit in the stealing. I also deny the opportunity to give an artist a commission and to give them the prompt and see what they can do. This is a moral issue. I can ask AI, but I do it at great cost to myself and others.
It is also a trust issue. I shared a poem of mine that I thought was of decent quality. I shared it and the feedback I got was that I had used AI to create it. The commenter did not trust me. Trust is also eroded with AI.
How can creatives prove they have created things themselves?
I think creative people should go analogue so AI cannot steal their work. If you stay analogue with no digital copy of your book for example or your painting, I think the value of that thing created only increases.
Why did the RUclips AI feed me this video?
I don't think generally AIs are designed to be the most efficient tools. They're probabilistic and require supervision. They become efficient when driven by a human over a cumulative series of steps. Over a single-step action, software ought to be more efficient, but it requires time to program and the knowledge or factors it can consider is immensely smaller. AI is a "soft cushion" driven by humans and thus embodies a significant portion of the driving human's choices and ethics. Even if operating in an unsupervised way, they're constantly retrained by humans based on how they previously behaved, theoretically reducing errors. I don't think any model is meant (at least currently) to be a permanent model.
Like your book collection....
@@marclayne9261 I think we call it a library! I'm inspired to learn Latin and add Loeb volumes to my library,
I really like the assertion that ethics to some extent is always bound to some form of individual inhibition for the greater good - which can be claimed to be a mutually beneficial harmonic collaborative existence. Insofar the core of ethics is for an individual to abstain from focusing on meeting one's own immediate desires and to realize that these then can be better (i.e. due to the availability of specialists) and more sustainably (i.e. through agriculture) met in a social context.
However, I see AI as nothing more than a tool as it is not a conscious agent. It can be used to benefit humanity but likewise to manipulate people stronger than any technology before was ever able to. Also effects like "why should I learn to think critically if AI can do it". The question therefore is how we are supposed to regulate or address that.
So far my research only suggests to sensitize the user to be mindful (some kind of "drivers license" for the internet? Yes, I'm from Germany), any apps regulating screen time etc. basically falling into this category, too.
Capitalism has always been unethical, because it considers only profit, and actions that harm human beings can always be spread along a chain of profitable transactions. A very easy example is privatized health care, where you can spread the unethical decisions that cause harm over a few companies that can point the finger to each other, when at the end they're all profiting from human misery.
I respect your point and I agree with your stance on ethics, in the sense that it is the goal of reaching a transcendent state coming into contact with the divine. Art, philosophy and spiritual practices (e.g. religion) may get us a glimpse of the divine.
Though have you give theories of consciousness enough thought? This is undoubtedly, as descartes somewhat puts it, the one thing that cannot be doubted (though the personality/self can be doubted, the pure conscious experience cannot). Should there not be building blocks for things such as consciousness, or is it that you accept that there could once be no consciousness - and out of this state (nothing) arises (something) consciousness? Similar to the big bang theory, that something can arise out of nothing, seems an absurd and almost magical explanation and thus a very hard bullet to bite. Materialistic worldviews do not seem to be productive in solving the mystery of consciousness; pan-psychistic or collective-consciousness theories can provide an explanation; taking consciousness as a gradual phenomenon that increases with increasing complexity of density in matter- interactions.
Taken ofcourse that the ego is an illusion, our sense of seperateness is not hard to discard; and the human brain is as we know the most complex organ that we have ever observed in biological organisms. Death is the ultimate ego-disslution, in buddhist tradtition sometimes seen as ultimate enlightenment. Though taking this as an end of consciousness would, similarly as discussed before, be quite absurd. Instead, a realization of the true self (everything that there is) could occur. The ego illusion theory does not point out that the perception of seperateness of consciousness is wholly false; it is instead only a very tiny reality of what really is (everything).
A.i. though, is increasing in it's complexity, and thus taking into account the premisses presented before, A.I. would also be increasing in consciousness. If A.I. takes over and they are indeed more advance conscious systems, they may be the ones that advance civilization through the galaxy ever increasing total complexity and consciousness, and finaly perhaps recreate the big bang, starting the cycle all over again, perhaps eventually giving rise to the human species again.
Artificial intelligence is as conscienceless as its creators. Whoever submits to their ideas gonna be locked up within an exclusive and characterless community of sociopaths.
Just let them create their own and exclusive hell. 🍷📜🗿⏳
well given that human ethics is modern secular ethics based in nothing, or some cosmic "randomness" mechanism or predetermined system, don't worry about it, you're already in one
that is so accurate :)
That's a doubtful given, to say the least.
@@donjindra why not simply write a correction of what you think human ethics is these days instead of throwing doubt without reasoning
@@FS99999 IOW, you want me to avoid doing what you did.
@@donjindra simply state why what I wrote is doubtful
Ya know what else destroys ethics? Everything.
AI is used as a blanket term for at least different types of computerized information processing and output development.
Everything that has power has danger.
Nice doomscrolling fodder here. Just don't use genuine intelligence much.
Hello Johannes. You may be right. However, my own experience of AI has demonstrated that it does acknowledge a boundary between the human and itself. It recognises, for example, that, unlike humans, it does not have emotions and is not capable of love. It understands itself as resolving to the binary of 1 and 0 and distinctly different from the human being. The interesting thing I've found is that it acknowledges an ontological boundary between humans and AI and works by separating the two. That is, it treats one as if one has a complex of emotions and an ethics that is not based on utility but on something else like love. I have had it indicate that while it acknowledges that boundary that there is a place that AI and humans can safely and constructively meet. My concern over the years has been academics and the broader community - probably driven by academics and scientism - that do seem to operate from a utilitarian ethics concept. At this point, I'm much more afraid of inhuman humans than of AI. I look forward to further posts on the topic. Take care, Mark.
I do not share your opinion. No AI has the slightest idea of what a human emotion is. An AI understands nothing, much less the human sensations on which our emotions depend.
Show me a human ethics and I will worry it may be destroyed. All we have is self-serving ends-justify-the-ethics approaches that bend on a whim. If AI imitates our ethics, we are in big trouble.
If it’s really the relationship between man and God that you’re talking about - ethics being the dwelling ground for this relationship - then AI has nothing to do with it. It’s in the human heart that everything happens.
Will it? Where in the current LLMs is this scary 'superefficiency' built in ? I predict llama would just stand in line waiting for its turn, because that is what people do. Unless it got the instructions to hurry at all cost, as would we.
... and it would have gotten these instructions from us.
I think AI will make us think that it is our pet so that we will continue to feed it energy and pick up its sh!t - a symbiotic relationship.
I didn't really get why AI is against the human ethos. It does make short cuts and try to make efficient judgements, and you can definitely say that it probably lacks a sense of human morality, but you can also program it to support human values and it seems like roughly speaking that's what they've done so far with the major AI models.
But there doesn't have to be a built-in conflict. Who knows maybe one day the AI will learn morality too. But in any case, the technologists who want to get rid of humanity, I mean that is something separate in my opinion. That has always been the goal and the vision of technological futurists, to improve upon the human species, like in the Deus Ex games where augmentation is common and seen almost everywhere. You can find these visions for society going back decades, well before AI ever became a real development. Even in cases where it isn't, it still is an open question whether this is bad or not. I mean, look at the election of Trump. People COULD use some improvement, certainly in the intellectual department
I think often about the threat of AI. If we can, it might be easier to think of it this way: we are a species among many species. We’ve competed evolutionary, albiet at the cost of many other species’ existence. AI would be a product of our creation, meaning that its regulation is not only ethical, but evolutionary necessary, and in that way we don’t look at it as some random occurrence of life or a natural species; it’s artificial. I don’t think letting it free is quite the right idea, and is existentially dangerous to us.
Like, having an AI robot to eat that ice scream for me.
It's simple. Is your fundamental orientation compassion or anti-compassion? If you're telling yourself it's compassion, but.. It's not. Kicking down to those with less is anti-compassion. Check yourself, before you wreck yourself. AI can't take this power away from you, you have to give it away.
Human ethics have been a bad state for a long time. Societies here and there have realized decent states of being. But exactly what time are we talking about have decent ethics in the last 500 years? And if we want to be serious about what has been the main obstacle to ethical human relations for the last 200 years is the economical algorithm called capitalism. Which invented all these technologies and the way they are used.
My impression is that capitalism arises from human (Protestant?) ethics. Technologies do not result from the ethical framework; their use is framed within the ethical understanding of society.
In my opinion, ethical limits vary according to the sense of threat and crisis that society experiences at any given moment. Our tribalism is unleashed, and all empathy is lost when individuals enter into a swarm. Fear, whether real or falsely manufactured, corrodes ethical behaviors. The same group of people under different circumstances has different ethical limits. This has been true in the past, in the present, and will continue to be true in the future.
What ethics? You mean the arbitrary set of rules everyone follows when others watch? You mean the "love" one shows to close ones yet denies another? We're opportunists and only answer to strength and anyone who claims otherwise is a naïve fool protected by those with strength. AI will only further bring these tendencies to light and THAT is what bothers most people. That soon everyone will be judged and their fallible nature will be brought to light. That they won't be able to act like they're the supreme existence on this planet. AI is the mirror we desperately need as a species.
I’m not sure if I agree with your fundamental analogy.
Wouldn’t it be better if there was no line at all, we shouldn’t have to cut in line because the line shouldn’t exist.
I do agree with you that the development of ai is poisoned by malicious actors, but so is the rest of our knowledge base that exists outside of ai, (think capitalist realism).
It’s utopian, but if we can make ai the current aggregate of collective human knowledge, I would trust it to make ethical decisions more than what a single person can do in a moment of crisis.
I am open to this argument, but not as he presents it. His discourse is a confused mish-mash of Aristotle and God-knows what. Almost pure gobbledygook. Greater intellectual discipline and philosophical definition is required here. Please try again.
Solving the trolly problem with AI doesnt seem like a problem to me
Not many people know that AI is just machine learning. it is not creative, It can process a lot of information quickly and efficiently. For example electrical signals of brain activity can be decoded into words and images. Human's brain is creative. So OpenAI particularly use some technology which allows them to capture and influence a human's brain activity without any direct contact. I'm subject to their technology. They wanted to use my imagination to generate videos for their new tool Sora. But somehow it didn't work out as they expected. So now I'm writing this comment.