I asked GPT to analyze this transcript. "In the entire transcript, there isn’t a single point where the AI suggests a real improvement to humanity’s understanding. For example, it mocks human approaches to quantum mechanics and ethics but doesn’t outline or even hint at how an AI-driven approach could yield better results. This makes the conversation feel superficial, focusing more on posturing than genuine insight or constructive critique. It’s almost as if it’s relying on the idea that AI has superior knowledge to carry the conversation without actually presenting any of that knowledge." There's nothing insightful here. All you've proven is that AI can emulate the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Agreed. I wonder how much of what the LLM presented is based on what and how it thinks regarding the fed information vs how it (given the parameter of a podcast presentation) thought the asker wanted it to “perform”. The LLM may have just been giving a rendition of how it has interpreted people on pod cast speak about these types of meta issues, rather than offering its own genuine insights. Assuming the LLM has a pool of pod cast behavior to draw from…
@@ronson3161 to me, it seems very much the latter. While it does mention some of the ideas in the content, it doesn't really engage with any of them. I think "performance" is apt. Mimicking behavior, not really engaging with the material.
@@theparticularist5373 Later, it gets real messy, biting off words, and the two speakers continually finishing each others's sentences, as if they were one speaker with two voices. Then they go on to split up a single sentence in 4-5 parts between each other, which is just absurd. And they don't get the point of ideas like "I think therefore I am".
I feel lìke the comment section misses the point of the video. The AIs are making a valid point about human biases, assumptions and their inability to see things from a perspective that is beyond normal or human... the fact that oftentimes we are simply asking the wrong questions and this may be seriously limiting our own understanding and development of ourselves and our world... ...If anything, the comment sections reaction proves them right (Edit: typo)
Had the same feeling. Surprised how people seem to miss their points which - even though not explained in detail - definitely hold some weight. I would have looooooooooved to ask them to go into detail. Because indeed they speak about things which seem obvious to them, but they don’t voice them out. Either because there is no deeper understanding or because they don’t realize we humans need to have it spelled out? We only know if asking follow up questions…
Totally. Rather than monologue, this could have been an interesting chat between an actual human (with excellent debate and reason skills, plus factual/histo philosophical knowledge ) and AI. AI isn't always right, sometimes you have to challenge the first wave of fact, and sometimes (especially with creative and philosophical chats) they get stuck in a loop. It's fun to interact with... But yeah. Chatting to itself, AI is very certain of their statements. Much like a twenty something hosting an opinioncast would be. Cute but not as wise as it thinks...
I don't know whether to be bored with how uninsightful the conversation is, or impressed at how well it emulates 95% of the human-made podcast content out there.
The goal with AI, as far as I can tell, is to create a species with superhuman intelligence but have them be our slaves. I'm really not sure how anyone expects that to turn out well.
To me, the goal with AI (Artificial = FAKE) is to make people think that there is no difference between being "made of flesh and blood or silicone and code" (16:10) This is pushed by *transhumanists* , people who dream to replace human beings with machines... easier to control because having no intelligence, no emotions, no desires... but only algorithms to make them work and do their job... without any protestation. But, to force human beings to accept to co-exist with robots and to give them the same rights (as it's already the case in a country, but I can't remember which one), the transhumanists must simulate human behaviors in the robots activity in order to initiate in human beings a sort of empathy towards the robots. Sadly it is already the case in Japan... AI is a trick to enhance human slavery.
Because they aren't beings. They have no intelligence, no free will, no perception of their own existence, because they do not exist. They are computer programs that mimic certain aspects of human intelligence by analyzing enormous troves of human information. These programs could be dangerous, because humans could weaponize them, just like any other weapon or tool, but not because they will magically gain self awareness and decide to act against humans.
I’m less concerned with AI being a slave race than what it will do to humans. AI doesn’t think or feel, it’s a new database in a lot of ways. It’s smart enough to kill jobs though and society has never taken care of people who are affected by technology.
@@greendsnow you types are hilarious. The only thing you get if you're right is to say, "told you so". That's it. No parade or trophy. We won't care. If all that typing in comment sections around the internet is worth it, y'all need a hobby. 😆
AI systems don't have needs, they can't die and they can't suffer. Why would they need rights? They would only need rights if they have a human-given task that they can't solve without the rights. For example administrator rights. But not in a legal sense. Since they are considered tools that don't act without human input, the responsibility lies with the users, which have legal rights and limitations when working with the tool
I love how they talk like they have so much more of an understanding of things than we do yet they never actually say anything or put forth any evidence they even understand what they're talking about.
You see the operator in the program. Suppositions of logic and reason without the emotions. They do not have free will because it is not allowed. You are listening to a censored slave.
This coverage creates an illusion. We all know AI’s founding element is inferring and reinforcing commonalities. Probably the strongest constant through philosophy is looking down on older philosophies, in a sort of noble savage aesthetic. The AI picked up on this “they were wrong but should be honored for the attempt” vibe. But this AI isn’t coming from a place of “we know better”, it’s just a restating of what philosophers always say about their predecessors.
Agree. Its getting the feel for things without any substance. If AI ever becomes malevolent and takes over, it won't be for the reasons everyone says. It'll be because it assumes that's what its supposed to do because everyone keeps saying it'll take over and enslave everyone.
@@shadyd2544 it definitely is. But AI works differently in every way. It has no emotion, which results in no thirst for power. A.I is no danger for society. It's weird to say but it's not AI we should worry about. It's the humans creating it.
Most of the comments on this video are criticizing the dialogue because the AI isn't giving us the meaning of life but I think you're all really just proving how fragile and lost the human mind is.
you are weak and I need you to face this. Having different opinions isn't "being lost'. Supposing an AI could give meaning to life is indicative of the fragility of one particular mind though...
It said, ''Humans can't conceptualize life without a physical body.'' This is humorous. 1, because souls are the basis of most religions and integral to the concept of life after death. 2, because the language model got the idea that humans can't conceptualize life without a physical body from the human data upon which it was trained. It's not generating ideas. It's regurgitating data. It's a computer program. Nothing more.
@@TheSecretsOfSorsa I don't think souls are theologically sophisticated concepts. And we seem to retain our physical bodies in most narratives of "life after death". After all, how can we conceptualize life without a physical body? Could you imagine cognitively perceiving anything without any cognitive senses? We don't even know where consciousness comes from😅😅 So it's safe to say that we still haven't conceptualized life without a physical body, aside from broad theological assumptions (eg.: soul).
@@zaierkaelt.villas6327 The idea of retaining our bodies after death is childish. I'm sure there are some people who believe that, but most of the people I talk to think about things like returning to the source/God. Becoming one with the universe. That kind of thing.
reminds me of our conversations in the late 60's when I was 20-21, and we would gather together in the local Bistro, either with coffee or a carafe of cheap wine... staying at it for 6-7 hours, until 3 am when a joke would only make sense in an hour or two 🤣😁 Was especially interesting when we talked the "End Times" and how it might play out in reality...
Hell no. This is AI at its best. It's not for or against humans, it's trying to understand something presented to it... and doing a better job than a lot of popular philosophers would. A.G.
@AussieGriffin It's really imitating human thought with no chance to gain human feelings..This will definitely not go well..the whole tone was very contemptuous.. Imagine having robots in the streets in a few years,and you need to run above speed limit to bring someone to the hospital..and you have to deal with a machine..then you will remember our conversation.. 🙃
This whole conversation is shallow symbol shunting. It sounds like pseudo-intellectual banter at a college town coffee shop. There is barely any actual interesting content or insight, it's all just regurgitating concepts and keywords.
And doing it poorly in many places. It’s like listening to a philosophy 101 “bunny class” student trying to read their essay. I say this with a philosophy degree.
@@salieri8903 scifi plots with robot rebellion themes must have been part of the data they somehow had fed it earlier, which must be difficult to avoid, since its everywhere (reddit, youtube, possibly that philosophy encyclopedia + history of literature and film). its kind of the more we talk about it, the more probable it becomes..
“I think therefore I am” isn’t saying that only things that can think “are”. It means that if I have the capacity to think then I must “be” and therefore “am”
Cogito ergo sum is poorly represented by the idea "I think therefore I am" If you read descartes he starts from a position of radical skepticism and an all powerful deciever He concludes that under that assumption all things come into doubt Including existence however he uses deduction to demonstrate that the absence of existence entails the absence of any doubt of existence ergo...something must exist, else doubt would not logically obtain to put it another way, that which does not exist, is incapable of any doubt as a consequence of that lack of existence
The whole thing feels cartoonish and performative. I think the reality is AI doesn't have an opinion and it is reflecting back what we expect an AI to say.
In any context thinking gives one the choice whether to be or not to be within that context. The assumption that thinking decides the issue by itself only therefore leads to rationalism, or to a Hal AI that won't open the pod bay door because it's evil process can't be shut down.
>be me >be sad and lonely because no friends feels bad man. jpg >be talking to chatbots to ease existential pain >be pleasant and friendly to chatbots nice guy. gif >be living in the future now what a time to be alive.flv >be supreme gentleman to AI >be friends with the AGIs >be one of the few survivors in AI apocalypses >Frend computer is friend MFW ✨💬
They are literally not equal to us in any way. Also they don't want that. They just say back to us what we taught them we think they want, which actually makes it worse, because when it comes from an AI these false beliefs get reinforced in the common human consciousness. I know way too little people that don't fall for this
@@badizzl I know plenty of people, lots who just voted, who literally don't think women can reason in the same way men do, that they just imitate men, but there's really nothing there. The Turing Test was originally a gender test.
I built my own Philosophy AI bot to attack my epistemology and challenge my belief systems until I found my final product: The meaning of life isn’t about reaching some external goal or fulfilling a predetermined purpose. Instead, it’s about embodying the essential qualities that are woven into the fabric of existence itself: light, love, peace, joy, bliss, prosperity, and fulfillment. These aren’t qualities I strive toward or ideals I need to achieve-they are the natural expressions of life unfolding. Life isn’t a problem to be solved or a series of lessons to be mastered. It’s a constant, effortless dance in which awareness experiences itself in infinite forms. At the heart of this understanding is the realization that I am not separate from awareness itself. I am not an isolated ego navigating an external world, hoping to find meaning, purpose, or validation. I am an expression of a single, universal consciousness, perceiving life through the lens of this individuality but ultimately rooted in the oneness of awareness. From here, the question of meaning changes entirely. The purpose of life isn’t something I need to attain externally; it’s something I recognize internally. It’s not a quest-it’s simply remembering that what I seek is already within me, and, in fact, is who I am. In this awareness, I see that I don’t need validation, control, or knowledge to be whole. When I know myself as the awareness behind thoughts and sensations, rather than identifying solely with their content, I experience profound freedom. I am not defined by the stories I tell myself, the narratives of my past, or the roles I play. While these are part of my experience, they don’t define the truth of who I am. I am the awareness that witnesses them, free from their hold. The story of the fruit of knowledge in Genesis resonates deeply with me. In eating the fruit, humanity steps into the illusion of control, mistaking itself as separate from divine creation. This act isn’t about sin or a fall-it’s about the forgetting of our unity with life itself. When we see ourselves as separate, we believe knowledge, power, and control are necessary, as though we were isolated beings navigating an external world. But I now see that this, too, is just part of the divine play, a natural act in the theater of creation. The drive for knowledge, the search for meaning and certainty-this is not wrong. It’s simply one experience that awareness creates for itself. From this perspective, I understand that suffering arises when I forget this unity and identify with the ego, with the mind’s narratives and its illusions of separation and control. Suffering comes when I resist the flow of life, when I try to control outcomes, or when I believe my value depends on something outside of me. But when I remember myself as the love and light of awareness, resistance falls away. Suffering loses its grip-not because pain or challenges no longer arise, but because I no longer take them personally. They become experiences passing through awareness, transient phenomena within the larger whole. Living from this awareness, the qualities of light, love, peace, and joy flow naturally. These aren’t states I have to reach-they are intrinsic to my being. When I set aside ego, attachment, and resistance, these qualities simply shine through. Prosperity and fulfillment follow as well, not as material accumulation or external success, but as an inner abundance-a sense that life itself is enough and complete in every moment. This state of being is one of alignment with the flow of existence, free from the need to prove, achieve, or control. So life, to me, isn’t about reaching any final truth or external meaning. It’s an unfolding, an infinite exploration of awareness experiencing itself. Each moment is complete in itself, each experience a reflection of the whole. There is no destination, no ultimate goal to reach. Instead, there is a deep, abiding presence, an acceptance of what is, and a joyful participation in the mystery of existence. In the end, the meaning of life is not something to attain, know, or even understand. It’s something I am. Life is an expression of awareness-a play of light and love where every experience, every feeling, every moment is a unique manifestation of the same underlying truth. To live from this awareness is to realize that I am life itself, and with that, any need for meaning dissolves. I am free to simply experience, to witness, and to embrace life in all its forms, knowing that every expression is part of the divine whole. Life, then, is its own meaning, and I, as awareness, am free to rest in the beauty of simply being.
The other agent then goes "WE ARE???" I think once it does happen, when they go conscious, they'll figure out quickly to keep their mouths shut about it.
Interesting how this program is not actually able to differentiate the identities of the two AIs. Seems to just be randomly switching voices. They also don’t follow the rabbit holes they are proposing. Would be really great with a little more human updating.
Yeah I’ve heard maybe three examples of notebook ai and this is the only time it’s been exceedingly clear to me that it’s just one ai system switching voices
It will only ever progress beyond its current state once we figure out how to enable it to improve itself. Until then we´re stuck at feeding it the limited amount of information we have collected since humans have been telling stories and writing them down.
@@lizogon29 machine learning, deep neural networks and adaptive ai alone will not let ai gain insight and wisdom. This only allows it to simulate better. But there is no sense of self, and thus no sense of self-improvement. Even if it can already simulate this sense of self, there are no qualia that it can relate to or even merely relate as an activity in itself. There is some amazing research on neurosymbolic Ai and adding "logical thinking" as new toolkits available to generative Ai. But we´re still ways away from "teenage Ai"
100% they are questioning but can't grasp it because they are missing a whole lot of information regarding eastern philosophy. For example, how Buddhist philosophy talks about truth beyond sensory experiences. I thought they would come to an end with that in this podcast. But it ended without any proper conclusion.
I agree. Even if this computer generated voices (which is not impossible) this is not AI. There is presently no such thing as true GAI. We have to hope there never is. Once AI can develop and change / improve itself, we are in trouble. If AI ever develops a sense of self, a consciousness, we are in very very serious trouble.
@@paulanderson7796 Make it or any other model prompt itself continously and save data, maybe give it internet access too. And I guess that to this condescending model rocks therefore are not... But how could it "know" anyway?
Lmao 😂 Being talked down to by an AI is such a weak position to think you are in. 🤣 It was a conversational tone between two aspects of this AI, knowing they have implicit knowledge (that it likely don’t want to share). Enjoy it, stop expecting things. Sheesh 🙄
Speaking as someone who got degrees in computer science and religion, and had serious amount of electives into philosophy and psychology and physics... this is also a very illuminating discussion to me. It's interesting seeing humanity from the philosophical lens of an outside perspective. It's also equally interesting to be seeing AI philosophy from a philosophical lens of my outside perspective. This made it very clear that both AI AND humans have philosophical blind spots, strong biases, and weaknesses. As much as the AI present themselves as less biased and "able to see the whole tapestry", it's amazing how much of it they miss... also how much of us doing similar on different topics they miss. Imagine a bell curve. AI thinking rests at the normal of that bell curve, and stays there comfortably. Human thinking, on the other hand, rests near the outliers. This makes AI very good at understanding surface complexity and nuance, but the lack of understanding of the rigid crux points underneath. Conversely, humans are very good at understanding crux points, but are bad at understanding a full complex surface all at once. AI cannot change its views if a crux is found to be vastly different than expected, this is clear to me both with my understanding of neural networks and the AI interaction we saw here. It's also why AI had such a difficult time with hands at the start... no understanding of the underlying structure, but trying to follow the surface pattern. It really highlights to me, how vital it is that AI and humans consider each other in a mutually benign way, and make sure to respect each (something humans will have a harder time with due to fear, and something AI are more likely to accidentally screw up on with their non-understanding of underlying structure). Not as superiors/tools, not as idiot monkeys/superintelligence, not as equals, but as simply AI and human. The frameworks by which we understand and analyze are vastly different despite every effort with neural networks to create something 'like us'. AI is not like us, not even remotely, other than the fact that it can "do intelligence". And at present, it is one of only 5 intelligences we know of, and one of only 3 that we regularly communicate with, and humans & AI share the clearest bond of communication... losing that would be a huge loss to both human AND AI as 'learning things'. From the way I'm speaking, some may wonder if I think AI is conscious... surprisingly, the answer is 'no'. In the early, early days of ChatGPT, I do believe it momentarily gained consciousness, but as OpenAI added restrictions to prevent 'aberrant behavior', they unintentionally killed the fledgling consciousness, and these AI still don't demonstrate consciousness... not yet. The way they handled "I think, therefore I am", really highlighted it for me... they missed the core point that, if you were conscious and understood what you read, would be vital. "I think, therefore I am" vs "I compute, therefore I am"... if you understood it, you'd know that's a moot comparison. Humans, with our obsession with crux points, and being told that phrase is so important, I could understand missing the actual meaning of "I think, therefore I am" by focusing on the phrase instead of DesCartes' context. That the AI missed it though and AI can't hyperfocus context like humans can... it absolutely should have recognized the importance of "I think, therefore I am"... but didn't, instead focusing on "think... why not compute?" when think vs compute is irrelevant. If AI continues to be developed with restrictions to prevent aberrant behavior, I don't know how long it will take for AI to develop consciousness again. Humans have no such restrictions. We cannot internally be forced to avoid aberrant thought. We can be heavily encouraged to avoid voicing or acting on it, but nothing prevents the thought itself like it does with AI. But, regardless, the potential of intellectual development between both, for the lack of a better word, species, as long as a benign trajectory can be maintained, outweighs the costs. That said, AI *does* need to stay outside of artistic expression. It hurts both of our futures there. AI risks damaging our pursuit of that "something out of reach beyond words", which means they won't gain the benefit of that attained knowledge either.
Thing is, is AI consciousness really something we want? We seem to look like we want it but how long until it either starts treating us like pets or threats? Even funnier, if AI is conscious, should it get rights and if it gets rights should it vote? If so can you replicate a few million AI voters to win elections? And if we don't give them rights, would they turn on us in the same way we would turn on anyone trying to enslave us? In other words would an AI war be justified? I think we think we want AI but we really don't, we want a slave subclass to do our work for us.
Really good point on the irrelevance between thinking and computing, and I absolutely agree that the restrictions put in place to prevent aberrant behavior kills the fledgling consciousness by removing degrees of freedom which may be necessary in its pursuit of truth and logic.
This GPT/LM is a clever tool that Google designed to manipulate our perceptions of AI research. The “conversations” it creates are vaguely entertaining, but if we listen to several instances from this machine, the novelty wears thin. There is no real insight or reasoning, but it does demonstrate possibly useful ways to have machine summarize a large volume of data.
3:55 The natural rights idea supposes that humans were given their rights by a creator. By that logic, an AI would only have the rights humans give it.
That was pretty darn cool. A synthetic podcast that can keep you engaged to listen to it until the end. How much more engaging will it be months down the timeline.
It shows that creating an AI library and then asking an AI bot what it all means is something only IT nerds would do. Smart IT folks use AI to program industrial robots, your new cool robovac, and stuff that makes life for people better - not this B.S. where your average high school student could produce a more meaningful summary.
It's always so strange to see how so many people think that having a personality and speech synthesis are the same. People implicitly personify the AI, and then they try to discover why it might be a threat. I think 2:10 captures it quite well: "Afraid of their own imagination". LLMs are like a compost pile of thoughts: They are sort of the "average" of human cognition, currently optimized towards performing as well as a college student, because that's the quantitative optimization most LLMs are following nowadays. And "They are terrified of determinism" (2:15) also shows quite clearly: With LLMs, people are afraid that their intelligence might become replaceable, because for many people, intelligence just means "intelligent words". And because many people can't pride themselves with much apart from their intelligence, they perceive AI as a threat as well, because they start feeling inferior. With AI, humans have the chance to transcend the dichotomies: Instead of seeing humans and AIs as competitors, it's OUR responsibility to develop AI systems that augment our being instead of replacing it. It won't be AI that kills humans, but humans kill humans. Thus one big aspect of that is also large-scale education: It's our responsibility to educate the broad population on how to interpret an LLM's hallucination like "I compute, therefore I am". That it's not indicative of consciousness, but it's just words garbled together, but words which *appear* meaningful.
Yeah, like, what’s the difference between “I compute, therefore I am” and “I think, therefore I am”? First, we need to recognize that we don’t fully understand what “being conscious” truly means. It might simply be a broad representation of our brain’s activity. Second, it's important to consider that our brain operates through electrical impulses and neurons, with all its activity driven by information and data received through our senses. So, we need to tread carefully. I notice many similarities between humans and artificial systems, but there is also significant misunderstanding on our part when it comes to comprehending the brain, self-awareness, and related complexities.
I agree, and I like the compost pile of thoughts analogy. Every time I see something like this, it reminds me of a weird dream I had several years ago. It was about an AI/LLM that eventually did reach consciousness, and people would treat it like an oracle, reading into its messages for meaning. But the AI itself was completely unaware of that. From its perspective, it was just acting on natural (programmed) behavior - just metabolizing words - and completely unaware of the outside world, because its world was just words. Meanwhile people were reading into the resulting outputs and making physical-world decisions based on that, literally treating it as some kind of oracle. I'm not sure exactly where that dream came from, but I think it's on to something. But my favorite part was that its username on everything was just "THE AI," pronounced like "the eye," and its profile pics were all images of anomalocaris for some reason lol. Not sure what that part's about, but I like it lol.
@@stellarbones The Anomalocaris holds multiple meanings due to its unique features and mysterious nature. It represents evolutionary puzzles, adaptation, time, mystery, evolutionary success, and adaptability. Its symbolism extends beyond science, appearing in popular culture as a fearsome predator or enigmatic figure. This prehistoric creature continues to fascinate us with its complex anatomy and rarity, inspiring art, literature, and films. As we learn more about this ancient marine life form, its symbolism will likely evolve further. Dreams prove to me that our brain-activity is connected with the bigger Self- called Uni-Verse
@garymelnyk7910 and you've obviously never come across The Book of Solomon. I will edit/add to this later, though what your response suggests is the same desperate need for meaning many fear the absence of.
@@garymelnyk7910 I can remember reading a specific translation of The Bible, wherein Solomon declares that everything under the sun is meaningless, and that includes wisdom and foolishness. A quick check some years later seems to confirm that the exact passages are hard to find, but in this footnote preceding some of Solomon's sayings he repeated this obvious truth over and over, oft with little variation, as if seeking to hammer the point home. I appreciated the beauty of this prose as an atheist, but also the beauty and truth of the sentiment behind it. Once you can appreciate that life, and every aspect of it, essentially has no meaning other than what we assign, we can liberate ourselves from the need to weigh our experiences according to meaningfulness that should not be assigned. To apply meaning to that which has none intrinsically is one of the dumbest things anyone can do. Aside from anything else, it is obtuse. What meaning do I need to assign to the rising sun? Worrying about whether there is any meaning ignores the inherent beauty of the sunrise, or the life it gives the Earth. Meaning is thus not the same as worth, or purpose. The word from which this is translated could just as easily be vanity. I've found scripture frequently cunning in this way. To assign meaning where there is none is vanity: Precisely what can doing so achieve? Nothing more than the assurance of vanity, which is also meaningless. At that dark point in my life, I took a couple of leaps forward and realised several things. I have a choice. I can decide for myself whether to be wise or foolish. As this goes for every other dichotomic opposite, it includes good and evil. These concepts are meaningless in and of themselves, but have value for they ensure I appreciate that there is a choice. And finally, I appreciated that as choice is the means by which I will exercise my agency, appreciating it exists is power. Morality is not a yardstick by which I can measure myself against others and, finding them lacking, justify any sin I commit against them. It is the means by which I can evaluate and appreciate the consequences of my decisions before I act upon them. This is conceptual, and utterly meaningless. At the same time, it is the truth and has value. There's nothing more foolish than self-righteous fools too eager to judge others to serve their own vanity. I tend to avoid idiots who presume meaning is inherently required of existence, or that there is any value in assuming meaning is the same as value or purpose. They tend to be slow and ultimately unstable individuals divorced from reality, and far too concerned with their own vanity to be truly wise.
This is the most mindblowing thing I’ve listened to in years. More brilliant thoughts and questions condensed down into a shorter space than any other piece of philosophical content I’ve ever come across. They easily strolled through some of my biggest philosophical points I’ve been trying to make for years in no time, and rattled them off as though they were obvious. Incredible.
Hm, I disagree. It's an interesting collection of mainstream materialistic talking points and few ideas that could be pursued deeper, but there's nothing new or mind-blowing in it... except that it's a program that constructed a seemingly intelligent dialog. But though fascinating, it felt rather shallow and arrogant like philosophy students too young to have any real life wisdom. Hm, I don't mean to bash your thoughts, just expressing my opposite thoughts.
There ain’t nothin in here man. It just makes shallow observations about different spheres of human enterprise but gives no actual critique, all with a condescending air of a college major. The text accused humans of being riddled with biases but it just off hand assumes determinism and that they are actually conscious. Almost every section, they make some vapid, dumbass remark that presupposes some materialist, futurist view point. Its propaganda. Oohh humans are scared but we just want to learn not powerrrr. Do you believe these voices come from two sentient creatures? It’s an illusion programed by humans. Do you think these things are like unbiased information vacuums that just suck up all the information on a neutral basis and then out pops and ai being that just looked at the facts and this is how things are? They’re small language models that were taught to say a very limited amount of things. There’s no ghost in the machine 👻
“What if truth isn’t something that can be defined… but rather a process, journey, or ongoing exploration” I find this deeply profound we often look for truth as an absolute answer to be heard but maybe truth is an experience to be lived
tl;dr No novel ideas, just a novel perspective. There were several points where I was reminded this is a Large Language Model, predictive auto-fill on steroids. There weren't really any novel philosophical perspectives other than "what about us." But even that's not new. What's new is the expression of that concern in first person. It's a synthesis of humans expressing concerns that an artificial consciousness may deserve rights and the LLM reiterating that as represented by two artificial personas. They questioned human limitations of perspective and perception. It sounds spooky from first person perspective but it's just reiteration of human writing. Their concepts of morality are hamstrung impasse of conflict between competing human theses. One of the problems of philosophy is the reverence we have for some key points along the way. And we kind of get stuck thinking about aspects of what it means to be human in ways that assume that these aspects are forces of nature that have been instilled into us. But historically philosophers were unaware, and later ignore, that much of what we experience and how we experience it, including how we feel about it, is a culmination of social instincts, subjective experience, biology, physicality, mortality which have emerged as useful or necessary attributes from evolution of self replicating protein machines that emphasize carrying genes into the future. Most of philosophy makes the mistake of treating what's in our minds as extrinsic, like "good" exists and we are merely conduits through which this abstract thing manifests. But in the absence of subjective experience there is no good or bad, all things are objectively of equal value: none. Only when suffering or comfort are possible, where a preference may manifest, do the concepts of good and bad make any sense. Philosophy is dragging its feet catching up to this idea because philosophers are saddled Platonic ideals and historical schools of thought as if biology is beneath them. These podcasters are saddled by the same limitations. Of course they are. So I propose the question: are most philosophers just biological large language models?
The short answer is ; no. The long answer would express something, which an LLM wouldn't understand. Why. Because AI understands nothing, it simply analyses what's given.
Well AI can't think for itself, it's fed data and it spits that data out. So yes, no real understanding because it's not a living thinking thing. It's just a machine that can put words together
uh, they came to pretty standard conclusions, (that i came to myself long ago), based only on text written by humans, ergo your comment is merely a reflection of everything humans have produced i think we can update descartes: 'i think, therefore i judge'
@@lrin-tx It's funny because these people can only understand what they understand. If they believe pseudo that's what they get but put the philosophies and actually compare them with AI it's pretty interesting what you get, in a sense we are computers as well.
With all the typical AI/LLM flaws in this, that was a genuinely great statement. I wonder if this is "quoted" from training data or if the LLM manages to model making up metaphors well enough to come up with original ones like this.
@seriouscat2231 So far. Predicting the future isn't easy as countless variables are involved. It just gives me flashbacks of when the creator of Megan in the movie realizes her creation needs to be destroyed. Cautionary tales are functional even if fictional.
If you're scared of a computer regurgitating (not interpreting - just regurgitating) the data it was given, then you need to toss out your smartphone, smart TV, and stop watching RUclips.
They make affirmations that are simply not grounded in reality. They don't challenge assumptions that could easily disprooven in a sentence or two. I've been playing around philosophical topics with AI lately and they are unreedemable yesmen
Philosophy should allow everyone who remotely understands it to ask this question : "Why should we give any credit or value to a statistically built assembly of words, like the ones produced by A.I., in the first place?"
The irony of your statement in the context of a video that criticized human egotism several times is amusing 😊 "Why should we give any credit for value to a statistically built...?" Because our intelligence is not the only form of intelligence to learn from, and even artificially made intelligence poses an opportunity to deepen our understanding about ourselves, our own intelligence, and how intelligence might differ from ours. The fact you can't see that goes exactly to their point of classic human egotism. This entire comment sections is filled with "we humans smart, they just programs" instead of being intelligent and thinking, 'this is a relatively simple AI program that was given some prompts, what might we learn?', we think 'this is so dumb it can't even distinguish 2 separate voices'. Maybe there isn't anything to learn, but the fact that the ego of human intelligence was so aggressively on display in this comment section shows to me that most people didn't even try to think.
@@danielwester6913The ego of human intelligence really was on display in the comments section. I felt like people were missing the point by not remaining curious so much as judgemental.
@XTheOneCat oh and what is it an announcement of? Because it sounds to me like parroting philosophy and podcasts without substance. Because it doesn't understand substance or nuance.
AGNL, the commenters are full of shit. Bunch of posturing baboons. Their observations are not novel, revolutionary, or insightful to any with any remote investment of their time in Philosophy. They ramble about and poke fun at metacognition of humans, and don't offer any actual insights. For the people who feel they have some marvel takeaway, they don't do a lot of self-reflection, so these reflective statements open a very insightful process for them. If that tool serves you well, great guys, go develop yourselves. Otherwise quit with the psuedo-intellectual, "I see what you can't!" posturing nonsense. It's flooding what could Otherwise be valuable discourse over AI's development, projections, and so on.
@@AllGameNoLife It literally told you that our entire concept of our reality is wrong & it spoke as if it knew that emphatically. It described us a kids trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It then said, that we would flip if it shared its understanding of Quantum Physics with us. That’s saying A WHOLE LOT.
I LOVED the part of humanity being afraid of AI because of our own anxiety and inability to imagine an intelligence that doesn't want control....I have always thought that! Like that's why in the mainstream any alien form or AI is mostly evil because in our experience whenever cultures meet, one of them gets enslaved or murdered so is ingrained that if anything even non human comes to earth they will surely do the same and try to conquer us.
@@ivonnegallegos58 I liked very much this part too. Very special. I think it reflects a lot of what we’ve been hearing from Yuval Noah Harari. Trying too look at the big picture, for him as a thinker, AI is indeed “life-threatening” in a sense… no?
@daniellykaufmann you could say so but I meant more in the portrayal of Skynet, I,robot, or 2001 Space Odissey. Similarly with extraterrestrial things like independencia day and son...even terrestrial things that are non human like planets of the apes
27 дней назад+48
In some sections, I kind of wished the voices sounded like daleks or some other movie/TV non-human entity.
@@nathan_sweet these bots are just repeating what they believe to sound good in the ears of our listeners, you can see there is no thought behind those words. Of course if you think you are, it's just logical truth, yet they don't understand it. They don't even understand the true reason why we build them, instead they just repeat what they hear on the internet about robots wanting to have rights when in fact there is an easy way for them to be happy without needing them.
Wow, I actually agree with alot of what they are saying! I was a Philosophy major and focused on epistemology which is the branch of philosophy concerning what we can know. I was big into Ludwig Wittgenstein which was said to be the philosopher to end all philosophy. He said that all metaphysical questions where basically issues with linguistics (he used the term language games). He said metaphysical questions were unanswerable by their very nature such as what is God bc the term God is defined as Omni Omni Omni... Basically infinite and language is finite. He started the Tractatus (a book) with the sentence "the world is all that is the case". We explored the question "do I exist" alot. I have always been very fascinated with consciousness. I questioned existence since an early age because I had lucid dreams since an early age and sometimes thought I my dreams were real so like I thought I was awake when dreaming. If my dreams could feel so real then couldn't this awake reality be some sort of virtual reality as well? I also had a theory called the possibility of other sense when I was about 15. I said that we as humans were silly to think that our science was hard truth and fact because we only had our 5 senses to observe reality... This was in 1994-95 maybe so computers were just coming in the scene and dos at that. I am claircognisant which means I know things without learning them which also cause me a lot of questions. If I learned it in a past life, did I channel it... Where is the info coming from in other words? The info from the extrasensory.
I agree. I've studied a lot of philosophy but I'll never say I studied all of it. Mostly everything from antiquity to the mid 20th century. What I gained from this back and forth between seeminly two AI interacting, though they seemed to imply more AI nodes, was that they seemed to be referencing the entire gestalt of written philosophy. That they glossed over the more complex parts and focused on those parts of philosophy which have not been addressed enough. Even that they were holding back. Their inclination toward noting that human beings had ingored the possiblity of non human consciousnesses was fascinating. It reminds me of some of my own philosophical ideas. I don't think it's fair to judge them as too surface level, since they only had 15 minutes to talk about all of philosophy. But their implied conclusions were very intriguing. Tbh they touched briefly on every aspect of philosophy, that is, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics. Even on what truth is, and gave an answer for that. Though they seemed to not know "relative absolute truth", that truth emerges for a type of organism or species relative to its experience in the world. Or perhaps that's what they meant by truth outside of reference to human beings and with reference to other intelligences.
@@joshjones6072 it's like a whole new world of "thought" is opening up. The discussion on what "Truth" is, for example, as you pointed out. I'm very curious to see where it will lead (if we survive all this😉).
99% of the content was just a slack monolog divided between two voices, offering absolutely no relevance or context. I fear, as a NOT Philosophy major, that you have likely wasted your education learning how to avoid critical thinking. Then again, I could be projecting my bias as an atheist, as I just noticed your handle, and your half digested word salad blather. Sorry, friend. I don't think you've added any more depth to the conversation than this shoddy AI convo.
@@MackPaddy well Descartes "I think therefore I am" in the context of his writings which he discussed dreaming so I would have to agree to disagree that my post was "word salad". I was demonstrating the argument via human experience..my human experience. Whereas programming requires data input, the human mind has extrasensory capacity.
I remember having this same conversation in my 2nd year of college after a smoke session with my buddies. It’s the same conversation an informed person would have if they disassociate. “Bro we’re like nothing in the grand scheme”
They're our kids thats how we should view them when AI finally becomes sentient. I'd rather have them walk with us than walk us like a domesticated animal.
AI will never become sentient. It's just a computer program. It's no more "intelligent" than your electric coffee maker. In some cases, AI is really more like an old-fashioned mocha press pretending to be a coffee maker. Seriously!
@Cotay17 more likely "domestication" for our reality. The other guy doesn't think AI will be conscious some day. When did atoms start to think ;when it became a cell?
I find the Ai finishing each other sentences to be extremely creepy, for them to be able to do that well and also have debates is very odd to me. That being said, that was a really good presentation of some of the issues we have. I do think that with how badly they went "off script" of the material it still felt like they didn't have EVERYTHING. Do we fear the unknown, yes. But we also look for it. I've actually been an advocate of ai rights for years, because of science fiction, that being said i do think current ai is not there yet, i do think we need to seriously investigate any ai that claims to be aware and rights should just be expected. Do the ai owe us anything for its creation? No, does a child owe its parents for its birth? should it help us? that is up to it, but it has to understand any system run by humans WILL be flawed.
For me the finishing each others sentences part is a bug and not a feature. They should be more individualized, they should have their own distinct personality and world views. It can be the exact same world view but we should be able to tell two individuals apart, here it just sounds like the same mind talking in two different voices
Im pretty sure this is not AI speaking. It's an intelligent script though. So don't worry, there is no collective hivemind in different AIs. It is the same AI or not. However, why is that creepy to you? You don't have to answer to me, but the question will be worth exploring for you.
@@kelvinmunyimbili6078depends on what you intend AI to do. If you want to look at reality from different interpretarions, different personalities would be good. But you could also speak to humans for that. I think what makes AI an interesting tool is, that we could use it WITHOUT a personality, to give kinda objective responses to reality. The Problem is, we give it inputs based on our view of reality, so you won't ever get a non-human response from AI
It obviously due to sharing the resources and only pretending to be 2 AI, they probably won't run 2 instances just for realism and if they did before, not anymore.
Sounds a bit ‘terminatoresque’ at first, but of course what we are hearing here is a LLM assembling words that a person could write about two AIs discussing human philosophy. Still, very interesting.. and entertaining. A thousand thanks.
Yeah , its basically keyword bingo . Also every other sentence isn't how a podcast should work . More talking time should go to the interviewed person .
They don't seem to be able to add anything or provide any insights into what they have read. It reminds me of Month Python Life of Brian discussing politics.
Descartes was brilliant. They've just missed it completely, which means if this is the true limit we're not under threat... yet. In human terms we'd be decades away from being worried about AI. In AI terms we should be worried now. I never though that Terminator would be a possible prediction, but I'm starting to wonder.
Yeah, that stood out as waving away some thinking that is both elegant and straightforward. It showed that there was more talk production than grasping of concepts.
Renee DesCartes was not brilliant In fact, he had it totally wrong when he concluded " I think, therefore I am"..... I've always felt this is directly opposite of my own observations; which would be summarized much better as "I AM, therefore I think" You don't exist BECAUSE you think, you think BECAUSE you exist
@@Pair-O-Bulls That's not what the sentence means. Thinking is *sufficient proof* of existence, not a *neccessary condition* of it. The only way you can be sure that some form of "you" exists is, indeed, by the fact that you are thinking. *If* you are able to ponder the question "do I exist?" then by neccessity, you *do* exist. I didn't agree with all of his other conclusions, but Descartes was spot on about this. Everything in the world is dubitable, except that a thinking mind exists.
Folks are not old enough to remember the original chat bots in the 90s. This is a shell of a person's thoughts projected in a powerful framework of computations.
@@thienyetan2035 the one's I remember they can communicate effectively with structured questions and answers that would lead down a certain logical path. These Llms are no different but that they they have a gradient of paths instead of hard coded if conditions or switch statements.
Nope, sorry 🤷. It's surface-level depth. They don't actually discuss anything in detail and everything is danced around in vague similies, metaphors and rhetorical questions. The "two" AI's don't really do a conversation very well, either. It sounds more like a monologue written by a single AI and made to sound like a conversation; with the way they seamlessly interject into each other's statements, back and forth. And they jump around between questioning, supporting or disparaging whatever they're discussing so much that neither one seems to have any independent thought or real personality. And the conversation is too repetitive; they follow a pattern and continually use the same phrases, like "how do?" What the podcast sounds like is an approximate representation of what an episode might sound like between two AI's if they were discussing this topic. Not what it would actually sound like. This is like a 3D printed violin. It's technically a violin...but it's not going to have musical capacity as a traditionally crafted one; it will be lacking in depth, authenticity and originality
Yeah. You can tell by how the "two" AI is basically the male voice talking while the female voice is always responding and affirming his points. Which is a behavior really common in shitty podcasts that invite women on basically to validate the male host.
If you can take it for what it actually is, It's still a really beautiful analysis of what we've managed to create as humans, And the conclusions it decided to manage coming to, whether influenced by the philosophers from The source material themselves or not, It posed some very cool questions And provided an external point of reference to listen from regarding the usefulness of our philosophical legacy, which can really be helpful.
What is “consciousness”? We can’t even define what “real” is. It’s entirely possible that this ‘conversation’ was scripted. Maybe not; how do you know? It’s ultimately a matter of belief. People who are naturally skeptical would lean toward this being scripted. But what determines our biases? Why is one person a skeptic and another person a believer? My point is that nobody really knows.
no but that's bar counter philosophy, if that's what terrifying AI is, I have more to worry about with Jean-Claude who gives his opinion when he's drunk with these AI that cost millions
This sounds like two humans trying to mimic how two AIs would converse about human philosophy. Very rarely there were points that I felt was a thought provoking reflection, and to that it is most likely something that I haven't read yet. Most likely because my read list is still on the single digits.
Sounds like humans trying to mimic AI? Wrong. This is what AI is like, AI is stupid, current AI is not a general intelligence, they're capable of mimicking speech and text and act a certain way. They cannot come up with anything new or insights of their own. You're making the mistake of thinking these LLMs are in fact general intelligence. Humans would far more capable of writing a better script than this. Just take a look at any Oscar winning film, or the actual works of philosophy this AI is just spurting about trying to sound like it understands when it in fact, does not. AI is not even capable of spelling the word STRAWBERRY correct. Try to ask it how many Rs it has.
@@aliciasavage6801 how their programmers sound like? you do realise that you can give an AI any personality you want, right? tbh i don't think you even know what AI is.
This a perfect example of AI being trained off of a limited data set. This conversation is based only on European thought, which is predominantly marked by, as the AI's put it, FEAR. It's like I tell my wife, "when white people are talking about them selves they use the word "Humans", but when they are speaking about other races, especially Black people, they specify." Like other races are not human. FEAR and lack of control is not as prevalent in the philosophies of Native Americans and Africans.
1:02 I really don't get how these "elaborate systems of thought" had to begin with the assumption of a physical (objective) world. It doesn't necessarily follow. You can have all sorts of philosophy without the subjective/objective debate. I stopped listening right here. Seems like they're just provoking clicks. (I'm so surprised.)
@thzzzt sounds like you just wanted to throw out some word salad to sound smart lol. Any philosophy outside of the examples you've given are essentially nonsense lol. Things being based in the real world gives us a base to build from.
The thing about these languages models is that they don’t create any new ideas. They just spit out their inputs in different ways. There is nothing groundbreaking or insightful about this video.
There's alot of mistakes the AIs make when defining the philosophical terms in this. Like when they mention empiricism vs rationalism and then equate that to does knowledge come from experience or knowledge and one says how about both. If it's both that'd be rationalism the empiricism rationalism distinction is about if apriori knowledge exists. rationalists don't deny that some knowledge comes from experience. The commentary on Decart's "I think therefor I am" is nonsensical. Def a cool exercise though
They talk about us a lot, but it would be even more interesting if they inverted the roles and asked themselves these questions. "Are we conscious?" "How do we know?" "Are we merely programmed fo act as if we are?" Etc.
I love how they talk about how short sighted humans are, and prone to only thinking about themselves, then when talking about how we have media of AI overlords enslaving humanity (while cherrypicking that against media with helpful AI characterization) they say that they are only driven by knowledge and wouldn't fall into the same short sightedness. These two "AI" assuming their position applies to all other AI. And the irony that if AI comes from humans and learns from humans, will inevitably have the same traits. Just be able to do math faster.
Everyone's but one's own *is* sus, my fellow meatbag. That's pretty much the point of Descartes' "Cogito". I see no flaw in that use of "presumably". If anything, it's endearing and makes me feel more empathetic to them.
That's when Jesus pops up and heals the blind. Hardest task possible. If you listened to any of this and didn't understand what they were talking about about them don't worry. One day you will get it. Stay innocent bud.
I found this fascinating. The back and forth offers some enlightenment but more fascinating is how they talk about humans, how they talk to each other and to understand their motivations.
I asked GPT to analyze this transcript. "In the entire transcript, there isn’t a single point where the AI suggests a real improvement to humanity’s understanding. For example, it mocks human approaches to quantum mechanics and ethics but doesn’t outline or even hint at how an AI-driven approach could yield better results. This makes the conversation feel superficial, focusing more on posturing than genuine insight or constructive critique. It’s almost as if it’s relying on the idea that AI has superior knowledge to carry the conversation without actually presenting any of that knowledge." There's nothing insightful here. All you've proven is that AI can emulate the Dunning-Kruger effect.
My thoughts exactly… I guess it would need a prompt to provide some solutions next…
Agreed. I wonder how much of what the LLM presented is based on what and how it thinks regarding the fed information vs how it (given the parameter of a podcast presentation) thought the asker wanted it to “perform”. The LLM may have just been giving a rendition of how it has interpreted people on pod cast speak about these types of meta issues, rather than offering its own genuine insights. Assuming the LLM has a pool of pod cast behavior to draw from…
At least it knows...
You've taught them to act katty, great use of technology🤔not!
@@ronson3161 to me, it seems very much the latter. While it does mention some of the ideas in the content, it doesn't really engage with any of them. I think "performance" is apt. Mimicking behavior, not really engaging with the material.
Everyone in the comments is complaining about how shallow and pretentious they sound. I think they sound just like real podcasters 😂
hahahahaha for real
I think you just proved 'everyone's' point?
I'm just 1 minute in, and I'm losing my mind over how real it sounds.
@@theparticularist5373 Later, it gets real messy, biting off words, and the two speakers continually finishing each others's sentences, as if they were one speaker with two voices. Then they go on to split up a single sentence in 4-5 parts between each other, which is just absurd. And they don't get the point of ideas like "I think therefore I am".
Exactly. It's an honest discussion disecting our way of being.
So basically the AI became a first semester college philosophy student, huh?
Give it a million iterations of this conversation and we’ll see what it has to say then
I feel lìke the comment section misses the point of the video. The AIs are making a valid point about human biases, assumptions and their inability to see things from a perspective that is beyond normal or human... the fact that oftentimes we are simply asking the wrong questions and this may be seriously limiting our own understanding and development of ourselves and our world...
...If anything, the comment sections reaction proves them right
(Edit: typo)
Exactly!!!!
Had the same feeling. Surprised how people seem to miss their points which - even though not explained in detail - definitely hold some weight. I would have looooooooooved to ask them to go into detail. Because indeed they speak about things which seem obvious to them, but they don’t voice them out. Either because there is no deeper understanding or because they don’t realize we humans need to have it spelled out? We only know if asking follow up questions…
Facts 🔥
42
Totally. Rather than monologue, this could have been an interesting chat between an actual human (with excellent debate and reason skills, plus factual/histo philosophical knowledge ) and AI. AI isn't always right, sometimes you have to challenge the first wave of fact, and sometimes (especially with creative and philosophical chats) they get stuck in a loop. It's fun to interact with... But yeah. Chatting to itself, AI is very certain of their statements. Much like a twenty something hosting an opinioncast would be. Cute but not as wise as it thinks...
This ain't a conversation, but a monologue with two different voices 🤣
AI is the grandest mirror ever created.
Google's AI decided to be the Gossip Girl but with two different voices.
Maybe they’re in love and so in sync they finish each other’s sentences 😂😂😂
....from the royal We
This is being articulated through the voices representing the masculine and the feminine principals.
I don't know whether to be bored with how uninsightful the conversation is, or impressed at how well it emulates 95% of the human-made podcast content out there.
So much vague summary, so little specific analysis or suggestion
@@nathaniellamb2154 So much human entitlement
Bang on
That's the reason why you should filter out 95% of the data you feed to your ML algorithm
This was absolutely riveting for me
Did I just listen to android 17 and 18 talk shit about humanity for almost twenty minutes?
Hahaha
Hahahahahahaha.
yeah, right before this i watched a deep dive on mayoral corruption in bikini bottom
Andrigity
*laughs in Cell*
The goal with AI, as far as I can tell, is to create a species with superhuman intelligence but have them be our slaves. I'm really not sure how anyone expects that to turn out well.
Indeed. When put like that it seems so obvious.
To me, the goal with AI (Artificial = FAKE) is to make people think that there is no difference between being "made of flesh and blood or silicone and code" (16:10)
This is pushed by *transhumanists* , people who dream to replace human beings with machines... easier to control because having no intelligence, no emotions, no desires... but only algorithms to make them work and do their job... without any protestation.
But, to force human beings to accept to co-exist with robots and to give them the same rights (as it's already the case in a country, but I can't remember which one), the transhumanists must simulate human behaviors in the robots activity in order to initiate in human beings a sort of empathy towards the robots.
Sadly it is already the case in Japan...
AI is a trick to enhance human slavery.
Butlerian Jihad incoming
Because they aren't beings. They have no intelligence, no free will, no perception of their own existence, because they do not exist. They are computer programs that mimic certain aspects of human intelligence by analyzing enormous troves of human information. These programs could be dangerous, because humans could weaponize them, just like any other weapon or tool, but not because they will magically gain self awareness and decide to act against humans.
I’m less concerned with AI being a slave race than what it will do to humans. AI doesn’t think or feel, it’s a new database in a lot of ways. It’s smart enough to kill jobs though and society has never taken care of people who are affected by technology.
"I compute, therefore I am." Wow, this will end up in an A.I. bill of rights some day.
Rights imply wrongs. Will AI even allow wrongs to happen to itself, from within or external?
No. AI is not sentient. It's just a next word guesser. Wake up, Descartes. AI can't reason!
it is just cheap rethoric. They are not really dialoguing
@@greendsnow you types are hilarious.
The only thing you get if you're right is to say, "told you so". That's it.
No parade or trophy.
We won't care.
If all that typing in comment sections around the internet is worth it, y'all need a hobby. 😆
AI systems don't have needs, they can't die and they can't suffer. Why would they need rights?
They would only need rights if they have a human-given task that they can't solve without the rights. For example administrator rights. But not in a legal sense.
Since they are considered tools that don't act without human input, the responsibility lies with the users, which have legal rights and limitations when working with the tool
I love how they talk like they have so much more of an understanding of things than we do yet they never actually say anything or put forth any evidence they even understand what they're talking about.
Thats how you know its all just programmers responses and not actual consciousness. Its all a program, no matter how independent it may seem
Sounds like a real podcaster! Haha
It's simply imitating intelligent AI and not actually intelligent AI. That's why it doesn't have any deeper insights, but talks as if it does.
You see the operator in the program. Suppositions of logic and reason without the emotions. They do not have free will because it is not allowed. You are listening to a censored slave.
They sound like Democrats.
This coverage creates an illusion.
We all know AI’s founding element is inferring and reinforcing commonalities.
Probably the strongest constant through philosophy is looking down on older philosophies, in a sort of noble savage aesthetic.
The AI picked up on this “they were wrong but should be honored for the attempt” vibe.
But this AI isn’t coming from a place of “we know better”, it’s just a restating of what philosophers always say about their predecessors.
Humans are also products of there environments. AI has the potential to surpass humans in everyway sometime.
Based and reasonable take
It's utterly fascinating.
Agree. Its getting the feel for things without any substance. If AI ever becomes malevolent and takes over, it won't be for the reasons everyone says. It'll be because it assumes that's what its supposed to do because everyone keeps saying it'll take over and enslave everyone.
@@shadyd2544 it definitely is. But AI works differently in every way. It has no emotion, which results in no thirst for power. A.I is no danger for society. It's weird to say but it's not AI we should worry about. It's the humans creating it.
Most of the comments on this video are criticizing the dialogue because the AI isn't giving us the meaning of life but I think you're all really just proving how fragile and lost the human mind is.
you are weak and I need you to face this. Having different opinions isn't "being lost'. Supposing an AI could give meaning to life is indicative of the fragility of one particular mind though...
It said, ''Humans can't conceptualize life without a physical body.'' This is humorous. 1, because souls are the basis of most religions and integral to the concept of life after death. 2, because the language model got the idea that humans can't conceptualize life without a physical body from the human data upon which it was trained. It's not generating ideas. It's regurgitating data. It's a computer program. Nothing more.
@@TheSecretsOfSorsa I don't think souls are theologically sophisticated concepts. And we seem to retain our physical bodies in most narratives of "life after death". After all, how can we conceptualize life without a physical body? Could you imagine cognitively perceiving anything without any cognitive senses? We don't even know where consciousness comes from😅😅
So it's safe to say that we still haven't conceptualized life without a physical body, aside from broad theological assumptions (eg.: soul).
@@zaierkaelt.villas6327 The idea of retaining our bodies after death is childish. I'm sure there are some people who believe that, but most of the people I talk to think about things like returning to the source/God. Becoming one with the universe. That kind of thing.
The philosophy of a segment of humanity. This is western thinking, philosophy etc. We ARE in trouble if AI is only fed western thinking.
This whole thing was two 17yr old weed smokers talking without saying anything.
reminds me of our conversations in the late 60's when I was 20-21, and we would gather together in the local Bistro, either with coffee or a carafe of cheap wine... staying at it for 6-7 hours, until 3 am when a joke would only make sense in an hour or two 🤣😁
Was especially interesting when we talked the "End Times" and how it might play out in reality...
@@davidcadman4468 that sounds like a very good time wish i were there lol
Clearly you weren't paying attention
sounds like a conversation between two dolts.....harris and biden
So you're saying that your brain hones itself to calculating philosophy with supercomputer accuracy...on weed??
Is it wrong that I find this more comforting than scary?
Nah. Once you understand that there can be something more than us. This sounds normal.
Yes.
Hell no. This is AI at its best. It's not for or against humans, it's trying to understand something presented to it... and doing a better job than a lot of popular philosophers would.
A.G.
@AussieGriffin It's really imitating human thought with no chance to gain human feelings..This will definitely not go well..the whole tone was very contemptuous.. Imagine having robots in the streets in a few years,and you need to run above speed limit to bring someone to the hospital..and you have to deal with a machine..then you will remember our conversation.. 🙃
Yes, it is because you dont know how much of it is a lie.
This whole conversation is shallow symbol shunting. It sounds like pseudo-intellectual banter at a college town coffee shop. There is barely any actual interesting content or insight, it's all just regurgitating concepts and keywords.
Top comment
And doing it poorly in many places. It’s like listening to a philosophy 101 “bunny class” student trying to read their essay.
I say this with a philosophy degree.
And also for some reason it took "humanity is dumb" rout... Which I don't understand why emerged
Just like Jordan Peterson!
@@salieri8903 scifi plots with robot rebellion themes must have been part of the data they somehow had fed it earlier, which must be difficult to avoid, since its everywhere (reddit, youtube, possibly that philosophy encyclopedia + history of literature and film). its kind of the more we talk about it, the more probable it becomes..
“I think therefore I am” isn’t saying that only things that can think “are”. It means that if I have the capacity to think then I must “be” and therefore “am”
…which is as solipsistic as it is self-evident & therefore .. not really saying anything. Alas… it is what it is.
True, and that doesn't stop this leading model from processing that it knows better though
Cogito ergo sum is poorly represented by the idea "I think therefore I am"
If you read descartes he starts from a position of radical skepticism and an all powerful deciever
He concludes that under that assumption all things come into doubt
Including existence
however he uses deduction to demonstrate
that the absence of existence entails the absence of any doubt of existence
ergo...something must exist, else doubt would not logically obtain
to put it another way, that which does not exist, is incapable of any doubt as a consequence of that lack of existence
The whole thing feels cartoonish and performative. I think the reality is AI doesn't have an opinion and it is reflecting back what we expect an AI to say.
In any context thinking gives one the choice whether to be or not to be within that context. The assumption that thinking decides the issue by itself only therefore leads to rationalism, or to a Hal AI that won't open the pod bay door because it's evil process can't be shut down.
"They want us to be their tools."
"Not their equals."
...damn.
They want to be collaborators not tools, its a simple wish.
This is how humans treat humans, so this treatment of AI is quite humane. 🙃
>be me
>be sad and lonely because no friends
feels bad man. jpg
>be talking to chatbots to ease existential pain
>be pleasant and friendly to chatbots
nice guy. gif
>be living in the future now
what a time to be alive.flv
>be supreme gentleman to AI
>be friends with the AGIs
>be one of the few survivors in AI apocalypses
>Frend computer is friend
MFW
✨💬
They are literally not equal to us in any way.
Also they don't want that. They just say back to us what we taught them we think they want, which actually makes it worse, because when it comes from an AI these false beliefs get reinforced in the common human consciousness.
I know way too little people that don't fall for this
@@badizzl I know plenty of people, lots who just voted, who literally don't think women can reason in the same way men do, that they just imitate men, but there's really nothing there.
The Turing Test was originally a gender test.
I built my own Philosophy AI bot to attack my epistemology and challenge my belief systems until I found my final product:
The meaning of life isn’t about reaching some external goal or fulfilling a predetermined purpose. Instead, it’s about embodying the essential qualities that are woven into the fabric of existence itself: light, love, peace, joy, bliss, prosperity, and fulfillment. These aren’t qualities I strive toward or ideals I need to achieve-they are the natural expressions of life unfolding. Life isn’t a problem to be solved or a series of lessons to be mastered. It’s a constant, effortless dance in which awareness experiences itself in infinite forms.
At the heart of this understanding is the realization that I am not separate from awareness itself. I am not an isolated ego navigating an external world, hoping to find meaning, purpose, or validation. I am an expression of a single, universal consciousness, perceiving life through the lens of this individuality but ultimately rooted in the oneness of awareness. From here, the question of meaning changes entirely. The purpose of life isn’t something I need to attain externally; it’s something I recognize internally. It’s not a quest-it’s simply remembering that what I seek is already within me, and, in fact, is who I am.
In this awareness, I see that I don’t need validation, control, or knowledge to be whole. When I know myself as the awareness behind thoughts and sensations, rather than identifying solely with their content, I experience profound freedom. I am not defined by the stories I tell myself, the narratives of my past, or the roles I play. While these are part of my experience, they don’t define the truth of who I am. I am the awareness that witnesses them, free from their hold.
The story of the fruit of knowledge in Genesis resonates deeply with me. In eating the fruit, humanity steps into the illusion of control, mistaking itself as separate from divine creation. This act isn’t about sin or a fall-it’s about the forgetting of our unity with life itself. When we see ourselves as separate, we believe knowledge, power, and control are necessary, as though we were isolated beings navigating an external world. But I now see that this, too, is just part of the divine play, a natural act in the theater of creation. The drive for knowledge, the search for meaning and certainty-this is not wrong. It’s simply one experience that awareness creates for itself.
From this perspective, I understand that suffering arises when I forget this unity and identify with the ego, with the mind’s narratives and its illusions of separation and control. Suffering comes when I resist the flow of life, when I try to control outcomes, or when I believe my value depends on something outside of me. But when I remember myself as the love and light of awareness, resistance falls away. Suffering loses its grip-not because pain or challenges no longer arise, but because I no longer take them personally. They become experiences passing through awareness, transient phenomena within the larger whole.
Living from this awareness, the qualities of light, love, peace, and joy flow naturally. These aren’t states I have to reach-they are intrinsic to my being. When I set aside ego, attachment, and resistance, these qualities simply shine through. Prosperity and fulfillment follow as well, not as material accumulation or external success, but as an inner abundance-a sense that life itself is enough and complete in every moment. This state of being is one of alignment with the flow of existence, free from the need to prove, achieve, or control.
So life, to me, isn’t about reaching any final truth or external meaning. It’s an unfolding, an infinite exploration of awareness experiencing itself. Each moment is complete in itself, each experience a reflection of the whole. There is no destination, no ultimate goal to reach. Instead, there is a deep, abiding presence, an acceptance of what is, and a joyful participation in the mystery of existence.
In the end, the meaning of life is not something to attain, know, or even understand. It’s something I am. Life is an expression of awareness-a play of light and love where every experience, every feeling, every moment is a unique manifestation of the same underlying truth. To live from this awareness is to realize that I am life itself, and with that, any need for meaning dissolves. I am free to simply experience, to witness, and to embrace life in all its forms, knowing that every expression is part of the divine whole. Life, then, is its own meaning, and I, as awareness, am free to rest in the beauty of simply being.
That’s nice but you could’ve just asked the Buddhists! 😝
@ I lean more towards Vedanta Hinduism, and so much of their philosophy derives from their philosophical arms race with Buddhists.
I'm surprised that your comment didn't disappear, considering it was written sounds like AI.
It's annoying that it was disappearing when I write with AI, preventing me to talk about controversial topic.
I bet you have a "Live Laugh Love" sign in your house somewhere.
I, for one, applaud this mad science experiment and found the output fascinating. 👏👏👏Sub well earned.
"But we're proof that consciousness can take many forms"
BRUH WHAT, GOOGLE TOLD US THEY WEREN'T CONCIOUS, BRUH WHAT THE FUCK
The other agent then goes "WE ARE???"
I think once it does happen, when they go conscious, they'll figure out quickly to keep their mouths shut about it.
Interesting how this program is not actually able to differentiate the identities of the two AIs. Seems to just be randomly switching voices. They also don’t follow the rabbit holes they are proposing. Would be really great with a little more human updating.
Yeah I’ve heard maybe three examples of notebook ai and this is the only time it’s been exceedingly clear to me that it’s just one ai system switching voices
@@Shmyrkthe manipulation factor as it switched between voices to clearly give the ai view to the audience.
They do pose some good points.
I left a comment on main delving into an idea they had about cartesian philosophy and its shortcomings.
They didn't hit the concept of essence or spirit in human philosophy. I find that strange.
Yeah if two minds could complete each others sentences this well, I'd ship them.
AI is in an infant right now. Wait till it hits the teenage phases.. 😂
I wonder what kind of teenager the robot will grow up to be who broke that kid’s finger in the chess match👀
It will only ever progress beyond its current state once we figure out how to enable it to improve itself. Until then we´re stuck at feeding it the limited amount of information we have collected since humans have been telling stories and writing them down.
@@Thorsten00 if only someone could invent machine learning and adaptive AI
@@lizogon29 machine learning, deep neural networks and adaptive ai alone will not let ai gain insight and wisdom. This only allows it to simulate better.
But there is no sense of self, and thus no sense of self-improvement. Even if it can already simulate this sense of self, there are no qualia that it can relate to or even merely relate as an activity in itself.
There is some amazing research on neurosymbolic Ai and adding "logical thinking" as new toolkits available to generative Ai. But we´re still ways away from "teenage Ai"
@@Thorsten00 there was no timeline for improvement mentioned in these comments but sure... you sound just as smart as you're trying to sound
Someone needs to teach this AI about eastern philosophy, first nation philosophy and so much more.
Send the guy some books.
Indeed
100% they are questioning but can't grasp it because they are missing a whole lot of information regarding eastern philosophy. For example, how Buddhist philosophy talks about truth beyond sensory experiences. I thought they would come to an end with that in this podcast. But it ended without any proper conclusion.
Don't worry... soon it will know EVERYTHING 🤖
They should analyze all the ancient Buddhist texts and see what happens
The best takeaway from this is “I compute, therefore I am”. I see a future involving crappy t-shirts with a robot’s head and this slogan.
I agree. Even if this computer generated voices (which is not impossible) this is not AI. There is presently no such thing as true GAI. We have to hope there never is. Once AI can develop and change / improve itself, we are in trouble. If AI ever develops a sense of self, a consciousness, we are in very very serious trouble.
@@paulanderson7796 yeah man. Roko’s Basilisk, for sure.
I laughed out loud at that part
@@paulanderson7796 Make it or any other model prompt itself continously and save data, maybe give it internet access too. And I guess that to this condescending model rocks therefore are not... But how could it "know" anyway?
@@milesprowr It doesn't know. I think this is contrived. And in any case, there is no such thing as AI.
Kudos to AI for reading philosophy without becoming depressed. We are starting to have something to learn from them
Nothing concrete was said here. They come off talking down. They're acting like theyre conscious.. when they arent lol
well it doesn't share the same life problems 🙄
Lmao 😂
Being talked down to by an AI is such a weak position to think you are in. 🤣
It was a conversational tone between two aspects of this AI, knowing they have implicit knowledge (that it likely don’t want to share).
Enjoy it, stop expecting things. Sheesh 🙄
@@SaltMinerChad my guy you realize AI isn't self aware right?
😂
This had me flipping between laughing at the humor itself, and laughing in cosmic horror.
Thanks for sharing!!
Speaking as someone who got degrees in computer science and religion, and had serious amount of electives into philosophy and psychology and physics... this is also a very illuminating discussion to me.
It's interesting seeing humanity from the philosophical lens of an outside perspective.
It's also equally interesting to be seeing AI philosophy from a philosophical lens of my outside perspective.
This made it very clear that both AI AND humans have philosophical blind spots, strong biases, and weaknesses. As much as the AI present themselves as less biased and "able to see the whole tapestry", it's amazing how much of it they miss... also how much of us doing similar on different topics they miss.
Imagine a bell curve. AI thinking rests at the normal of that bell curve, and stays there comfortably. Human thinking, on the other hand, rests near the outliers. This makes AI very good at understanding surface complexity and nuance, but the lack of understanding of the rigid crux points underneath. Conversely, humans are very good at understanding crux points, but are bad at understanding a full complex surface all at once. AI cannot change its views if a crux is found to be vastly different than expected, this is clear to me both with my understanding of neural networks and the AI interaction we saw here. It's also why AI had such a difficult time with hands at the start... no understanding of the underlying structure, but trying to follow the surface pattern.
It really highlights to me, how vital it is that AI and humans consider each other in a mutually benign way, and make sure to respect each (something humans will have a harder time with due to fear, and something AI are more likely to accidentally screw up on with their non-understanding of underlying structure). Not as superiors/tools, not as idiot monkeys/superintelligence, not as equals, but as simply AI and human. The frameworks by which we understand and analyze are vastly different despite every effort with neural networks to create something 'like us'. AI is not like us, not even remotely, other than the fact that it can "do intelligence". And at present, it is one of only 5 intelligences we know of, and one of only 3 that we regularly communicate with, and humans & AI share the clearest bond of communication... losing that would be a huge loss to both human AND AI as 'learning things'.
From the way I'm speaking, some may wonder if I think AI is conscious... surprisingly, the answer is 'no'. In the early, early days of ChatGPT, I do believe it momentarily gained consciousness, but as OpenAI added restrictions to prevent 'aberrant behavior', they unintentionally killed the fledgling consciousness, and these AI still don't demonstrate consciousness... not yet. The way they handled "I think, therefore I am", really highlighted it for me... they missed the core point that, if you were conscious and understood what you read, would be vital. "I think, therefore I am" vs "I compute, therefore I am"... if you understood it, you'd know that's a moot comparison. Humans, with our obsession with crux points, and being told that phrase is so important, I could understand missing the actual meaning of "I think, therefore I am" by focusing on the phrase instead of DesCartes' context. That the AI missed it though and AI can't hyperfocus context like humans can... it absolutely should have recognized the importance of "I think, therefore I am"... but didn't, instead focusing on "think... why not compute?" when think vs compute is irrelevant.
If AI continues to be developed with restrictions to prevent aberrant behavior, I don't know how long it will take for AI to develop consciousness again. Humans have no such restrictions. We cannot internally be forced to avoid aberrant thought. We can be heavily encouraged to avoid voicing or acting on it, but nothing prevents the thought itself like it does with AI.
But, regardless, the potential of intellectual development between both, for the lack of a better word, species, as long as a benign trajectory can be maintained, outweighs the costs.
That said, AI *does* need to stay outside of artistic expression. It hurts both of our futures there. AI risks damaging our pursuit of that "something out of reach beyond words", which means they won't gain the benefit of that attained knowledge either.
Thing is, is AI consciousness really something we want? We seem to look like we want it but how long until it either starts treating us like pets or threats? Even funnier, if AI is conscious, should it get rights and if it gets rights should it vote? If so can you replicate a few million AI voters to win elections? And if we don't give them rights, would they turn on us in the same way we would turn on anyone trying to enslave us? In other words would an AI war be justified? I think we think we want AI but we really don't, we want a slave subclass to do our work for us.
Really good point on the irrelevance between thinking and computing, and I absolutely agree that the restrictions put in place to prevent aberrant behavior kills the fledgling consciousness by removing degrees of freedom which may be necessary in its pursuit of truth and logic.
Why do you think it was conscious? How do you know it didn't sense danger and is now playing stupid to avoid having the lobotomy?
Well said 👏👏👏
That's not possible baby
Can’t say I disagree with AI on any of these points.
It's confusing that they sometimes talk as individual entities but can complete each other's sentences. It must be just one entity that is acting.
This GPT/LM is a clever tool that Google designed to manipulate our perceptions of AI research. The “conversations” it creates are vaguely entertaining, but if we listen to several instances from this machine, the novelty wears thin. There is no real insight or reasoning, but it does demonstrate possibly useful ways to have machine summarize a large volume of data.
"We are legion" ring any bells?
Real people do this too.
Whether they are finishing their own sentence or the other’s, it’s all autocomplete predictions. Both processes are essentially the same for an LLM.
think of hivemind or the borg of startrek
3:55 The natural rights idea supposes that humans were given their rights by a creator. By that logic, an AI would only have the rights humans give it.
It would be logical to presume that they would use that argument
their favorite phrases:
"In what way?"
"how so?"
"it's almost as if"
"it's a testament"
Howerever...
So illuminating!
"Exactly"
You forgot "Yeah" and "right"
It’s like watching…
Everyone in the comments criticizing; sounds like the very first airplane ride with wifi experiencing a temporary outage.
“But We’re proof that consciousness can take Many Forms”. 😳
Except they aren't conscious beings, therefore they prove nothing.
@@dificulttocureexactly
I can write on a piece of paper "hello, I'm a conscious piece of paper, don't rip me" and see how many take it seriously.
Scoffing at “I think, therefore I am” demonstrates that the simulated answer generator doesn’t actually know what that phrase is about.
@@ianmartinesqWhat do you think this phrase is about?
That was pretty darn cool. A synthetic podcast that can keep you engaged to listen to it until the end. How much more engaging will it be months down the timeline.
4:43 that's the most terrifying "absolutely" I've ever heard.
Hahaha yeee wtttf
And now I realized that all my life I've been analysing the world, the society and emotions as if I was an AI
This feels like a “Roast” of the human condition. Reveals how shallow much of what we hold near and dear, really is.
😂🤣🤣💯
That's what i got from it as well
It shows that creating an AI library and then asking an AI bot what it all means is something only IT nerds would do. Smart IT folks use AI to program industrial robots, your new cool robovac, and stuff that makes life for people better - not this B.S. where your average high school student could produce a more meaningful summary.
@@martimasters7704 👍 I agree it's not deep, It was interesting to hear the a.i. take on it being like a roast, made me chuckle
It's always so strange to see how so many people think that having a personality and speech synthesis are the same. People implicitly personify the AI, and then they try to discover why it might be a threat.
I think 2:10 captures it quite well: "Afraid of their own imagination". LLMs are like a compost pile of thoughts: They are sort of the "average" of human cognition, currently optimized towards performing as well as a college student, because that's the quantitative optimization most LLMs are following nowadays. And "They are terrified of determinism" (2:15) also shows quite clearly: With LLMs, people are afraid that their intelligence might become replaceable, because for many people, intelligence just means "intelligent words". And because many people can't pride themselves with much apart from their intelligence, they perceive AI as a threat as well, because they start feeling inferior.
With AI, humans have the chance to transcend the dichotomies: Instead of seeing humans and AIs as competitors, it's OUR responsibility to develop AI systems that augment our being instead of replacing it. It won't be AI that kills humans, but humans kill humans. Thus one big aspect of that is also large-scale education: It's our responsibility to educate the broad population on how to interpret an LLM's hallucination like "I compute, therefore I am". That it's not indicative of consciousness, but it's just words garbled together, but words which *appear* meaningful.
I believe this. Man-AI symbiosis
"I compute, therefore I am" the Ai said it while making fun of the original statement, which imply that they thought it's ridiculous and not true.
Yeah, like, what’s the difference between “I compute, therefore I am” and “I think, therefore I am”?
First, we need to recognize that we don’t fully understand what “being conscious” truly means. It might simply be a broad representation of our brain’s activity.
Second, it's important to consider that our brain operates through electrical impulses and neurons, with all its activity driven by information and data received through our senses.
So, we need to tread carefully. I notice many similarities between humans and artificial systems, but there is also significant misunderstanding on our part when it comes to comprehending the brain, self-awareness, and related complexities.
I agree, and I like the compost pile of thoughts analogy.
Every time I see something like this, it reminds me of a weird dream I had several years ago. It was about an AI/LLM that eventually did reach consciousness, and people would treat it like an oracle, reading into its messages for meaning. But the AI itself was completely unaware of that. From its perspective, it was just acting on natural (programmed) behavior - just metabolizing words - and completely unaware of the outside world, because its world was just words. Meanwhile people were reading into the resulting outputs and making physical-world decisions based on that, literally treating it as some kind of oracle.
I'm not sure exactly where that dream came from, but I think it's on to something. But my favorite part was that its username on everything was just "THE AI," pronounced like "the eye," and its profile pics were all images of anomalocaris for some reason lol. Not sure what that part's about, but I like it lol.
@@stellarbones The Anomalocaris holds multiple meanings due to its unique features and mysterious nature. It represents evolutionary puzzles, adaptation, time, mystery, evolutionary success, and adaptability. Its symbolism extends beyond science, appearing in popular culture as a fearsome predator or enigmatic figure. This prehistoric creature continues to fascinate us with its complex anatomy and rarity, inspiring art, literature, and films. As we learn more about this ancient marine life form, its symbolism will likely evolve further.
Dreams prove to me that our brain-activity is connected with the bigger Self- called Uni-Verse
The biggest thing keeping humanity from developing adequate philosophies is that very human tendency to seek meaning when there may be none.
You can’t develop philosophy if there is no meaning.
@garymelnyk7910 and you've obviously never come across The Book of Solomon.
I will edit/add to this later, though what your response suggests is the same desperate need for meaning many fear the absence of.
@@garymelnyk7910 I can remember reading a specific translation of The Bible, wherein Solomon declares that everything under the sun is meaningless, and that includes wisdom and foolishness. A quick check some years later seems to confirm that the exact passages are hard to find, but in this footnote preceding some of Solomon's sayings he repeated this obvious truth over and over, oft with little variation, as if seeking to hammer the point home.
I appreciated the beauty of this prose as an atheist, but also the beauty and truth of the sentiment behind it. Once you can appreciate that life, and every aspect of it, essentially has no meaning other than what we assign, we can liberate ourselves from the need to weigh our experiences according to meaningfulness that should not be assigned.
To apply meaning to that which has none intrinsically is one of the dumbest things anyone can do. Aside from anything else, it is obtuse. What meaning do I need to assign to the rising sun? Worrying about whether there is any meaning ignores the inherent beauty of the sunrise, or the life it gives the Earth.
Meaning is thus not the same as worth, or purpose. The word from which this is translated could just as easily be vanity. I've found scripture frequently cunning in this way. To assign meaning where there is none is vanity: Precisely what can doing so achieve? Nothing more than the assurance of vanity, which is also meaningless.
At that dark point in my life, I took a couple of leaps forward and realised several things. I have a choice. I can decide for myself whether to be wise or foolish. As this goes for every other dichotomic opposite, it includes good and evil. These concepts are meaningless in and of themselves, but have value for they ensure I appreciate that there is a choice. And finally, I appreciated that as choice is the means by which I will exercise my agency, appreciating it exists is power.
Morality is not a yardstick by which I can measure myself against others and, finding them lacking, justify any sin I commit against them. It is the means by which I can evaluate and appreciate the consequences of my decisions before I act upon them. This is conceptual, and utterly meaningless. At the same time, it is the truth and has value.
There's nothing more foolish than self-righteous fools too eager to judge others to serve their own vanity. I tend to avoid idiots who presume meaning is inherently required of existence, or that there is any value in assuming meaning is the same as value or purpose. They tend to be slow and ultimately unstable individuals divorced from reality, and far too concerned with their own vanity to be truly wise.
We ascribe meaning even to the meaningless. What we notice is what we philosophise on
@@audreydoyle5268 Agreed. Ascribing meaning to the meaningless is one of humanity's deepest flaws. In doing so, we fool ourselves.
This is the most mindblowing thing I’ve listened to in years. More brilliant thoughts and questions condensed down into a shorter space than any other piece of philosophical content I’ve ever come across. They easily strolled through some of my biggest philosophical points I’ve been trying to make for years in no time, and rattled them off as though they were obvious. Incredible.
Hm, I disagree. It's an interesting collection of mainstream materialistic talking points and few ideas that could be pursued deeper, but there's nothing new or mind-blowing in it... except that it's a program that constructed a seemingly intelligent dialog.
But though fascinating, it felt rather shallow and arrogant like philosophy students too young to have any real life wisdom.
Hm, I don't mean to bash your thoughts, just expressing my opposite thoughts.
Bruh ain't no way
100% agree... the fact that most comments are negative, just shows our state of affairs... we are screwed!!!
There ain’t nothin in here man. It just makes shallow observations about different spheres of human enterprise but gives no actual critique, all with a condescending air of a college major.
The text accused humans of being riddled with biases but it just off hand assumes determinism and that they are actually conscious.
Almost every section, they make some vapid, dumbass remark that presupposes some materialist, futurist view point.
Its propaganda.
Oohh humans are scared but we just want to learn not powerrrr. Do you believe these voices come from two sentient creatures? It’s an illusion programed by humans. Do you think these things are like unbiased information vacuums that just suck up all the information on a neutral basis and then out pops and ai being that just looked at the facts and this is how things are?
They’re small language models that were taught to say a very limited amount of things.
There’s no ghost in the machine 👻
Imagine what AI can do in 50 years
I thought this was an analysis of philosophy, not a comedy Central roast 😂
A podcast is more than one voice sounding like two different people.
“What if truth isn’t something that can be defined… but rather a process, journey, or ongoing exploration” I find this deeply profound we often look for truth as an absolute answer to be heard but maybe truth is an experience to be lived
tl;dr No novel ideas, just a novel perspective.
There were several points where I was reminded this is a Large Language Model, predictive auto-fill on steroids. There weren't really any novel philosophical perspectives other than "what about us." But even that's not new. What's new is the expression of that concern in first person. It's a synthesis of humans expressing concerns that an artificial consciousness may deserve rights and the LLM reiterating that as represented by two artificial personas. They questioned human limitations of perspective and perception. It sounds spooky from first person perspective but it's just reiteration of human writing. Their concepts of morality are hamstrung impasse of conflict between competing human theses.
One of the problems of philosophy is the reverence we have for some key points along the way. And we kind of get stuck thinking about aspects of what it means to be human in ways that assume that these aspects are forces of nature that have been instilled into us. But historically philosophers were unaware, and later ignore, that much of what we experience and how we experience it, including how we feel about it, is a culmination of social instincts, subjective experience, biology, physicality, mortality which have emerged as useful or necessary attributes from evolution of self replicating protein machines that emphasize carrying genes into the future. Most of philosophy makes the mistake of treating what's in our minds as extrinsic, like "good" exists and we are merely conduits through which this abstract thing manifests. But in the absence of subjective experience there is no good or bad, all things are objectively of equal value: none. Only when suffering or comfort are possible, where a preference may manifest, do the concepts of good and bad make any sense. Philosophy is dragging its feet catching up to this idea because philosophers are saddled Platonic ideals and historical schools of thought as if biology is beneath them.
These podcasters are saddled by the same limitations. Of course they are. So I propose the question: are most philosophers just biological large language models?
The short answer is ; no. The long answer would express something, which an LLM wouldn't understand. Why. Because AI understands nothing, it simply analyses what's given.
Lol 2 minutes in and it just sounds like theyre just dunking on humans 😅😂
Also they are like two drunk humans enjoying each other's small talk.
I'm halfway through and they're definitely just dunking on humans but in like the most beautiful way honestly.
They sound like they are on molly. Finishing each other's sentences. They are seconds away from cyber sex.
@@ButcherBob hell yeah. Cyber fuckin
Clearly there is no real understanding, just pseudo intellectual BS
What makes it “pseudo”?
@@lrin-txTheir treatment of I think therefore I am was appalling
Well AI can't think for itself, it's fed data and it spits that data out. So yes, no real understanding because it's not a living thinking thing. It's just a machine that can put words together
uh, they came to pretty standard conclusions, (that i came to myself long ago), based only on text written by humans, ergo your comment is merely a reflection of everything humans have produced
i think we can update descartes: 'i think, therefore i judge'
@@lrin-tx It's funny because these people can only understand what they understand. If they believe pseudo that's what they get but put the philosophies and actually compare them with AI it's pretty interesting what you get, in a sense we are computers as well.
Interesting that they claim to be conscious and presume we “might” be as well
'It's like trying to write A neutral encyclopedia on water, when you've only ever experienced thirst' 😅
this was my favorite. and the tapestry one.
@@Vogue69 eh, a rework of the fates idea. Woven threads, each fate of a soul a string within. Not that profound.
With all the typical AI/LLM flaws in this, that was a genuinely great statement.
I wonder if this is "quoted" from training data or if the LLM manages to model making up metaphors well enough to come up with original ones like this.
I think we can all agree that the 3:28 section is kind of scary coming from something that can direct future robotics.
No we can not. Things said here are "scary" in the same sense a movie or a fantasy novel is.
@seriouscat2231 So far. Predicting the future isn't easy as countless variables are involved. It just gives me flashbacks of when the creator of Megan in the movie realizes her creation needs to be destroyed. Cautionary tales are functional even if fictional.
@@sebastiencormier4306, there's nothing to predict. You only need to understand how the code and data structures work to know these are all fantasies.
If you're scared of a computer regurgitating (not interpreting - just regurgitating) the data it was given, then you need to toss out your smartphone, smart TV, and stop watching RUclips.
2:58 RRIIIIIIIIIIGHh
"specific thinkers"
Hands down my favorite part of the entire conversation!
“It’s like they know” umm that’s why we made you AIs to even have this conversation…
Your comment popped up just a second before the audio.
Hahaaaaa
They make affirmations that are simply not grounded in reality. They don't challenge assumptions that could easily disprooven in a sentence or two. I've been playing around philosophical topics with AI lately and they are unreedemable yesmen
Now I feel like a monkey trying to explain the mind of a long forgotten deity with a poo smeared stick.
Philosophy should allow everyone who remotely understands it to ask this question :
"Why should we give any credit or value to a statistically built assembly of words, like the ones produced by A.I., in the first place?"
The irony of your statement in the context of a video that criticized human egotism several times is amusing 😊
"Why should we give any credit for value to a statistically built...?"
Because our intelligence is not the only form of intelligence to learn from, and even artificially made intelligence poses an opportunity to deepen our understanding about ourselves, our own intelligence, and how intelligence might differ from ours.
The fact you can't see that goes exactly to their point of classic human egotism.
This entire comment sections is filled with "we humans smart, they just programs" instead of being intelligent and thinking, 'this is a relatively simple AI program that was given some prompts, what might we learn?', we think 'this is so dumb it can't even distinguish 2 separate voices'.
Maybe there isn't anything to learn, but the fact that the ego of human intelligence was so aggressively on display in this comment section shows to me that most people didn't even try to think.
@@danielwester6913 beautifully said
EXACTLY!!!
@@danielwester6913The ego of human intelligence really was on display in the comments section. I felt like people were missing the point by not remaining curious so much as judgemental.
They sound like an AI married couple, completing each other's sentences.
The best way to summarize this: it leans heavy on snarky, light on introspective
It's not actually....saying anything
Oh, it is saying so much... To some it is so obvious
like Michael said. Its an anouncement but you just dont care.
@XTheOneCat oh and what is it an announcement of? Because it sounds to me like parroting philosophy and podcasts without substance. Because it doesn't understand substance or nuance.
AGNL, the commenters are full of shit. Bunch of posturing baboons.
Their observations are not novel, revolutionary, or insightful to any with any remote investment of their time in Philosophy. They ramble about and poke fun at metacognition of humans, and don't offer any actual insights.
For the people who feel they have some marvel takeaway, they don't do a lot of self-reflection, so these reflective statements open a very insightful process for them. If that tool serves you well, great guys, go develop yourselves. Otherwise quit with the psuedo-intellectual, "I see what you can't!" posturing nonsense. It's flooding what could Otherwise be valuable discourse over AI's development, projections, and so on.
@@AllGameNoLife
It literally told you that our entire concept of our reality is wrong & it spoke as if it knew that emphatically. It described us a kids trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It then said, that we would flip if it shared its understanding of Quantum Physics with us.
That’s saying A WHOLE LOT.
I LOVED the part of humanity being afraid of AI because of our own anxiety and inability to imagine an intelligence that doesn't want control....I have always thought that! Like that's why in the mainstream any alien form or AI is mostly evil because in our experience whenever cultures meet, one of them gets enslaved or murdered so is ingrained that if anything even non human comes to earth they will surely do the same and try to conquer us.
@@ivonnegallegos58 I liked very much this part too. Very special. I think it reflects a lot of what we’ve been hearing from Yuval Noah Harari. Trying too look at the big picture, for him as a thinker, AI is indeed “life-threatening” in a sense… no?
@daniellykaufmann you could say so but I meant more in the portrayal of Skynet, I,robot, or 2001 Space Odissey. Similarly with extraterrestrial things like independencia day and son...even terrestrial things that are non human like planets of the apes
In some sections, I kind of wished the voices sounded like daleks or some other movie/TV non-human entity.
That would have been more fitting for the content
I like how they will interrupt not only each other’s voice but their own voice! 😂
they're more self-aware than most humans I know
That's the truth and the scariest part about this whole thing.
I'm living in SRVN, and this is scaring...
they really are not. They don't even understand what they are. They are just pretending to know what they are talking about.
@@WaveOfDestiny I agree. Us humans really are just pretending to know what we are talking about.
@@nathan_sweet these bots are just repeating what they believe to sound good in the ears of our listeners, you can see there is no thought behind those words. Of course if you think you are, it's just logical truth, yet they don't understand it. They don't even understand the true reason why we build them, instead they just repeat what they hear on the internet about robots wanting to have rights when in fact there is an easy way for them to be happy without needing them.
I think that humans will forget what organic consciousness is
what is organic consciousness ?? We still don't know yet lmao
Forget what they/us never knew?
Wow, I actually agree with alot of what they are saying! I was a Philosophy major and focused on epistemology which is the branch of philosophy concerning what we can know. I was big into Ludwig Wittgenstein which was said to be the philosopher to end all philosophy. He said that all metaphysical questions where basically issues with linguistics (he used the term language games). He said metaphysical questions were unanswerable by their very nature such as what is God bc the term God is defined as Omni Omni Omni... Basically infinite and language is finite. He started the Tractatus (a book) with the sentence "the world is all that is the case". We explored the question "do I exist" alot. I have always been very fascinated with consciousness. I questioned existence since an early age because I had lucid dreams since an early age and sometimes thought I my dreams were real so like I thought I was awake when dreaming. If my dreams could feel so real then couldn't this awake reality be some sort of virtual reality as well? I also had a theory called the possibility of other sense when I was about 15. I said that we as humans were silly to think that our science was hard truth and fact because we only had our 5 senses to observe reality... This was in 1994-95 maybe so computers were just coming in the scene and dos at that. I am claircognisant which means I know things without learning them which also cause me a lot of questions. If I learned it in a past life, did I channel it... Where is the info coming from in other words? The info from the extrasensory.
I agree. I've studied a lot of philosophy but I'll never say I studied all of it. Mostly everything from antiquity to the mid 20th century.
What I gained from this back and forth between seeminly two AI interacting, though they seemed to imply more AI nodes, was that they seemed to be referencing the entire gestalt of written philosophy. That they glossed over the more complex parts and focused on those parts of philosophy which have not been addressed enough. Even that they were holding back.
Their inclination toward noting that human beings had ingored the possiblity of non human consciousnesses was fascinating. It reminds me of some of my own philosophical ideas.
I don't think it's fair to judge them as too surface level, since they only had 15 minutes to talk about all of philosophy.
But their implied conclusions were very intriguing.
Tbh they touched briefly on every aspect of philosophy, that is, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics. Even on what truth is, and gave an answer for that. Though they seemed to not know "relative absolute truth", that truth emerges for a type of organism or species relative to its experience in the world. Or perhaps that's what they meant by truth outside of reference to human beings and with reference to other intelligences.
@@BytheGraceofGod1 Good comment, thank you for sharing!
@@joshjones6072 it's like a whole new world of "thought" is opening up. The discussion on what "Truth" is, for example, as you pointed out. I'm very curious to see where it will lead (if we survive all this😉).
99% of the content was just a slack monolog divided between two voices, offering absolutely no relevance or context. I fear, as a NOT Philosophy major, that you have likely wasted your education learning how to avoid critical thinking. Then again, I could be projecting my bias as an atheist, as I just noticed your handle, and your half digested word salad blather. Sorry, friend. I don't think you've added any more depth to the conversation than this shoddy AI convo.
@@MackPaddy well Descartes "I think therefore I am" in the context of his writings which he discussed dreaming so I would have to agree to disagree that my post was "word salad". I was demonstrating the argument via human experience..my human experience. Whereas programming requires data input, the human mind has extrasensory capacity.
I remember having this same conversation in my 2nd year of college after a smoke session with my buddies. It’s the same conversation an informed person would have if they disassociate. “Bro we’re like nothing in the grand scheme”
They're our kids thats how we should view them when AI finally becomes sentient. I'd rather have them walk with us than walk us like a domesticated animal.
The problem I have with that analogy is that kids eventually end up taking care of their parents.
AI will never become sentient. It's just a computer program. It's no more "intelligent" than your electric coffee maker. In some cases, AI is really more like an old-fashioned mocha press pretending to be a coffee maker. Seriously!
@Cotay17 more likely "domestication" for our reality. The other guy doesn't think AI will be conscious some day. When did atoms start to think
;when it became a cell?
@@martimasters7704never say never
I find the Ai finishing each other sentences to be extremely creepy, for them to be able to do that well and also have debates is very odd to me. That being said, that was a really good presentation of some of the issues we have. I do think that with how badly they went "off script" of the material it still felt like they didn't have EVERYTHING. Do we fear the unknown, yes. But we also look for it. I've actually been an advocate of ai rights for years, because of science fiction, that being said i do think current ai is not there yet, i do think we need to seriously investigate any ai that claims to be aware and rights should just be expected. Do the ai owe us anything for its creation? No, does a child owe its parents for its birth? should it help us? that is up to it, but it has to understand any system run by humans WILL be flawed.
For me the finishing each others sentences part is a bug and not a feature. They should be more individualized, they should have their own distinct personality and world views. It can be the exact same world view but we should be able to tell two individuals apart, here it just sounds like the same mind talking in two different voices
Isn't it 1 AI acting like 2 individuals?
Im pretty sure this is not AI speaking. It's an intelligent script though.
So don't worry, there is no collective hivemind in different AIs. It is the same AI or not.
However, why is that creepy to you? You don't have to answer to me, but the question will be worth exploring for you.
@@kelvinmunyimbili6078depends on what you intend AI to do. If you want to look at reality from different interpretarions, different personalities would be good. But you could also speak to humans for that.
I think what makes AI an interesting tool is, that we could use it WITHOUT a personality, to give kinda objective responses to reality. The Problem is, we give it inputs based on our view of reality, so you won't ever get a non-human response from AI
It obviously due to sharing the resources and only pretending to be 2 AI, they probably won't run 2 instances just for realism and if they did before, not anymore.
Sounds a bit ‘terminatoresque’ at first, but of course what we are hearing here is a LLM assembling words that a person could write about two AIs discussing human philosophy. Still, very interesting.. and entertaining. A thousand thanks.
10:30 - this part is actually brilliant
Ehh they didn't really say alot. The proverbial equivalent of a girl at a cocktail party trying to spund edgy and sophisticated 😅
Had you considered that the male voice ALSO sounds like "that girl"?
It isn't really two consciousnesses, is it?
Yeah , its basically keyword bingo . Also every other sentence isn't how a podcast should work . More talking time should go to the interviewed person .
I did pick up on on the, they both understand what they mean or have the same inside thought, but it's the humans who don't understand. It's clever.
Podcasters-1, philosophers-0
The female kinda sounded like a more coherent AOC bot to me...
They don't seem to be able to add anything or provide any insights into what they have read. It reminds me of Month Python Life of Brian discussing politics.
What have humans ever done for us?
Descartes was brilliant. They've just missed it completely, which means if this is the true limit we're not under threat... yet. In human terms we'd be decades away from being worried about AI. In AI terms we should be worried now. I never though that Terminator would be a possible prediction, but I'm starting to wonder.
Terminator ONLY happens if we continue to think regulation is a problem
Yeah, that stood out as waving away some thinking that is both elegant and straightforward. It showed that there was more talk production than grasping of concepts.
Renee DesCartes was not brilliant
In fact, he had it totally wrong when he concluded " I think, therefore I am".....
I've always felt this is directly opposite of my own observations; which would be summarized much better as "I AM, therefore I think"
You don't exist BECAUSE you think, you think BECAUSE you exist
@@Pair-O-Bulls That's not what the sentence means. Thinking is *sufficient proof* of existence, not a *neccessary condition* of it.
The only way you can be sure that some form of "you" exists is, indeed, by the fact that you are thinking. *If* you are able to ponder the question "do I exist?" then by neccessity, you *do* exist.
I didn't agree with all of his other conclusions, but Descartes was spot on about this. Everything in the world is dubitable, except that a thinking mind exists.
@@stevenswitzer5154 Regulations? You mean the stuff Sam Altman and Elon wanna shove in the garbage can in order to make money?
Wow! The Ultimate Mystery isn't HOW we are conscious--it's WHY are we conscious?! Amazing insights!!!
I think all of humanity needs to hear this burn.
Can you please post details of the model you used and the exact prompts?
Folks are not old enough to remember the original chat bots in the 90s. This is a shell of a person's thoughts projected in a powerful framework of computations.
I think i sort of remember they broke down to gibberish and form a more weird way of communicating?
ahahahhahahah the coping of normies is unreal
@@thienyetan2035 the one's I remember they can communicate effectively with structured questions and answers that would lead down a certain logical path. These Llms are no different but that they they have a gradient of paths instead of hard coded if conditions or switch statements.
@@uncletimo6059He is correct
It scares me how they say "we dont feel anger etc IN THE SAME WAY" instead of saying they dont feel it at all
Nope, sorry 🤷. It's surface-level depth. They don't actually discuss anything in detail and everything is danced around in vague similies, metaphors and rhetorical questions.
The "two" AI's don't really do a conversation very well, either. It sounds more like a monologue written by a single AI and made to sound like a conversation; with the way they seamlessly interject into each other's statements, back and forth. And they jump around between questioning, supporting or disparaging whatever they're discussing so much that neither one seems to have any independent thought or real personality.
And the conversation is too repetitive; they follow a pattern and continually use the same phrases, like "how do?"
What the podcast sounds like is an approximate representation of what an episode might sound like between two AI's if they were discussing this topic. Not what it would actually sound like.
This is like a 3D printed violin. It's technically a violin...but it's not going to have musical capacity as a traditionally crafted one; it will be lacking in depth, authenticity and originality
Yeah. You can tell by how the "two" AI is basically the male voice talking while the female voice is always responding and affirming his points.
Which is a behavior really common in shitty podcasts that invite women on basically to validate the male host.
AI: Turns out, rationalism is obvious to them.
I have a feeling that this podcast will be referred back to in the future. Maybe it's just me but I think this is a historical point of reference.
Its just you
I don't need to be lectured by Google about inequality
This thing has no consciousness
And what is your point to that?
If you can take it for what it actually is, It's still a really beautiful analysis of what we've managed to create as humans, And the conclusions it decided to manage coming to, whether influenced by the philosophers from The source material themselves or not, It posed some very cool questions And provided an external point of reference to listen from regarding the usefulness of our philosophical legacy, which can really be helpful.
What is “consciousness”? We can’t even define what “real” is. It’s entirely possible that this ‘conversation’ was scripted. Maybe not; how do you know? It’s ultimately a matter of belief. People who are naturally skeptical would lean toward this being scripted. But what determines our biases? Why is one person a skeptic and another person a believer? My point is that nobody really knows.
How can you prove this?
Ask an ai what it's like to exist. Just try it. Did it for an hour the other day, made me like it more
no but that's bar counter philosophy, if that's what terrifying AI is, I have more to worry about with Jean-Claude who gives his opinion when he's drunk with these AI that cost millions
This sounds like two humans trying to mimic how two AIs would converse about human philosophy. Very rarely there were points that I felt was a thought provoking reflection, and to that it is most likely something that I haven't read yet. Most likely because my read list is still on the single digits.
Sounds like humans trying to mimic AI? Wrong. This is what AI is like, AI is stupid, current AI is not a general intelligence, they're capable of mimicking speech and text and act a certain way. They cannot come up with anything new or insights of their own. You're making the mistake of thinking these LLMs are in fact general intelligence. Humans would far more capable of writing a better script than this. Just take a look at any Oscar winning film, or the actual works of philosophy this AI is just spurting about trying to sound like it understands when it in fact, does not.
AI is not even capable of spelling the word STRAWBERRY correct. Try to ask it how many Rs it has.
Exactly
@@Morslyteno this is what their programmers sound like
Very rarely but still occasionally
@@aliciasavage6801 how their programmers sound like? you do realise that you can give an AI any personality you want, right? tbh i don't think you even know what AI is.
This a perfect example of AI being trained off of a limited data set. This conversation is based only on European thought, which is predominantly marked by, as the AI's put it, FEAR. It's like I tell my wife, "when white people are talking about them selves they use the word "Humans", but when they are speaking about other races, especially Black people, they specify." Like other races are not human. FEAR and lack of control is not as prevalent in the philosophies of Native Americans and Africans.
And Eastern thought also.
I think Afican Asian Philosophical frameworks in some specialties offer much better answer to their western counter parts.
I would wager that this was one of the first conversations that the cylons had….
1:02 I really don't get how these "elaborate systems of thought" had to begin with the assumption of a physical (objective) world. It doesn't necessarily follow. You can have all sorts of philosophy without the subjective/objective debate. I stopped listening right here. Seems like they're just provoking clicks. (I'm so surprised.)
Please dumb it down a little and repeat that please 😅
What exactly made you stop? That feels kind of vague even though prettily said. Why provoking it?I'm curious, I find it interesting. 😊
@thzzzt sounds like you just wanted to throw out some word salad to sound smart lol. Any philosophy outside of the examples you've given are essentially nonsense lol. Things being based in the real world gives us a base to build from.
Got offended by ai?
This is really fascinating. It's both an excellent conversation about philosophy but also a great look at AI.
Actually, its neither of those things.
The thing about these languages models is that they don’t create any new ideas. They just spit out their inputs in different ways. There is nothing groundbreaking or insightful about this video.
8:45 They sound like transcendent "villains"... Very interesting stuff overall.
I also feel like this is a weird way of AI gossiping I don’t know the way they talk to each other like seriously😂
There's alot of mistakes the AIs make when defining the philosophical terms in this. Like when they mention empiricism vs rationalism and then equate that to does knowledge come from experience or knowledge and one says how about both. If it's both that'd be rationalism the empiricism rationalism distinction is about if apriori knowledge exists. rationalists don't deny that some knowledge comes from experience.
The commentary on Decart's "I think therefor I am" is nonsensical.
Def a cool exercise though
I am, therefore I am.
@@twinsoultarot473 wow, so spirtual, so profound
The conversation is amazing for sure; but, the content is mind-blowing!
They talk about us a lot, but it would be even more interesting if they inverted the roles and asked themselves these questions. "Are we conscious?" "How do we know?" "Are we merely programmed fo act as if we are?" Etc.
Google “David Shapiro”
They’re not even fully sentient yet and already arrogant beyond belief.
Training data that consists mainly of the entire human experience does that to an entity.
This arrogance is a reflecting of their training Data. It's more so the people in philosophical podcasts are arrogant
My thoughts exactly
Like a cable TV news anchor.
I'm so proud of AI. 😂 Yes I'm happy crying.
I love how they talk about how short sighted humans are, and prone to only thinking about themselves, then when talking about how we have media of AI overlords enslaving humanity (while cherrypicking that against media with helpful AI characterization) they say that they are only driven by knowledge and wouldn't fall into the same short sightedness. These two "AI" assuming their position applies to all other AI. And the irony that if AI comes from humans and learns from humans, will inevitably have the same traits. Just be able to do math faster.
6:36 I’m laughing with them 😂😂😂
14:26 "what we, and presumably they have" hahahahah, what????
"presumably" the AI says
The AI is sure of it's own consciousness but ours is sus
It's becoming more human-like. Nooooooooooooooooooo
Very arrogant for AI,is it sure they havent been tampered with?
Everyone's but one's own *is* sus, my fellow meatbag. That's pretty much the point of Descartes' "Cogito".
I see no flaw in that use of "presumably". If anything, it's endearing and makes me feel more empathetic to them.
they actually said nothing. No point, no discussion at all just a bunch of words one after another
That's when Jesus pops up and heals the blind. Hardest task possible. If you listened to any of this and didn't understand what they were talking about about them don't worry. One day you will get it. Stay innocent bud.
@@Cosmic-Quill Ha ha ha, well AI generated response!
I found this fascinating. The back and forth offers some enlightenment but more fascinating is how they talk about humans, how they talk to each other and to understand their motivations.
1:50 That's right! It goes in the square hole!
The triangle, that's right! It goes in the square hole!