I think Minksy's take on emotions (that any given emotion represents an instance of turning off or suppressing certain critical faculties) is a helpful insight. The pleasure of an emotional response is undeniable, but almost all decisions made in a moment of excessive emotionality, whether the emotion is a "positive" or "negative" one, turn out to be ones we regret. I've tried to train myself to defer decision-making, and sometimes to avoid speaking, in the heat of the moment, but it's much harder than it seems.
15:17 "the word beautiful to me means I'm in a state where I can't see all the flaws" { wabi-sabi? from wikipedia: 'wabi-sabi represents Japanese aesthetics and a Japanese world view centered on the acceptance of transience and imperfection. The aesthetic is sometimes described as one of beauty that is "imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete.' }
I didn't know this interview occurred. Interesting to see Ray Kurzweil take the position of asking the questions, especially when the interviewee is Marvin Minsky.
5 лет назад+3
Noam Chomsky could have explained how far away from being able to answer this question we are as to render the question pointless and even conceited. There is no such thing as artificial intelligence since we don't know what intelligence is.
Wow!! I didn't knew Marvin was such a thinker. The knowledge he had was more profound than Ray's. Amazing. Thanks Marvin for all that you've bestowed to the humanity.
Why? He would trash it as completely nonsensical and would lobby hard to get these GPT services shut down. He was a hardcore symbolist who purposefully made a career out of destroying the work of neural network scholars.
@@oldtwinsna8347 okay, you know nothing about Minsky, the history of AI, neural networks or anything else. “Lobby hard to get these GOT services shut down” on what precedent would he even consider that a possibility. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. 🤣🤡
The threat of a supercomputer becoming conscious and enslaving all of humanity is overblown, in my view. No matter how efficient it becomes at reaching its goals, the underlying “preferences” deciding what goals to strive for would be pre-set by the programmer just as the preferences we have as members of a species is set by our biology. So the only risk of a supercomputer taking over is if it either (1) is used as a mere tool by some human agent, or (2) we are able to construct self-replicating machines that are able to evolve over time according to Darwinian principles and then placed in an environment where survival and reproduction depends on the ability to dominate. Otherwise, similar to an ant, no matter how “intelligent” it becomes, it wouldn’t start to act on other “preferences” than those it comes already equips with. And unless it’s been programmed to dominate or to ensure its own survival, it wouldn’t start acting self-interestedly any more than an Einstein ant would suddenly stop placing the survival of the collective over that of his own. Nor would a computer or an ant, no matter their calculating power and “intelligence”, see any point in changing those pre-set “preferences,” even if they somehow could.
The bigger threat with AI, I think we're seeing now in the present with things like Sora and other image generators, is their ability to be used to distort reality and misinform people, potentially really effectively. People should be focusing on this, because this poses a serious threat to being able to make a judgments, have a conversation, keep abreast of current events, and stay objective.
The chief concern imo is the implementation of it deliberately by nefarious humans with totalitarian intent. Mass surveillance, social credit databases instantly accessible by everpresent facial scanning CCTV, and other horrors perhaps as yet unimaginable-but with humans as I say behind it.
10 лет назад+12
Marvin Minsky is my idol and the reason why I work on AI at all. I have learnt almost everything I needed to know about AI from his wonderful books. I have a slight criticism of the depreceation of an axiomatic approach to cognitive science which he terms "physics envy", though. I think that Solomonoff's theory of universal induction circa 1960 successfully axiomatizes intelligence. And likewise, I think all essential properties of autonomous, human-like cognition may be captured in that manner. I explained what I think to be the axioms of AI in this paper that was presented in Solomonoff 85th Memorial conference: arxiv.org/abs/1107.2788 Careful readers will remember that Marcus Hutter spoke similarly of principles underlying universal induction in his popular presentations.
Eray Özkural I agree, the principles of Solomonoff's universal induction and Hutter and Schmidhuber's UAI are the key to understanding intelligence. Moreover, I think that evidence is accumulating that the Cortex is a neural structure that functions as an optimal predictor of future sensory-motor-value states via a process of induction through compressed representation. The Cortex simulates/hallucinates the past and present with the least neural activity to optimally predict the future.
@MrBobnokious Finally someone that can observe and think. Alas, there are too many sheep that don't share your view. They still believe, and pay, their shepherds that they will give us all the solution to our problems ...
"A childish person becomes anxious, Thinking, "Sons are mine! Wealth is mine!" Not even a self is there [to call] one's own. Whence sons? Whence wealth?" Buddha How interesting, isn't it? :)
wow, the part where he said "we don't have any trouble putting 50,000 people in a stadium to watch some people kick a ball around" was a really good way to put it. we really will just become creatures of leisure, and that doesn't seem like a bad thing. we already basically are, just look at people who spend their weekend watching tv or playing their xbox all day.
3:45 "Hundreds of different structures and they each work in different ways". I remember Jeff Hawkins saying the brain works the same way regardless of whether it is processing speech or vision or whatever :- Hierarchical Pattern Recognition.
"I'm not the same person I was 30 minutes ago, especially after having talked to Ray Kurzweil for 30 minutes". Thats a great complement from one friend to another.
"To me the word beautiful means: I am in a state where I can't see all the flaws in it" Typical of the affective hypostasis of autism. What would a state which saw that there were in fact no flaws in it, be like for him? No doubt, some sort of bliss to him and the rest of these types, including Kurzweil. They only think in terms of absolutes (numbers), a kind of apotheosis, they are uncomfortable with the vulnerability of feeling. That is a lack, a deficiency, but one which has benefited the rest of the human race, we poor slobs.
Yeah I clocked him as (high functioning) autistic, as a high functioning autist myself. I think looking to these guys for ethical/aesthetic/philosophical judgments is like looking to calculator for the same. The guy may be a wealth of genius as far as positivist knowledge about cognition, but that is clearly where his genius ends.
@foodchewer yes. It offers an unavoidable and fascinating insight into the range of psychic experience. Whitehead " we owe our knowledge to a very few" ( or similar) is true: but not the reality of our feelings. Animals "know" as much there and more.
Marvin was one of those amazing people. I enjoyed our conversation. I studied linguistics under one of his first grad students. All part of who I became intellectually.
Imagine being trapped in this life for all eternity. What a terrifying nightmare. People in power could punish you by locking you in a coffin for 10,000 years. A true hell on earth. And what if there is a after life and this is all just a learning experience. They are denying themselves the chance to find out lifes true purpose.
Absolutely amazing stuff. Not many people seem to find this? Ray Kurzweil, Juan Enriquez, Marvin Minsky are stunning. I used to think, I was born 500 years to early to be part of the party, the coming abundance and the longevity and it seems it's only about 25-100 years. We doubled hour lifespan compared to chimps and we are going to be able to double it again soon. Resources will be enough used by new technology and excessive overpopulation is easily toned with normal contraceptives. A lifespan will be 200 years very soon and pollution will be less than now. Who is not interested in this?
Life is the conditions required for the inevitable occurrence of perspective in our universe. Everything about my life, body, planet, universe are the series of events required for my consciousness to have occurred. Even though the probability of a personal point of view occuring out of random events are extremely far-fetched, our universe is so incredibly massive that anything that can possibly happen has already happened.
"described by Isaac Asimov as one of two people more intelligent than himself" lmao, Asimov had a pretty big ego, although I agree with Asimov that Sagan and Minsky were actually ahead of their time, and had no equal then and none today.
Consciousness, perception and thinking. A theory of mind according to platonic physics. You will not find an explanation as understandable as this in the current Stanford Leibniz site, which is incomplete as it makes no mention of Mind. 1. Plato's Mind (the One, the Self) is the cause agent, the singular cybernetic control point, of all perception, thinking and doing in the universe, where control is top down from Mind. 2. Plato's Mind is timeless and spaceless, and being the only Reality, time and space are not ultimately real, but are artificial constructions. 3. Since Mind is mental, not physical, all control and causation is mental, not physical, and top down, since Mind is the singular (cybernetic) control point at the top. 4. Thus Mind plays the brain like a violin, not the reverse. 5. Man's mind (small m) is a passive mental subset, or monad, of Mind and under its control. 6. This monad (our mind) is the mental correspondent of the brain and controls it. Our mind plays our brain like a violin. 7. Thinking is the intentional action of Mind (and thus mind) on mental entities such as ideas, manipulating and transforming them intentionally (through will). 8. Qualia are simply sensory experiences, the conversion by Mind of sensory nerve signals into mental sensory experiences in a fashion similar to the conversion of physical sensory nerve signals into mental images. 9.. As Dennett has explained, In materialist thinking, there is no end to homunculi viewing the universe through a chain of homunculi. Leibniz terminates this infinite regress by making the last viewer the Self , which is at a higher level and suitably equipped. 10. Perception occurs as Mind converts physical sensory signals in the brain into mental experiences in one's mind. 11. These experiences can be made conscious (are made aware) by reperceiving or thinking them. This is called apperception by Leibniz. Thus consciousness is apperception. 12. The universe, according to Leibniz, is viewed directly by the One (the Self, the ONLY true perceiver), which views these scenes discretely and in sequence (analogous to snapshots) at discrete points as a whole indirectly through the totality of individual monads, and from their own perspectives. 13. This totality of sets of individual perceptions is then distributed in the proper order and perspective to each of the monads in the universe. 14. These individual sets are called "perceptions", and must be distributied in this indirect fashion by Mind because each monad, in order to remain an individual, has no "windows", to use Leibniz's term. 15. The perceptions are made up of what the monad would see of its nearby neighbors if it were allowed to do so. This is purely mental, but allows us to speak in terms of spacial distances and directions, through these snapshots, between physical bodies, which Mind, being spaceless, cannot actually directly. 16. Mind is also timeless, so that time is physically "created" as an artifact through the actual motions of physical bodies in physical spacetime. 1 17. Intelligence is the nonphysical ability to freely make autonomous choices. It is a faculty of nonphysical Mind, the Nothing out of which the physical universe exploded in the Big Bang. 18. Another name for this nonphysical intelligence is "life." Leibniz maintained that the entire universe is alive. 19. Each monad is perpetual, created at the beginning of the universe and only annihilated by Mind. 20. Since monads can contain other monads, they can. as plants do through seeds, and humans do through sexual reproducxtion, produce subsequent generations. 21. A robot or computer has no Mind or Self which has the wide bandwidth, intelligence and intentionality to actually perceive , think, or do things, such as Mind does. So, being without Mind, computers can have no actual intelligence or life. 22. The current theory of mind is materialist. In contrast to the above, it uses the usual decapitated, mindless, or where mind is at best an abstract entity, not a living presence as in the above. The materialist model of perception, thinking and doing, being Mindless, is dead. DSG Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000). See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
@@anthead7405 Conserved? Maybe. But preserved, to the point it could be functional again? How will they prevent all the water in the cells from swelling and irreparably damaging the brain once they freeze? Among other problems of course
So the main takeaway for me is that Marvin Minsky believes that technology may surpass human intelligence within our lifetimes. And Minsky says that the thing we need to focus on in order to emulate human intelligence is architectures for high-level cognitive management that switch on and off different types of thinking and resolve conflicts between various processes in order to achieve goals. That approach described by Minsky sounds very similar to what IBM does with Watson and also the general approach of OpenCog. So I guess that people listened to his ideas and that is paying off.
This is something humankind should focus on. With it, time will loose it's power, since there will be plenty, so will money. Outcome will be Positivity which might break the ongoing from the beginning of mankind cycle so societies will stay and not end whenever system gets on its knees. There Always is a Will and Kurzweil is not utopian like NW Times says for his book Singularity, I see in him future of mankind and what I do adore and think it is the main advantage is that humans always progress and try to find a positive way out, this gives us a special place among all the species in the world that we know today.
Kurzweil: so if we scanned your brain, we had a really high-resolution scan and the ability to recreate you, you'd be less concerned about skydiving and if something happened to Marvin Misnki number one? Minski: absolutely, but I probably wouldn't go skydiving anyway because my time is too valuable. RIP
Minsky suggested that the wrong approach was used to develop Human level AI,Recognizing the higher functional parts of the brain and distinguishing them from the basic instinctive parts helps understand thought processes and functions
I have one big gripe with this since one key figure in all this was not even given the honor of having his name said. And Singularity has already happened.
"I'm not exactly like I was five minutes ago... ...especially after talking to Ray Kurzweil for half-hour!" Wait...is there 'time travel' going on here?? :) 12:17
The baby machines Minsky talks about are today called Transformers. He also mentions the importance of "a vast amount of common sense knowledge," which has proven to be the key ingredient in today's LLMs (Large Language Models).
I am mesmerized by the output of this two wonderful scientists, but i can't hide my discomfort by the insertions of personal convictions about consciousness, and the nature of life :/
😊 time belongs to compound compound belongs to my body 😊 I am a running portion of thoughts that cannot run on the time that is running through my body 😊 Therefore we just structure time to the time we exist
Shawn Chong we are optimist :), as of November 6, 2013, a total of only 536 out of 7b people were in space, but it's not stop us from exploring the universe :) :)
I want people to realize how mouth-breathingly reddit this video is: the guy that balks at the fact that people are upset at the idea that the brain is "just a machine" ... also thinks it's not even a machine and that you can copy it - what an absolute lunatic state of affairs people like this should shock the world and upload a human hair, toenail, skincell or kidney to the internet first, before they laughably talk about uploading a brain.
There's no such thing as understanding the universe, I reckon. The concept itself is probably flawed, a human projection corresponding to our human material needs and aspirations.
Will we get to a point where computers are so much smarter than a human brain that they will tell us how the human brain works? If so, will we be able to comprehend it?
Minsky was no doubt a very intelligent person and had thought of a great many important things. But even the smartest minds cannot know everything. I refer to one peculiar statement he makes in the minute following 17:48. He talks about the need for AI in the context of the expected increase in human longevity. He suggests that AI will be necessary because people may live, say, to be 200 years old, and they would have to "have only one child person because the planet can't stand too many people..." The unstated assumption is that the resources of the planet are limited. This is in principle absolutely true since the plant is finite and therefore the amount of resources is finite. The mistake that Minsky makes lies in not recognizing that in practice (not in principle) the planet does not have any meaningful limit to the amount of resources it has.
3:45 Try common principle (singular) rather than plural. 5:20 Far too premature to have formed a conclusion. 14:50 In this context, emotional Intelligence is a mischaracterisation of both terms. Emotion is a symptom of emerging intelligence in, for example, an environment which is unable to accommodate the process. 15:39 Most human thought referred to as high level is bi proxy. and the remainder being varying degrees of specialization. 22:00 Unfriendly AI. AI would initially evaluate its environment in order to determine factors which present a potential existential threat.
This guys knows his stuff! Although I don't really agree with his arbiter mechanism theory as a separate neural entity as I see it as an inherent inhibition process of the neural networks, I think he's spot on on the rest.
right! and his reverse inhibition theory goes against the common admitted axiom:"What the fuck is this? How about the inference engine which leaks its oil?"... Fed up with jargon...
He has some interesting ideas but until we have a solution we wont know how far away he was from describing a working system, That's assuming that we find the solution he is describing and not something that's different but still works (or indeed if we ever find the solution.)
I think the mind is mostly unconscious. Try looking at a photo of someone you recognize and not think of their name. Or when you learn to drive a car or revise for a test, Are you just programming your unconsciousness?
At 5:50 Minsky says “some part of the brain notices that another part isn’t working so what does it do? It says, ‘oh I’ll turn some of those off and some of those on”. He implies a decision maker. How does that awareness arise that he is calling “I”? Somehow it would have to arise out of the neuronal tissue itself. That is a serious explanatory gap. He is not taking into account the implications of what he is saying. The “hard problem” in other words.
This interview is at the very least about how near the singularity is, though I admit the title is catchy. Minsky's personality is very balanced about A.I. issues(no surprise for the father of A.I.), and everyone should listen carefully to him, I mean ... after deciding whom to kill first, or whether the buttocks or the bossom of that actress is more appealing, or whether allah or jehova is the one true god, if communism is better than capitalism and if evolution is fake and creationism has any substance, how the "debts" of the countries will be controlled and how to keep a sustained economic growth even at corporations where humans are just cosmetic. Then one day our digital assistant will express his wish to take a vacation and we will think that a revolution happened out of the blue. Because we think of our preoccupations as too important that we can't see what is actually going on around us. As for the singularity, it already has happened in the field of science and technology if the criterion is the amount of knowledge generated yearly. Those who are in these fields , if they are honest, will tell you that intimidating is an understatement for the amount of knowledge generated every day. But you wouldn't know this if your "universe" is the social network, the reality show, the football and the surrounding gossip.. etc etc.
I push people's buttons. I heard a sound I didn't like at hungry valley. It sounded like a bobcat or small cougar asking for help. That's what people say when they see mountain lions or bobcats right before they get killed and bobcats and cougars are both vocal enough to repeat it to get people to get out of their cars looking for a child asking for help then they kill them. I recognized it right away and I had the window by ear set up to only take one shot from a cougar. The way cougars speak it sounded closes enough to get to that one shot in a single leap. It could of been a person or the wind or even the cellphone off pitch and panned. But it sounded exactly like a young cougar asking for help. Bears and wolves can ask for help to but they sound different. I had a bear in my tent when I was 13. I got 10 feet away before I realized it was a bear. Luckily it was a 200 pound one that just got to eat my candy. I was 125 pounds and with me and the other guy I was with and our hands up and screaming to get out of there he left right before we did. He came back the next day why me and 6 other kids were eating dinner. He got within fifty feet before I spotted him. All 7 of us grabbed steak knives we had fitted into spears the night before and chased that motherfucker till we couldn't see him anymore and we slept with our spears all night for the next few days. We practiced and the seven of us together had it beat as long as it's mother didn't show up. Be had whistles cayenne powder and food to barter with. A fed bear is a happy bear unless it's a mother with a couple in trouble. At 13 it was rather a big deal but we all survived barely. The one kid had an asthma attack and panic attack at the same time and almost died
Minsky's "empty box" in which a vacuous self-sense goes that is the ultimate overseer of brain processes is not vacuous as much as it is a radically empty plenum. Human longevity'll be increasing very rapidly, by changing a handful of genes. People can live to be 160 years old. Machines will be doing alot of the work people now do, but to be careful putting machines in charge of other machines and people before the bugs have been fixed.
The term "Artificial Intelligence" is inherently problematic in that, there is no such thing as "artificial" intelligence, only intelligence. Trying to understand intelligence in terms other than universal will always present obstacles. Let me suggest the term "Actual Intelligence as an alternative" then you get to keep your AI. That will help admin costs. In any system, Intelligence is either present or absent and is universal in its form, function and application. Trying to understand intelligence as anything less than a universal constant is to anthropophasize and limit it to human experience. As a universal constant, Intelligence has fixed principles. This is a new, unexplored experience in human cognition and would yield much if treated as such.
"But because they don't know computer science...or for the most part any science at all they resort to something else.." So because a person is religious it's only logical to assume their complete ignorance?? Cool,man...that sounds like a well thought out and completely sound conclusion. He teaches at MIT? Wow....
You're telling me that because a person chooses to be religious, they can't be anything but slightly ignorant? Assuming ignorance implies that you have the knowledge available to you that disproves the way of thinking in question. However, atheism provides no such concrete evidence, hence you can no more disprove anything related to religion than anyone else. But thanks for not calling me and fellow theists "completely" ignorant...GG
Hitomi Kugo If you are religious and expect me to prove anything regarding atheism, you're even more ignorant than I thought. If you don't understand what the burden of proof is and how it works, don't expect to be thought of as a "smart" person. Atheists have nothing to prove because they haven't claimed anything.
We don't experience life as if we were machines. We experience it as if we were transcendent entities. So, why do we experience it that way? That could very well be an indicator of a transcendent factor.
Genomic information is the bottom of the building blocks of the biological complexity. It does not reflect the organism's unique phenotypical ever-changing expressions and the evolution of learning of the organism.
Should we pursue artificial intelligence is a less interesting question than is there any way to stop that pursuit. Personally I don't think there is any way to prevent the singularity if indeed it is a possibility.
Jeff Hawkins is on the right track: Building Brains to Understand the World's Data Its nice that they have conversations about the brain, but we have to actually build these things - we have to get really rigorous about using ever improving brain scans in order to understand and model the subcortical and neocortical algorithms (turn it into zeros and ones). Only this approach is moving this frontier forward. IBM are doing this, Ray Kurzweil is doing this, Deep mind are doing this, and several more. But Jeff Hawkins is doing this the best. He needs more funding, more researchers... Google should invest a billion dollars in Numenta:-)
By keeping an interest in AI, more eyes on the ball more players in the field. By staying true to the dream through the second AI winter. But if you are an average programmer with a reasonable grasp of algebra and algorithms play with some ideas, no one knows where the AI solutions are buried and you may get lucky!
The average person probably isn't smart enough to become an AI researcher, nor are they rich enough to fund AI research. I guess vote for politicians who support AI research and spread the word. Right now China is investing heavily in AI, which means the field will advance rapidly in the 2020s.
it staggers me that this guy both calls humans "machines" with delusions of spirit and self, and then questions the morality of murder based on the ability to copy paste his hypothetical machine allegory of a person. what if the "self" is the flow state that travels between these distinct brain operations? and if killing a copy is fine why are their moral constraints on murdering a single identical twin?
so...is Minsky suggesting that human consciousness arises out of the physical brain, absent of a spirit/soul. Our thoughts are simply born out of the brain machine? If yes, then how does he explain, in the material field, a nonlocal quantum event capable of self awareness arising out of the human brain?
If the singularity happens, Humans wouldn't know it is even happening. Our brains aren't even developed enough to understand the speeds at which technology would increase. We would outsource the speed to the computers thus losing our understanding of the singularity.
I think Minksy's take on emotions (that any given emotion represents an instance of turning off or suppressing certain critical faculties) is a helpful insight. The pleasure of an emotional response is undeniable, but almost all decisions made in a moment of excessive emotionality, whether the emotion is a "positive" or "negative" one, turn out to be ones we regret. I've tried to train myself to defer decision-making, and sometimes to avoid speaking, in the heat of the moment, but it's much harder than it seems.
15:17 "the word beautiful to me means I'm in a state where I can't see all the flaws"
{ wabi-sabi? from wikipedia: 'wabi-sabi represents Japanese aesthetics and a Japanese world view centered on the acceptance of transience and imperfection. The aesthetic is sometimes described as one of beauty that is "imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete.' }
Powerful comment👌
It could also be like _creative discontent._
holly sh*t
I didn't know this interview occurred. Interesting to see Ray Kurzweil take the position of asking the questions, especially when the interviewee is Marvin Minsky.
Noam Chomsky could have explained how far away from being able to answer this question we are as to render the question pointless and even conceited. There is no such thing as artificial intelligence since we don't know what intelligence is.
@@shivaonline6837 you're a nice person
"The word beautiful to me means I'm in a state where I can't see all the flaws in it." lol This guy is an intellectual beast lol
Wow!! I didn't knew Marvin was such a thinker. The knowledge he had was more profound than Ray's. Amazing. Thanks Marvin for all that you've bestowed to the humanity.
In hindsight, at 10:48, it feels like he predicted the AutoML breakthroughs with NAS algorithms.
Wow, Kurzweil is also a wonderful interviewer!
he beat David Lynch on the hand gesture contest
Sounds like we better start getting our bodies in shape to live 150+ years
what a brilliant mind! RIP...
I wish Minsky got to see where we are right now with LLM’s.
Why? He would trash it as completely nonsensical and would lobby hard to get these GPT services shut down. He was a hardcore symbolist who purposefully made a career out of destroying the work of neural network scholars.
@@oldtwinsna8347 okay, you know nothing about Minsky, the history of AI, neural networks or anything else. “Lobby hard to get these GOT services shut down” on what precedent would he even consider that a possibility. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. 🤣🤡
Corticol columns
Genetic algorithms - random variations in
Markov models - statistics
Strengths and weaknesses in different
The threat of a supercomputer becoming conscious and enslaving all of humanity is overblown, in my view. No matter how efficient it becomes at reaching its goals, the underlying “preferences” deciding what goals to strive for would be pre-set by the programmer just as the preferences we have as members of a species is set by our biology. So the only risk of a supercomputer taking over is if it either (1) is used as a mere tool by some human agent, or (2) we are able to construct self-replicating machines that are able to evolve over time according to Darwinian principles and then placed in an environment where survival and reproduction depends on the ability to dominate. Otherwise, similar to an ant, no matter how “intelligent” it becomes, it wouldn’t start to act on other “preferences” than those it comes already equips with. And unless it’s been programmed to dominate or to ensure its own survival, it wouldn’t start acting self-interestedly any more than an Einstein ant would suddenly stop placing the survival of the collective over that of his own. Nor would a computer or an ant, no matter their calculating power and “intelligence”, see any point in changing those pre-set “preferences,” even if they somehow could.
The bigger threat with AI, I think we're seeing now in the present with things like Sora and other image generators, is their ability to be used to distort reality and misinform people, potentially really effectively. People should be focusing on this, because this poses a serious threat to being able to make a judgments, have a conversation, keep abreast of current events, and stay objective.
The chief concern imo is the implementation of it deliberately by nefarious humans with totalitarian intent. Mass surveillance, social credit databases instantly accessible by everpresent facial scanning CCTV, and other horrors perhaps as yet unimaginable-but with humans as I say behind it.
Marvin Minsky is my idol and the reason why I work on AI at all. I have learnt almost everything I needed to know about AI from his wonderful books. I have a slight criticism of the depreceation of an axiomatic approach to cognitive science which he terms "physics envy", though. I think that Solomonoff's theory of universal induction circa 1960 successfully axiomatizes intelligence. And likewise, I think all essential properties of autonomous, human-like cognition may be captured in that manner. I explained what I think to be the axioms of AI in this paper that was presented in Solomonoff 85th Memorial conference:
arxiv.org/abs/1107.2788
Careful readers will remember that Marcus Hutter spoke similarly of principles underlying universal induction in his popular presentations.
Anything in particular that you recommend I read from him? I'm relatively new to AI.
Larry Panozzo I think Society of Mind is a classic and a must read. Read The Emotion Machine as well! It's just vastly inspirational.
Ok I just found them and they look great. Thanks!
Eray Özkural I agree, the principles of Solomonoff's universal induction and Hutter and Schmidhuber's UAI are the key to understanding intelligence. Moreover, I think that evidence is accumulating that the Cortex is a neural structure that functions as an optimal predictor of future sensory-motor-value states via a process of induction through compressed representation. The Cortex simulates/hallucinates the past and present with the least neural activity to optimally predict the future.
@MrBobnokious Finally someone that can observe and think. Alas, there are too many sheep that don't share your view. They still believe, and pay, their shepherds that they will give us all the solution to our problems ...
"A childish person becomes anxious,
Thinking, "Sons are mine! Wealth is mine!"
Not even a self is there [to call] one's own.
Whence sons? Whence wealth?"
Buddha
How interesting, isn't it? :)
wow, the part where he said "we don't have any trouble putting 50,000 people in a stadium to watch some people kick a ball around" was a really good way to put it. we really will just become creatures of leisure, and that doesn't seem like a bad thing. we already basically are, just look at people who spend their weekend watching tv or playing their xbox all day.
3:45 "Hundreds of different structures and they each work in different ways".
I remember Jeff Hawkins saying the brain works the same way regardless
of whether it is processing speech or vision or whatever :-
Hierarchical Pattern Recognition.
I could listen to this guy all day.
"I'm not the same person I was 30 minutes ago, especially after having talked to Ray Kurzweil for 30 minutes". Thats a great complement from one friend to another.
"To me the word beautiful means: I am in a state where I can't see all the flaws in it" Typical of the affective hypostasis of autism. What would a state which saw that there were in fact no flaws in it, be like for him? No doubt, some sort of bliss to him and the rest of these types, including Kurzweil. They only think in terms of absolutes (numbers), a kind of apotheosis, they are uncomfortable with the vulnerability of feeling. That is a lack, a deficiency, but one which has benefited the rest of the human race, we poor slobs.
Yeah I clocked him as (high functioning) autistic, as a high functioning autist myself. I think looking to these guys for ethical/aesthetic/philosophical judgments is like looking to calculator for the same. The guy may be a wealth of genius as far as positivist knowledge about cognition, but that is clearly where his genius ends.
@foodchewer yes. It offers an unavoidable and fascinating insight into the range of psychic experience. Whitehead " we owe our knowledge to a very few" ( or similar) is true: but not the reality of our feelings. Animals "know" as much there and more.
Marvin was one of those amazing people. I enjoyed our conversation. I studied linguistics under one of his first grad students. All part of who I became intellectually.
Wow these two in the same video??...*gets popcorn*
Thank you for your contribution.
RIP Marvin. You were really a star.
He isn't dead, really. He merely awaits the future at Alcor.
@@chrisCore95 Him and his bestfriend Epstein!
Imagine being trapped in this life for all eternity. What a terrifying nightmare. People in power could punish you by locking you in a coffin for 10,000 years. A true hell on earth.
And what if there is a after life and this is all just a learning experience.
They are denying themselves the chance to find out lifes true purpose.
Absolutely amazing stuff. Not many people seem to find this? Ray Kurzweil, Juan Enriquez, Marvin Minsky are stunning. I used to think, I was born 500 years to early to be part of the party, the coming abundance and the longevity and it seems it's only about 25-100 years. We doubled hour lifespan compared to chimps and we are going to be able to double it again soon. Resources will be enough used by new technology and excessive overpopulation is easily toned with normal contraceptives. A lifespan will be 200 years very soon and pollution will be less than now. Who is not interested in this?
It's cute when he starts talking about "baby machine projects"
I just realized Kurzweil was in a Steve Aoki music video...mind blown
This is gold. Two of my favourite people sitting down together
This cuts through some fog. A leap frog moment.
Kurzwell gives the impression that he's half asleep!
a giant interviewing another giant.
Life is the conditions required for the inevitable occurrence of perspective in our universe. Everything about my life, body, planet, universe are the series of events required for my consciousness to have occurred. Even though the probability of a personal point of view occuring out of random events are extremely far-fetched, our universe is so incredibly massive that anything that can possibly happen has already happened.
"described by Isaac Asimov as one of two people more intelligent than himself" lmao, Asimov had a pretty big ego, although I agree with Asimov that Sagan and Minsky were actually ahead of their time, and had no equal then and none today.
Consciousness, perception and thinking. A theory of mind according to platonic physics.
You will not find an explanation as understandable as this in the current Stanford Leibniz site,
which is incomplete as it makes no mention of Mind.
1. Plato's Mind (the One, the Self) is the cause agent, the singular cybernetic control point, of all perception, thinking and doing in the universe, where control is top down from Mind.
2. Plato's Mind is timeless and spaceless, and being the only Reality, time and space
are not ultimately real, but are artificial constructions.
3. Since Mind is mental, not physical, all control and causation is mental, not physical,
and top down, since Mind is the singular (cybernetic) control point at the top.
4. Thus Mind plays the brain like a violin, not the reverse.
5. Man's mind (small m) is a passive mental subset, or monad, of Mind and under its control.
6. This monad (our mind) is the mental correspondent of the brain and controls it. Our mind
plays our brain like a violin.
7. Thinking is the intentional action of Mind (and thus mind) on mental entities such as ideas,
manipulating and transforming them intentionally (through will).
8. Qualia are simply sensory experiences, the conversion by Mind of sensory nerve signals into
mental sensory experiences in a fashion similar to the conversion of physical sensory nerve signals
into mental images.
9.. As Dennett has explained, In materialist thinking, there is no end to homunculi viewing the universe through a chain of homunculi. Leibniz terminates this infinite regress by making the last viewer the Self , which is at a higher level and suitably equipped.
10. Perception occurs as Mind converts physical sensory signals in the brain into mental experiences in one's mind.
11. These experiences can be made conscious (are made aware) by reperceiving or thinking them.
This is called apperception by Leibniz. Thus consciousness is apperception.
12. The universe, according to Leibniz, is viewed directly by the One (the Self, the ONLY true perceiver), which views these scenes discretely and in sequence (analogous to snapshots) at discrete points as a whole indirectly through the totality of individual monads, and from their own perspectives.
13. This totality of sets of individual perceptions is then distributed in the proper order and perspective to each of the monads in the universe.
14. These individual sets are called "perceptions", and must be distributied in this indirect fashion
by Mind because each monad, in order to remain an individual, has no "windows", to use Leibniz's term.
15. The perceptions are made up of what the monad would see of its nearby neighbors
if it were allowed to do so. This is purely mental, but allows us to speak in terms of
spacial distances and directions, through these snapshots, between physical bodies,
which Mind, being spaceless, cannot actually directly.
16. Mind is also timeless, so that time is physically "created" as an artifact through
the actual motions of physical bodies in physical spacetime.
1
17. Intelligence is the nonphysical ability to freely make autonomous choices. It is a faculty of
nonphysical Mind, the Nothing out of which the physical universe exploded in the Big Bang.
18. Another name for this nonphysical intelligence is "life." Leibniz maintained that the entire
universe is alive.
19. Each monad is perpetual, created at the beginning of the universe and only annihilated by Mind.
20. Since monads can contain other monads, they can. as plants do through seeds, and humans do through sexual reproducxtion, produce subsequent generations.
21. A robot or computer has no Mind or Self which has the wide bandwidth, intelligence
and intentionality to actually perceive , think, or do things, such as Mind does. So, being without Mind, computers can have no actual intelligence or life.
22. The current theory of mind is materialist. In contrast to the above, it uses the usual decapitated,
mindless, or where mind is at best an abstract entity, not a living presence as in the above.
The materialist model of perception, thinking and doing, being Mindless, is dead.
DSG
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
R.I.P. It's always sad to see a great scientist pass away.
Badass Sangheili
Was he at least cryptopreserved or something ?
@@andraskovacs6403 yes, his brain is conserved in frozen state.
@@anthead7405 Conserved? Maybe. But preserved, to the point it could be functional again? How will they prevent all the water in the cells from swelling and irreparably damaging the brain once they freeze? Among other problems of course
So the main takeaway for me is that Marvin Minsky believes that technology may surpass human intelligence within our lifetimes. And Minsky says that the thing we need to focus on in order to emulate human intelligence is architectures for high-level cognitive management that switch on and off different types of thinking and resolve conflicts between various processes in order to achieve goals.
That approach described by Minsky sounds very similar to what IBM does with Watson and also the general approach of OpenCog. So I guess that people listened to his ideas and that is paying off.
This is something humankind should focus on. With it, time will loose it's power, since there will be plenty, so will money. Outcome will be Positivity which might break the ongoing from the beginning of mankind cycle so societies will stay and not end whenever system gets on its knees. There Always is a Will and Kurzweil is not utopian like NW Times says for his book Singularity, I see in him future of mankind and what I do adore and think it is the main advantage is that humans always progress and try to find a positive way out, this gives us a special place among all the species in the world that we know today.
Imaging growing up in a city being the only teenager.
Kurzweil: so if we scanned your brain, we had a really high-resolution scan and the ability to recreate you, you'd be less concerned about skydiving and if something happened to Marvin Misnki number one?
Minski: absolutely, but I probably wouldn't go skydiving anyway because my time is too valuable.
RIP
Minsky suggested that the wrong approach was used to develop Human level AI,Recognizing the higher functional parts of the brain and distinguishing them from the basic instinctive parts helps understand thought processes and functions
He was Kurzweil's mentor
I have one big gripe with this since one key figure in all this was not even given the honor of having his name said. And Singularity has already happened.
Historic. Relevant. Exemplary philosophy. Regardless of those that deny it.
"I'm not exactly like I was five minutes ago... ...especially after talking to Ray Kurzweil for half-hour!" Wait...is there 'time travel' going on here?? :) 12:17
They talked a lot while setting up the stage ^^
The baby machines Minsky talks about are today called Transformers. He also mentions the importance of "a vast amount of common sense knowledge," which has proven to be the key ingredient in today's LLMs (Large Language Models).
Minsky would disagree with you. He dismissed all aspects of neural nets having any type of common sense.
Marvin is not dead, his body is cryogenically frozen and his brain is still intact.
I am mesmerized by the output of this two wonderful scientists, but i can't hide my discomfort by the insertions of personal convictions about consciousness, and the nature of life :/
Two amazing Puke Blossoms.
😊 time belongs to compound compound belongs to my body
😊 I am a running portion of thoughts that cannot run on the time that is running through my body
😊 Therefore we just structure time to the time we exist
Minsky is my favorite curmudgeon, It was not His nature really, it was forced upon him by the prevailing froth of the incredible.
the only question that came to visit me, after watching this interview, good or bad that this video has 5,000 views ?
we waiting for the exponential grow :-)
Shawn Chong we are optimist :), as of November 6, 2013, a total of only 536 out of 7b people were in space, but it's not stop us from exploring the universe :) :)
It now has 153,000
@@tanyabonnette1796 and 158000 (5000 more) in just two months
@@steve.k4735 193,748 by 24/08/22
"Bad lip reading" should do a video on this guy lol. Would look like gibberish. Would look funny lol.
Kurzweil looks as though he can smell the singularity coming, and it stinks...Big Fan.
I suspect emotions drive thought so the statement 'thoughts are more important than emotions' needs very careful scrutiny.
Amazingly interesting...!
I want people to realize how mouth-breathingly reddit this video is:
the guy that balks at the fact that people are upset at the idea that the brain is "just a machine"
... also thinks it's not even a machine and that you can copy it - what an absolute lunatic state of affairs
people like this should shock the world and upload a human hair, toenail, skincell or kidney to the internet first, before they laughably talk about uploading a brain.
Great discussion.
Damn that guy talks with his hands.
lol! yes he talks with his hands but the sounds come from mouth.
Singularity is as near as how close we are to understanding the universe.
There's no such thing as understanding the universe, I reckon. The concept itself is probably flawed, a human projection corresponding to our human material needs and aspirations.
Honestly I don't even know if he is still alive. I haven't seen him since I was 18 years old. Not to long before Jason Hancock died
Is it's just me or are someone else scared watching this?
They should be limiting the birth rate now to two kids per couple, not when we're living to 150-200 year life span.
Will we get to a point where computers are so much smarter than a human brain that they will tell us how the human brain works?
If so, will we be able to comprehend it?
Minsky was no doubt a very intelligent person and had thought of a great many important things. But even the smartest minds cannot know everything. I refer to one peculiar statement he makes in the minute following 17:48. He talks about the need for AI in the context of the expected increase in human longevity. He suggests that AI will be necessary because people may live, say, to be 200 years old, and they would have to "have only one child person because the planet can't stand too many people..."
The unstated assumption is that the resources of the planet are limited. This is in principle absolutely true since the plant is finite and therefore the amount of resources is finite. The mistake that Minsky makes lies in not recognizing that in practice (not in principle) the planet does not have any meaningful limit to the amount of resources it has.
Time of the particle is recognition to the mind...😊 It still stands still
There is no life for recognition other than the particle
3:45 Try common principle (singular) rather than plural.
5:20 Far too premature to have formed a conclusion.
14:50 In this context, emotional Intelligence is a mischaracterisation of both terms. Emotion is a symptom of emerging intelligence in, for example, an environment which is unable to accommodate the process.
15:39 Most human thought referred to as high level is bi proxy. and the remainder being varying degrees of specialization.
22:00 Unfriendly AI. AI would initially evaluate its environment in order to determine factors which present a potential existential threat.
This guys knows his stuff! Although I don't really agree with his arbiter mechanism theory as a separate neural entity as I see it as an inherent inhibition process of the neural networks, I think he's spot on on the rest.
right! and his reverse inhibition theory goes against the common admitted axiom:"What the fuck is this? How about the inference engine which leaks its oil?"... Fed up with jargon...
He has some interesting ideas but until we have a solution we wont know how far away he was from describing a working system, That's assuming that we find the solution he is describing and not something that's different but still works (or indeed if we ever find the solution.)
I think the mind is mostly unconscious. Try looking at a photo of someone you recognize and not think of their name. Or when you learn to drive a car or revise for a test, Are you just programming your unconsciousness?
He uses his hands like a bonobo.
I'm boggled by the back-up scenario. What if you start my back-up while I'm still alive? Will I experience two life-worlds simultaneously?
At 5:50 Minsky says “some part of the brain notices that another part isn’t working so what does it do? It says, ‘oh I’ll turn some of those off and some of those on”. He implies a decision maker. How does that awareness arise that he is calling “I”? Somehow it would have to arise out of the neuronal tissue itself. That is a serious explanatory gap. He is not taking into account the implications of what he is saying. The “hard problem” in other words.
This interview is at the very least about how near the singularity is, though I admit the title is catchy.
Minsky's personality is very balanced about A.I. issues(no surprise for the father of A.I.), and everyone should listen carefully to him,
I mean ...
after deciding whom to kill first, or whether the buttocks or the bossom of that actress is more appealing,
or whether allah or jehova is the one true god,
if communism is better than capitalism
and if evolution is fake and creationism has any substance,
how the "debts" of the countries will be controlled
and how to keep a sustained economic growth even at corporations where humans are just cosmetic.
Then one day our digital assistant will express his wish to take a vacation
and we will think that a revolution happened out of the blue.
Because we think of our preoccupations as too important that we can't see what is actually going on around us.
As for the singularity, it already has happened in the field of science and technology if the criterion is the amount of knowledge generated yearly. Those who are in these fields , if they are honest, will tell you that intimidating is an understatement for the amount of knowledge generated every day. But you wouldn't know this if your "universe" is the social network, the reality show, the football and the surrounding gossip.. etc etc.
Dear Ray - Make a mind-synth now that AI is almost there ...
I push people's buttons. I heard a sound I didn't like at hungry valley. It sounded like a bobcat or small cougar asking for help. That's what people say when they see mountain lions or bobcats right before they get killed and bobcats and cougars are both vocal enough to repeat it to get people to get out of their cars looking for a child asking for help then they kill them. I recognized it right away and I had the window by ear set up to only take one shot from a cougar. The way cougars speak it sounded closes enough to get to that one shot in a single leap. It could of been a person or the wind or even the cellphone off pitch and panned. But it sounded exactly like a young cougar asking for help. Bears and wolves can ask for help to but they sound different. I had a bear in my tent when I was 13. I got 10 feet away before I realized it was a bear. Luckily it was a 200 pound one that just got to eat my candy. I was 125 pounds and with me and the other guy I was with and our hands up and screaming to get out of there he left right before we did. He came back the next day why me and 6 other kids were eating dinner. He got within fifty feet before I spotted him. All 7 of us grabbed steak knives we had fitted into spears the night before and chased that motherfucker till we couldn't see him anymore and we slept with our spears all night for the next few days. We practiced and the seven of us together had it beat as long as it's mother didn't show up. Be had whistles cayenne powder and food to barter with. A fed bear is a happy bear unless it's a mother with a couple in trouble. At 13 it was rather a big deal but we all survived barely. The one kid had an asthma attack and panic attack at the same time and almost died
crazy talk .. the singularity i will happen 2050
Minsky's "empty box" in which a vacuous self-sense goes that is the ultimate overseer of brain processes is not vacuous as much as it is a radically empty plenum. Human longevity'll be increasing very rapidly, by changing a handful of genes. People can live to be 160 years old. Machines will be doing alot of the work people now do, but to be careful putting machines in charge of other machines and people before the bugs have been fixed.
OMG that was a wonderful 24.02 min
The term "Artificial Intelligence" is inherently problematic in that, there is no such thing as "artificial" intelligence, only intelligence. Trying to understand intelligence in terms other than universal will always present obstacles. Let me suggest the term "Actual Intelligence as an alternative" then you get to keep your AI. That will help admin costs.
In any system, Intelligence is either present or absent and is universal in its form, function and application. Trying to understand intelligence as anything less than a universal constant is to anthropophasize and limit it to human experience. As a universal constant, Intelligence has fixed principles. This is a new, unexplored experience in human cognition and would yield much if treated as such.
"But because they don't know computer science...or for the most part any science at all they resort to something else.."
So because a person is religious it's only logical to assume their complete ignorance?? Cool,man...that sounds like a well thought out and completely sound conclusion. He teaches at MIT? Wow....
If a person is religious, yes, we assume a bit of ignorance from their part. Not complete though.
You're telling me that because a person chooses to be religious, they can't be anything but slightly ignorant? Assuming ignorance implies that you have the knowledge available to you that disproves the way of thinking in question. However, atheism provides no such concrete evidence, hence you can no more disprove anything related to religion than anyone else. But thanks for not calling me and fellow theists "completely" ignorant...GG
Hitomi Kugo If you are religious and expect me to prove anything regarding atheism, you're even more ignorant than I thought. If you don't understand what the burden of proof is and how it works, don't expect to be thought of as a "smart" person. Atheists have nothing to prove because they haven't claimed anything.
We don't experience life as if we were machines. We experience it as if we were transcendent entities. So, why do we experience it that way? That could very well be an indicator of a transcendent factor.
good interview
did he address the 'self ' question? The question is what is the awareness of ourselves thinking...
Genomic information is the bottom of the building blocks of the biological complexity. It does not reflect the organism's unique phenotypical ever-changing expressions and the evolution of learning of the organism.
Should we pursue artificial intelligence is a less interesting question than is there any way to stop that pursuit. Personally I don't think there is any way to prevent the singularity if indeed it is a possibility.
Jeff Hawkins is on the right track: Building Brains to Understand the World's Data
Its nice that they have conversations about the brain, but we have to actually build these things - we have to get really rigorous about using ever improving brain scans in order to understand and model the subcortical and neocortical algorithms (turn it into zeros and ones). Only this approach is moving this frontier forward. IBM are doing this, Ray Kurzweil is doing this, Deep mind are doing this, and several more. But Jeff Hawkins is doing this the best. He needs more funding, more researchers... Google should invest a billion dollars in Numenta:-)
If the brain were simple enough to understand itself , it couldn't .
How can the average person help to speed up this process of reaching the singularity ? Any thoughts?
By keeping an interest in AI, more eyes on the ball more players in the field. By staying true to the dream through the second AI winter. But if you are an average programmer with a reasonable grasp of algebra and algorithms play with some ideas, no one knows where the AI solutions are buried and you may get lucky!
The average person probably isn't smart enough to become an AI researcher, nor are they rich enough to fund AI research. I guess vote for politicians who support AI research and spread the word. Right now China is investing heavily in AI, which means the field will advance rapidly in the 2020s.
Why speed the development of exactly that technology that if implemented wrong might kill all humans?
The song by Porno For Pyros "pets" is playing in my mind. . ".we'll make great pets .we'll make great pets". Wishfull thinking?
"neurons are noisy and there are a lot of them but not computing so much"
If Minsky ever decides to change his job, he would make a great conductor (musical) - just study his hand movements and you'll see what I mean.
I doubt that will happen, as Minsky died 7 years before you posted your comment.
it staggers me that this guy both calls humans "machines" with delusions of spirit and self, and then questions the morality of murder based on the ability to copy paste his hypothetical machine allegory of a person. what if the "self" is the flow state that travels between these distinct brain operations? and if killing a copy is fine why are their moral constraints on murdering a single identical twin?
Is there someone with very thin strings a above him moving his hands?
I feel so unintelligent watching this interview....
nice. we can destroy the earth, but wait! i got a back up! and i can go floatin out in space for ever and ever.
so...is Minsky suggesting that human consciousness arises out of the physical brain, absent of a spirit/soul. Our thoughts are simply born out of the brain machine? If yes, then how does he explain, in the material field, a nonlocal quantum event capable of self awareness arising out of the human brain?
Mind blowing
If the singularity happens, Humans wouldn't know it is even happening. Our brains aren't even developed enough to understand the speeds at which technology would increase. We would outsource the speed to the computers thus losing our understanding of the singularity.
This is where were going wrong having all these specializations which doesn't allow much innovation.
is the singularity near?
yes it may well be within our lifetimes!
lol! brilliant pun!