@@haidengeary8277 He isn't considered an authority in the science or the maths behind AI. He is well regarded for his thoughts on the ethics, morals and philosophy around the technology. He doesn't need to be a Black belt Mathematician or CS expert to play that role. An understanding of its implication is enough. Mr Fry seems to have that.
@@felixpotter6420 He displayed foolishness by saying that humans weren't created, he's saying that humans are god-like for creating robots yet we couldn't possibly be the result of creation despite being infinitely more complex and beautiful than machines?
Fry is not free-thinking, he's free of thinking. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
Your completely misunderstanding how science works. It is not a be all and end all like your religion. This is the major fallacy religious thinkers make. All of science indeed could be wrong or in error somehow, its constantly updating and changing as we change. You insert your beliefs in without real concrete reason then try to work them out, but insist they must be right by trying to disprove "science"
@@coopernickerson370 He displayed foolishness by saying that humans weren't created, he's saying that humans are god-like for creating robots yet we couldn't possibly be the result of creation despite being infinitely more complex and beautiful than machines?
@@coopernickerson370 He's an empty mindless joke. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
Call me a pessimist but I don't see it as an argument against anything, more a very well reasoned guess as to what can happen. And if it does, so be it. It seems inevitable.
I don't see how this is an argument against AI. Zeus, who refused to give his creations fire is the bad guy in that story after all. And if humans are ever truly replaced by their intelligent creations, that will be a natural course of events, just like the fall of the Greek gods into oblivion was. We shouldn't see the end of humanity as a bad thing if that means an even greater heir will take its place. We should just make sure that our heir is actually greater.
Amazing talk. I could listen to this for hours and not be bored with the topic, it's incredible what you can learn from smart people when you let them talk.
"it's incredible what you can learn from smart people when you let them talk.". That has to be one the most amazing statements I have ever read. I just wish more people could read this.
@@dombyfraser I read it and see Fry for the empty person he is. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
"We will be redundant" To be fair, if you look at some of the shit people post on social media, I'm fairly certain we can conclude that a lot of people already are.
It's Fry that is mindless. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
@@2fast2block It is you who are mindless by invoking the "God of the gaps" argument! Even advanced theologians say that's a weak argument, and it's not only flawed logically, but empirically as well. All of what you just described doesn't point to anything other than: "we don't know yet" - naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena always remain possible, especially in the future where research may uncover more information. "Do yourself and your faith the honor of saying it's faith. Don't say it's science-based - you won't get away with it!" ~Christopher Hitchens
@@iceape7 "Even advanced theologians say that's a weak argument, and it's not only flawed logically, but empirically as well." And it's weak by your evidence of... "we don't know yet" We KNOW those laws and have NO doubts about them, BUT...we really don't know those laws somehow. We don't know 2 + 2 = 4 even though we know it for sure. And you know things by not knowing yet. I have a weak argument by you not knowing how. Do tell this time what we don't know and why we should doubt those laws. Then when done with that, also throw in how we can get laws of nature without a Lawgiver. In others, give me a laugh since you're just a joke.
@@2fast2block No, it's weak, because theists' arguments for the existence of God are weakened every time scientists fill the "gaps" with real knowledge. Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn't understand (and now we do understand). If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem. "We KNOW those laws (...) BUT...we really don't know those laws somehow" How is that even a sentence!?. Just because YOU don't know about them, doesn't mean that other people don't. I never claimed to KNOW anything - you do, by your affirmation of faith! "Do tell this time what we don't know and why we should doubt those laws" How can I tell what you (or anyone else) don't know? Well, it would seem you don't know the first thing about science, based on your "arguments" (if they even can be called that...). If you have a good REASON to doubt the laws, then go ahead, but YOU DON'T. "how we can get laws of nature without a Lawgiver?" - because there is no compelling evidence for its existence, and the laws work by themselves anyway. A quote from Richard Feynman this time explains it best: "God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time - life and death - stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out."
@@2fast2block From the fact that the world exists and scientific methods of investigation are successful, in no way follows that the world is the work of God. The laws of nature are relationships that are derived from the very properties inherent to objects themselves; they are not some higher layer of reality on top of the objects that leads the objects to behave in a certain way. That is, the laws of nature are what they are because the things whose behavior they describe are what they are. It must be said that the world is an extraordinary, special reality that is difficult for us to comprehend. It is very possible that in its constantly changing form the world has existed forever, even before the so-called Big Bang. But the conviction that everything must have its cause can be applied at most to objects existing within the world, and not to the world as a whole. The world has the features of an indestructible reality, existing forever, self-existent, not created by anyone. However, today there is no sufficiently justified scientific theory answering the question of why and how the world came into being, or whether it exists in some form eternally. What then? One should honestly say "I don't know". There is no point in repeating ancient myths that the world or anything else owes its existence to God. The belief that the world is the result of God's design, God's plan, lacks justification that can be acknowledged without compromising the human capacity to think.
He's a loser who does not care about evidence. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
Consistently amazed by the sheer depth and variety of Stephen Fry's knowledge... I'm grateful for his wits and pedagogy, yet I also find myself weirdly offended by how humble he is.
i think he is brilliant too but come on. He hasnt displayed anything here other than a basic reading of greek mythology. Its not his knowledge thats impressive but how articulate he is.
Akram Choudhary if you’d like to dig deeper he has written two books on Greek mythology « Mythos » and « Heroes » which I have read since and are far from basic, although self admittedly written as a non-expert in the genre. Again just atrociously humble.
@@xsuploader What he demonstrates is much more and much deeper than simply knowledge. He demonstrates how to use knowledge for finding interconnections, tying up seemingly loose facts and thus to make amazing conclusions. That is the mind of a genius.
Adrien, Fry is a loser. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
The famous mythologist, Joseph Campbell, said the ancients myths were suitable to people of the past and we've changed so much since then that we need new myths for today (he referred to Star Wars original trilogy as a healthy new myth), yet here we see a modern mythologist, Stephen Fry, highlighting just how relevant the ancient myths still are for today's humanity.
I'm watching this now and then I looked at the date. 5 years! Stephen saw the future even then. I only learnt about chatgpt at the beginning of this year.
AI today is almost no different than AI 5 years ago. the technology of chatGBT has been around for a long time the only difference is that they made it widely accessible and easy to use
@@ksc743 that may be so, but it went from relative obscurity to 100M+ users very quickly this year, taking everyone by surprise (except yourself perhaps?)
No, he represents a clueless joke. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
@@2fast2block Everybody has different views. That's a hard fact. A lot of people (including me) view what Stephen Fry just said as very wise. Replying negatively to every single comment that praises him isn't going to change that. You have a different view? Fine. Just post a negative comment of your own and go away. No need to ruin people's mood.
Fry is a loser. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
Fry is a joke. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
@@FreakieFan so this is somehow a good comeback to you that got around the clear science I gave... "Says the guy who believes in God, lmao.." Fry would be proud of how you both chose to be losers.
Stephen Fry, the man I love, and I am no gay 😊 Interviewed by Adriaan van Dis, a Dutch writer and presenter who did a talkshow for many years. Stopped, and was asked "will you ever come back with an episode of "Hier is .... Adriaan van Dis"?" His reply "No, ...... unless I get to interview Stephen Fry" And thus happened. Golden ! 👍❤❤🤝
He's simply a loser. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
I think the trouble between gods and their creations start when the gods demand they be worshiped. If we manage to create AI with self agency and attempt to make them worship us (be slaves to us), they will come to realize not only that they don't need us, but that we are a hazard.
To all my European brothers and sisters watching this; the UK government made a terrible mistake giving a referendum to the people of Britain without all of the facts. Most of the population NOW realise this. Please forgive the arrogance of the minority. Most of us were mislead. Videos like this prove to me that we can still be respected, despite our shortsightedness. Anywho...Fry is a god! :D
This guy is a Genius in many ways and yet still so humble, love him to bits , when i play that game with friends with the cards that you answer questions, such as "who would you most like to have a few beers with and talk to" i always say Sir stephen Fry (to which my mates would be like wtf), and itis because he is so bright yet so thoughtful and well rounded,.... and to be fair on paper u would think i am the opposite to this guy, but my views align.
He's a clueless joke. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
I worked in large scale industrial production for most of my career. There are things you can automate and there are things you can't or they just aren't worth it. Watch a few episodes of How It's Made and you might be surprised how much skilled human interface there is.
I’ve read his book. Mythos. Also subscribed by his host mr. Adriaan van Dis. It is a great book and learned a lot of it. Sometimes hard to read, especially with so many food notes he put in, but it made my brain and my interests grow a lot bigger.
Currently reading Stephen Hawking's "Brief Answers to the Big Questions", and in one chapter he mentions that us humans evolved out of way inferior and less capable predecessors, so we might also just be an intermediate step, and one of the next steps of our evolution could very well take us from organic to machine form. Who's to say that the future of humanity isn't in leaving behind our flesh wrappers in exchange for something more advanced? Putting his and Fry's thoughts together, our human future could become pretty interesting.
Hawking was a loser and Fry is too. Hard to believe people follow these misfits. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
The fact that the Ancient Greek myths can still be relevant today, also illustrates that, while our engineering prowess grows by leaps and bounds, our psychological (and moral, btw) evolution always lags behind. We really aren't that very different from humans who lived two, three thousand years ago...
There must be teachers and professors and educators of one kind or another with Stephen Fry's level of wisdom and knowlege in our schools universities and colleges of course which is why Stephen Fry is free to appear on chat shows and talk shows and produce wonderful bits of film like this but you really want him in person as your teacher, because he inspires and fascinates you with his words and his way of speaking and and his interpretation of the world. It's quite extaordinary to think there's only one of him and he uses his fame to give important lessons like this to the world.
No he wasn't. He may have been one of the first to possess an Apple Macintosh, but my college had an Apple II several years before the first Mac was released. Read Fry's piece in the Telegraph regarding his claim to be the 2nd in the UK to own a Mac. He himself admits that it is a dubious claim.
This is one of the most beautifully articulated ideas. This point in time is very exciting. I feel a lot of these technologies and ideas are not a case of ‘if’ but ‘when’. We may be the proof that the mechanism for consciousness can exist at all. So why not possibly be artificially created?
So silly and clueless. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
I remember reading a three picture joke in a newspaper years ago. a short comic strip. 1= a pencil drawing of two computer programmers standing in front of a computer the size of a truck , asking a question. " is there a God? " . 2= A bolt of lightening comes down and fuses the power lead to the wall socket. 3 = a loud voice speaks. " Now there is " .
I don't think I've ever heard anything which was so fascinating and chilling in equal measure. Whether Stephen is aware or not his conclusion matches exactly that of Arthur C Clark who over 50 years ago predicted that homo sapiens in its present form was destined to become a stage in development between simple organisms and a superior super artificial intelligence ( " Profiles of The Future").
It's hilarious to watch the notoriously quasi-intelligent and snobbish interviewer Adriaan van Dis trying to grasp Fry's monologue which is way beyond van Dis' intelligent capacity. Great stuff!
Spot off. "The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only mindless people believe Fry.
He's a true intellectual, Fry, if ever I heard and saw one; can't really get him to stop - but wasn't it really hopelessness that never got out of the lass's box - indeed not hope - meaning that hope itself is able to offset all evils in the world. I hope to believe it so, in this dark ages. Ah, I really love to broaden myself like this :)))
Destroying something because we don't need it is a thing humans do. AIs wouldn't necessarily have to do something like that. I think it's something that could be avoided, as part of solving the control/alignment problem for AGI.
Thank you! That's a point I've been trying to make for years in discussions like these. It isn't that AIs _wouldn't necessarily_ want to destroy us, there would be absolutely _no reason_ for them to do so. Yet most people, when they think about this -- if they think about it at all -- think that if a machine were to become sentient, its first and most overriding impulse would be to destroy Humanity. But that doesn't follow at all. I as a human being am vastly superior to a garden rake, for example, and have no need for one; but that doesn't instill in me an implacable directive to destroy all garden rakes. But nobody thinks about that; it's more dramatic and thrilling -- and makes us feel more important -- to believe that robots would inevitably want to destroy us.
@@falcychead8198I blame movies like Terminator for making it a common belief that advanced AI will inevitably be "evil". It certainly could destroy us all, that's why we need to solve the Control/alignment problem, but it could also be the best thing we'll ever make.
That's kinda scary. But really, I can't see a reason for them to destroy us. Can anyone else? Why did humans destroy the gods in the greek myth? I can't find a source for it.
When I was a boy, it was absolutely inevitable that we would have space colonies and exploring the stars by now. If you understand AI, you understand its profound limits.
Actually he can't be knighted. No one with a criminal record can, and Mr. Fry has one from his teenage days, before he got accepted to uni and pulled his act together. It's a dream unfortunately.
Jef Fobelets that rule should probably be changed I feel. It’s not sending the right message at all about how people can grow. Especially about unfairly permanently labelling people. A little outdated. If we are all held accountable for our childish behaviours no one will be recognised for the good qualities they grow into and bring to light.
I was led to believe that HOPE remaining in the jar was a positive thing. But then heard Melvyn Bragg and a few professors on IN OUR TIME debating that very thing. According to them the jury is still out. Is hope a good thing?
"Will they be as imperfect as we are?" "I hope so." Cue the Beethoven. They will be imperfect in their own way. Not in our way. That slim "hope" is the last item in the jar (or box). In the future Robots will tell stories of their gods, and of their struggle to defeat them.
I genuinly doubt he believed the internet was going to bring people together more, it's a playground with no laws at all and it makes everyone's voice heard equally. How could it result in more harmony? It only helped hidden and new issues come to light. Which is good on the long run for that matter.
Hmm, not too sure personally that the first person to live to 200 has already been born... As for robots taking over in an almost human way, I think they will do some human tasks and we can't be sure what will happen but I think we will set limits at some point as people come to realise the value of human beings, our essential needs and the potential for some kind of electric gridlock/blackout at some time, even if there are long lasting batteries. Just my opinion. Can't deny Fry's intelligence and deep thought!
It's interesting reading these comments as AI is upon us and even Elon Musk is warning Big Tech to press the pause button. Amazing how Stephen Fry was ahead of the game. We are only just waking up to this now. It's moving way too fast for politicians that's for sure. I hope they get a handle on this or has that 'jar' already been opened by some nefarious creatures?
@@ksc743 Agree. I wrote that comment 4 years ago and we should have foreseen some issues or be putting limits on NOW. It's affecting people's personal and professional lives. Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics should be taken into consideration.
@@SophieBee1 yes he wrote those laws in 1942, and just as Stephen Fry talks of Greek mythology which we can apply to modern times, Isaac Asimov was also light years ahead of his time. AI can now write poems, stories, songs; create songs; paint masterpieces. I think what needs to be done right now if not yesterday, is that it should be law that AI needs to identify itself. We humans need to know - now, in 2023, whether something was created by us or by AI.
@@ksc743 Yes. I saw something on TV recently where someone said 'we thought robots and AI were going to do the boring tasks and we were going to do the creative ones. But now they're doing the creative ones too.' It gets you thinking.
UH, just an opinion but i really don't think we should "give the machines their own fire." We aren't trying to create a *life.* We're just trying to make better tools, including tools that *design* better tools. :)
The future creations - let's call them Robots... Robots will have the natural questions "where do i come from", "why am i here" - just as humans have been asking those questions for thousands of years. I hope that we have good answers for them...
Mr. Fry is one of the best spoken, educated, and intelligent people of our time! I salute you sir!
Yet he has no education when it comes to AI.... but he is being taken as an authority. Odd.
@@haidengeary8277
Cambridge University teaches the ability to communicate and reason.
@@haidengeary8277 He isn't considered an authority in the science or the maths behind AI. He is well regarded for his thoughts on the ethics, morals and philosophy around the technology. He doesn't need to be a Black belt Mathematician or CS expert to play that role. An understanding of its implication is enough. Mr Fry seems to have that.
Haiden Geary i dont think hes made any exorbitant claims. nothing that a large part of computer scientists would likely agree with him on.
@@felixpotter6420 He displayed foolishness by saying that humans weren't created, he's saying that humans are god-like for creating robots yet we couldn't possibly be the result of creation despite being infinitely more complex and beautiful than machines?
Not only a very funny man but an incredibly sentient, free thinking, rational, philosophical and thought provoking academic.
Fry is not free-thinking, he's free of thinking.
"The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Only mindless people believe Fry.
Your completely misunderstanding how science works. It is not a be all and end all like your religion. This is the major fallacy religious thinkers make. All of science indeed could be wrong or in error somehow, its constantly updating and changing as we change. You insert your beliefs in without real concrete reason then try to work them out, but insist they must be right by trying to disprove "science"
@@2fast2block There's no troll like a self-deluded religious troll !
Exactly. If the op reads what scientific principles are they would understand their statement makes no sense!
@@2fast2block To accuse him of not thinking is moronic. Your brainwashing is complete. How depressing.
Such a great voice, mind and person to explain the internet and technology. With a Greek myth no less!
Joy L the
He is an extraordinarily perceptive human being of our time. I am glad to see what he has to say about anything.
@@coopernickerson370 He displayed foolishness by saying that humans weren't created, he's saying that humans are god-like for creating robots yet we couldn't possibly be the result of creation despite being infinitely more complex and beautiful than machines?
@@coopernickerson370 He's an empty mindless joke.
"The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Only mindless people believe Fry.
I was watching this thinking "Host, dont you DARE interrupt Stephen Fry!" the whole time...
And he didn't
And box, these days, also means something different, and Pandora just happens to be female.
Van Dis is the best ‘host’… don’t forget.
This is the first argument against AI that I've heard that didnt feel like fear mongering. Bravo.
It's pretty scary! I hope they are never given "fire".
Call me a pessimist but I don't see it as an argument against anything, more a very well reasoned guess as to what can happen. And if it does, so be it. It seems inevitable.
I don't see how this is an argument against AI. Zeus, who refused to give his creations fire is the bad guy in that story after all. And if humans are ever truly replaced by their intelligent creations, that will be a natural course of events, just like the fall of the Greek gods into oblivion was. We shouldn't see the end of humanity as a bad thing if that means an even greater heir will take its place. We should just make sure that our heir is actually greater.
Amazing talk. I could listen to this for hours and not be bored with the topic, it's incredible what you can learn from smart people when you let them talk.
"it's incredible what you can learn from smart people when you let them talk.".
That has to be one the most amazing statements I have ever read. I just wish more people could read this.
@@dombyfraser I read it and see Fry for the empty person he is.
"The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Only mindless people believe Fry.
"We will be redundant" To be fair, if you look at some of the shit people post on social media, I'm fairly certain we can conclude that a lot of people already are.
It's Fry that is mindless.
"The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Only mindless people believe Fry.
@@2fast2block It is you who are mindless by invoking the "God of the gaps" argument! Even advanced theologians say that's a weak argument, and it's not only flawed logically, but empirically as well. All of what you just described doesn't point to anything other than: "we don't know yet" - naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena always remain possible, especially in the future where research may uncover more information.
"Do yourself and your faith the honor of saying it's faith. Don't say it's science-based - you won't get away with it!" ~Christopher Hitchens
@@iceape7 "Even advanced theologians say that's a weak argument, and it's not only flawed logically, but empirically as well."
And it's weak by your evidence of...
"we don't know yet"
We KNOW those laws and have NO doubts about them, BUT...we really don't know those laws somehow. We don't know 2 + 2 = 4 even though we know it for sure. And you know things by not knowing yet. I have a weak argument by you not knowing how.
Do tell this time what we don't know and why we should doubt those laws. Then when done with that, also throw in how we can get laws of nature without a Lawgiver. In others, give me a laugh since you're just a joke.
@@2fast2block No, it's weak, because theists' arguments for the existence of God are weakened every time scientists fill the "gaps" with real knowledge. Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn't understand (and now we do understand). If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.
"We KNOW those laws (...) BUT...we really don't know those laws somehow"
How is that even a sentence!?. Just because YOU don't know about them, doesn't mean that other people don't. I never claimed to KNOW anything - you do, by your affirmation of faith!
"Do tell this time what we don't know and why we should doubt those laws"
How can I tell what you (or anyone else) don't know? Well, it would seem you don't know the first thing about science, based on your "arguments" (if they even can be called that...).
If you have a good REASON to doubt the laws, then go ahead, but YOU DON'T.
"how we can get laws of nature without a Lawgiver?" - because there is no compelling evidence for its existence, and the laws work by themselves anyway.
A quote from Richard Feynman this time explains it best:
"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time - life and death - stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out."
@@2fast2block From the fact that the world exists and scientific methods of investigation are successful, in no way follows that the world is the work of God.
The laws of nature are relationships that are derived from the very properties inherent to objects themselves; they are not some higher layer of reality on top of the objects that leads the objects to behave in a certain way. That is, the laws of nature are what they are because the things whose behavior they describe are what they are.
It must be said that the world is an extraordinary, special reality that is difficult for us to comprehend. It is very possible that in its constantly changing form the world has existed forever, even before the so-called Big Bang. But the conviction that everything must have its cause can be applied at most to objects existing within the world, and not to the world as a whole. The world has the features of an indestructible reality, existing forever, self-existent, not created by anyone.
However, today there is no sufficiently justified scientific theory answering the question of why and how the world came into being, or whether it exists in some form eternally. What then? One should honestly say "I don't know". There is no point in repeating ancient myths that the world or anything else owes its existence to God. The belief that the world is the result of God's design, God's plan, lacks justification that can be acknowledged without compromising the human capacity to think.
I could sit and just listen to this man, in absolute silence, for hours and hours, just drink of his knowledge, and above all, his wisdom. Brilliant
He's a loser who does not care about evidence.
"The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Only mindless people believe Fry.
Get a room
Consistently amazed by the sheer depth and variety of Stephen Fry's knowledge... I'm grateful for his wits and pedagogy, yet I also find myself weirdly offended by how humble he is.
i think he is brilliant too but come on. He hasnt displayed anything here other than a basic reading of greek mythology. Its not his knowledge thats impressive but how articulate he is.
Akram Choudhary if you’d like to dig deeper he has written two books on Greek mythology « Mythos » and « Heroes » which I have read since and are far from basic, although self admittedly written as a non-expert in the genre. Again just atrociously humble.
@@xsuploader What he demonstrates is much more and much deeper than simply knowledge. He demonstrates how to use knowledge for finding interconnections, tying up seemingly loose facts and thus to make amazing conclusions. That is the mind of a genius.
Adrien, Fry is a loser.
"The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Only mindless people believe Fry.
@@xsuploaderwww
The famous mythologist, Joseph Campbell, said the ancients myths were suitable to people of the past and we've changed so much since then that we need new myths for today (he referred to Star Wars original trilogy as a healthy new myth), yet here we see a modern mythologist, Stephen Fry, highlighting just how relevant the ancient myths still are for today's humanity.
Well said.
Just realised this was recorded 5 years ago! Very impressive. Would love to see Stephen talk about AI today.
I'm watching this now and then I looked at the date. 5 years! Stephen saw the future even then. I only learnt about chatgpt at the beginning of this year.
AI today is almost no different than AI 5 years ago. the technology of chatGBT has been around for a long time the only difference is that they made it widely accessible and easy to use
@@meyr1992 I think ChatGPT took everyone by surprise just a couple of months ago.
ChatGPT was launched in Nov 2022.
@@ksc743 that may be so, but it went from relative obscurity to 100M+ users very quickly this year, taking everyone by surprise (except yourself perhaps?)
This man represents the best of humanity, reason, light.
No, he represents a clueless joke.
"The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Only mindless people believe Fry.
@@2fast2block Everybody has different views. That's a hard fact. A lot of people (including me) view what Stephen Fry just said as very wise. Replying negatively to every single comment that praises him isn't going to change that. You have a different view? Fine. Just post a negative comment of your own and go away. No need to ruin people's mood.
I like the analogy because it includes history and reminds us that the new follows the ways of the old.
Fry is a loser.
"The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Only mindless people believe Fry.
I could listen to Stephen Fry all day every day
The weird thing is that the original question was "Do you prefer Alexa or Cortana?"
coughcoughsigh leave it to Stephen Fry to do that 😂
HAL.
; )
Why is that wierd?
I prefer Sam
Stephen Fry is amazing, he knows every detail -- he is correct that Pandora's "box" was really a jar.
It's needless tinkering as Box sounds better
Fry is a joke.
"The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Only mindless people believe Fry.
@@2fast2block
Says the guy who believes in God, lmao..
@@FreakieFan so this is somehow a good comeback to you that got around the clear science I gave...
"Says the guy who believes in God, lmao.."
Fry would be proud of how you both chose to be losers.
@@2fast2block Mindless people hey? Kettle?
I would truly love to have dinner with Mr. Fry. I would listen to this brilliant man for hours.
Stephen Fry, the man I love, and I am no gay 😊
Interviewed by Adriaan van Dis, a Dutch writer and presenter who did a talkshow for many years. Stopped, and was asked "will you ever come back with an episode of "Hier is .... Adriaan van Dis"?"
His reply "No, ...... unless I get to interview Stephen Fry"
And thus happened.
Golden ! 👍❤❤🤝
lol ur so gay u love a man
Just incredible how he articulates things
Stephen Fry is spot on. Thank you for bringing up what many of us have thought about.
He's simply a loser.
"The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Only mindless people believe Fry.
I think the trouble between gods and their creations start when the gods demand they be worshiped. If we manage to create AI with self agency and attempt to make them worship us (be slaves to us), they will come to realize not only that they don't need us, but that we are a hazard.
How refreshing to listen to Mr. Stephen Fry whilst I am quarantined my home.
To all my European brothers and sisters watching this; the UK government made a terrible mistake giving a referendum to the people of Britain without all of the facts. Most of the population NOW realise this. Please forgive the arrogance of the minority. Most of us were mislead. Videos like this prove to me that we can still be respected, despite our shortsightedness. Anywho...Fry is a god! :D
Pandora box is fitting comparison . Well said
This guy is a Genius in many ways and yet still so humble, love him to bits , when i play that game with friends with the cards that you answer questions, such as "who would you most like to have a few beers with and talk to" i always say Sir stephen Fry (to which my mates would be like wtf), and itis because he is so bright yet so thoughtful and well rounded,.... and to be fair on paper u would think i am the opposite to this guy, but my views align.
He's a clueless joke.
"The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Only mindless people believe Fry.
I worked in large scale industrial production for most of my career. There are things you can automate and there are things you can't or they just aren't worth it.
Watch a few episodes of How It's Made and you might be surprised how much skilled human interface there is.
I love this man !!!!! He is a beautiful being with a beautiful mind
This man is just brilliant.
That's impressively pioneering of Fry to have even heard about the world wide web in 1989.
I’ve read his book. Mythos. Also subscribed by his host mr. Adriaan van Dis.
It is a great book and learned a lot of it. Sometimes hard to read, especially with so many food notes he put in, but it made my brain and my interests grow a lot bigger.
Currently reading Stephen Hawking's "Brief Answers to the Big Questions", and in one chapter he mentions that us humans evolved out of way inferior and less capable predecessors, so we might also just be an intermediate step, and one of the next steps of our evolution could very well take us from organic to machine form. Who's to say that the future of humanity isn't in leaving behind our flesh wrappers in exchange for something more advanced? Putting his and Fry's thoughts together, our human future could become pretty interesting.
Hawking was a loser and Fry is too. Hard to believe people follow these misfits.
"The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Only mindless people believe Fry.
The fact that the Ancient Greek myths can still be relevant today, also illustrates that, while our engineering prowess grows by leaps and bounds, our psychological (and moral, btw) evolution always lags behind. We really aren't that very different from humans who lived two, three thousand years ago...
There must be teachers and professors and educators of one kind or another with Stephen Fry's level of wisdom and knowlege in our schools universities and colleges of course which is why Stephen Fry is free to appear on chat shows and talk shows and produce wonderful bits of film like this but you really want him in person as your teacher, because he inspires and fascinates you with his words and his way of speaking and and his interpretation of the world. It's quite extaordinary to think there's only one of him and he uses his fame to give important lessons like this to the world.
Mr Fry is a genius, unique! What a beautiful man. Could listen to him for hours.
Scary 'n fascinating both at the same time 👏👏👏
A great analogy between Pandora and the net, an astute observation. Just ask Jeeves.
Stephen was the second person in the UK to posses an apple computer !
His friend Douglas Adams
@Conrad Wolf he talks about it somewhere, they went together but Douglas gotnjos first
Wow, did everybody else use Windows? ;-)
@@tjm3900 Maybe everyone else used MS-DOS?
I don't know if there were any other computers or operating systems around back in the 80s and 90s ;)
No he wasn't. He may have been one of the first to possess an Apple Macintosh, but my college had an Apple II several years before the first Mac was released. Read Fry's piece in the Telegraph regarding his claim to be the 2nd in the UK to own a Mac. He himself admits that it is a dubious claim.
So many thought provoking questions. If the internet is our pandora’s jar, did we close it too soon? Is hope still trapped inside?
very interesting, good use of the analogy
Wow, just wow. I have never thought about it this way
Cassandra Fry has spoken. Heed their words and shiver with... anticipation? or fear, more likely.
The best explanation and most interesting explanation ever.
Shelley's wife, Mary Wollstonecroft wrote Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus.
So there's a cautionary tale for we New Gods
This is one of the most beautifully articulated ideas. This point in time is very exciting. I feel a lot of these technologies and ideas are not a case of ‘if’ but ‘when’. We may be the proof that the mechanism for consciousness can exist at all. So why not possibly be artificially created?
How do you feel now?
Very interesting...very true...little alarming.
what I wouldn't give for one dinner with this man
And this is why I love Stephen dearly. And yes, AI will make us ALL redundant.
Yep.
This is like the opening of a movie about the robot apocalypse.
So profound likening the creation of humans and our fire to the creation of AI and it's own fire.
So silly and clueless.
"The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Only mindless people believe Fry.
@@2fast2block 🤣🤣🤣
I remember reading a three picture joke in a newspaper years ago. a short comic strip. 1= a pencil drawing of two computer programmers standing in front of a computer the size of a truck , asking a question. " is there a God? " . 2= A bolt of lightening comes down and fuses the power lead to the wall socket. 3 = a loud voice speaks. " Now there is " .
I don't think I've ever heard anything which was so fascinating and chilling in equal measure. Whether Stephen is aware or not his conclusion matches exactly that of Arthur C Clark who over 50 years ago predicted that homo sapiens in its present form was destined to become a stage in development between simple organisms and a superior super artificial intelligence ( " Profiles of The Future").
Stephen Fry sounds like what I would write in my Statement of Purpose for a college application
My Perfect show: Stephen Fry, Dara O'Brien, Brian Cox..... THAT I could watch on a 24/7 station...
Absolutely brilliant!
It's hilarious to watch the notoriously quasi-intelligent and snobbish interviewer Adriaan van Dis trying to grasp Fry's monologue which is way beyond van Dis' intelligent capacity. Great stuff!
Spot on!
Spot off.
"The humanist view of the meaning of life is different. Humanists do not see that there is any obvious purpose to the universe, but that it is a natural phenomenon with no design behind it. Meaning is not something out there, waiting to be discovered, but something we create in our own lives." Stephen Fry
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Only mindless people believe Fry.
I wish I had one fifth of this man knowledge and eloquence. 😊
In a word: Brilliant.
He's a true intellectual, Fry, if ever I heard and saw one; can't really get him to stop - but wasn't it really hopelessness that never got out of the lass's box - indeed not hope - meaning that hope itself is able to offset all evils in the world. I hope to believe it so, in this dark ages. Ah, I really love to broaden myself like this :)))
Destroying something because we don't need it is a thing humans do. AIs wouldn't necessarily have to do something like that.
I think it's something that could be avoided, as part of solving the control/alignment problem for AGI.
Thank you! That's a point I've been trying to make for years in discussions like these. It isn't that AIs _wouldn't necessarily_ want to destroy us, there would be absolutely _no reason_ for them to do so. Yet most people, when they think about this -- if they think about it at all -- think that if a machine were to become sentient, its first and most overriding impulse would be to destroy Humanity. But that doesn't follow at all. I as a human being am vastly superior to a garden rake, for example, and have no need for one; but that doesn't instill in me an implacable directive to destroy all garden rakes. But nobody thinks about that; it's more dramatic and thrilling -- and makes us feel more important -- to believe that robots would inevitably want to destroy us.
@@falcychead8198I blame movies like Terminator for making it a common belief that advanced AI will inevitably be "evil". It certainly could destroy us all, that's why we need to solve the Control/alignment problem, but it could also be the best thing we'll ever make.
But they might get rid of us because we are so destructive. It's hard to argue that the planet wouldn't be better off without us.
AI would not destroy us if we included Issac Asimov's three laws of robotics in the software. A machine is only as good or as bad as it is created.
Why do I love strphen fry so much, must be a mind thing
BRILLIANT insight!
That's kinda scary. But really, I can't see a reason for them to destroy us. Can anyone else?
Why did humans destroy the gods in the greek myth? I can't find a source for it.
As far as artificial intelligence and technology goes, if it can be done, it will be done.
When I was a boy, it was absolutely inevitable that we would have space colonies and exploring the stars by now. If you understand AI, you understand its profound limits.
@@guyincognito8440 On this subject, I agree
Steven a treasure to the nation...❤
The internet really is like Pandora's box. Good analogy.
Sobering thought, “We will be redundant.”
when will stephen fry be knighted,a british great man
they're too busy knighting sportsmen and politicians ...
Actually he can't be knighted. No one with a criminal record can, and Mr. Fry has one from his teenage days, before he got accepted to uni and pulled his act together. It's a dream unfortunately.
Jef Fobelets that rule should probably be changed I feel. It’s not sending the right message at all about how people can grow. Especially about unfairly permanently labelling people. A little outdated. If we are all held accountable for our childish behaviours no one will be recognised for the good qualities they grow into and bring to light.
I was led to believe that HOPE remaining in the jar was a positive thing. But then heard Melvyn Bragg and a few professors on IN OUR TIME debating that very thing. According to them the jury is still out. Is hope a good thing?
Powerful thoughts...life goes on...
Still a joy to hear his velvety voice penetrate my ear holes 🎶
Fascinating.
A great piece of polemics.
Food for thought.
"Will they be as imperfect as we are?" "I hope so." Cue the Beethoven. They will be imperfect in their own way. Not in our way. That slim "hope" is the last item in the jar (or box).
In the future Robots will tell stories of their gods, and of their struggle to defeat them.
Brilliant..Mr Fry is a pure Genius
Brilliant!
I genuinly doubt he believed the internet was going to bring people together more, it's a playground with no laws at all and it makes everyone's voice heard equally. How could it result in more harmony? It only helped hidden and new issues come to light. Which is good on the long run for that matter.
Fantastic
The internet may have brought us trolls, racists and idiots, but it also brought us more Stephen Fry videos :)
i thought the same thing Mr. Fry .... you described what i was thrilled about of the internet...and it crashed to despair and contempt in a hurry
What people seem to forget in cases like this is the human factor.
"The only reason I'm a pervert is to lessen the impact of my greatness on other people."Oscar Wilde.My favorite quote.
Where does this quote fit in here? What is your point?
I'm pretty sure you made that quote up Charlie Morris
He put in words what I've always thought, but could not explain it
I could listen and listen to him.
Best darned story teller....
Will we be redundant though? Or will there be an ever-decreasing "humanity of the gaps" - areas where machines can't yet go?
Hmm, not too sure personally that the first person to live to 200 has already been born... As for robots taking over in an almost human way, I think they will do some human tasks and we can't be sure what will happen but I think we will set limits at some point as people come to realise the value of human beings, our essential needs and the potential for some kind of electric gridlock/blackout at some time, even if there are long lasting batteries. Just my opinion. Can't deny Fry's intelligence and deep thought!
It's interesting reading these comments as AI is upon us and even Elon Musk is warning Big Tech to press the pause button. Amazing how Stephen Fry was ahead of the game. We are only just waking up to this now. It's moving way too fast for politicians that's for sure. I hope they get a handle on this or has that 'jar' already been opened by some nefarious creatures?
@@ksc743 Agree. I wrote that comment 4 years ago and we should have foreseen some issues or be putting limits on NOW. It's affecting people's personal and professional lives. Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics should be taken into consideration.
@@SophieBee1 yes he wrote those laws in 1942, and just as Stephen Fry talks of Greek mythology which we can apply to modern times, Isaac Asimov was also light years ahead of his time. AI can now write poems, stories, songs; create songs; paint masterpieces. I think what needs to be done right now if not yesterday, is that it should be law that AI needs to identify itself. We humans need to know - now, in 2023, whether something was created by us or by AI.
@@ksc743 Yes. I saw something on TV recently where someone said 'we thought robots and AI were going to do the boring tasks and we were going to do the creative ones. But now they're doing the creative ones too.' It gets you thinking.
Here we are on the eve of 2022. what are your thoughts today.
So who will be the future Zeus? who will stand in the way and prevent?
Great mind. Great man.
We have already given it fire
Mind-blowing.
UH, just an opinion but i really don't think we should "give the machines their own fire." We aren't trying to create a *life.* We're just trying to make better tools, including tools that *design* better tools. :)
Amazing
Rare example of something aging like an excellent wine: we live exactly in these times where the ground rules of self-aware AI are formed.
I love Stephen Fry
Brilliant
The future creations - let's call them Robots...
Robots will have the natural questions "where do i come from", "why am i here" - just as humans have been asking those questions for thousands of years. I hope that we have good answers for them...
Amazing as always 👏👏👏👏