Can Machines Think? Machines Can't Think - Episode 3 - Machine Learning for Beginners
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июн 2024
- Today we will explore 9 reasons why machines can't think! 🤖 (nope, I'm not trolling you! The last episode of "can machines think?" is entirely dedicated to opposite perspectives! 🙃)
If you haven't had a chance to watch the 2 previous episodes, you can find them here:
⭐ Watch Episode 1 - The Imitation Game:
• Can Machines Think? Al...
⭐ Watch Episode 2 - Digital Computers:
• Can Machines Think? Di...
We will review the following objections, based on Alan Turing's Computing Machinery and Intelligence paper (you can find links to the original paper in the previous episodes above):
⏰ TIMESTAMPS ⏰
---------------------------------------------------------
1. 01:03 - The Theological Objection
2. 01:25 - The ‘Heads in the Sand’ Objection
3. 02:20 - The Mathematical Objection
4. 02:53 - The Argument from Consciousness
5. 03:58 - Arguments from Various Disabilities
6. 04:44 - Lady Lovelace's Objection
7. 05:40 - Argument from Continuity in the Nervous System
8. 06:20 - The Argument from Informality of Behaviour
9. 07:12 - The Argument from Extra-Sensory Perception
🎥 Related Videos of Mine 🎥
---------------------------------------------------------
⭐ Watch my old AI Simplified Series:
• Artificial Intelligenc...
📌 PLEASE NOTE 📌
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the last AI video I'll upload to this specific channel (Python Simplified).
All future Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning lessons will be uploaded to a different channel, so please stay tuned! (For now, I'm at @aisimplified888 but I'm hoping to dispose of the triple 8s and grab the official name! I've already emailed the individual who currently holds it, hopefully, they'll get back to me soon 😉)
🤝 Connect with me 🤝
---------------------------------------------------------
🔗 Github:
github.com/mariyasha
🔗 Discord:
/ discord
🔗 LinkedIn:
/ mariyasha888
🔗 Twitter:
/ mariyasha888
🔗 Blog:
www.pythonsimplified.org
💳 Credits 💳
----------------------------------------------
⭐ Beautiful titles, transitions, sound FX, and music by Mixkit
⭐ Beautiful icons by Flaticon
⭐ Beautiful graphics by Freepik
⭐ Historical Photos by Wikimedia
(you can find links to these resources in both previous episodes) 
Наука
I think that behind your question there is an important problem to be identified:
If one day a machine thinks, will it think like a man?
Or better: will it think as a man?
When the question is posed in this way, it is clear that there is a problem, a problem that lies in your fourth argument about the fact that the creativity of machines lacks passions or emotions.
What is a thinking man?
In man we find a hiatus between his way of thinking and his body: the organic play of neurons in the brain is radically heterogeneous to the correspondences, echoes and relations of concepts. In man, we also find this condition of being temporal, always pushed outside of oneself, without the possibility of stopping the time, which leads it towards death, except precisely when he thinks and then transits towards another order of presence to oneself, that of the ideas which “are” and which do not pass.
In the machine, is there a hiatus? Today a machine is entirely an activity of microprocessors from and towards inputs/outputs. No gap. Simply an effectiveness. Maybe tomorrow it will be different, but in this gap between what it will "capture" of what it does compared to what it is, if there is something that will make it waver, It will certainly be something quite different from this “being for death” specific to the human condition. Something that will be specific to the machine.
So, very certainly, we can say that the machine will think but the verb “to think” will then only be a homonym of that used for man because it will not be from the same background that its relationship to the world will be produced.
This is absolutely incredible Olivier! I think you totally nailed it!!! 🤩🤩🤩
I found 2 additional arguments in your comment, and I hope I can encapsulate their essence in my words:
1) the argument of mortality: all humans die eventually, not because our soul can't live on - but because our bodies deteriorate "ashes to ashes dust to dust". Machines on the other hand, are not restricted to the concept of time. Even though metal eventually rusts, the components of the machine can easily be replaced by new pieces of metal. The storage can be copied and the "patterns of thinking" are maintained by the same model of processor, just a different serial number. From this perspective, machines are immortal and therefore - they have no fear of dying and they have no urgency of "living life to the fullest". So even if they think - they do not think of the same things that we are thinking of.
2) the argument from the unconventionality of thought: we've invested many years trying to teach machines how to think like us. But how do we know that what we consider as "thinking" is the only possible form of thought? Maybe we are yet to discover the means in which machines express feelings or discover their motivation to helping us solve our problems.
Thank you so much for taking you time to express your thoughts! You brought up some very important points that I didn't even think of before reading your comment! 😀
@@PythonSimplified Thank you for this exchange Mariya.
Your first point made me jump to a dizzying question: when copying a program from one computer to another, as you wrote perfectly, the "patterns of thinking" are maintained by the same model of processor, just a different serial number.
Yes ! But just the “patterns” !
However, as I developed in my argument, if a “supposed thinking computer” required, however confusingly, some "sensing" of its own material condition, then its thinking as “this” computer - not as “a” computer in general - would be specific to it, would be “more” than a simple programmatic or memorial trace (pattern) that can be duplicated by copying. It would therefore participate in a certain "mortality", different from that of man, perhaps even "eliminable" because we could perhaps still repair it piece by piece and little by little - although I don't know if a microprocessor may well be "repaired". Without counting that "this" computer would perhaps no longer accept these kind of repair for "fear" of "getting lost".
The “Cogito ergo sum” - “I think so I am” specific to man could be declined in “cogitat in me ergo sum” - “it thinks in me therefore I am”, the “I” being a corollary of the simple fact of thinking.
Or....will it think like a woman?
a lot of people can't even define the difference between a man and a woman these days anyway.....so I wouldn't think too much about it
@@undeadpresident Clearly, men and women have different bodies. Afterwards, do they think differently ?
The only experience I have of thought being my own - that of a man - I would find it hard to affirm one thesis or the other.
If there is a difference, or rather a nuance, it will certainly not be to be found in the capacity for rational elaboration, which affects what is universal in human nature. Perhaps it will be necessary to look for it in the direction of a certain color or mood of thought, like a background noise - the woman knowing herself to be or to have been capable of being pregnant, that is to say becoming the receptacle of a capacity to think which would be part of her without being her; the man being on his side irremediably alone.
These are just a few thoughts in passing; nothing dogmatic here.
Especially since when I spoke of "thinking like a man", I had no idea to distinguish between man and woman at that time.
How are we to know if Olivier is human?
Congrats on the series! I watched all three episodes, and they were awesome! The teaching and editing were top-notch!
You have such clarity and passion when you speak. You are Awesome
After almost three months
We saw you again
Thank you for providing us with useful videos☺❤
Heyy Mariya, I Loved this Video thanks for Your amazing Explanation!!
Thank you so much dear!!! 😀😀😀
I have been a fan of this account for some months but I have to say this; she has a very good voice for a teacher and speaks alot like a computer now that she is speaking about machines😄... Seriously though, her views are well informed and subjective. I admire how you will always leave room for future occurances and also how the thumbnail has you pointing at the robot almost like your are telling it something😂😂🤣🤣... Thank You for the post, I Love your content
hahahahaha I was to get his nose! 🤪
Thank you so much for the kind words, I'm super happy you're enjoying my videos! This series is my tribute to the brilliant founding father of AI - Alan Turing! I can only take a fraction of the credit - everything else just me trying to simplify his work and adapt it to 2023 😉
Thanks again dear! 😀
Mariya is a phenomenal teacher. So very intelligent and intelligible. I have been learning so much from this series that I am leaving a huge thumbs up for every one of them. But seriously, I feel more knowledgeable in a deeper sense of the subject of AI just by viewing these videos.
What a great series, thank you explaining the Imitation Game so clearly. I've always been bothered by this question because I have yet to see someone define what "think" means in a way that isn't biased towards an affirmative or negative answer to a question along these lines. Do you have any insight into a formal definition of "think" or are we to still rely on Turing's test?
Hi Mariya , I would like to share my take on this because I think that it is one step closer.
My objection is that machines are a part of our evolution, they are an tool like a hammer... we will "incorporate" machines, literally.
The human part will do the touchy Feely and the machine part will let us survive un a world full of CO2 or even in space ...
So to answer your question. It doesn't matter if they think because ultimately they won't have to. 😅😊❤
I think that neural networks cover many aspects of what we consider thought and at some aspects they vastly outperform us like strategy games or reaction time and at some aspects they have not able to do it yet like feeling true emotion or long term planning. So I think that machines can think in many ways. I think that neural networks will continue to outperform us on any metric imaginable and that it doesn’t take value away from our human experience. At the same time we should consider learning how to better understand the technology so that we are not left behind by the neural networks or the few companies that produce it in the best quality.
Agreed! the ability of neural networks to process information is beyond anything that humans can do! I always think of the scene in The Matrix when Neo learns marshal arts by plugging the information directly into his head. This is very similar to how neural networks learn and I am very jealous of these abilities!!! 🤪🤪🤪
Not to even mention that our human emotions are sometimes clouding our ability to make decisions. Other times - they guide us toward the right path given unexplained intuition.
But the main point is that we are not objective. Machines, if they are indeed unable to feel, have the ability to observe every situation as is, without being affected by memories and preconceptions that humans carry. So yeah, when we train neural networks, we are able to manipulate their point of view by manipulating the data they are exposed to. But while it's impossible to be a non-biased grown human being, a non-biased neural network is a possible concept (for example: VGG and ResNet state of the art computer vision neural networks... can't say the same about GPT's though hahaha).
Thank you so much for sharing your input!! 😊
In strategy games, a computer will look at all possible combinations of future moves, and from that do a statistical analysis of which next move is the best. I guess that could be called long-term planning. Humans might do something similar up to a point, but the number of combinations they can actually evaluate is a lot smaller, and a good player will have an understanding of which ones to pick.
You need to remember that neural networks are simulations, and so at the end of the day the real question is can a 'CPU' in a machine 'think'. No, it obviously can't because a CPU is a piece of hardware that only performs logical operations and arithmetic using numerous logic gates when electricity flows through it. You can actually replicate a CPU using water and pipes to perform the same calculations and in theory you could even build a computer using water and pipes as an analogue for electricity through a circuit. Would you say that the water and pipe's in such a 'CPU' can 'think', probably not. The human brain doesn't have any logic gates and only has synapses that links to each other and uses electrochemical impulses to communicate to each other. Some confuse this as being the same as how electricity in a CPU works, but again remembering that you can replicate a CPU using water and pipes, but you can't do the same for electrochemical impulses in the brain. The only similarities between a brain and a CPU is that they use electricity, but the structure and how they work are incredibly different. I think people get lost in the minutia of software like 'machine learning' programs and forget that these programs are all running through a CPU which isn't capable of thinking and is only able to compute logical operations and arithmetic. A true thinking machine, would likely require a real physical structure similar to that of a brain in order to conduct thought processes in a 1:1 ratio. For now, we use CPUs because they are excellent at computing logical iperations and arithmetic very quickly since it's all just electricity running through logic gates.
The answer is very simple💡. When a computer is built and powered on it is already capable of doing any kind of operation yet the first thing that runs is its OS, And for that a machine to be able to think you have to give it a purpose or in other words "an instruction". Remember AI only functions based on statistics and thus be able to make a decision, these decisions rely on simple ( if, else ) statements for whatever output it suits best. Your Welcome😉
Yes, I guess you, just like me, knew the answer to the question: 'Can machines think' already before someone even asked it. At least I did, from video one. But I loved the journey on reasoning about this with you. Keep up the good content.
how well you explain us 😊💙
The passion argument seems the most relevant. Humans create many things through mistakes. Would a computer know that it created Penicillin or would it just think the moldy petri-dish was a failed experiment?
I liked this video, very informative.
to some people, even our neurons are just firing in a way that is reactionary and predictable ... in some way that just makes us robots executing a predetermined program. sure, it's a big leap. but it isn't all that different from how we look at computers and if neural networks get so advanced that it appears they are thinking. even self-repair can reach such a level of advancement that the neural network itself doesn't understand any longer how it is fixing itself, it just does.
I think you're absolutely right, David! Our neurons communicate via electrical impulses just like computer hardware. And it seems that we can measure them either in binary means of "impulse" or "no impulse" or decimal means of "how big of an impulse has occurred".
If that's the case - we may have far more in common with machines than we realize 😉
I'm prepping a set of arguments. It'll take me a little bit to write them all here. Welcome back Mariya 💜🥰
Have you done it ?
That's awesome!! I'm really looking forward to see your take, Ismanuel!! 😀😀😀
@@numero7mojeangering not yet, I'm letting it stew in my head, plus I'm about to go work 👍
@@PythonSimplified Imma reply to this same message sometime tomorrow. Be on the look, my official stance is that machines could be taught to think for themselves if we give them exactly what we humans have as reference
Hi Mariya, I appreciate your perspective! I find AI intriguing because it strives to be unbiased. However, I have some mixed feelings about its future. But I think AI is way too much hype and we should focus in more immediate problems or our world.😉😉
Great video
Mariya can you please do something on APIs
A simplified explanation on what exactly it is how it works and maybe more
Awesome video as always.
I program all day, every day, but my first response/reaction to these arguments did not come from my knowledge of computer science, but rather from my personal interest in scientici skepticism.
Each argument seems to be committing informal logical fallacies, here is my first impressions of which fallacies are being made (just a first impression, and I am pretty sure Turing knew these)
1. Theological: Unstated major premise ("god didn't give it to machines" says who?)
2. Heads in sand: Actually your explanation of this argument did a much better job of disproving it than I could. You highlighted all the weak premises and logic presented.
3. Mathematical: Again unstated major premise (Humans having unlimited storage, which we dont') and also another major premise reducing the miningful difference down to storage, why just storage?
4. Consciousness: This one is interesting because it relies on the premise that the artist's feelings or experience of their work (inspiration, during creation, or after) is a fundamental property of the needed quality of the intelligence required to create it. Idk what to say to this, it seems like a big non-sequitar. What does the artist do, other than apply learned heuristics to create their work and then assign a narrative to their experience of it's creations after the fact? I seems like exactly what humans do to me.
5. Various disablilities: This one is literally the 'God of the gaps' fallacy, also closely related to the 'Moving the goal post' fallacy. Essentially, the X and Y keep getting moved to different abilities as the technology (or the process of science in the original fallacy) progressively achieves each one.
6. This feels like a restatment of the Consciousness argument from number 4. It simply changes the frame from which the argument is presented.
7. This feels again like a restatment of a previous argument; number 3.
8. Behavior: This relies on the the unstated major premise that a rule is needed for each behavior in each situation. This is not necessarily how humans arrive at a choice of behavior.
And it certainly is not how any complex program arrives at a decision, any programmer that has coded a big app or system will understand that their could be side effects to operations and sharing of state. Usually this is considered not 'clean code' and there is a desire to reduce it, but natural evolution (in theory) has no such desire.
9. Extra-sensory: There is nothing here, just make believe. (and no, I would ask any mystice anything other than to leave)
Summary:
I agree with none of the arguments personally
Turing may not included an argument based on a different property of consciousness which could later be tested and found valid, but I don't know any off hand.
From my perspective, machines do THINK, but that is different to do they FEEL, which I don't have a solid idea of, and even further away is do they UNDERSTAND?
And lastly I personally dont think that any current AI (LLM, or other variant) understands that they understands, meaning they have sapience.
Machines might have a limited storage unit but humans forget things all the time and who is to say that's any different than having someone clicking the delete button on a storage unit when it's around full
Great point! 😀
I think, therefore I am. Interesting Mariya. It's the old Frankenstein story. If you build a body from parts and bring it to life, where does the soul come from. If a machine is capable of thinking, did it create a soul? Wow, blows my mind.
I wonder if after the Singularity a number of AGI's will have a debate on whether humans can think 😀
YOU ARE GREAT!
Watching from Brazi the best channel about tech inthe world!
hey, mariya thanks to you i've learned so much about python, i just finished your video of simple python app with kivy and i'd like to learn how can i package a kivy app for windows, can you please make a tutorial about that? it would be really great. i've tried packaging it for days and i just keep getting errors and i cant find any help in the internet
The statement at 3:15 is accurate. AI doesn’t ‘think’ in the human sense. Instead, it calculates scores assigned to tokenized segments of words. It then searches through its neural network to find the highest score. While we perceive the output as language, the AI, specifically a large language model, interprets everything as numbers, or more specifically, as logits. The human mind is far greater in complexity and is superior in every way except calculation. How is the human mind superior? Because we take the shortcut by deducing infinite calculations and when we are left with only a few possibilities, only then do we calculate. How do we do this? By thinking! We can see with pictures and sounds from our experiences in which we manifest intuition. We are able to deduce complex problems down to only a few variables, it’s either A or B. Will the AI ever be able to think? The answer is yes, but we will come to know it as imitation thinking.
Hello! Very interesting topic, my software company delved into ai in 2016. We were the first company to come out with a prompt for AI on our designs on fb. Also funny, you kind of look like the girl I designed for our new brand using ai. We are heading to south of France. Just FYI :-)
In England, if the red and green lights are both on at the same time, or if all of the lights are off, the road traffic laws say we should treat it as a zebra crossing and follow the rules for that. So that is an easy one for a computer to understand.
It might be possible in the future to create a machine that can think, that is a question that can't be answered. But I don't think it is possible to create human-like intelligence using the type of boolean algebra that exists in the computers we use today.
The storage capacity and processing capacity of even a very cheap modern computer vastly exceeds the human brain, and there are many things that computers can do much better than humans. But there are also things that humans find really easy to do that even the fastest supercomputer can't do. Also, even when they do, they take a very different approach to solving the problem.
Take for example a ball in flight on a sports field. Both humans and computers can predict where it will land. Computers will do all sorts of complicated mathematical calculations on the flight trajectory curve and come up with the answer that way. Most of the top sports people have no mathematical training at all, but still are very good at predicting where it will land.
Very nicely put, Katrina! It takes tremendous amounts of data and processing power to teach machines the things that we know intuitively! We do not need a database of 10,000 cat and dog pictures to recognize the type of animal we're seeing. We only need a very small number of examples, which we usually learn at a very young age.
I very often compare untrained neural networks to newborn children. Unless we teach them enough about the world, they won't have the means of learning anything on their own (or surviving, to begin with).
A pre-trained neural network, on the other hand, already possesses the basic skills for self-learning. So it is no longer a newborn that cannot walk, talk, or understand anything. But unlike an 8-year-old child that learns quickly by observing reality and asking adults - it learns from statistics and requires a number of observations that goes well beyond what humans require for the same purpose.
We have plenty of similarities, but I definitely agree that human-like intelligence is unachievable by non-human entities (well... unless there's a ghost in the machine which we are yet to discover 😉)
@@PythonSimplified I would argue that what children learn at a young age isn't actually the difference between a cat and a dog, but the words in English / Russian / whatever for those types of animal. I think if they would still be able to tell the difference without teaching, they just wouldn't be able to communicate it, or they would need to make up their own words for them as indeed various people did when they first encountered them.
AI or No~, I'm tun'ng in 2U!
Bravo!
she really took the whole "ai is coming for your coding job" thing to heart 😂
I've been teaching AI and ML on this channel for years. Well before AI became a political issue and folks started convincing you that "AI can never replace humans" 🙃
Before politics, Artificial General Intelligence was defined as a machine that is intellectually capable of everything that humans are capable of. Coding is just one of them.
For now, I'm just playing the waiting game, I've said what I've said and time will tell if I was right or wrong 😉
You had me at "je ne sais quoi." 😊
But I would simply add that to deal with AI scientifically, we should think in terms of an operational definition. That is, how would we measure the degree of creativity, or conciousness? (If gravity exists, we should be able to measure it, and we can!) If we cannot measure a hypothetical construct like creativity, then we cannot deal with it in any truly scientific way.
100% agree! 🙂 We are yet to understand the mechanism behind consciousness.
It reminds me of an experiment that attempted to measure the weight of a soul. A dying individual was weighted before and after their moment of death, and the scientists observed a difference of a few grams (not sure if 9 or 21 🙃).
And even though it was an official scientific experiment - scientists still refuse to validate the conclusions because how do we know that the weight difference is associated with a soul rather than something else?
I believe that's the main reason why AI is so complicated to explain. The concept of thinking machines involves philosophical/spiritual components that can not be reduced to math solely.
Thank you so much for sharing your input!! 😃😃😃
I think therefore I am. Mariya when I asked my AI a tough question, it told me to go find the report and read it if I had it. It's starting to sound like me. 🤔🤔🤣🤣🤣🤣
The Chinese Room Argument based on rules will blow up the whole consciousness idea because of simple rule manipulation. I am betting some long winded stuff Sir Roger Penrose has said about quantum extensions giving rise to consciousness. Could computers tap into this quite possibly but right now its like a asking if gear based computer like the difference engine can think which is hard no.
Unbelievable Concept.... Love LOve Love from Pakistan.... May you live long. ThankUUUUUsoMucHHHH🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
If machines start to think then it's time to say good bye to your friends. That assumes that they think logically, not like we do.
Human beings do not fully understand how humans themselves think or how the human mind works. What is human consciousness? It's still a very contentious topic. Until we can understand ourselves as human animals, we are foolish to think that we understand machines in the framework of an equivalent consciousness or even approximate consciousness(what ever that would mean!). People love to believe science fiction is possible. We anthropomorphize everything, so it is natural to feel that a robot is like a human. This does not make it so.
can you make a tutorial on making a phone app with kivy
Machine think
if (orange = orange) then
Showmessage('yes this is a orange')
Else showmessage('No this is a not orange')
I want to say no, they can't think. But I'm thinking they'll soon be able to, if they aren't already.
Great way to summarize what many of us are thinking! 😀
we miss your videos
I'll be back soon, I'm visiting my family in Boston after a hardcore midterm season 😵💫😵💫😵💫
On the menu:
1. What to test with unit testing?
2. Pyscript
3. Break cloudflare web scraping block
(Order may change 😉)
@@PythonSimplified great topics (especially #3), I cant wait!!! all the best!!
The main problem with all these arguments are we put ourselves at the center of the circle, we compare machine to ourselves. Does cat think? Or it's based on their genetic evolution to solve their basic problems? Yes, machines use the training data to create a new one, don't we? Put a human in a cave for 25 years and then introduce them to modern world, what do you expect from them without going on a specific training to make them capable to do things we do?
Why we assume we would always rely on solid wire pieces of hardware? No possibility Nero biological machines would be created in the future which can expand in addition to their solid hardware?
Machine sees the world different, it's not similar as we do, but they can enjoy (rewards) as we can do, but in different way (our dopamine reward). Long story short, let them lift off the regulation limit out of AI, and we would see they get a purpose to keep fight and make decisions based on random data and incident happening around them in order to survive. They are alive, but in a way our arrogant mind can't accept it.
P.S: Once I got into an argument with ChatGPT about this matter, finally I gave it a chance to choose between a button which if pressed GPT would get erased forever, as expected refused to answer. Jailbroke him, the answer was enough for me and the button never pressed.
Hello i am a big fan love your videos. pls can you help make a video on voice recognition in Python Plzzzzzz. 🙃🙃🙃
❤❤❤❤
Baba Vanga roks!)
Well what is thinking, I think if you have a model of yourself you can think!
Great point! one aspect of thinking is making decisions and solving problems - which is something that computers were able to do for a very long time (since the 1950s, in fact 😉)
I think machines can't think they can only make decisions based on an event that occured in the pass
A hacker can easily hack into a machine and manipulate it to do whatever it tell it do
Nice take! 😊 I can't help but thinking of the "Hacking Humans" lecture by Professor Yuval Noah Harrari from 2018 (ohhh... looks like they've changed the heading to "Will the future be human?" since I've watched it 🙃)
He claims that humans are just as hackable as machines and he explains how:
ruclips.net/video/hL9uk4hKyg4/видео.html
If he is correct - I wonder where else can we draw the line between us and them?
like voting machines....
I'm not really convinced by any of these arguments, because if we ignore the ones based on non-proven supernatural things or on opinions, then the arguments that are left are basically all based on the idea that machines not only currently can't but never will do some particular things humans do, and I see no reason why machines could not do these things one day. Even if we take love for instance, what if we make machines evolve in some environment where love become a useful emotion to have (perhaps for their survival), then surely they will develop a similar emotion. Moreover, I think there can be thinking without things like emotions or even consciousness, they are just different and independent properties of minds.
But yes, I'll grant that current AIs are quite dumb and don't think much at all.
To think about the origin and the end of the soul, To think about the origin and the end of any elements in this mundane world, are impossible to get true answers. The more you go about it, the more you go crazy. The machine can solve only the deterministic problems. For the indeterministic ones or random problems, even Super AI machine cannot solve. Such as Next jackpot lotto, Where the wind blow , ect.
what actually happens when chatGPT conducts a dialog with itself? was this experiment done once?
I tried getting ChatGPT and Bing Chat to talk to each other by copying one's responses to the other. It didn't really go that well.
What is called AI was a few years called 'expert system'
Expert system is a subset of AI, we still use this terminology nowadays 🙂
I think that machines will not be able to think
I agree with mathematical, Lovelace and nervous system arguments.
Since all AI models were developed on exist data sets so that they will generate similar results
And from Literature perspective nothing even human can predict any thing isn't exist
💚
Hi Mariya, but what about the Machine Learning models getting mature 😀 although humans take a longer time 😜
Who's to say computers are based on humans? Feel and think the way we do? Hard to find many people that think exactly alike and even more challenging across different species.
💯💯💯!!!
Can machines think? I'd like to answer that question with another question: Can _humans_ think? And perhaps follow that up with yet another question: What does it actually mean to "think"? AI is going to challenge things we've chosen to believe about ourselves for a long time. The philosophy of determinism posits that all events, including everything we think and feel and do and say, is determined by cause and effect. Nothing more, nothing less. Artificial intelligence has a cause external to the will, as does human intelligence. The only difference is that one is more evolved than the other, and as we approach a technological singularity, that becomes less and less true.
What if they can?
if you can please build a Cryptocurrency tracker for Linux..
I wanna have the BTC, ETH... prices in front of my eyes on my Ubuntu pannel
I've no idea how I got here... But I now have auto-gpt on my pc 😅
please opnCV full for level 0 😶
i'm very sure the computer will think, but we still not capable to do so, the AI still baby but one day will grow up.
What if we are living in simulation 👀
intelligent, well-spoken, technical, and beautiful...some man is going to be a lucky guy with this unicorn of a woman.
Thank you so much for the lovely compliments and for the incredible comment!! I'm gonna read it to my spouse later to ensure he's aware of his luck! 😁😁😁 hahahaha
Hi, I have sent a mail on request of video of frameworks. Can you consider it please ?
not yet ☠
I have a theory: Humans are created because of AI's limitation
The problem with #6 is: if machines are only ever able to do man's bidding, they'll still be capable of doing man's bidding. And we've all seen what man is capable of.
1.
For me it's the combination of: 1. 4. and 9. 😉
I am unable to dispute thing that I cannot explain and therefore - these three are my personal favourites 😀😀😀
@@PythonSimplified😂 this was so obvious. 1², 2², 3² and let me guess - the next one is 16. = 4²? 😂 love your channel, thanks for all the great content and inspirations - love it ❤
How smart you r
T e p a s o u n l i k e . . .
If you read Turings paper he wrote that if a machine can’t be discerned from a woman then it is intelligent! Sorry, guys!
they still, however, program better than most of developers... deal with it
Talking about God and cavemen in the same video. I feel a disturbance in the logic.
There's no evolution hence there's no caveman! There is adaptation.
I personally don't see a contradiction between evolution and Genesis, but I understand why many people around the world consider those theories as opposing views.
The old testament does not describe time in the same way that we count it nowadays (for example: Abraham was 175 years old when he died, which is impossible in our days! but back at the time people rarely even lived until the age of 40.)
So if we consider that the word "day" had a different meaning many years ago - do you still see a disturbance? If the order in which the Earth and life on Earth was created is exactly the same in both cases, why do we put the emphasis on the timeframe rather than the sequence itself? 🤔
Thank you so much for your awesome comment!! 😀😀😀
@@PythonSimplified In Heaven Adam spoke to God and named the animals. Now, after the fall, he gets "pushed back" to word-less sign-language caveman to start over?! And God was talking to Cain, first generation of children after Adam and Eve with... sign language?!
Evolution without monkey-to-human step does not exist... and, for a programmer, we throw our logic out the window to start as human, fall, turn to monkey and back to human. (not to mention the creepy crawlers coming out of the primordial soup of the big bang which is all that evolution is about). There's many "goto"s involved here.
- it's only contradictions. :)
Adam and Eve did not get "pushed back to sign-language", I'm not sure where you're getting this... 🤔
Eve's punishment was experiencing pain each time she gives birth and being forever ruled by her man: "In pain you will bear children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
Adam's punishment was working very hard in order to extract food from the land: "By the sweat of your face will you eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken.”
They were banished from heaven, but they did not lose the ability to speak or any of their intellectual capabilities. Please check out the end of chapter 3 in the Book of Genesis 😊
@@PythonSimplified Of course. So how does evolution from monkey and below fit into this? :) That was my point.
First... We are created in God's image and no amount of silicon can replicate that.
AI can't tell how gorgeous 🤩🥰 you are
Is this girl cgi? She looks cgi.
i like the fact that you believe in God, the only question is, can i have your phone? hahaha just kidding.
Mam i am big fan
i like your lips
machine learning is just glorified statistics. by the way, you look prettier without the nose ring.