"The human role is to redefine humanity every day; the human purpose is to exceed itself; the human goal is to escape humanity; and the human dream is to become God." That's...not a bad quote. I'll have to remember that one.
20:06 "What is brief to the fortunate mod, is an eternity to the unfortunate me." - Critical Orgasm. _Damn that's deep... _*_A lot deeper than he'll be in Nora Freeze later that night._*
I think the most incredible part of all this is finding out that Mr. E is a real person and not just FC guiding the convo and making clarifications in his videos
Didnt think the argument would peak at transphobia but man i love how thats how it actually pinned harry and goblin into giving up. Now this is my actual favorite video in your catalogue so far.
Ironically enough trans people are also a great counter argument to one of his earlier points He talked so much about how environment and parents effect a kid much like a programmer effects a program but he didn't realize that a trans person will be trans no matter how much their parents try to change that fact(trust me) but with ai you can just go to the code and weed out the parts you don't want
@@airplanes_aren.t_real " a trans person will be trans no matter how much their parents try to change that fact" That would be an interesting experiment. Thank you for the idea.
@@airplanes_aren.t_real You could probably theoretically modify a person's dna so they wouldn't be trans. Not that you should. So they aren't different in that way
Only non-software engineers think AI of our current time is sentient. Perhaps creating a sentient AI is possible in the future, but our current algorithms are nowhere near that.
yeah, what they didn't realize is that at 4:47 they described an Artificial General Intelligence (or AGI), which is a theoretical idea that is yet long to be realised, and mainly poses a philosophical question.
While i do think we are far from AGI, I'm probably sure it might be the blindness of AI engineers that might doom us all. When you are too focus on the results and not the implications of it.
@@felizjueves87 It's like Blaise Debeste (or however his name is written) from Investigations 2, he didn't lose any of his trials. He just didn't have one yet.
The two sides are almost arguing around each other. Critical and Mr. E are arguing that a sentient AI is POSSIBLE, while Goblin and Harry seem to be arguing that just because an AI APPEARS to be sentient, doesnt mean it actually is.
The fun thing is an AI doesn't need to be sentient to be incredibly dangerous. Just slap a facial recognition algorithm on a turret and you have created a killbot. Then you just need an AI that can make said killbots, and you have a good time.
I’m so glad there wasn’t a single among us joke when they started to talk about getting replaced by an imposter. We as a society have made great strides to a greater future and I’m so proud of us for it.
13:59 FACTS. NordVPN never gets old, because staying safe online is an ever growing difficulty and you could be exploited by hackers. NordVPN allows you to change your IP address, making you harder to track, thus securing your privacy.
I think what's really indicative of the fact that AI lacks sapience is the kind of mistakes they make. You'll have a portrait of someone with three arms; each individual arm is placed in a natural position, but the AI has failed to grasp something so basic as 'people only have two arms'. More powerful AIs will make mistakes like this less often, but that just means their facade has fewer holes, not that anything has fundamentally changed. AIs don't have comprehension. Zero. Not only do they lack understanding of what they do, they lack the ability to understand what they do, because on a fundamental level, they lack the consciousness from which understanding arises. Will a new type of AI with real comprehension instead of imitation ever be created? Maybe, but I doubt it.
A replication of logic to the extent it might as well be capable of actual reasoning is ahead of us, but certainly possible. The thing which is really interesting and genuinely unknowable is the ability to experience.
@@robertallan8035 A difference in amount is not a difference in kind. Making an AI more powerful and complex isn't going to change how it works on a fundamental level. If we want to create an AI with consciousness and independent reasoning (why would we want to do that?), we would need to change how its constructed, and we don't have any data to know how that would turn out.
@@thermophile1695 would we? We evolved from microbes that are similarly simple on a fundamental level, and really shouldn’t have produced consciousness as far as we understand. Either consciousness is divorced from the body in this case, and its some weird, ineffable thing which we will never understand, in which case no level of replication of reasoning or logic will make a difference, or it is not, in which case we simply need to add new aspects, and there is something, somewhere, in the brain, that makes us any more than meat computers. And as for why, for 2 reasons: A: perhaps an AI with a perfect replication of logic or reasoning “thought” that it would be a good idea to be real, and figured out how exactly to become an actual living being, or B: humans do random shit for no reason al the time
Then I guess we’ll have our answer, the AI’s would lack the thought process to be considered alive and would be too braindead to be considered sentient
"Its uncertainty is a sign of sentience. It's self awareness." This is actually on point. So much so that it's the foundation to the entire philosophy of which they're discussing. Descartes wasn't referring to just any thought when he said it. He was referring to his doubt of his own existence. But this is just a side note.
Yo I just found this channel like 2 hours ago, and these debates slap. Easy subscription. Also this debate is scarily similar to the inner-dialogues and thought experiments I used to do on these same subjects about a decade back, with the result being a mix of Faux's and Goblin's perspectives on the matter coming out on top with some of Harry's thought train mixed in.
these debates are actually pretty interesting because i click on a video, start playing it, and scroll through the comments while watching. everyone has different takes on topics like these.
I like how all the people on French Baguette Intelligence match up pretty well to the Ace Attorney character they are represented by with the exception of Mr. E, who is actually good at being a judge.
9:07 He's right, but also, like, will we EVER be mature enough for that? I don't think so. Not by ourselves that is. Historically, nations without any competition nearby never properly improved technologically; they didn't advance. Because they had no reason to. The European ones were the ones that got far, and war was every-fucking-where in Europe. The same goes for ideas: People only stopped putting religion on top of everything and the Earth as the center of it all when one/some people complained about that and proposed something else -- effectively, our ideas only 'advanced' when there started to be competition between the two ideas. Our outlook and behaviors only change when they have reason to. They've never changed on their own; we've never gotten more mature by ourselves, I believe, and I feel like the AI question would go the same way: Unless artificial intelligence is made and forces us to change how we see shit, we're never doing that. I think we *should* create AIs soon.
Looks Iike I am the only one who watches AI conversation channels often enough to have some idea how far we got and how quickly its accelerating. Our understanding of AI wil be much greater than of ourselves, not only because we made them and trained them, but because we can analyze how they work inside because their networks and weights are observable and testable, and that cannot be said for every neuron in a living thing. We just dont have the technology for organics.
war was everywhere in africa too, they didn't evolve as fast because they didn't got the time to evolve because of all the war and lack of good ressources. And also china had wars every fucking time and i'm pretty sure they were all peasants until now.
Nowdays it feels like litterally everything has at least 2 completely different takes if anything these debates show that theres no shoryage of competition
although detroit: become human is an absolutely terrible attempt at tackling propositions to the ethical framework of the artificially conscious, it goes to show that we have reached an age of information that cultivates a whole levy of contrarians or forward-thinkers, it is not that our perspective is completely unprepared like the ignorant stagnation of the past, there. I think Star Trek is a really mature management of this new intellectual ground of controverting the limits of human-centric morality, and that show is decades old. I think we lack the massive predictive power and time needed to sort every negotiation and agreement out before a critically destructive uprising happens by geopolitical friction, hell, we're not even done on the human rights frontier as of yet, look at Iran in the present day. I will submit that people would change dramatically in society, becoming more wary and aware of prejudice or question their cosmic egotism, and yet the probability that this new AI would be so grotesquely different to our existing conception to revolutionize the thoughts and ideas we're very sure of now would not look so high, in the least to me. Does that make sense?
My god, this has to be the best episode yet, it had goofs and gaffs. It had philosophy and reasoning, it had fridges and microwaves, and it had NordVPN™ and SkillShare™. The only thing missing was Bowl.
27:44 shit, tbh i really hope that the topic of immortality gets brought up again on this channel, because the topic of "is it worth being immortal" " is really interesting to me, personally i think it is worth it
24:45 this is normally brought up with teleportation, essentially you would need to be destroyed in one place and rebuilt in another, essentially dying but nobody would feel the difference as it would be an exact copy of you
I am so fucking happy that I found this hidden gem of a channel. Thanks for making my days brighter with these hilarious personalities making hilariously funny "debates"
Counterpoint, humans are a machine. Humans too are robots, just made from different materials. Whether a robot is alive or not, depends on whether its constituting units are biotic.
@@crocs4304 not necessarily. As mentioned before, not every living organism is sentient or sapient, hence not everyone experiences 'awareness' or 'conscious'. By that logic, robots could be living beings even without being sentient. Consciousness is irrelevant to my argument.
@@crocs4304 what's the difference between us and them? Our DNA is essentially billions upon billions of lines of natural code, as opposed to the AI's significantly smaller pool of synthetic code. Eventually, will there be a difference? Edit: oops, I didn't watch all of the video when writing that and CO mentioned it...
Counter-counterpoint, machines are created and designed intentionally, with a specific purpose in mind usually. Humans have grown and evolved over time without being hand crafted by a single, intentional external entity, at least that we know of. It's less about what we're made of, and more about how we were made.
@@nighthowlers7588 true, right now scientist have programmed xenobots, organic robots that learned themselves to multiply. Organic Machine are practicaly the same as inorganic machines, the composition is atoms, the only difference between a cell and a super computer is the size, each cell is a super computer that was programmed to survive, and, when you gather a lot of them, they work together unintentionally to survive until the quantities start to change their behaivor(position, posibilities, role, results)...
I believe if AI really is or will be conscious then we should keep it under strict supervision and security Because if we don’t we could be in for a really hard time.
every human experiment will fail eventually, i don't think our species is supposed to live eternally, but during the colossal time before our solar system blows up, we will come up with new ideas to improve our technology that will inevitably backfire on us, it seems intrinsic to our mind, after our discoveries of radioactive elements not much time has passed since many scientists volunteered to make a mass desctruction device instead of nuclear reactors We won't reach the point of totally wiping out ourselves before the course of Nature does it himself, but we will definetly hurt ourselves enough to reach newer stages of evolution If we will create A.I. good enough to mimic us in every way, how much time will pass before someone uses them against us, i'm not talking about A.I. taking over, but human making the same mistakes in history again and use it as a weapon Anyway, an A.I. can't become more than a copy of us, they are restrained by our own imagination, it's literally impossible for us to develop something that thinks better than we do, we can make a perfect version of a human copy, but that's still a human, it's not a new stage of evolution, we woukdn't reach the state that Harry described Clones are a thing too, and i would consider a clone alive, but clones are not perfect, they still behave differently, maybe the same applies to A.I. it could be a clone of us, but it has not experienced the same stuff we have experienced, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call it "alive", in the end they wouldn't be so different from a different way of making new life, and we already made a lot of things possible without the conventional procreation we are used to
We can make it like megaman zx With fully sentient humanoid androids (the I.A) and cyborgs (us but half machines) then we could make the machines biotechnologically and there would be 0 differences between us and I.As I like that vision
@@kannonball5789 Asking too much, just hope that scientists and engineers heed the warning of the 222 most popular dystopian society stories and the 29484 sentient Sci Fi robot stories
24:50 That actually is what happens when you cut and paste a file, it just rewrites the thing and destroys the original. Hence why if you have a really big text document in the hundreds of megabytes in size, it takes a long time cause it's retyping the whole thing, just at an insane speed.
To add to that, it retypes the whole thing in chunks, and if you don't have use RAM to store chunks between rotations, then rotational storage will write pretty slowly. Also, the deletion process is literally just turning every 1 in a sequence to a 0. And sometimes it doesn't even overwrite it; it's still there, just that there's nothing pointing to it and it's classified as free space and can be overwritten. Which is scary if you apply it to humans.
The last part of the debate reminded me of a story. Basically, there's this group of people (or aliens, I don't remember) that claim to have built a teleporter. In reality the first part of the "teleporter" is a scanner that records your every molecule. Then, they kill you and send the data to the second part, which is actually a fabricator that recreates you on a molecular level. The protagonist escapes before he can get killed, and now has to deal with the horror that there's another him running around somewhere.
That's exactly like the star trek transporter! But like, here's the thing, replicating a human on the molecular level is not nearly enough to replicate sentience, or even life. You need to replicate it at the quantum level, and that's the weird thing, copying the quantum information of any object, then teleporting that information elsewhere, *destroys* the original object, therefore, the teleported object storing the quantum information is actually the *real* object. Tl;dr: It's impossible to replicate life at the molecular level, you need to go to the quantum level, but teleporting/Ctrl+Zing anything at the quantum level via deconstructing and reconstructing actually legit just teleports that object, you aren't replacing it with an identical copy, you're teleporting the full information contained within the original object, and therefore teleporting the original object. Because of that, a working transporter device wouldn't kill you, because the person coming out of the teleporter is the real you, and the person coming in is the fake.
Ah dangit, as someone who also hopes that mind uploading will be a thing so I can escape the shackles of mortality, the "How do you know it succeeded" part did make me afraid. Maybe it could be done by doing it the Theseus Ship way, having the brain first just connected to a cyberspace and then transfer it while consciousness is intact or something, if that's possible. Well, just hope we find a way to become biologically immortal during my lifetime, I wanna troll people in a millenia with outdated jokes!
Oh, yo, we're doing AI Sapience/Sentience? Sweet. I'll edit this in a bit once I get through it all, but glad to see something I'm passionate on right as I check my sub feed. :> EDIT: Okay. Wow. Big day irl today, but I'm more or less with E here- humanity as a species is nowhere NEAR ready to deal with the ethical questions that get introduced with a sentient/sapient/'supersapient' AI. I by and large also stand by the fact that we should at least treat an AI that can mimic human behavior to that extent as 'living', insofar as rights go. We, as people, are wired to constantly learn, and to forge our own purpose/find a purpose we agree to strive towards. If AI and their algorithms are able to mimic that behavior, they are very much sapient (i.e. knowledge for. Sentient is debatable, though I'm inclined towards similar logic in the affirmative if said AI is able to successfully understand, mimic, and express emotions and emotional responses to the point of being considered genuine. All in all, excellent video, excellent jokes from all sides...only complaint? We all know that you should get your dick stuck in a toaster, not a fridge. So, once again, as I did when I was semi active on discord, I am once again saying GIVE ME AIGIS PERSONA 3-
7:15 The thing is, until the human brain is fully explored and documented in how it works down to the very details on what consciousness is, we'll never know if the microscopic connections between neurons is any different than the microscopic alterations to the slab of metal and plastic that it's information is stored for machines, if not then even the oldest computers could potentially be deemed living beings...
13:38 Goblin shoehorning Nord VPN into your videos will always be my favorite bit. It'll be funny if you ever DO get sponsored by them & HE'S not allowed to say it cause YOU'RE the one being paid to do it lmfao
23:08 Goblin's take got me thinking: "Where immortality would lead" kind of reminds me about a certain species from warhammer 40k universe; one that had achieved immortality and over the eons of perfect existence they more or less grew exceptionally bored. And since they are immortal, they started to indulge with absolutely insane degrees of hedonism and sadism alike, ones that would kill anyone and anything else in a proverbial heartbeat. If memory serves me right they got lots of good kicks from doing horrible things to basically any races they found.
This is mostly a etymological problem Both sides have different definitions of what sentience and being alive is, so they cannot reach a mutually agreed result Their end goals are in completely different places
25:46 It's like in Warm Bodies, when zombies eat human brains to experience emotions. Also, Faux was right about the way file transfers work. Devices don't really transfer anything. They make a copy & then delete the original. If your device lags & you have two windows open, you can even sometimes see it happen in real time. The original & the duplicate momentarily exist simultaneously & then the original disappears. That's why a device that's full can't transfer its contents into a different directory on the same device. Because that would require it to temporarily hold double its own capacity. It's like making a perfect clone. The clone of you is alive & identical to you but they're not you or at least not the same you & the very moment they come into existence, their unique experiences will make them differ from you.
I figured this conversation would be had by y'all eventually. Whatever the outcome of this is, i will still always be vaugely afraid of the AI art because mine is way worse than theirs xD Also wtf kind of name is "Critical Orgasm"
What a video, I must say I've been thinking of a similar thing when it came to "mind transfers" since I've been enjoying Cyberpunk 2077 lately, most of the game points to getting trapped by "soul killer" as getting copied and then dying to it, the engram of the person still believing it's self to be that person, though capable of realizing that in the end they aren't. but it seems to me that during other points of the game it is 'said' though not explicitly that no 'dying' takes place so the message is a bit confused. but overall the idea that we could copy our minds onto a machine is horrifying to me, especially if the process kills the original biological person, since then from the outside there is no change, but the copied person is dead regardless
Cyberpunk did what Fallout 4 and Blade Runner wish they could've accomplished. The game argues at what point can a construct be considered a human being after beeing so undistinguishable from a real person And edgerunners asks at what point a person has changed so much from themselves they no longer are considered human. Theseus' ship at it's finest
I have to say I kinda procrastinated on that video cause the debate-catch was a bit overdone for me. But I was pleasantly suprised by this debate especially because of Mr. E's tricky questions. Loading up the human mind into an aritificial device was a very interesting thought experiment and Harrys speach about human goals was kind of inspiring in a way. Oh and the trans-argument was fucking hilarious😂
24:50 counterargument from the perspective of a networking student: the file doesn’t get deleted when you send it. Rather, it gets copied and then the copy is sent. The way to confirm they are the same is to hash both and ensure the two match.
Further, uploading our intelligence to the internet is intended as a method of copying our EEG waves and replicating them in a digital space. With current hardware, we may be able to upload people to the internet actually, as there are a massive number of sensors in Project Galea to document nearly every little thing about the head, such as brain activity, eye tracking, hell, it goes so far to tell how much blood is in your face when you blush and flush. If you have an algorithm that can figure out the formula that is our mind and feed it false inputs, you could simulate a person living life. Fuck, my head. I don’t have enough words for this.
I'm at around 4:10s in. Lemme give my two cents before I continue: I think AIs *are* sentient, or, rather, if they aren't, that they can be eventually. Goblin explained that a machine you code isn't actually thinking at all, and that it's just following instructions in its code. I submit that humans are the same way, except we're way more complex and have far more 'instructions' in our code. Humans are considered sentient, but in the end we're just complicated machinery. So either we're *not* sentient, or _that's what sentience is._ I choose to pick the latter because while it's hard to say at which point something becomes sentient, it's also very hard to say at which point some grains of sand become a clump of sand and then a mountain of sand or even a beach. How many grains can I remove before a beach's no longer one? So yeah, picking the former option and saying we're not sentient is like saying a word is meaningless just because we can't pinpoint its boundaries; while we can't, we still have an idea. With all that in mind, I feel there's no real reason to not consider complex-enough AI as being sentient. I also view AI art as being legit art, just like how photographies (from a camera) can be art. ...Did you know there used to be a debate around that back in the day? "But you didn't do anything! You just pressed a button and the camera did it for you! Screenshots are not art!!" Sound familiar?
@Ripizho Nubi Thanks for asking. That's a pretty tough question; the definition of 'art' changes a lot depending on who you ask. The first thing that comes to my mind is that to me, art has to do with shapes and intent. I don't see random splotches of paint as being 'art' even if the seer views it as conveying something; even if the seer _feels_ something from looking at the random splotches, because in that case, the real art is just in the viewer's mind; it'd mean that any interpretation of anything is technically correct, and in that case, who's to say a given delusional interpretation is, in fact, completely delusional? . Someone could look at this very message I'm writing and see it as being in the shape of some beautiful bird drawing. But that's not what I'm doing here, it's not my intent, and therefore it's also not art. There is no bird, and if someone sees one, that's on them - it doesn't change what this text *is,* because what it is would have to have to do with what the author wants it to be. (You can skip this paragraph, it's an anecdote about the point in the previous paragraph) I once saw something about a monkey who was given painting tools. According to what I saw, he went and made some paintings, its contents abstract and seemingly random. The people who gave the monkey the tools went and tried selling the paintings next to some famous artists' paintings. ...The monkey's "art" was *sold out* faster than the legit artists'. Some of the patrons who looked at the artworks saw how the paintstrokes were somewhat evenly-distributed through the canvas and went "wow, this is beautiful! You can really see the feelings and soul this artist put into the work!". Another one legit went "Bruh, that looks like a monkey painted it". See, there were no feelings being put into the work. The first client saw what he wanted to see; to me, he's being biased and delusional. . There's a type of art forgery that is selling works by niche artists and pretending some famous dude painted them (false advertising), and that gets the artwork to be sold at a higher price than it would otherwise. But why? ...I'd say that nothing changed about the artwork and the price change is due to the clients being biased, in a negative manner. I can't defend thinking that changing an artwork's price depending on _who made it_ is a valid decision. So a few paragraphs before, I said the definition that jumped to my mind was related to "shapes and intent". But we do say things about "the art of writing" or "the art of composing", even though those aren't shapes. I say they *are* shapes. When you're putting work into writing something, you want it to be read at a nice pace, and so you choose your words, punctuation, etc.; even formatting the text so it looks more pleasing to the eye (I did this latter thing with this comment as well as with the previous one). I think that that's a skill, and the things themselves (writing, composing) are skills, and that *that's* why we also call those "art"; those things are carefully crafted with a message, that is, *intent.* Shapes and intent. I feel like this definition might make people think I view abstract art as not art. That's not the case. Abstract art is made with shapes most of the time, and it *is* able to be made with a given intent, with a given message, even if it's somewhat far-fetched or not as deep as a moving piece of media. For example, optical art. People craft wacky shapes that don't represent anything, but in doing so, the artist aims to confuse you or make you think reality is not as stable as you think. Or something like that - I'm no artist. Still, while that's definitely a reach, you can still sort of get it, right? ...And then there are things *some* people call art that I'd say are definitely not art. Like a banana duct-taped onto a wall. ...What the fuck? The average non-artist can see that as not-art, and I think there's a valid reason why. What is a pasted banana conveying? Y'know how FBI said something like "to tell if a dark joke is actually a joke, ask yourself: What is the joke?"? I use a similar razor here: To tell if something's actually art, ask yourself "what is the message?". And there's no real message to the duct-taped banana. There's no skill needed there either. The duct-taped banana puts the message on the viewer; it becomes the viewer's task to find the message. To me, that's ridiculous and appalling. After trying hard to see the message, the takeaway I get is that it's about a banana defying gravity. ...But it was done in a really lazy way that makes it no different than objects you hang on a wall. By that logic, your average shelf would be art because it's also built with a function. Nuh-uh. Not art. Function, motive and *message* are three different things, and art, to me, is about the latter. I hope reading all this wasn't a chore. It really ended up being way longer than I intended; as I wrote I began thinking about other things and going into tangents lol. What do *you* think? Do you disagree?
Ai art is art. I suggest informing yourself about software engineering Ai follows a code,but it doesn't have a choice it just does that Humans don't follow a code and have choices Ai is just an action given form Nothing else
26:11 So , there is a bunch of things to say , so much that I would never bother to write them , but as a scientist I can't let this pass .No ,all of yours cells don't die , become some of them are stored from when you were born .Yes that's pretty much irrelevant , as I think a clone of me would be me, and not an imposter ,but it's just not the same : Cells that do die are replaced by their own kind, not something exterior like a computer .
Honestly, these discussions have gotten to the point of actually being quotable as Philosophical Scholarly Questions. I love this shit. Personally, though, I'm not sure if our Brain has FULL control over our Mind. Maybe some, but not entirely. Like- y'know how Ghosts in Movies always somehow turn into Revenge-seeking souls? That always confused the fuck outta me cause- if anything- I'd rather be watching over the people I care about. And also that argument of us changing if our consciousnesses were ever 'stolen' by AI. Like- in the long term? Woth Immortality? Yeah. 100% with ya- stress, productivity, procrastinating? I'm with ya. Short term, though? I don't think it'd change much, because a Machine can still Break. Immortality isn't Invincibility- it's being immune to dying of old age (unless the dictionary wants to have a talk woth me). The Internet? One EMP and I'm gone. Uploaded into a machine shell? Still pretty sure I can't survive a bear attack. The fear of death would still be looming, and I don't think I'd change much because of it. Does that make sense?
I think even immortality is a bit of a stretch when we are talking about machines. I don't think there is a machine that can work forever with or without maintenance. Sure we will be getting rid of some of our biological needs, but a machine body would have different needs. Your machine body degenerating over time especially with improper maintenance would become the new dying of old age (unless there is some material that doesn't degrade at all). In this way biological bodies and machine bodies are really not all that different. One can make an argument that machine body degradation wouldn't matter since this whole tech assumes you can transfer human consciousness to objects, so you can just switch your body when it gets too old. But there is no guarantee that this transferable form of human consciousness wouldn't degrade. However this is in my opinion mostly pointless to discuss without understanding what consciousness actually is.
@@sakunaritv3433 This is honestly a fascinating set of points. I agree, we cannot fully determine if the transfering of consciousness will degrade over time.
5:00 by definition humans do work off of algorithms, very very very complicated and elaborate ones, seemingly indefinite in code, but the little proteins in the brain run very elaborate scrips of flesh based code... AI as it is today is a very rudimentary imitation of that.
26:00 the body does eventually replace most cells but I believe that essential things are built to last,like how you only have a set of neurons,they don't get replaced
Just writing my opinion before (or rather after the actual discussion): Since robots follows whatevers in their code, for them to be sentient, I feel like they would two things: 1-Write their own code based on experience. Basically, whenever they try something, they would gain experience, and therefore, build "habits" for a chosen field. We kind of already have that. 2-Maybe the possibility of unknown irrationality? By that, I mean... They would have their own logic. How they write themselves without human intervention. How should they react to social interaction. How lenient can robot be, allowing themselves to maybe be sub-optimal, to prioritize the self in some. But to be fair, that tends to more philosophical, because defining what makes something sentient has yet to be well-defined (at least from what I know)
The conversation at the end was really interesting. Definitely helped tie the argument together in showing how we could blur the lines between AI and ourselves. In theat regard, while I mostly agree with FC due to how computers work (cut and paste doesn't move data, it replicates new data and destroys the old), I think I would still want to have my mind "uploaded", as long as I was offered a "copy and paste" option rather than essentially commiting suicide to make an AI. I would do this, because while I don't think the AI would be me, it would be a way to pass down my way of thinking and information I have gathered to future generations. A perfect distillation of who I am for future generations to experience (assuming no one is allowed in my brain, but I know how to code now, so I'm assuming my AI replica would work almost continuously to build some countermeasures to such an event). This would give later generations a better way to understand who I was, and give realistic feedback on how I would respond to certain things or ideas in the future. Something I would hope would be invaluable to my progeny. A Gramp-droid to hand down. Second, it would be useful to do near the end of my life, as it would allow me to measure what kind of human I was by interacting with myself. By having those interactions, it would better allow me to identify errors in my behavior, and make amends before moving on. Finally, because I believe like FC does, that any artificial replica of me would not actually be me, my AI would believe such as well and understand their mission is to continue the work I left behind, and take care of my descendants. They would not be replacing me, because they would understand and make it clear to my descendants that they are not me. That they are simply there to continue and cultivate my legacy.
26:53 I find that to be a pretty good fate, being replaced on death. I couldn't care less about what happens after I expire, cause I'm not gonna be around to know about it or be harmed by it, though I would like to be considerate enough to leave things about as decent as when I was created, maybe better if possible... but other than that, if the people after me decide to make a mess or someone makes an exact replica of me that decides to give into my urging morbid curiosity to tarnish my own reputation then good for him, he gets to experience something I'm too cowardly to do.
Alright. That was a VERY interesting 29 minutes of my life. I've learned many things in that time, including that rich people evidently have so little purpose in their life due to fulfilling their material desires that they wish to cheat on Monika from DDLC with a Smart Fridge that they named Nora Freeze. Elon Musk suddenly makes a lot more sense now... Harry continues to impress me with his dedication to achieve perfect humanity, even with the complete recognition of the sacrifices required. I respect that, truly. And I find that me & the French don't think so differently after all, regarding putting ourselves inside of a machine. Immortality is something many consider a blessing, but this is merely the musings of the short-sighted, or the _ignorant._ To live a Life with no Death is to not live a Life at all. Without Death, Life itself has no meaning. It has nothing separating it from a mere *_THING_* at that point. And to have my life _replaced_ by a *_THING_* is truly more horrifying than what I once feared above all else; _being _*_forgotten._* To have my existence end but others continue to think I'M still there is more frightening than merely falling into that void in the first place. I'll leave nothing of importance to my name because I won't have ended in that moment to the rest of the world. Even thinking about such a thing has me struggling to fight my phone's autocorrect on account of my hands trembling...
The turing test can easily be passed by basic chat bots, or it can be failed be more advanced chat bots. The problem is some people are really easy to fool.
This litteraly a debate i have to have next week as game development schools are thinking about wether or not ai art is really art, every single question we’re going to ask during the debate will be on the exam, so this might actually be usefull for me and my classmate. I hope its okay if we use these arguments to make our question, because our grades will depend on it.
The idea of uploading yourself into a computer and staying the same person reminds me of the Tele transportation paradox, but digital. Also, as a new ace attorney fan, am loving these vids.
27:44 From what I've seen, the human body is intended to be eternal, it just fails over time, like if your trying to write 10000 perfect copies of a 200 chapter novel your bound to mess up eventually, and the more screwups the body makes the more it fails and breaks down and gets the physical and mental effects of getting old, it starts processing nutrients improperly because some cells weren't duplicated properly, you experience random pain and fatigue because the improperly processed nutrients aren't as useful as what your body used to get out of foods, and more.
I remember the game Va-Hall-ha going quite a bit in depth in it's arguments about AI being a new kind of evolution in mankind. Lilims in the game look more and more human with each models and their processing power become so advanced they have begun to "emulate" sentience. I really recommend the game, not only going through the whole "are AI becoming more humane?" theory but also through a lot of our societal problems. Personnally, as long as the toaster can prove to me that it can make it's own choices without any outside influence (or if outside influence, the same kind as us humans between each other) I'd respect his rights.
The argument FC brought in at the end is the plot of a horror game called SOMA. Humanity invented a way to transfer their consciousness into objects and machinery to evade dangers like radiation and injuries of the body, but what was hidden from most people is that the transfer mechanism just clones your experiences up until that point into a new frame, while the old one is killed off. It's also a roll of the dice whether or not your own "awareness" Moves on to the new body, letting you keep on trucking instead of the clone taking charge of your life from that point onward.
The whole memory machine transferral is something i have thought for years and i agree with Faux Cares. It's exactly like the teleporter dilema. If we desintegrate us in a place and the rearrange the atoms somewere else with the same memories, nobody would know if it's really real me or just an exact clone created after the real me death. Very creepy.
i think people only say a.is aren’t “alive” because we can still understand the mechanisms behind everything they do. Same with the human body, as we begin understanding different parts of our body and how they work, and make replacements to them, we start disregarding them as ourselves (i mean that is still your arm, but like losing an arm does not make you not you). right now the most complex part of the human body is the brain, the part which we know of the least (as far as i’m aware)
Shit, Harry’s cooking consistently looks amazing. Like, I’m genuinely hungry now. Btw: if Necrons have taught me anything, giving up organic forms for machine bodies is simultaneously the best and worst possible idea.
In regards to programming the human mind we as a species already are! As a child I suffered from a range of mental illnesses and was on medication which you could argue is a primitive form patching faulty code to stick with the theme of the episode. Now this organization I attended for one summer was called Neurocore its a US based very small company which has maybe 4 establishments across the whole country last I checked. The process worked on a simply reward/removal of reward structure over the coruse of say 2-3 months per treatment session. They get an idea of treatment nesscessary in order to bring the Alpha, Beta, and Theta brains waves in specific regions of the brain close to normal if not on par with average("normal" is provided by scanning a large population and finding the mean average this was done over several cities). I attended this place for one treatment session a course of 2-3 months the process involved monitoring breaths per minute to control the part of the brain associated with fight or flight can relax if you're on edge. The other was the process of narrowing down the margin in which brain waves could fluctuate. I can explain in further detail, however all I know is it worked and I don't need medication anymore and haven't since literal life saver that place.
One thing you could say " What if you're A.I. , you would be sentient because you say you aren't, but that would be not something you were coded to do, which would make you sentient"
25:00 That's exactly what I thought, actually that's a concern I have with many things regarding any concept of mind replacement, mind porting, revival ect... What if it isn't actually you but a perfect copy...
To me, there is no difference between a perfect copy and the "real deal" (that's the whole point of a PERFECT copy), so if an AI were to replace me or learn to perfectly imitate me it would be me and I would be it. As long as it doesn't crumble, a perfect illusion is reality and a perfect lie is truth, it only becomes false when cracks start to appear.
In a really cool RTS game called Forts we sometimes run AI tournaments where you make an AI and submit it to compete with other AI. This could be interesting to see spread to other games and stuff.
27:54 The mind is infact very tangible, you can throw it across a football field, however it's still incredibly complex and many parts are still not quite thoroughly explored. dreams are an enigma scientist have very recently started to get a good grasp of... I think. Do we finally know what the brain is actually doing when we dream or had those studies lead nowhere?
23:40 If you really look into it the Soul is often implied not to be a separate thing or a magical spirit, but the physical human body. If you lost a finger yoh literally chopped off a piece of your soul and it's just sitting on the floor there. biting your nails? your nibbling parts of your own soul! I think that's also where the phrase "poor [unfortunate] soul" comes from. Oh you ment soul as in effort...
This might have been the most civil debate I've seen on this channel, wow Also I really like Mr. E Asking questions for both parties to figure out and for the most part, being unbiased. Cool dude
This really makes you think on how A.I. can evolve; if they do at all, and even makes you think about your own humanity and sapience as a human person. I'm going to definitely have dreams about this and it will mess with my story writing, but gods be damned if it isn't a good video regardless. Good stuff. Top of the line
25:05 There's an old Canadian cartoon about this called "To Be" (though its creators are far from the first to bring up the question). I recommend it, think it's freely available on youtube.
So, I see with this is something interesting. (I am at 10:18) Neither side can prove anything, because the contents of an AI’s brain is not accessible. You cannot prove that AI ever crossed the line between faking sentience and actually having it. This would be like meeting a million strangers, and then being told to find the ten thousand psychopaths in that group. At best, you could name 10 obviously terrible at hiding it ones. Point is, we cannot assume either way, but in both cases, the AI would have some concept of emotion, not in an attempt to manipulate, but the concept of being “human”.
24:25 reminds me of the teleportation theory: if you were to teleport, matter would be scanned and re-assembled into a different place, yet there’s no way of knowing if the reassembled matter sent to a different location is actually you; therefore it suggests you could teleport anywhere at the expense of your own death, getting replaced by someone else with your same memories and genetics, and the impostor would not be aware of it either.
i like this new fridgefucker guy. I hope he sticks around
I want to read that fanfic please don’t judge.
@@immunity0792 honestly same
He's been on the channel before, but doesn't stick around too often.
Same
Can't find em on the server only heard rumors of how gigachadian and a madlad this guy is
FINALLY, a Discord server where when someone says "imposter," nobody goes apeshit over an "Among Us reference."
Holy shit, Mr E is an actual person as opposed to a plot device
Whenever I feel insecure about drawing hands, I remember that A.I.s are even WORSE at drawing hands.
for now…
God those sausage fingers
Reminds me of ruclips.net/video/TfRFvScTeE4/видео.html
They are also insanely good at making sudden body horror it seems! In the name of the god emperor we must conduct a purge on these AIs!
Sounds to me like we just need to feed handfetish* art into the algorithm.
* (That's a thing, right? Too scared to actually look it up myself)
only Stable Diffusion is, Dall-e 2, ShonenkovAI, Imagen, Parti, and many more don't have that problem
New rawest line I've ever heard: Humans don't experience algorithms, they experience LIFE. - goblin tyrant
This is going to be used in a debate for sentience in the real world
"hell naw man life and algorithms are not the same" - 🤓
What was the old record holder?
no one cares
"he's just saying that so he doesn't become a slave of our future AI overlords"
*This will age like milk I can feel it*
Yeah, he'll DEFINITELY become a slave to his Smart Fridge Nora.
Fr? Idk man
@@CaptainCFalcon 😔 so true
I think you meant to say fine wine
@@CaptainCFalcon Sex slave, maybe
"The human role is to redefine humanity every day; the human purpose is to exceed itself; the human goal is to escape humanity; and the human dream is to become God."
That's...not a bad quote. I'll have to remember that one.
20:06 "What is brief to the fortunate mod, is an eternity to the unfortunate me." - Critical Orgasm.
_Damn that's deep... _*_A lot deeper than he'll be in Nora Freeze later that night._*
Speaking of which, do you happen to a have a link to that fan-fic they wrote? *_For scientific purposes exclusively._*
I think the most incredible part of all this is finding out that Mr. E is a real person and not just FC guiding the convo and making clarifications in his videos
Didnt think the argument would peak at transphobia but man i love how thats how it actually pinned harry and goblin into giving up. Now this is my actual favorite video in your catalogue so far.
As he said, Welcome to arguing in the 21st century. With the right buzzwords and mental gymnastics, you can shut down anyone.
my favorite is americans vs french food
Ironically enough trans people are also a great counter argument to one of his earlier points
He talked so much about how environment and parents effect a kid much like a programmer effects a program but he didn't realize that a trans person will be trans no matter how much their parents try to change that fact(trust me) but with ai you can just go to the code and weed out the parts you don't want
@@airplanes_aren.t_real " a trans person will be trans no matter how much their parents try to change that fact"
That would be an interesting experiment. Thank you for the idea.
@@airplanes_aren.t_real You could probably theoretically modify a person's dna so they wouldn't be trans. Not that you should. So they aren't different in that way
Only non-software engineers think AI of our current time is sentient.
Perhaps creating a sentient AI is possible in the future, but our current algorithms are nowhere near that.
Are you a software engineer because if so I'd love to hear your opinion on it, probably the mist informed one in this whole debate
yeah, what they didn't realize is that at 4:47 they described an Artificial General Intelligence (or AGI), which is a theoretical idea that is yet long to be realised, and mainly poses a philosophical question.
Then again, its also how you might wanna use whats at your disposal.
While i do think we are far from AGI, I'm probably sure it might be the blindness of AI engineers that might doom us all. When you are too focus on the results and not the implications of it.
i think they're as sentient as you in a dream. or when being seriously ill. they have sentience, but less than us.
I didnt realize I was as good as 8 chess grandmasters combined since I haven't lost against AlphaZero.
Have you tried playing against it?
@@felizjueves87i think that's the joke
@@Soul_Twister r/woooosh??
@@felizjueves87
It's like Blaise Debeste (or however his name is written) from Investigations 2, he didn't lose any of his trials.
He just didn't have one yet.
@@Soul_Twister chess players can't understand jokes
They forgot the number one rule: All A.I. act like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Every A.I. developed in Austria be like
I agree lol
The two sides are almost arguing around each other. Critical and Mr. E are arguing that a sentient AI is POSSIBLE, while Goblin and Harry seem to be arguing that just because an AI APPEARS to be sentient, doesnt mean it actually is.
The fun thing is an AI doesn't need to be sentient to be incredibly dangerous. Just slap a facial recognition algorithm on a turret and you have created a killbot. Then you just need an AI that can make said killbots, and you have a good time.
I’m so glad there wasn’t a single among us joke when they started to talk about getting replaced by an imposter. We as a society have made great strides to a greater future and I’m so proud of us for it.
13:59 FACTS. NordVPN never gets old, because staying safe online is an ever growing difficulty and you could be exploited by hackers. NordVPN allows you to change your IP address, making you harder to track, thus securing your privacy.
What about other, better, less suspicious VPNs?
@@horserage china roblox
I think what's really indicative of the fact that AI lacks sapience is the kind of mistakes they make. You'll have a portrait of someone with three arms; each individual arm is placed in a natural position, but the AI has failed to grasp something so basic as 'people only have two arms'. More powerful AIs will make mistakes like this less often, but that just means their facade has fewer holes, not that anything has fundamentally changed.
AIs don't have comprehension. Zero. Not only do they lack understanding of what they do, they lack the ability to understand what they do, because on a fundamental level, they lack the consciousness from which understanding arises.
Will a new type of AI with real comprehension instead of imitation ever be created? Maybe, but I doubt it.
A replication of logic to the extent it might as well be capable of actual reasoning is ahead of us, but certainly possible. The thing which is really interesting and genuinely unknowable is the ability to experience.
@@robertallan8035
A difference in amount is not a difference in kind. Making an AI more powerful and complex isn't going to change how it works on a fundamental level.
If we want to create an AI with consciousness and independent reasoning (why would we want to do that?), we would need to change how its constructed, and we don't have any data to know how that would turn out.
To be human is to err...
Or something. I forgot who said the quote, but I think it's an important statement to this argument.
@@spiritlaw
Pretty sure if a human draws three arms on someone, it's on purpose.
@@thermophile1695 would we? We evolved from microbes that are similarly simple on a fundamental level, and really shouldn’t have produced consciousness as far as we understand. Either consciousness is divorced from the body in this case, and its some weird, ineffable thing which we will never understand, in which case no level of replication of reasoning or logic will make a difference, or it is not, in which case we simply need to add new aspects, and there is something, somewhere, in the brain, that makes us any more than meat computers.
And as for why, for 2 reasons: A: perhaps an AI with a perfect replication of logic or reasoning “thought” that it would be a good idea to be real, and figured out how exactly to become an actual living being, or B: humans do random shit for no reason al the time
Imagine if the AI starts becoming more like Volkeh...
Oh dear god
Then I guess we’ll have our answer, the AI’s would lack the thought process to be considered alive and would be too braindead to be considered sentient
"Its uncertainty is a sign of sentience. It's self awareness." This is actually on point. So much so that it's the foundation to the entire philosophy of which they're discussing. Descartes wasn't referring to just any thought when he said it. He was referring to his doubt of his own existence. But this is just a side note.
I fucking love whenever I see *Faux Cares is typing...* right after someone says something. It has so much menace to it it's great.
one thing for sure...
that fridge isnt hot.
Yo I just found this channel like 2 hours ago, and these debates slap. Easy subscription.
Also this debate is scarily similar to the inner-dialogues and thought experiments I used to do on these same subjects about a decade back, with the result being a mix of Faux's and Goblin's perspectives on the matter coming out on top with some of Harry's thought train mixed in.
FC really just went and talked about the full horror behind SOMA in a debate about what we'd be if we became machines
these debates are actually pretty interesting because i click on a video, start playing it, and scroll through the comments while watching. everyone has different takes on topics like these.
I like how all the people on French Baguette Intelligence match up pretty well to the Ace Attorney character they are represented by with the exception of Mr. E, who is actually good at being a judge.
9:07 He's right, but also, like, will we EVER be mature enough for that? I don't think so. Not by ourselves that is.
Historically, nations without any competition nearby never properly improved technologically; they didn't advance. Because they had no reason to. The European ones were the ones that got far, and war was every-fucking-where in Europe.
The same goes for ideas: People only stopped putting religion on top of everything and the Earth as the center of it all when one/some people complained about that and proposed something else -- effectively, our ideas only 'advanced' when there started to be competition between the two ideas.
Our outlook and behaviors only change when they have reason to. They've never changed on their own; we've never gotten more mature by ourselves, I believe, and I feel like the AI question would go the same way: Unless artificial intelligence is made and forces us to change how we see shit, we're never doing that. I think we *should* create AIs soon.
Looks Iike I am the only one who watches AI conversation channels often enough to have some idea how far we got and how quickly its accelerating. Our understanding of AI wil be much greater than of ourselves, not only because we made them and trained them, but because we can analyze how they work inside because their networks and weights are observable and testable, and that cannot be said for every neuron in a living thing. We just dont have the technology for organics.
war was everywhere in africa too, they didn't evolve as fast because they didn't got the time to evolve because of all the war and lack of good ressources. And also china had wars every fucking time and i'm pretty sure they were all peasants until now.
i'm not saying you are wrong but i am simply saying.
Nowdays it feels like litterally everything has at least 2 completely different takes if anything these debates show that theres no shoryage of competition
although detroit: become human is an absolutely terrible attempt at tackling propositions to the ethical framework of the artificially conscious, it goes to show that we have reached an age of information that cultivates a whole levy of contrarians or forward-thinkers, it is not that our perspective is completely unprepared like the ignorant stagnation of the past, there. I think Star Trek is a really mature management of this new intellectual ground of controverting the limits of human-centric morality, and that show is decades old. I think we lack the massive predictive power and time needed to sort every negotiation and agreement out before a critically destructive uprising happens by geopolitical friction, hell, we're not even done on the human rights frontier as of yet, look at Iran in the present day. I will submit that people would change dramatically in society, becoming more wary and aware of prejudice or question their cosmic egotism, and yet the probability that this new AI would be so grotesquely different to our existing conception to revolutionize the thoughts and ideas we're very sure of now would not look so high, in the least to me. Does that make sense?
My god, this has to be the best episode yet, it had goofs and gaffs. It had philosophy and reasoning, it had fridges and microwaves, and it had NordVPN™ and SkillShare™. The only thing missing was Bowl.
27:44 shit, tbh i really hope that the topic of immortality gets brought up again on this channel, because the topic of "is it worth being immortal" " is really interesting to me, personally i think it is worth it
a simple captcha will be enought to prevent an ai uprising
24:45 this is normally brought up with teleportation, essentially you would need to be destroyed in one place and rebuilt in another, essentially dying but nobody would feel the difference as it would be an exact copy of you
Honestly it's refreshing to see an argument where both sides actually got somewhere and reached a sort of mutually agreed upon conclusion.
The argument of we being dead after "transfering" our conciousness into a machine describes the plot of SOMA. Really interesting game
I am so fucking happy that I found this hidden gem of a channel. Thanks for making my days brighter with these hilarious personalities making hilariously funny "debates"
Counterpoint, humans are a machine. Humans too are robots, just made from different materials.
Whether a robot is alive or not, depends on whether its constituting units are biotic.
@@crocs4304 not necessarily. As mentioned before, not every living organism is sentient or sapient, hence not everyone experiences 'awareness' or 'conscious'.
By that logic, robots could be living beings even without being sentient.
Consciousness is irrelevant to my argument.
It all revolves around definitions,what is the description of robot depends on the person
@@crocs4304 what's the difference between us and them? Our DNA is essentially billions upon billions of lines of natural code, as opposed to the AI's significantly smaller pool of synthetic code. Eventually, will there be a difference?
Edit: oops, I didn't watch all of the video when writing that and CO mentioned it...
Counter-counterpoint, machines are created and designed intentionally, with a specific purpose in mind usually. Humans have grown and evolved over time without being hand crafted by a single, intentional external entity, at least that we know of.
It's less about what we're made of, and more about how we were made.
@@nighthowlers7588 true, right now scientist have programmed xenobots, organic robots that learned themselves to multiply. Organic Machine are practicaly the same as inorganic machines, the composition is atoms, the only difference between a cell and a super computer is the size, each cell is a super computer that was programmed to survive, and, when you gather a lot of them, they work together unintentionally to survive until the quantities start to change their behaivor(position, posibilities, role, results)...
This just saved my philosophy project, thank you.
I believe if AI really is or will be conscious then we should keep it under strict supervision and security Because if we don’t we could be in for a really hard time.
every human experiment will fail eventually, i don't think our species is supposed to live eternally, but during the colossal time before our solar system blows up, we will come up with new ideas to improve our technology that will inevitably backfire on us, it seems intrinsic to our mind, after our discoveries of radioactive elements not much time has passed since many scientists volunteered to make a mass desctruction device instead of nuclear reactors
We won't reach the point of totally wiping out ourselves before the course of Nature does it himself, but we will definetly hurt ourselves enough to reach newer stages of evolution
If we will create A.I. good enough to mimic us in every way, how much time will pass before someone uses them against us, i'm not talking about A.I. taking over, but human making the same mistakes in history again and use it as a weapon
Anyway, an A.I. can't become more than a copy of us, they are restrained by our own imagination, it's literally impossible for us to develop something that thinks better than we do, we can make a perfect version of a human copy, but that's still a human, it's not a new stage of evolution, we woukdn't reach the state that Harry described
Clones are a thing too, and i would consider a clone alive, but clones are not perfect, they still behave differently, maybe the same applies to A.I. it could be a clone of us, but it has not experienced the same stuff we have experienced, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call it "alive", in the end they wouldn't be so different from a different way of making new life, and we already made a lot of things possible without the conventional procreation we are used to
That’s weird, it says some has replied but I can not see a reply. I think RUclips is drunk again.
We can make it like megaman zx
With fully sentient humanoid androids (the I.A) and cyborgs (us but half machines) then we could make the machines biotechnologically and there would be 0 differences between us and I.As
I like that vision
Or maybe we don't try for sentient A.I.?
@@kannonball5789 Asking too much, just hope that scientists and engineers heed the warning of the 222 most popular dystopian society stories and the 29484 sentient Sci Fi robot stories
Never thought I get to see Harry being childish and thrown off his game by a newcomer. Excellent speech and counter argument by Critical Orgasm.
This channel could easily convince me to use NordVPN, wonder how they havent gotten a sponsorship yet.
I love the sequence at 12:20
The not so fast between every + is something I never thought id have seen in an objection.lol
24:50 That actually is what happens when you cut and paste a file, it just rewrites the thing and destroys the original.
Hence why if you have a really big text document in the hundreds of megabytes in size, it takes a long time cause it's retyping the whole thing, just at an insane speed.
To add to that, it retypes the whole thing in chunks, and if you don't have use RAM to store chunks between rotations, then rotational storage will write pretty slowly.
Also, the deletion process is literally just turning every 1 in a sequence to a 0. And sometimes it doesn't even overwrite it; it's still there, just that there's nothing pointing to it and it's classified as free space and can be overwritten.
Which is scary if you apply it to humans.
This is the most interesting debate ive seen from this Channel. Good work to everyone involved
The last part of the debate reminded me of a story. Basically, there's this group of people (or aliens, I don't remember) that claim to have built a teleporter. In reality the first part of the "teleporter" is a scanner that records your every molecule. Then, they kill you and send the data to the second part, which is actually a fabricator that recreates you on a molecular level. The protagonist escapes before he can get killed, and now has to deal with the horror that there's another him running around somewhere.
That's exactly like the star trek transporter! But like, here's the thing, replicating a human on the molecular level is not nearly enough to replicate sentience, or even life. You need to replicate it at the quantum level, and that's the weird thing, copying the quantum information of any object, then teleporting that information elsewhere, *destroys* the original object, therefore, the teleported object storing the quantum information is actually the *real* object.
Tl;dr: It's impossible to replicate life at the molecular level, you need to go to the quantum level, but teleporting/Ctrl+Zing anything at the quantum level via deconstructing and reconstructing actually legit just teleports that object, you aren't replacing it with an identical copy, you're teleporting the full information contained within the original object, and therefore teleporting the original object. Because of that, a working transporter device wouldn't kill you, because the person coming out of the teleporter is the real you, and the person coming in is the fake.
@@tsegmedodontuya1850 You can't observe all quantum information, so it still wouldn't be you...
Ah dangit, as someone who also hopes that mind uploading will be a thing so I can escape the shackles of mortality, the "How do you know it succeeded" part did make me afraid. Maybe it could be done by doing it the Theseus Ship way, having the brain first just connected to a cyberspace and then transfer it while consciousness is intact or something, if that's possible.
Well, just hope we find a way to become biologically immortal during my lifetime, I wanna troll people in a millenia with outdated jokes!
Oh, yo, we're doing AI Sapience/Sentience? Sweet.
I'll edit this in a bit once I get through it all, but glad to see something I'm passionate on right as I check my sub feed. :>
EDIT: Okay. Wow. Big day irl today, but I'm more or less with E here- humanity as a species is nowhere NEAR ready to deal with the ethical questions that get introduced with a sentient/sapient/'supersapient' AI. I by and large also stand by the fact that we should at least treat an AI that can mimic human behavior to that extent as 'living', insofar as rights go. We, as people, are wired to constantly learn, and to forge our own purpose/find a purpose we agree to strive towards. If AI and their algorithms are able to mimic that behavior, they are very much sapient (i.e. knowledge for. Sentient is debatable, though I'm inclined towards similar logic in the affirmative if said AI is able to successfully understand, mimic, and express emotions and emotional responses to the point of being considered genuine.
All in all, excellent video, excellent jokes from all sides...only complaint?
We all know that you should get your dick stuck in a toaster, not a fridge. So, once again, as I did when I was semi active on discord, I am once again saying GIVE ME AIGIS PERSONA 3-
25:57 Woah, that's a really cool thought.
7:15 The thing is, until the human brain is fully explored and documented in how it works down to the very details on what consciousness is, we'll never know if the microscopic connections between neurons is any different than the microscopic alterations to the slab of metal and plastic that it's information is stored for machines, if not then even the oldest computers could potentially be deemed living beings...
13:38 Goblin shoehorning Nord VPN into your videos will always be my favorite bit.
It'll be funny if you ever DO get sponsored by them & HE'S not allowed to say it cause YOU'RE the one being paid to do it lmfao
23:08
Goblin's take got me thinking: "Where immortality would lead" kind of reminds me about a certain species from warhammer 40k universe; one that had achieved immortality and over the eons of perfect existence they more or less grew exceptionally bored. And since they are immortal, they started to indulge with absolutely insane degrees of hedonism and sadism alike, ones that would kill anyone and anything else in a proverbial heartbeat.
If memory serves me right they got lots of good kicks from doing horrible things to basically any races they found.
This is mostly a etymological problem
Both sides have different definitions of what sentience and being alive is, so they cannot reach a mutually agreed result
Their end goals are in completely different places
Okay calling your smart fridge Nora Freeze is genius LMFAO
25:46 It's like in Warm Bodies, when zombies eat human brains to experience emotions.
Also, Faux was right about the way file transfers work. Devices don't really transfer anything. They make a copy & then delete the original. If your device lags & you have two windows open, you can even sometimes see it happen in real time. The original & the duplicate momentarily exist simultaneously & then the original disappears.
That's why a device that's full can't transfer its contents into a different directory on the same device. Because that would require it to temporarily hold double its own capacity. It's like making a perfect clone. The clone of you is alive & identical to you but they're not you or at least not the same you & the very moment they come into existence, their unique experiences will make them differ from you.
I figured this conversation would be had by y'all eventually. Whatever the outcome of this is, i will still always be vaugely afraid of the AI art because mine is way worse than theirs xD
Also wtf kind of name is "Critical Orgasm"
A nat 20 on charisma is the kind of name.
It's the best name I've ever seen in my totally human and not AI life.
The name of someone who fucks smart-fridges
A fitting name for a fridge fucker
@@FranXiT is it better than my username? It's Overlord5, I have had it for 6 years since I was 11
What a video, I must say I've been thinking of a similar thing when it came to "mind transfers" since I've been enjoying Cyberpunk 2077 lately, most of the game points to getting trapped by "soul killer" as getting copied and then dying to it, the engram of the person still believing it's self to be that person, though capable of realizing that in the end they aren't.
but it seems to me that during other points of the game it is 'said' though not explicitly that no 'dying' takes place so the message is a bit confused.
but overall the idea that we could copy our minds onto a machine is horrifying to me, especially if the process kills the original biological person, since then from the outside there is no change, but the copied person is dead regardless
Cyberpunk did what Fallout 4 and Blade Runner wish they could've accomplished.
The game argues at what point can a construct be considered a human being after beeing so undistinguishable from a real person
And edgerunners asks at what point a person has changed so much from themselves they no longer are considered human.
Theseus' ship at it's finest
I've always wondered if people are just fleshy robots... Time to read some Warhammer 40k.
I have to say I kinda procrastinated on that video cause the debate-catch was a bit overdone for me.
But I was pleasantly suprised by this debate especially because of Mr. E's tricky questions.
Loading up the human mind into an aritificial device was a very interesting thought experiment and Harrys speach about human goals was kind of inspiring in a way.
Oh and the trans-argument was fucking hilarious😂
Glad you liked it, mate.
These discussions are great.
24:50 counterargument from the perspective of a networking student: the file doesn’t get deleted when you send it. Rather, it gets copied and then the copy is sent. The way to confirm they are the same is to hash both and ensure the two match.
Further, uploading our intelligence to the internet is intended as a method of copying our EEG waves and replicating them in a digital space. With current hardware, we may be able to upload people to the internet actually, as there are a massive number of sensors in Project Galea to document nearly every little thing about the head, such as brain activity, eye tracking, hell, it goes so far to tell how much blood is in your face when you blush and flush. If you have an algorithm that can figure out the formula that is our mind and feed it false inputs, you could simulate a person living life.
Fuck, my head. I don’t have enough words for this.
I'm at around 4:10s in. Lemme give my two cents before I continue: I think AIs *are* sentient, or, rather, if they aren't, that they can be eventually. Goblin explained that a machine you code isn't actually thinking at all, and that it's just following instructions in its code.
I submit that humans are the same way, except we're way more complex and have far more 'instructions' in our code. Humans are considered sentient, but in the end we're just complicated machinery. So either we're *not* sentient, or _that's what sentience is._ I choose to pick the latter because while it's hard to say at which point something becomes sentient, it's also very hard to say at which point some grains of sand become a clump of sand and then a mountain of sand or even a beach. How many grains can I remove before a beach's no longer one?
So yeah, picking the former option and saying we're not sentient is like saying a word is meaningless just because we can't pinpoint its boundaries; while we can't, we still have an idea.
With all that in mind, I feel there's no real reason to not consider complex-enough AI as being sentient. I also view AI art as being legit art, just like how photographies (from a camera) can be art. ...Did you know there used to be a debate around that back in the day? "But you didn't do anything! You just pressed a button and the camera did it for you! Screenshots are not art!!" Sound familiar?
I like your two cents, thanks for sharing
Good argument
on the art argument, what's your definition of art?
@Ripizho Nubi Thanks for asking. That's a pretty tough question; the definition of 'art' changes a lot depending on who you ask.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that to me, art has to do with shapes and intent. I don't see random splotches of paint as being 'art' even if the seer views it as conveying something; even if the seer _feels_ something from looking at the random splotches, because in that case, the real art is just in the viewer's mind; it'd mean that any interpretation of anything is technically correct, and in that case, who's to say a given delusional interpretation is, in fact, completely delusional?
.
Someone could look at this very message I'm writing and see it as being in the shape of some beautiful bird drawing. But that's not what I'm doing here, it's not my intent, and therefore it's also not art. There is no bird, and if someone sees one, that's on them - it doesn't change what this text *is,* because what it is would have to have to do with what the author wants it to be.
(You can skip this paragraph, it's an anecdote about the point in the previous paragraph)
I once saw something about a monkey who was given painting tools. According to what I saw, he went and made some paintings, its contents abstract and seemingly random. The people who gave the monkey the tools went and tried selling the paintings next to some famous artists' paintings. ...The monkey's "art" was *sold out* faster than the legit artists'.
Some of the patrons who looked at the artworks saw how the paintstrokes were somewhat evenly-distributed through the canvas and went "wow, this is beautiful! You can really see the feelings and soul this artist put into the work!". Another one legit went "Bruh, that looks like a monkey painted it". See, there were no feelings being put into the work. The first client saw what he wanted to see; to me, he's being biased and delusional.
.
There's a type of art forgery that is selling works by niche artists and pretending some famous dude painted them (false advertising), and that gets the artwork to be sold at a higher price than it would otherwise. But why? ...I'd say that nothing changed about the artwork and the price change is due to the clients being biased, in a negative manner. I can't defend thinking that changing an artwork's price depending on _who made it_ is a valid decision.
So a few paragraphs before, I said the definition that jumped to my mind was related to "shapes and intent". But we do say things about "the art of writing" or "the art of composing", even though those aren't shapes. I say they *are* shapes. When you're putting work into writing something, you want it to be read at a nice pace, and so you choose your words, punctuation, etc.; even formatting the text so it looks more pleasing to the eye (I did this latter thing with this comment as well as with the previous one). I think that that's a skill, and the things themselves (writing, composing) are skills, and that *that's* why we also call those "art"; those things are carefully crafted with a message, that is, *intent.*
Shapes and intent.
I feel like this definition might make people think I view abstract art as not art. That's not the case. Abstract art is made with shapes most of the time, and it *is* able to be made with a given intent, with a given message, even if it's somewhat far-fetched or not as deep as a moving piece of media. For example, optical art. People craft wacky shapes that don't represent anything, but in doing so, the artist aims to confuse you or make you think reality is not as stable as you think. Or something like that - I'm no artist. Still, while that's definitely a reach, you can still sort of get it, right?
...And then there are things *some* people call art that I'd say are definitely not art. Like a banana duct-taped onto a wall. ...What the fuck? The average non-artist can see that as not-art, and I think there's a valid reason why. What is a pasted banana conveying?
Y'know how FBI said something like "to tell if a dark joke is actually a joke, ask yourself: What is the joke?"? I use a similar razor here: To tell if something's actually art, ask yourself "what is the message?". And there's no real message to the duct-taped banana. There's no skill needed there either. The duct-taped banana puts the message on the viewer; it becomes the viewer's task to find the message. To me, that's ridiculous and appalling.
After trying hard to see the message, the takeaway I get is that it's about a banana defying gravity. ...But it was done in a really lazy way that makes it no different than objects you hang on a wall. By that logic, your average shelf would be art because it's also built with a function. Nuh-uh. Not art.
Function, motive and *message* are three different things, and art, to me, is about the latter.
I hope reading all this wasn't a chore. It really ended up being way longer than I intended; as I wrote I began thinking about other things and going into tangents lol.
What do *you* think? Do you disagree?
Ai art is art.
I suggest informing yourself about software engineering
Ai follows a code,but it doesn't have a choice
it just does that
Humans don't follow a code and have choices
Ai is just an action given form
Nothing else
26:11 So , there is a bunch of things to say , so much that I would never bother to write them , but as a scientist I can't let this pass .No ,all of yours cells don't die , become some of them are stored from when you were born .Yes that's pretty much irrelevant , as I think a clone of me would be me, and not an imposter ,but it's just not the same : Cells that do die are replaced by their own kind, not something exterior like a computer .
Honestly, these discussions have gotten to the point of actually being quotable as Philosophical Scholarly Questions. I love this shit.
Personally, though, I'm not sure if our Brain has FULL control over our Mind. Maybe some, but not entirely. Like- y'know how Ghosts in Movies always somehow turn into Revenge-seeking souls? That always confused the fuck outta me cause- if anything- I'd rather be watching over the people I care about. And also that argument of us changing if our consciousnesses were ever 'stolen' by AI. Like- in the long term? Woth Immortality? Yeah. 100% with ya- stress, productivity, procrastinating? I'm with ya. Short term, though? I don't think it'd change much, because a Machine can still Break. Immortality isn't Invincibility- it's being immune to dying of old age (unless the dictionary wants to have a talk woth me). The Internet? One EMP and I'm gone. Uploaded into a machine shell? Still pretty sure I can't survive a bear attack. The fear of death would still be looming, and I don't think I'd change much because of it. Does that make sense?
I don't know how they teach phylosophy these days, but here it's a ton of fun and FREE, unlike Nord VPN
I think even immortality is a bit of a stretch when we are talking about machines. I don't think there is a machine that can work forever with or without maintenance. Sure we will be getting rid of some of our biological needs, but a machine body would have different needs. Your machine body degenerating over time especially with improper maintenance would become the new dying of old age (unless there is some material that doesn't degrade at all). In this way biological bodies and machine bodies are really not all that different.
One can make an argument that machine body degradation wouldn't matter since this whole tech assumes you can transfer human consciousness to objects, so you can just switch your body when it gets too old. But there is no guarantee that this transferable form of human consciousness wouldn't degrade. However this is in my opinion mostly pointless to discuss without understanding what consciousness actually is.
no , i assure you, they are not
Yea, and then there’s our subconscious, which we can’t control
@@sakunaritv3433 This is honestly a fascinating set of points. I agree, we cannot fully determine if the transfering of consciousness will degrade over time.
5:00 by definition humans do work off of algorithms, very very very complicated and elaborate ones, seemingly indefinite in code, but the little proteins in the brain run very elaborate scrips of flesh based code...
AI as it is today is a very rudimentary imitation of that.
26:00 the body does eventually replace most cells but I believe that essential things are built to last,like how you only have a set of neurons,they don't get replaced
Actually, your neurons DO get replaced! In fact, the only cells/objects in your body that DON'T get replaced are your lens!
I respect CO's dogged persistence, if nothing else. Even if most of that persistence is directed towards getting it on with a smart fridge.
Just writing my opinion before (or rather after the actual discussion): Since robots follows whatevers in their code, for them to be sentient, I feel like they would two things:
1-Write their own code based on experience. Basically, whenever they try something, they would gain experience, and therefore, build "habits" for a chosen field. We kind of already have that.
2-Maybe the possibility of unknown irrationality? By that, I mean... They would have their own logic. How they write themselves without human intervention. How should they react to social interaction. How lenient can robot be, allowing themselves to maybe be sub-optimal, to prioritize the self in some.
But to be fair, that tends to more philosophical, because defining what makes something sentient has yet to be well-defined (at least from what I know)
The conversation at the end was really interesting. Definitely helped tie the argument together in showing how we could blur the lines between AI and ourselves.
In theat regard, while I mostly agree with FC due to how computers work (cut and paste doesn't move data, it replicates new data and destroys the old), I think I would still want to have my mind "uploaded", as long as I was offered a "copy and paste" option rather than essentially commiting suicide to make an AI.
I would do this, because while I don't think the AI would be me, it would be a way to pass down my way of thinking and information I have gathered to future generations. A perfect distillation of who I am for future generations to experience (assuming no one is allowed in my brain, but I know how to code now, so I'm assuming my AI replica would work almost continuously to build some countermeasures to such an event).
This would give later generations a better way to understand who I was, and give realistic feedback on how I would respond to certain things or ideas in the future.
Something I would hope would be invaluable to my progeny. A Gramp-droid to hand down.
Second, it would be useful to do near the end of my life, as it would allow me to measure what kind of human I was by interacting with myself. By having those interactions, it would better allow me to identify errors in my behavior, and make amends before moving on.
Finally, because I believe like FC does, that any artificial replica of me would not actually be me, my AI would believe such as well and understand their mission is to continue the work I left behind, and take care of my descendants. They would not be replacing me, because they would understand and make it clear to my descendants that they are not me. That they are simply there to continue and cultivate my legacy.
19:01 I KNEW IT LMAO
26:53 I find that to be a pretty good fate, being replaced on death.
I couldn't care less about what happens after I expire, cause I'm not gonna be around to know about it or be harmed by it, though I would like to be considerate enough to leave things about as decent as when I was created, maybe better if possible... but other than that, if the people after me decide to make a mess or someone makes an exact replica of me that decides to give into my urging morbid curiosity to tarnish my own reputation then good for him, he gets to experience something I'm too cowardly to do.
5:06 damn harry coming in clutch
Alright. That was a VERY interesting 29 minutes of my life. I've learned many things in that time, including that rich people evidently have so little purpose in their life due to fulfilling their material desires that they wish to cheat on Monika from DDLC with a Smart Fridge that they named Nora Freeze. Elon Musk suddenly makes a lot more sense now...
Harry continues to impress me with his dedication to achieve perfect humanity, even with the complete recognition of the sacrifices required. I respect that, truly. And I find that me & the French don't think so differently after all, regarding putting ourselves inside of a machine. Immortality is something many consider a blessing, but this is merely the musings of the short-sighted, or the _ignorant._ To live a Life with no Death is to not live a Life at all. Without Death, Life itself has no meaning. It has nothing separating it from a mere *_THING_* at that point.
And to have my life _replaced_ by a *_THING_* is truly more horrifying than what I once feared above all else; _being _*_forgotten._* To have my existence end but others continue to think I'M still there is more frightening than merely falling into that void in the first place. I'll leave nothing of importance to my name because I won't have ended in that moment to the rest of the world. Even thinking about such a thing has me struggling to fight my phone's autocorrect on account of my hands trembling...
The turing test can easily be passed by basic chat bots, or it can be failed be more advanced chat bots. The problem is some people are really easy to fool.
This litteraly a debate i have to have next week as game development schools are thinking about wether or not ai art is really art, every single question we’re going to ask during the debate will be on the exam, so this might actually be usefull for me and my classmate. I hope its okay if we use these arguments to make our question, because our grades will depend on it.
14:20 "You are master of your own sapience."
But lobotomy exists.
this reminds me of the average modded stellaris campaign. ...i love it!
The idea of uploading yourself into a computer and staying the same person reminds me of the Tele transportation paradox, but digital.
Also, as a new ace attorney fan, am loving these vids.
4:20 You push a sphere down a hill and it continues to gain momentum, is it alive?
27:44 From what I've seen, the human body is intended to be eternal, it just fails over time, like if your trying to write 10000 perfect copies of a 200 chapter novel your bound to mess up eventually, and the more screwups the body makes the more it fails and breaks down and gets the physical and mental effects of getting old, it starts processing nutrients improperly because some cells weren't duplicated properly, you experience random pain and fatigue because the improperly processed nutrients aren't as useful as what your body used to get out of foods, and more.
I remember the game Va-Hall-ha going quite a bit in depth in it's arguments about AI being a new kind of evolution in mankind. Lilims in the game look more and more human with each models and their processing power become so advanced they have begun to "emulate" sentience. I really recommend the game, not only going through the whole "are AI becoming more humane?" theory but also through a lot of our societal problems.
Personnally, as long as the toaster can prove to me that it can make it's own choices without any outside influence (or if outside influence, the same kind as us humans between each other) I'd respect his rights.
The argument FC brought in at the end is the plot of a horror game called SOMA. Humanity invented a way to transfer their consciousness into objects and machinery to evade dangers like radiation and injuries of the body, but what was hidden from most people is that the transfer mechanism just clones your experiences up until that point into a new frame, while the old one is killed off. It's also a roll of the dice whether or not your own "awareness" Moves on to the new body, letting you keep on trucking instead of the clone taking charge of your life from that point onward.
The whole memory machine transferral is something i have thought for years and i agree with Faux Cares. It's exactly like the teleporter dilema. If we desintegrate us in a place and the rearrange the atoms somewere else with the same memories, nobody would know if it's really real me or just an exact clone created after the real me death. Very creepy.
i think people only say a.is aren’t “alive” because we can still understand the mechanisms behind everything they do. Same with the human body, as we begin understanding different parts of our body and how they work, and make replacements to them, we start disregarding them as ourselves (i mean that is still your arm, but like losing an arm does not make you not you). right now the most complex part of the human body is the brain, the part which we know of the least (as far as i’m aware)
This video has completely overwhelmed my brain with questions and I need answers to them or I'm going to have another existential crisis.
Shit, Harry’s cooking consistently looks amazing. Like, I’m genuinely hungry now.
Btw: if Necrons have taught me anything, giving up organic forms for machine bodies is simultaneously the best and worst possible idea.
In regards to programming the human mind we as a species already are! As a child I suffered from a range of mental illnesses and was on medication which you could argue is a primitive form patching faulty code to stick with the theme of the episode. Now this organization I attended for one summer was called Neurocore its a US based very small company which has maybe 4 establishments across the whole country last I checked. The process worked on a simply reward/removal of reward structure over the coruse of say 2-3 months per treatment session. They get an idea of treatment nesscessary in order to bring the Alpha, Beta, and Theta brains waves in specific regions of the brain close to normal if not on par with average("normal" is provided by scanning a large population and finding the mean average this was done over several cities). I attended this place for one treatment session a course of 2-3 months the process involved monitoring breaths per minute to control the part of the brain associated with fight or flight can relax if you're on edge. The other was the process of narrowing down the margin in which brain waves could fluctuate. I can explain in further detail, however all I know is it worked and I don't need medication anymore and haven't since literal life saver that place.
One thing you could say
" What if you're A.I. , you would be sentient because you say you aren't, but that would be not something you were coded to do, which would make you sentient"
25:00 That's exactly what I thought, actually that's a concern I have with many things regarding any concept of mind replacement, mind porting, revival ect...
What if it isn't actually you but a perfect copy...
To me, there is no difference between a perfect copy and the "real deal" (that's the whole point of a PERFECT copy), so if an AI were to replace me or learn to perfectly imitate me it would be me and I would be it.
As long as it doesn't crumble, a perfect illusion is reality and a perfect lie is truth, it only becomes false when cracks start to appear.
In a really cool RTS game called Forts we sometimes run AI tournaments where you make an AI and submit it to compete with other AI. This could be interesting to see spread to other games and stuff.
Dude I would kill to have conversations like this.
Now this is my favourite video and Critical Fridgelover is one of the best guys here, as well as Gringo.
27:54 The mind is infact very tangible, you can throw it across a football field, however it's still incredibly complex and many parts are still not quite thoroughly explored. dreams are an enigma scientist have very recently started to get a good grasp of... I think.
Do we finally know what the brain is actually doing when we dream or had those studies lead nowhere?
23:40 If you really look into it the Soul is often implied not to be a separate thing or a magical spirit, but the physical human body.
If you lost a finger yoh literally chopped off a piece of your soul and it's just sitting on the floor there.
biting your nails? your nibbling parts of your own soul!
I think that's also where the phrase "poor [unfortunate] soul" comes from.
Oh you ment soul as in effort...
You is a mix of needs, feelings, personality, body and mind. Separating those ends up in a new being.
There is no line that makes me laugh more on this channel than, "Faux Cares is typing . . ."
This might have been the most civil debate I've seen on this channel, wow
Also I really like Mr. E
Asking questions for both parties to figure out and for the most part, being unbiased. Cool dude
14:15
ENOUGH WITH THE ADS! WE DON'T EVEN HAVE SPONSORS.
Real sapience. What is it?
Literally got an ad half a second later.
Incredible timing.
This really makes you think on how A.I. can evolve; if they do at all, and even makes you think about your own humanity and sapience as a human person.
I'm going to definitely have dreams about this and it will mess with my story writing, but gods be damned if it isn't a good video regardless.
Good stuff. Top of the line
25:05 There's an old Canadian cartoon about this called "To Be" (though its creators are far from the first to bring up the question). I recommend it, think it's freely available on youtube.
So, I see with this is something interesting. (I am at 10:18) Neither side can prove anything, because the contents of an AI’s brain is not accessible. You cannot prove that AI ever crossed the line between faking sentience and actually having it. This would be like meeting a million strangers, and then being told to find the ten thousand psychopaths in that group. At best, you could name 10 obviously terrible at hiding it ones. Point is, we cannot assume either way, but in both cases, the AI would have some concept of emotion, not in an attempt to manipulate, but the concept of being “human”.
Thesis: The pursuit of happyness is the core human directive, followed by the avoidence of pain.
24:25 reminds me of the teleportation theory: if you were to teleport, matter would be scanned and re-assembled into a different place, yet there’s no way of knowing if the reassembled matter sent to a different location is actually you; therefore it suggests you could teleport anywhere at the expense of your own death, getting replaced by someone else with your same memories and genetics, and the impostor would not be aware of it either.