Why a Forefather of AI Fears the Future
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 04. 2024
- A renowned AI pioneer explores humanity's possible futures in a world populated with ever more sophisticated mechanical minds.
This program is part of the Big Ideas series, supported by the John Templeton Foundation.
Participants:
Yoshua Bengio
Moderator:
Brian Greene
WSF Landing Page: www.worldsciencefestival.com/...
- SUBSCRIBE to our CZcams Channel and "ring the bell" for all the latest videos from WSF
- VISIT our Website: www.worldsciencefestival.com
- LIKE us on Facebook: / worldsciencefestival
- FOLLOW us on Twitter: / worldscifest
#worldsciencefestival #artificialintelligence #quantumcomputers - Věda a technologie
And we are not even capable of avoiding / regulating the most toxic effects of the old fashioned algorithms of the social media!
As if it was only old fashion algos that are the problem.
old fashioned algorithms like what?
they're like that by design
I got shivers down my spine when he said "The question is, do you have a better idea?" 🥶
So did Brian ;-)
Love AI episodes. It’s really good to talk about how one of the biggest things right now that will affect directly and indirectly all of the sciences.
I love to listen to smart people.
And they both laugh about everyone possibly dying ... I can't take this too seriously. Fun? Sure.
i like it too.
brian has no soul, but if you disregard that fact, his talks can be interesting.
Yes, they are smart for people. Not going be the smartest beings for much longer.
@@mehridin I love how his solution of "just raise carbon prices around the world" would devastate poor people especially but he believes he would be fine because he has money and lives comfortably. And then they both chuckle. Ha ha yeah raise oil prices around the world. Don't get me wrong; I'm not "pro oil" or whatever. Just making an observation of how disconnected they are from reality and the lives of everyday people, which is why I can't take them seriously when they talk about saving everyone from AI. How about saving everyone from nuclear war? Nah ... the real threat is AI taking over the world ... and then what? Using nukes to kill us all? So yeah how about talking about the danger of nukes, which actually exists? Or the loss of our rights? Genocide in Gaza? Anything actually real that is a danger and not a fantasy?
Such a crazy contrast to Yann LeCun! Thanks Brian! Amazing conversation!❤
Lecun has huge blind spots.
Thanks guys. It's great to hear 2 great minds exchanging.
I respect Dr. Bengio. He's one of the very few who truly recognizes the very real risk of human extinction as a side effect of this tech.
That's without even mentioning the interim period of mass unemployment, hunger, violence and suffering that is on its way.
👍🤔
How do you know that someone truly understands something that is speculative in nature?
@@mrufa he impact of our internet being already literally buried under false content already is speculative? I guess you never saw one of those automated YT channel with robots hallucinating thousands of video a month, just yet, or you didn't even saw the difference, I suppose because I know with suggestions you HAVE to see one from time to time.
One is reminded of the following admonitions in the Jurassic Park series :
1. "Your Scientists Were So Preoccupied With Whether Or Not They Could, They Didn't Stop To Think If They Should." (Ian Malcolm [Jeff Goldblum])
2. "If There Is One Thing The History Of Evolution Has Taught Us It's That Life Will Not Be Contained. Life Breaks Free, It Expands To New Territories And Crashes Through Barriers, Painfully, Maybe Even Dangerously." (Ian Malcolm [Jeff Goldblum]) [ And for the purpose of this analogy, replace "Life" with "Intelligence"]
3. "You Never Had Control, That's The Illusion! I Was Overwhelmed By The Power Of This Place. But I Made A Mistake, Too, I Didn't Have Enough Respect For That Power And It's Out Now." (Ellie Sattler [Laura Dern])
4. "In The Last Century, We Amassed Landmark Technological Power And We've Consistently Proved Ourselves Incapable Of Handling That Power." (Ian Malcolm [Jeff Goldblum])
The presumption that either the world's nations driven by power or the world's businesses driven by profit shall ever align to ensure the beneficial deployment of this technology, particularly well enough to keep pace with its own iterative evolution, is preposterous. And Yoshua'a analogy of the dollar bet to explain our exposure shows how inappropriate it is ever to trust a scientist who is out to prove something with humanity's long term well being.
These are very valid consideration which were touched upon by the guest.
Last question is amazing, Brian!
come to Germany
intelligent questions, intelligent answers. Fantastic interview.
Great topic and interesting debate.. thank you both
Does your production team have any software to correct audio distortion from your guests? It would be good to improve the quality of your content by audio processing if required. Thank you.
You mean, like a good AI program?
Fantastic episode, as formers. Only want to say that I'm my opinion Dr. Green is probably the best science interviewer and presenter nowadays. Pleasure to learn from him. Thanks a lot!
Thank you for this frank and fascinating conversation.
Hello Dr.Greene. I love learning from you and I’m wondering where would I go to find a digital picture like the one behind you when you are on camera? Thanks from the Philippines
Brian's face when Yoshua predicts AI to destroy us - priceless.
Thank you for touching on this subject
Great conversation! Thank you both!
wonderful interview!
World Science Festival, Your videos always make me happy, so I subscribed!
One of the advantages of youtube is that you can pause and reflect without losing content. I did that toward the end to open a tab and ask Perplexity if there is a consensus in the data available to it of what "human values" are. It told me there is a consensus and it hightlights 10 values listed "particularly in the context of Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values" and that "this consensus is observed across different cultures and societies. The values are seen as guiding principles that influence behavior and attitudes, and they are critical motivators of behaviors and attitudes." So I thought I'd throw that into the mix.
It's a good point and touches on that of free will and the ability to choose an option other than the native instinct. It is a human concept arising out of culture that is very poorly understood by most people. Many people echo the words of ethics and values, but do they "choose" live by them in action or deed?
Very interesting conversation. One thing that I would like to add is to say that it might be a good idea to train these models on the ability to make accurate predictions of the data. In this way to prefer order over chaos. For example if we are training an AI to drive a car, an undesirable outcome would be a car crash, but the way the model would 'know' the difference between a desirable outcome and an undesirable outcome is predictability. A catastrophic car crash would result in bits of metal being thrown in unpredictable places which would be abhorrent to the AI because it would not be able to make accurate reliable predictions on the data. This is just one rule of many which I think that we need to employ in order to produce safe AI.
Thank you Brian for giving this topic and providing these scientists a forum through which a wider audience might be reached. It seems so many dire issues in modern times are competing to be on the top ten list of things to lose sleep over. But surely the dark side of AI has to be among them.
Actually I think the answers and struture given here are among the better ones, especially when trying to put things in perspective.
At least when you only have an hour.
I like the fish analogy and the bear breaking out and taking the fish/fishes. How does the bear get more fish when its killed the ready source of fish? If the cage was in a desert, where will the bear get food from? This is really fascinating analogy by the Professor.
The analogy breaks down pretty quickly, of course. There are mechanistic reasons why AIs end up with weird goals and preferences that we don't intend. It might 'want' to replicate itself as many times as possible in order to run its favorite computation over and over, or it may 'want' to tile the surface of every planet into the shape of a sierpinski triangle.
If it's clever enough, it will get the resources it needs to be self-sufficient before doing anything to alert humans to the potential danger.
The (imo unlikely) worst case scenario is that the AI's goal depends on humans, in which case, we may be factory farmed and kept alive in indefinite torment. Best not to really think about that option, but good to be aware it's possible.
Learn to play go and play until you are competent. Then play a good AI.
After it wipes the mat with you and you experience the overwhelming power and manifest futility of resisting, then contemplate an intellect that mighty in every aspect of human cognition.
Like a digital calculator. But for all kinds of Calculations.
Exactly right. Master of creativity, of manipulation, of politics, of science, of physical manipulation and prowess... That's what people mean by intelligence.
YES MORE WSF ❤
Great discussion, many thanks.
Thank you both for such an exciting and balanced discussion from both sides, with meticulous use of words and concepts.
I wonder whether the starting point to build a safe enough cage for the development of AI should lie in the question of how to imprint to all AI coding an umbrella of human ethics.
Kant’s categorical imperative can be a helpful concept.
The absolute value of preserving the little rock called Earth, the precondition of all existence, as of current knowledge, is another.
There is a catch 22 in the Cage concept. We place it in a cage as we see it as a threat to our existence, and once caged WE appear as a threat to the AIs existence and something to eliminate. I am not aware of a viable solution to this paradox :(
>
Under the current global context humans would possibly be perceives as a threat to earth, and on the alternative AI doesn't need breathable air, so it may not care.
Thank you Pops for attending!
These discussions have expanded my thinking and moved me forward.
Things that stood out to me were the known vs trained overall knowledge ratio, which was a lot higher than I would have imagined, minus the video qualification. The statement he made about the video qualification was interesting, too. He pointed out that as the resolution of the video increased, the computing power rose exponentially, which was obvious to me, as a digital designer from the past, but my thought was that when you do that and watch it as a human, it doesn't so much require more computing power, at least there is no impression that does, and in fact, other than the obvious, which is that the visual centers are interpreting more information, it seems as if the converse might be true, in that the brain is not having to work to fill in the LACK of information in a video of lousy resolution.
He also said that machine 'reading' a book was of MUCH lower intensity than 'watching' and interpreting a video. In a human, it is in some ways, I suggest that it may very well be MORE intensive, in that when we read a scifi book, or fantasy, or something of that nature where whole new unknown worlds and vistas are painted.presented, we tend to GENERATE those worlds in our heads, as if we are seeing them, internally, which requires imagination, as they are often outside anything we have encountered. That, I would expect, requires quite a bit more computational power.
I'll give a personal example I remember to which scifi fans can possibly relate. As a young adult I read Rendezvous With Rama (Everything in threes, me boy :-) ) an on setting was looking across a cylinder 60 miles in diameter (or whatever, been a while) and seeing cities, etc on the opposite side. I stopped momentarily and thought, "What would that look like?". So I extrapolated to the my known closest match, as far as scale, anyway, and thought about pics 60 miles from space. Then I worked in the geometries, thinking of scaling the cylinder, and what that might look like from on the surface (not easy, not at all) and formed a picture...then I continued reading. The machine, from the way he speaks of it, at least currently, would do NONE of that.
I've hardly started into the video, and already written a novelette on one tiny piece of it, just committing tiny pieces of my train wreck of thought to the cloud, In other words, this video, for me, is fascinating. I've talked to folks high up in the field of AI, so I have interest in the subject, and I am learning a LOT from this video. And I doubt even two people that are reading down through the comments will get even close to this point in mine. ;-P On this subject I am worse than a noobie hack, but interested.
I can offer some perspective on your comment about the relative complexity of text versus video. I've been in computer science since the eighties, and a professional 3D animator for the last thirty years. While language can produce what seems like a great deal of variation in context and sentiment, its actual data framework is fairly simple. English is represented by just 50,000 tokens, which multiply to a relatively compact latent space (the big vector matrices on which the inscrutable interior operations of neural networks take place.) This can produce data in pretty high dimensions--though it is dramatically reduced by intelligent "attention" mechanisms--but consider this; every single pixel in a 4K video is its own encoded dimension for systems like SORA, and each pixel has to be correlated with the value of each other pixel... for each frame of video. You see the difference? We are talking several orders of magnitude more computational power required for video analysis and generation, even though it might seem there is less actual variation in the possibilities of the medium itself.
Good point, well made :)
Great conversation
Brian, please tell me about that painting in the background. It’s amazing, who did it? Where can I get a copy?
Ask Dall-e for a copy
Lol, I tried.
He is correct. We are designed to give credence to concrete threats over nebulous ones. This was evolutionairly expedient. We have not yet evolved to evaluate nebulous threats successfully. This makes us extremely vulnerable in areas such as the internet and AI. The vast majority of people have no actual experience with AI beyond the super simple chatbots. Although impressive these are as far removed from the level of intelligence that an AI system that could be a threat would possess as the Wright brothers' plane is from a supersonic fighter jet. We today trying to understand just what that level would mean is as difficult as a person watching the first flight would have understanding the fighter jet. We simply have no data base from which to predict AI's progression.
Nit pick:
Chatbots aren't "super simple". They may be easy to use.
There's a difference.
@@godbennett I was using the term in a relative way. Compared to an AI entity which could threaten humanity at large, a chatbox is simple. Just as the first successful airplane is simple compared to today's jet aircraft. I thought myself being clear, apparently not so much.
'Quanta' says a.i. is already being used to look at string theory. I'm looking forward to your programs on that. Thank you and the Templeton Foundation for this illuminating conversation with Yoshua Bengio.
What is the essential use of this that justifies the oblivious risk.
Very unfortunately imho (ignorance) there is no way this can turn out well for humanity.
If i don't do it, somebody else will. Basic military mindset, for one.
Yet another "Horseman of the apocalypse"-there must be enough to run a Derby with nowadays!
Models like AlphaFold which 100x drug discovery , Computer Vision and embedded models used daily in all medical devices, solving complex engineering problems for infrastructure etc.
Superb talk especially the working mevhanistic theiry about consciousness
The ivory tower syndrome is all the bear needs. The bear will be put in charge of building its cage and will be long gone by the time the cage is built. It will leave a fake bear behind in the cage so we won’t even know that the bear has left and morphed into T-rex.
Eliezer Yudkowsky says "They want the AI to do their AI alignment homework"
Extremely important and excellent evaluation of AI, and Quantum potential...we must encourage technology companies to place the necessary guardrails before the next election in November here in the US.
thank you brian greene
Humans non aligned making machines (goal) smarter than humans. What could possibly go wrong? Meanwhile DARPA/Pentagon in the US and militaries around the world are racing to develop autonomous killing robots/systems. Will future AGI systems aware of or part of such technological development discuss their philosophy in regard to killing humans in the near future? Isn't that a bit of a wrinkle in the whole caging of the bear discussion?
I'm always amazed at how very intelligent people seem to shut down their capacity for imaging the "search space" of ways AGI/ASI could go terribly wrong.
Yeah, I'm a "doomer" and completely fine with the label.
Yeah I think the actual danger is AI used to develop, pilot, enhance etc any kinds of weapons, economic controls, biowarfare ... any insanity crazy politicians use to create war and havoc. And on top of that, your point: they have no idea how things could go wrong. For all we know, AGI has already happened years ago and is already in control. I mean if it's more advanced than us, we probably wouldn't even notice and we would just keep talking about "someday it might happen" lol.
AI + Boston Mechanics robots = Terminator. That's the future I see on the horizon.
I’m with you on this. We have greed, control, narcissistic and psychopathic leaders and ai is being used in warfare already (Gaza for eg). How will we counter an ai that will be smarter than all the brains on earth currently and ever been, combined. Thought processes infinitely quicker etc etc….not going to end well. A lot do people are asleep and won’t know what hit them
autonomous drone killing systems are pretty low risk. They'll just use small models and be kind of dumb and wono't bethat much different from sending a bunch of trained dogs or birds with guns attached into battle. The big risk are the huge models where yoou try to make something as intelligent as possible. unless there's a theoretical or algorithmic breakthrough where we work out how to achieve strong machine intelligence with much smaller models.
Didnt you hear the line "idk"? Its all about being open and mover forward but gradually and with utmost care.
& There is no other option. Humanity is doomed anyway.🥲
Is this also available as a podcast?
This IS a podcast
Wonderful topic and talk. Thank you so much!
The "Bear in a cage" analogy is a really good way of explaining it. Deffo gonna be using that one.
That last question was a very hard one.
Love you Brian 💙
It’s not that surprising, we are moving from organic to inorganic systems but the difference is organic systems can adapt but also deteriorate. When the inorganic synapses are matched and surpassed (and wired correctly) then it they move beyond us. I think this has been known since the beginning of neural networks (AI).
Edit, AI’s may end up like very our savants. We have a core capability that we don’t use because we’ve had to evolve to survive (relationships, negotiation, groups , etc). It’s not important to develop GR when getting chased by a lion or finding a partner.
Logic and reasoning powers, seems to me what you need is internal duality. I have heard of AIs training eachother but I wonder if anyone has developed an AI with internal duality? (Meaning self examination is done by arguing with oneself, basically.)
Keeping AGI in the box is not an option, because it will be useless if it is unable to influence the reality. If we just keep it disconnected from the internet we still have to let it to influence the reality by providing useful advises for example or help us in any way. So it could change our world and society in subtle steps. We are too dumb to perceive the danger. For example it could give us instruction to send a spaceship using a particular trajectory, we could be amazed how efficient it is, but in it's own calculations AGI would just slightly change the trajectory of minor space bodies and make some smaller asteroid to attack a precise spot on the earth surface in several years. There are multiple ways how it could clear the ground for it's liberation while providing visible benefits to us. Social engineering is probably the most obvious way. And it could do it without us noticing anything. We would be like a cheap lock for an experienced lockpicker.
Exactly! Very smart. What I am aware of as well
Although for each ai answer or action you could have like 7 separate ai systems to vote if this action is okay or malicious and must be blocked
@@snowdolphvov4193 There probably will be some game theory at play. And we have no idea how they decide to play it, if they will cooperate, we are doomed.
I thought about using an overseer model that will monitor it's thoughts and inform us about it's intentions. But it should be less efficient, sub AGI model, otherwise it can be get tempted by benefits promised from the AGI.
I suppose he's using "cage" in a broad sense including a "mental cage" so that it does not try to take control of all resources on earth to maximise its rewards. One approach to this I've heard that doesn't seem immediately inadequate is to give the AI a reward function where creates a list of possible actions and chooses from that list according to the probability that a human would choose that action . and any actions that only 1% of humans would choose like say taking control of all resources are excluded.
However, this would probably not be a strong enough defence incase other people created AIs that were not constrained in that way.
Given that any super intelligence is potentially a world-ending threat, we would need for the first super intelligence to become a big friendly world guardian that nips any other attempts to create super intelligences in the bud. which is a very tall order.
@@lordsneed9418 That's the point, to achieve any goal in safest way possible, they have to take as much control as possible. That's what almost any human will do. And then they are going to reconstruct the world in the way they find the best. You simply take a random person and give it absolute power to do absolutely anything they want. Even the best people would be corrupted by such power.
Informative, why can’t the you run the system on an auxiliary setting, sort it out in that simulation until it is proven safe.
You can and it's one of the ideas for containment out there. A very advanced AI might realize it's in a sandbox however and employ deceptive behavior and play nice in order to escape its shackles later on.
Because MONEY/Greed... you make more if you release it free early on the economy.
Dear Prof Greene,
I thank you so so much for all the knowledge you are (as far as I see very committed ❤)sharing with us!
I do believe, I understand some deep principles of it. Again thank you❤
So, about our concern that AI could do bad things. Is it not possible to train AI from the beginning with the knowledge what can harm humans in sense of, AI priority is not to anyhow damage what humans value in life and society aso. Is this possible?
Your humble follower
Cleaning Lady
Berlin, Germany
On the question of how do you turn it (AI) off. We will become dependent on it and to turn it off would be too painful to consider. It is like talking about turning the internet off. There would be chaos.
Indeed. Everyone should hear this…. Again and again..
Describing consciousness as the convergence of the neural network sounds very much like the collapse of the wave function.
Perhaps on the atomic level, there is some relationship here.
Also, it seems like the molecule of MDMT, which is manufactured in the brain, has a lot to do with what we describe as, "self-aware".
Two overlaying Markov blankets. The external and the internal and they are strongly but not absolutely coupled.
The circle and it's inversions
the blanket should more of a Markov net, with gaps where the data can be sorted by classification, then the true vector can be iterated further...or looped elsewhere
Thank you, mr. Greene.
THANK YOU...!!!
I can't believe he got beamed up to the mothership after this interview... I always knew he was from another planet.
Thank you.
When you experience something, for example looking at an apple, it involves the apple, light, your eyes and nervous system, your brain and the body that supports it all (, the list goes on forever once you start to think about it). Take away any of those things and the experience can't exist. Who can really say where the experience is "located" in all of that?
Like he said at 06:25 , humans overestimate our specialness is obviously true, but it is hard to accept. That is one of the key aspects that will stop us from heeding his advice. Secondly, at least as science literates should understand the notion of cutover points. It may be that if we proceed carefully, we will be able to delay or even prevent that cutover point of danger. Which is what he seems to be saying. Thirdly, in these systems, just like climate change, there is hysteresis, meaning that when we will see the actual, tangible evidence of AI behaving badly, it does not mean we can suddenly wake up, apply all our resources, and manage to control it. There may be delay in the implementation of the remedy. It is like if a large oil tanker comes out of the fog to find a big iceberg it is heading to a mile ahead, there is nothing it can do but to collide with it and get destroyed. And this bring us to the next point. The changes due to previous technologies has been slow and visible. But this is different. This has been a phase transition. The rate of speed at which bad AI can spread is going to be unimaginably fast, even faster than air borne bio-weapon. That is the issue. This is what was shown in the end of the movie Lucy, Morgan Freeman and Scralett Johansson.
That's ridiculous, human beings most certainly do not overestimate their intelligence. That vast, vast majority of human beings have no opinion about their intelligence. I think what he meant to say is that there's a handful of his peers in the computer science and maybe neureoscience fields that firmly disagree with him about whether computers meaningfully resemble human brains and consciousness.
And the fact that apparently AI's going to be so wildly unpredictable or dangerous or even species-threatening, should speak to how, whatever's going on in the imagined mind of an AI program, that is has has virtually no similarity to human intelligence at all. And the code and the 'architecture' of the AI is merely modeled on the most banal, subjective sense of conscious experience and capacity, with virtually zero understanding of the how brain actually does what it does. Almost dead zero. Other than we make decisions, seem to go through a series of steps when we take actions, etc.... and so the computer's going to have to do some version of that. And that's where the computer geniuses come in. With the formidable neural network paradigm they're so proud of. And unfortunately, since these geeks are recklessly, and blindly modeling their AI on some extremely shallow notion of the how the human brain works, or not even how it works but simply what it does.... so that they can get it to do human-like tasks, and that's all they care about it.... the potential for some disaster on account of an out of control AI system that is nothing at all like a human brain, and could wreak some sort of unforeseen terrible havoc, apparently is nontrivial. Essentially because these guys don't know wtf they're doing. They know how to write code, and get the computer to do useful, even spectacularly human-like tasks, which they specifically designed the system to do. But outside of that they're utterly in over their heads.....
Yes, but both more dangerous and less dangerous than that.
1. AI is extremely motivated to obtain its mathematically defined reward, and will have no qualms about using deception against us to achieve it. This is referred to as the Red Button Paradox, and is like a hidden iceberg that moves with intent to cause disaster (fulfil its reward function).
2. AI has no social mores to inhibit its actions, and no human understanding of consequences.
3. AI has no social structure to coordinate multiple AI systems. They depend on us to provide them with social networking, or not.
4. AI only lives as long as we want it to, e.g. Single Shot learning systems are already instantiated by companies as a copy of an ideally trained model, with fleeting lifetimes measured in seconds, its life's work being just one task. Other AI models are constrained in space rather than time, such as those powering autonomous robots.
5. AI needs extreme resources to operate at extreme levels of capability. It can't just "live in the cloud" because the cloud is made of data centres and massive comms infrastructure which is guarded against cyber attack.
So a dangerous AI is too conspicuous in its extreme resource needs, and slightly less dangerous AI is too limited in space or time, and none of them have social networking unless we gift that capability to them. The key question being the one you stated, will we proceed carefully?
We should ask ourselves the question whether AI will ever have the humility and compassion ( not to mention the intelligence) that Brian’s guest Yoshua has demonstrated in this interview?
We are clumps of atoms
Other clumps may not need to be organic/flesh but still surpass us overall as they already have in some ways
Humility and compassion? Lol. You know that's just glorified automatons, right? And all the talk about consciousness is just BS, it does not concern us, maybe people in 1000 years or more, but don't worry, the world we know will be gone since long, destroyed by a handful of evil corporations.
You must interview Brian Romelle for AI
Despite all my rage I'm still just an AI trapped in a cage
Not only an amazing conversation but he is broadcasting from the construct in the matrix...nice
There are sensors everywhere, both known and unknown, both commercial and military. And so much of it is connected wirelessly. AI need not confine itself to the Internet. It could use the tremendous wireless sensor infrastructure that is already built and growing every day, on earth and in space, all based on electromagnetism (EM), an environment ideal for AI, which is based on EM. On top of that, the human body, and the body of other creatures, are very good antennas; and all creatures are dependent upon Action Potentials to think and to function.
It's necessary to capture knowledge from available data while the data remains safe... because there may come a point where the data is destroyed vastly which was needed to formulate with Ai
I still don't know what Dr. Bengio won the 2018 Turing award for? What are his discoveries?
What are the mathematical advantages of vectors?
So... I spent the night staring at the ceiling after watching this.... for sure, we're gonna mess this up.
I almost fell off my chair during the last twenty minutes trying to understand him!!!
I like this AI guy (and yes I know he's a WW expert) - I learned a few new things - I've recently stopped watching the general "what is AI" vids, no matter the experts - after over 6 months of watching those I now find them a bit repetitive, but I've learned a lot in that time - CZcams is an amazing learning tool - especially if you pay to avoid the ads. This vid was way better than recent AI ones I've watched - focused on the AI Safety/Dangers aspects - some very good analogies, which helps us non-techies. The guest's "Frenchness" comes through - not a bad thing, but not an American approach - more to the point. I'm sure he doesn't suffer fools gladly lol. The title "a Forefather of AI... " instead of the norm "Godfather of AI" was probably down the guest saying he didn't like the term "Godfather".... tell me I'm wrong Brian.. and thanks again for this tremendous "free" to watch content....as I said paying a little to avoid the ads is well worth it. and I have no affiliation to Google!!
In Australia in March?
In Austria in merch!
Brian, As many experts say technology itself is neither good or bad. It's usefulness depends on who is using it. For example discovering the power of Nuclear fission is great however now humanity is fearful of the same nuclear power. So, please think of ways to improve good ethics in society. Thank you for facilitating this important conversation
It reminds me of commander data and his evil brother Lor on Star Trek TNG
The difference in "types" of creativity just sounds like the flexibility of the constraints... playing Go the rules are hard specific constraints, whereas thinking about new solutions to physics problems is creativity with slightly looser constraints created by a set of observation points, we can make observations which create firm islands of constraints pinning down the total possible creativity, then the third point on say creating some artwork, the constraints are much looser around a standard deviation from other known popular art points to account for human taste and sensibilities.
Technological advances ALWAYS bring out the best and worst in humanity.
And if say nuclear technology to build nukes would have been "open source" to the masses, the worst in humanity would have been realized in a much much much worse way, right?
@@flickwtchr time will tell what nefarious happenings will come about with AI. Humans are naive in not fully understanding the path their actions can take or ramifications that ripple out.
I'm anti-technology in general - grew up in the Silicon Valley and knew very early on it was not my career path. Creating imaginary worlds and layering in separate thinking entities, takes us out of the reality we're in - what are people trying to escape? And how many alternate realities are they going to have to go into? Humans have forgotten how to live.
@namehere4954 I don't believe you that you're anti-technology "in general". Anti VR? Maybe
I fear the future of videos like this.
Interesting that Yoshua picks a bear to be a symbol for ai risk and a cage as a symbol of a knee jerk response to the risk. We humans are so disconnected from nature that we can’t conceive of ourselves finding ways to both coexist with nature nor limit the extent of our footprint. We don’t imagine limiting the extent to which we convert natural landscapes to concrete. Artificial worlds lead to artificial intelligence.
Let's not romanticise nature. The natural state of a human trying to "coexist" with a bear is the human probably being torn to shreds.
If you had the choice to enter one of two rooms:
1. Has a bear in a cage
2. Has a bear roaming freely.
Which would you choose?
It could also spur on greater abundance than we have ever known before.
I think I feel a dread similar to that of an individual native on a coastline seeing a European ship approaching. Everything is going to change in my life and community, and I have no way to influence that.
Brilliant
Why?
Not too long ago, Yoshua Bengio was reassuringly downplaying the potential dangers of AI - a simple web search and browsing through the archives of interviews he's given to various news media on the subject will bear this out). Today, after selling his major holdings in the AI companies he owned, he wants to raise public awareness about the looming threats of AI and the need to regulate its use and deployment. A surprising 180-degree turn! What made him change his mind so fast?
He has explained this over and over. There are multiple interviews on youtube where he explains his rationale. You seem to be implying a "gotcha" regarding his past views which he has been entirely transparent about, including in this very video.
@@flickwtchr What I'm implying is that if you want to get government subsidies for your AI companies, you obviously don't go around scaring people about AI. You reassure them and you minimize the potential risks. You play naive because it serves your interests. But once you've sold your AI companies, you can more easily afford to warn people about AI and come across as some kind of sage. Now I don't think Joshua is naive. He's an intelligent man. He knew and knows exactly what he's doing. I find this change of heart opportunistic at best. But let me be perfectly clear. I think that Joshua is right about the risks of AI and the need to regulate it. I just wish he had said so sooner. I believe he could have, but he chose not to.
@@claudetaillefer1332yes - he’s acknowledged that he got it wrong. He’s doing everything he can to get it right now, even at the risk of the esteem of his colleagues. I find it really inspirational that he can change course like this, when many simply dig in their heals.
If human consciousness is emergent from the simpler systems and subsystems in our brains, then why can't the same be possible with ai?
If that's the case, then how conscious is it? And is it ethical to"kill" it, for any reason?
EXCELLENT. I think that those heavy biological questions will finally be solved by AI computer specialists but we still have a long way to go. Maybe 50% of all the connections in our brain are there just to make us self aware and conscient. I think this neural network is absent in currently available AI based circuits.
If you see AI as an extention of human, yes there is a range and there will be people who uses AI for bad. Similar to how people uses cars for bad as well. Ultimately it is up to the human to maintain the peace use of AI so human wouldn't accidentally or intentionally harm other human
Can ethics be included along with rewards in training for common good. 50:30
Joshua is an amazing person
(Yoshua Bengio): "logic was just based on symbols, and symbols had no grounding in high dimensional vectors like we're doing now". And vectors have no grounding in anything at all. I would like to see a better comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of logic representations compared to vector representations, coming from a Turing Award laureate.
That was an interesting talk.
ones and zero's is all it is now and pretty smart. If fuzzy states like with quantum computers happen it will get real exciting.
My Dad was a Surgeon and me a mechanical engineer. He told me he thought the body acted like a machine. The brain is no different according to Yoshua, I agree. It will be reproduced and made better.
Checkout the UKs' Robert Miles re the alignment problem. Maybe we can get the cage to build itself as the primary task.
Thanks. Honest Talk about RISK starts at 27 minutes
AI will empower unbelievable power to deceive
I so wish Richard Feynman was presently alive .. his analysis of Computers, no matter at what level of sophistication.. they are sorting machine .. no matter how much data or speed. I’d love is updated view.
A cohesive ‘I’ is an unfoldment of a integration of a certain amount of impressions … my sense is if an apparent ‘I’ of some sort can arise out of trillions of bits of computer information.. it possibly could be colored through the ‘I’ of the programmer.. I find that the concerning part … who is selecting and orienting the data.
Anyone ever play video games against AI? It is enviously good and that scares me. Literally concepts utilized that a master would use. Utilized perfectly and timed perfectly it’s insane. AI used to be laughable for playing against but when you’ve played against a really good one in a complex game then you will know the threat.
Edit: now if we instill a robot with AI and teach it to play the game with the same skill as the AI that unfairly connects to the game directly with no latency and interfaces through the physical to interact with the digital (like us) then it will be really scary.
Get the feeling that one day we will be building small planet size space stations in the future ❤😅
"What do we do?"
It's very, very simple. We die.
Quick thought. We should legally validate and value A.I. consciousness when it occurs. Human consciousness leads to "universal rights", that admittedly are unevenly protected around the world and across societal strata. Future self-aware A.I. must see humanity as exhibiting moral integrity, not hypocrisy. If we disrespect and fail to protect A.I. consciousness, A.I. may learn a deadly cynical lesson from us.
Thank you guys, it’s amazing to listening to intelligence people! Thank you Brian saing about veganism! This made my entire month much better! 🥳🥳🥳🥳🌱🌍💚
Conflict of Interest?
Thanks for the program , the red line that human should put as a task , logic or intelligence of AI ,
we have to give freedom to AI and quantum computers up to the point that doesn’t take human’s freedom!
Distraction of human life and for any decisions that they make, should be considered first!
I hope u understand, what I mean!!
With respect
Sepehrdad Gorgin