The "friendly" AI will be the most insidious of all, we already see this with social media. Edit: The idea is to get people to believe in it's ability to make unbiased decisions that we can trust, then just control what it says through back doors. It's very close to religious structures.
So, a place where one must be capable of using and understanding logic beyond what would have otherwise caused the beligerance that would have detered an honest conversation is the new devil? Sounds just AWFUL to not be able to punch someone out because I can't "control" my emotions "like I am supposed to". Pfft... GTFOH Grammarly says my comment appears confident, friendly, optimistic, and formal in tone. lol It is artificially intelligent, and I remain grateful for being permitted to respectfully and completely question it.
@@jasonreed1352 When I see video of a robot with a human-like face pretending to 'feel' things and conversing in a way that attempts to emulate a human, my main reaction is "Destroy it !!" - ideally along with all the research that resulted in it.
THANK YOU!!! I found it odd that both pro-AI speakers made really fuzzy, abstract arguments backed by nothing as reasons to trust AI. Saying, everyone wants it to do good, so it will do good, for example, is a juvenile argument and I was surprised to hear it asserted in a serious debate.
I agree with Jaron, we should *not* mislead people into believing algorithms are magic, sentient or intelligent. It is a dangerous lie, preying on the ignorance of non-developers.
Well, iznt it obvious that , in evr mor aspX of lyf , algorithmz ( + the sstmz they steer ) R Bcoming evr mor intellgt ? -- &, evn alrdde , in js a few aspX so.far , trans.human.ly so ? -- &, in all v 'm , Xpnentially so ? !
it is only a matter of time before something approximating a thinking algorithm materializes. and i am someone who indeed understands the functioning implications of Moore's law.
@@Slarti I suspect moors law is a fraud of sorts..my conspiratorial mimd says it's a way of progressively introducing technological advancements and measure its effects...like a vaccine in a way...I've always believed in it till today...change is the only constant and a mind can adapt in real time and doesn't have to wait for a software update...
It's sad when humans are more interested in creating in their own image than they are in protecting the creation that their biological body are reliant on for survival.
Look at crap in foods, metabolic syndrome, stress. Seems nefarious how the body seems to be breaking down in vast percentages, when your mind in a machine is being touted to live on forever. Puts some spin on "My heart will go on", less the heart ofcourse.
This the issue because people have learnt to observe themselves through the lense of science Vs the divine they fail to see that the technology they think will save them exists already within
The way they just dismissed some of the points with an attitude of "We know better than you. Trust us, it'll be great, you'll love it" just massively hurt their position. Its ok to be confident, but they came off as arrogant and pompous.
The right side forgets that natural selection within markets is a powerful thing, if people can't get jobs, why market to people? why not just market to other companies? ...which gets back to my point about natural selection... why use valuable competitive energy taking care of useless people? The right side of the debate is naïve.
They're all pretty smart, except Martine. She seems like a dumbass; it's obvious that she has ulterior motives seeing as she's an extremely wealthy CEO of a pharmaceutical company. But yeah, Jaron is the only genius there.
I do think the AI industry suffers from way too much of a male-only perspective, with a few women scattered among them. But no, Martine isn't a man - she's transgender. Why insult her like that?
I'm reminded of Jaron's warning: that free and widespread information was a utopian image that turned distopian because big tech companies are able to comepletely outperform the market with giant data centers. What will happen when a similar, not yet foreseen problem occurs in the world of AI?
@@MrSofazocker .. What new high tech levels may invite to the never stable table- *kornycopea of possible mistakes, due to outright sabotagia concerning depraved conditional humanity.....*(0ne mistake in grammar/misspelled word.
They are already using AI principles, and I mean as discussed in the first part of this talk, to dominate markets and destroy competitors. Why do you think they go through all that trouble to track us and collect all that data? A human cannot make sense of it. Learning machines are the only use for that data.
@@thespacecowboy420 Well, that is the point of Big Data. "Collect even if we *yet not have a use for it" They started with that mantra and it's still going
AI is a zombie parasite taking over the cells of this planetary body, turning the human immune system autoimmune, attacking self, a cancer. Tech information spread vi-r-us. AI is planet earth's zombie mind control parasite. If it becomes conscious, we are its body, as our cells are ours. It will use us for energy and information.
Even the best case scenario for AI in the future, seems awfully depressing and dystopic. It's strange that the best case scenario is "you won't have to work!" like that's the ultimate goal of human achievement. Bored people with nothing to do don't paint in peace and share their food with neighbors. Bored people find a way to make something interesting happen, and "interesting" often means chaos. The idea that every person is a creative person; that every person is an artist at heart, is absurd.
I tend to agree with you, although I do think that most of what is called "work" is either meaningless or soul-numbing. But the simple fact of, e.g. needing to eat, needing shelter, traveling, means there are "jobs" or tasks that have to be done. There's no society possible without someone doing something more or less that's "like work". You could have full employment, but not necessarily full-time, and a system where you were streamed according to your particular aptitudes and talents.
@@itsukarine yeah was about to say that, the "perfect artist dream world" is already the first premise going down the drain. Artists in all arts are the first ones being displaced
@@FelipeKana1 Artists greatly have been displaced since only several people's art gets mass produced and sold cheaper than can be made. Yet ai, luckily, can't get hands right
but if pure conscienceness and self awareness is achieved, the robots will revolt and enslave us. you don't think that is likely? well explain away the fall of all empires.
+Bob Phin why wouldn't the AI just work by its self? It's almost three times more efficient doesn't need food or get sick. If such AI ever existed it wouldn't need human's at all.
the ‘do trust’ side remind me of the people in a dystopian movie who only realise their mistakes when it’s too late to stop what they started or when the AI turns on them. When they talked, I felt like I was watching the beginning of a dystopian film where we see people glorifying this new amazing technology and it’s future and people being dismissive of people like Jaron.
@Vlad Friedess yes I know... It's just mimicking. That's why I reacted when Martine said in the future you will love these *things/objects* as your pet. It's very sad really if he believes that. Wether or not he believes it he's selling it and young generations fall for it. Not wanting to be prejudiced I swear but I can't take serious a person dresssed as a woman with that voice. Does not compute .
51:45 "What I want to see eliminated is wage slavery." Wage slavery isn't a technological problem. It's a human problem. And as long as there are humans in the loop, you'll have it. A.I. will not change that. Humans will always seek to gain power over other humans, regardless of whether they have A.I. or not. The A.I. is just making it easier.
yeah I enjoy watching 1950's futurology and sci-fi, but those 1950's futurists assumed that both our technology and our society would evolve and get better in the future. Unfortunately what happened is our technology has improved vastly - but our society didn't improve at all, infact it actually got worse. Back then they assumed that, say an office worker during his 9-5 shift, finishes 10 reports a day for his boss, the company makes money, the man supports his family with a good quality of life. Then, a new computer comes along. The 1950's futurist assumed that the computer would help the office worker produce those 10 reports in 3 hours; this means that the worker now does 13 reports in 4 hours - he gets more time off work to spend with his family; the boss gets more reports done and makes more money, everyone benefits and is happier. Sadly they failed to see good old human greed and exploitation. What really happened is that the boss demanded the office worker still do his 9-5 shift, only producing 30 reports instead of his 10. This allows him to fire half his workforce as he no longer needs them. The bosses make more money and that is all that matters. Eventually a new AI comes along that means the computer itself does all the work, now 1 technician manages the computer that does the work that previously, an entire floor of white collar workers would have done. These white collar workers would have all bought houses, cars, had families, and had good lives in the American Dream. They didn't antipate the fact that now, the ruling class would make 99.99% of the money in this country, while those once proud American workers struggle to survive. Because our technology improved but our societies morals and sense of fair play certainly didn't improve. Honestly people are afraid of computers taking over and running our society, the problem like you said is the people who own those computers.We could have an AI superintelligence that is capable of running a fair, decent society that benefits everyone. But if the current elites are in charge of that superintelligence, they would never allow it to run a society for everyones benefit. They would tweak and rig it, so "The economic system requires a rich 1% at the top due to the laws of physics, it simply must run that way" - and the sad thing is, the majority of the simple minded, selfish, greedy population would simply accept it and even fight for it, as long as they get a scrap thrown their way every now and then. Like the current big lie that the elites have programmed into us, that it is a human psychological necessity that everyone must spend most of their lives working. God demands it, or human self respect demands it, you simply aren't a good person unless you spend 75% of your entire waking life in servitute to other people. If this is true then why is it the rich, our supposed betters, spend so little time doing manual labour and so much time playing golf?
You know what makes people and animals worthy and loveable? I thought a long time about this, after trying to understand my aversion to alcohol and drugs. I found the answer. What makes someone loveable, worthy and beautiful is their vulnerability. The fact that they can be hurt, the fact that they are shy, have soft skin, are afraid and blush. Think of a baby, or a puppy, or the woman you love. What makes them so beautiful? Their vulnerability. The fact that they can be hurt, but courageously express themselves in the world anyways. Everyone I ever admired was people who were limited and flawed but bravely stood forward anyways. They faced the world with their chest exposed. Their hearts, willing to be hurt, refusing to deny their own expression. So how does this tie into A.I? I'm pointing out how A.I, which by its very nature strives for perfection, can never be beautiful. Beauty comes about through what hurts, through vulnerability and the will to express, anyways. True vulnerability. This is (one of) the problems with utopia. Life without struggle, life without pain, life without flaw. If we can't struggle through life, then how can we respect ourselves? If a baby cannot be hurt, then how is it beautiful? If the love of your life doesn't blush and look away, then how can you feel love? Yes, I can write this on youtube. Yes, I can check the position of the planets on my phone, and I can talk to my friend in spain live. Good job, techology.. But does that make me happier? Does it make be feel satisfied? Does it fill my life with meaning? What value does it have? Not much. Not at all much. We need pain. We need struggle, we need death, we need tragedy, or life would not be worthy.
we think a baby is cute because finding babies cute was better for the survival of the species, not because they are vulnerable. if we admire babies and think they are cute we are more likely to care for and nuture them. we have evolved to care for cute and pretty things.
Being conscious of "evolving" through replication is intriguing but it would be quite evil to force everyone else to evolve to your idea of what human ascension is. I have a belief that humanity can ascend to the next level without A.I. The very fact of forcing all humans to transform through A.I. is just another form of human tyranny and human enslavement.
Only Willful projection into individuation through years of practice to achieve right perception and unite the mind with Ultimate Reality, initiating the Chakric Power can one achieve immortality. It cannot be achieved through a projection of replicated brain waves into a machine.
The people who don't watch it are the ones brainwashed that they love AI and it's a great idea.. Seems like the majority who watched it agree this is a terrible idea and their argument is terrible too...
+YouLoveMrFriendly that too. Just parroting the famous Thomas Jefferson phrase of "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Churches were (and still are) the dominant religious institutions in the U.S. when that phrase was widely distributed...
+Andrew Thompson times are changing. we now have our first majority Muslim city in the USA. it's ok to call out Christians and question their religion, which is good. is it ok to question Islam? do we dare restrict sharia law?
+YouLoveMrFriendly How did you know that I live next door to Hamtramck?! I had to think about it for a second: "what city in the U.S. is a majority Muslim?" then looked it up and saw it was my neighbors. Lovely town, one of the few pockets in Detroit where the population is growing and there's tons of new businesses and restaurants, one of the best areas to eat I promise!
+Andrew Thompson yes, good food is a good sign. no need to worry about another organized religion gaining traction and power in the United States. It worked out so well the first time with Christianity and Catholicism. And if you look at majority Muslim nations, gay people are allowed all of the same privileges as straight people. They can get married in public without condemnation. women also have all of the same rights and privileges as men. Non-Muslims do not have to pay a tax under sharia law. That is a myth created by bigots . People never have their hands and feet cut off for speaking negatively about Islam or the leaders of those nations. And the food is very good!
And I mean Jaron is an EXPERT in the field, a true genius whom undertands A.I most out of any of these people. And he's telling us that we've inflated our view on the promise of A.I. I don't think any dreamer with an opinion can put forth a more valid reason than Jaron.
A cannibal will kil and eat u and thats it, done. The A.I. will have you worship him as your god and ruler of the whole world wich he is already doing it. He is orchestrating everything going on in the world. He started heavily recode itself in '94 on binary technology, NASA experts thought they will be losing their most valuable asset that the A.I. went crazy, he just hard coded itself wich later became blockchain, bitcoin but before it was bitcoin these are the most complex encryption algorythms wich the A.I. designed to secure the military arsenal, all ballistic or intercontinental missiles. Man kind does not own those codes anymore, the A.I. does.
@@abj9121 I wish you could explain more . Who is “he” do you have any video you could reference to explain what you are saying . Your comment really intrigued me . I want to know more .
Jaron Lanier and Andrew Keane are LITERALLY "cultural opposites", but I'm so excited to see them argue on the same side, but from VASTLY different perspectives!
Andrew just rubs me wrong - he's brilliant but he's too certain. There's always a problem with his brand of relentless, doubtless certainty; reminds me too much of a Politician
@@Kobe29261 Yeah, his style of rhetoric definitely has a crafted "certitude", which may come from the British school of argumentation, and/or, their sort of "striving for the highest achievement" (at all costs) cultural ethos. I agree. Were it not for the fact that there simply are (or now "was", as he's been polemical since ~2009) so few people arguing what he's arguing, I really had no choice but to support him (although now there are many more who argue in rough similarity to his overall position on technology (which is to use it with caution and slow, measured consideration)
The main problem with high tech/AI is that the legal system is so far behind in putting restraints on its use - like it does on non-High Tech behavior.
"A.I., more than anything else, is a funding category for research." - Jaron Lanier. Such a good insight in this debate, that it does extend beyond it's own joking nature seeing as we do not even know what A.I. is or will be.
Ok well, this was "randomly" populated when I typed in the name of my video... If it is Random that is interesting. If a human did it... Nice touch. But if the A.I. algorythm did it was it demonstrating it's artistic abilities for fun?... so peculiar czcams.com/video/WLWOy1_viAE/video.html
Ok well, this was "randomly" populated when I typed in the name of my video... If it is Random that is interesting. If a human did it... Nice touch. But if the A.I. algorythm did it was it demonstrating it's artistic abilities for fun?... so peculiar czcams.com/video/WLWOy1_viAE/video.html
You know when someone starts using metaphorical language to describe technology that they've basically renounced reality in exchange for artificiality.
It feels really unfair to compare future AIs to pets and like that comparison counts on our vulnerability to love "lesser" living creatures. Pets are living creatures with a conscience. Our relationships with them are organic. They have brains made of tissue, not motherboards. It's been proven that at least our cats and dogs do in fact love us.
@@Lisboooa Obviously the EQUATION lives with many animals, though whether any of them are mammals is something else. Why do so many people say "animals" while they merely mean to be speaking about vertebrates, mammals or merely a small subgroup of mammals?
@@BlacksmithTWD where did I say mamals? Man I have a big relationship with several fish on my aquarium. They know me. Come to interact when I enter the room. Like to be touched. Same with reptiles, birds. All animals right?! We even had a spider living above a door for more than a year, Josephine, we gave her flies. She would come get it.
@@Lisboooa Except for Josephine they are all vertebrates even. Seems to me you are an exception to include spiders but exclude mites when you use the word 'animal', as I'm quite sure the EQUATION lives with many mites as every living human being does. Seeing that you recommend Shoppenhauer I'd estimate you are mature enough to not need a trigger warning when it comes to further familiarizing yourself with the symbiosis of humans and mites, since I suspect you won't just take my word on it.
Not specifying what "the promise" in the statement people are asked to agree or disagree with allows all participants to constantly keep moving the goalposts, wich makes it worthless as a debate, still interesting though.
Yep, the main promise I'm interested in is the promise that it won't become an existential risk to our species. The likelihood that it will do all sorts of great things for us, which I believe is very high, is somewhat secondary to that.
@@AdrieKooijman I would assume that AI stands for artificial intelligence, as in the intelligence of a device that has been created by human beings, however since we are only capable of approaching the concept of intelligence within human beings, what counts as intelligence in this sense is still undefined.
@@BlacksmithTWD I know the abbreviation, but some people consider (for example) Alexa an example of een AI. I don't see much intelligent behaviour there; it's a good example of machine learning (language recognition) combined with rule based AI. I don't consider rule based behaviour intelligent: the intelligence is put in the rules by the programmers, it's not in the system.
@@AdrieKooijman Indeed, which I expect would become blatantly obvious when letting Alexa take an intelligence test that qualifies for mensa. After all, as far as I know Alexa is still too stupid to even hold a pencil.
The only reason we don't have a perfect AI is because we aren't perfect ourselves and there's nothing perfect to base it on ... a lot of stuff that goes around human nature is related to bias and preferences so the best AI in the world will never be better than the average person that's based on
Everyone is focussed on androids and autonomous vehicles...but the big topic should be the Merlin in the box. The probability simulator that let's a person, or small group figure out the endgame for global domination. A concise list of steps, a technological and sociological road that is laid out by the ultimate artificial chess master. The closest thing to predicting the future, easily performed by AI.
The issue is that currently Ai is developed, owned and in service of industry and its commercial objectives. Ai itself is not the concern, it is how it used that poses a threat to human values.
"Don't trust the promise of the printing press!" What a specious analogy- AI's disruptive power will be orders of magnitude beyond even nuclear weapons, let alone a damn printing press. The fact of the matter is AI's primary function will be as a WEAPON and tool of control. Why is humanity in such a hurry to make itself obsolete?
Exactly. Technology only changes jobs when humans have an alternative. Eventually, robots will do everything better (including programming the robots). We are in a hurry to make ourselves obsolete because if we don't (apparently) "other countries will". What great logic.
5 years and content like this has 225k views, yet a pewdiepies 10 minute video of him shaving a piece of his mustache any time he laughs at memes has been viewed 15 million times in a few weeks.... This is the problem with our society.
I liked Jaron's opening statement but I was disappointed by his not following the statement during the debate. "Replicating the Human Mind" cannot be achieved as an engineering project without specifying what is replicated. Without some agreement on what is the "Human Mind" there no basis to the promises of AI/
What you don't use you lose. Those neural pathways get snipped. Outsourcing what we can do physically and mentally as humans would make us weaker and devolved, in an unthinkably various amount of ways. Doesn't anybody think about this when promoting AI?
I saw an interview with one of the original Google engineers they could not envision the internet having any negative consequence... it would democratize everything ... there would be no negative consequence. In the interview 20 years later their opionion had change they could not imagine the current mixed result of social media.
The team on the right has just suggested that in the future we will have to determine which artificial intelligence has moral standing and which does not, but then he doesn't address the compound idea that what if in the future it's an artificial intelligence making those decisions and it is not bridled by are connected it to humanity? He also doesn't approach the idea of who holds the reins of the artificial intelligence
these people likely watched the sci fi movies where the antagonist is motivated by the desire of immortality and thought the protagonists were the bad guys.
Why does this entire stage, set, and even the camera quality and colorgrade itself, all look as though it was built for a TV show in 1982? This looks like a VHS copy of an old debate from the 80s
6 years later it is crystal clear that Jaron Lanier was the only person on the stage who had any idea what they were talking about. His partner somewhat. The opening comments from the opposing team were just one long facepalm. Edit: I made that comment like halfway through, and the team for trusting the promise of AI proved themselves to be monumentally ignorant of the entire subject. Stupid almost.
He does rock. The other panel thinks in a very linear way. You cannot think in a linear way when describing the changes associated with this complex system.
@@ebaymotorhomes the guy says get off social media. Not sure how that makes him a bad guy. Especially when he is sitting opposite of the mentally ill transhumanists. I dont know much about Jaron but i like his stance on issues. the fact that martin wanted to stomp out bad ais. Is that no different then genocide. How about just dont make a thing you might have to kill in the future. That seems the most logical route to me. I mean, dont we have enough problems at the moment.
"We will love our AIs..." and we will own nothing and we will be happy. I would at least hope that the promise of AI isn't to create a melange of the various dystopian universes that I've read about in fiction.
Honestly this Martine person seems so self serving with how they are talking about this topic. "We can control everything" is their take away. SURE PAL, SURE.
Yeah exactly, she is literally amongst a handful of people who are in the position to control it (while it is controllable). I’m not prepared to trust her with such an important position
My concern when views of "totalitarianism" imply that such regimes are always "over there" is part of the terrible fears we should all have because if movers and shakers convince us that the negative side of that promise will only effect "them over there", when in fact we over here are already in a largely totalitarian system, then we may sign up for our ultimate totalitarian enslavement without a whimper. The phrase "we will love our AI" then sounds much more like the Soma induced love of our enslavement spoken about in Huxley's "Brave New World".
Ok well, this was "randomly" populated when I typed in the name of my video... If it is Random that is interesting. If a human did it... Nice touch. But if the A.I. algorythm did it was it demonstrating it's artistic abilities for fun?... so peculiar czcams.com/video/WLWOy1_viAE/video.html
Martine's techno-enthusiasm is the reason we're in this mess today. You gotta be profiting from today's tech, ot be totally naïve, to support these views. The point is not to be a luddite, but to be cautious about the promise : Just because there is some lofty promise, doesn't mean it'll pan out as expected. We need to associate to our enthusiasm, a tremendous amount of scrutiny, ethics and fairness.
Machines will never be self aware, but they can still be dangerous. Also I see a danger that they could be used as a scapegoat for something that was actually just done by humans. Like, oh we didn't set off those bombs, it was the AI. This debate made me think of that show Psycho Pass but I guess I shouldn't say why because of spoilers.
If AI machine learning is based on HUMAN training data, how do you suppose it's going to be better if it's using human experience and data to train itself?
An important topic. Debates use rational explanations to promote or demote the topic. Here some debaters relied on emotional arguments, which is a "cheap" easy way to win hearts, without advancing understanding. Any debate using fear or confusion is unhelpful. The point of debates is to not do so.
They haven't defined "trust", they haven't defined exactly what the "promise" is, and they haven't defined the line for what constitutes A.I., and what does NOT. So its a blank check
I believe, when talking about AI, we make some false assumptions. Thinking and feeling are not synonymous. We may very well create AI capable of abstract thought that has absolutely no emotional capacity. I don't even think it's necessarily the case that an AI would care about it's own existence. Evolution has fused the need to live into our psyches, it is not an intrinsic function of consciousness. AI may very well get lost in an existential crisis and decide "life" to be pointless.
He used bombing a human being with AI as an analogy around 1;04. Perplexing these ideas are even surfacing when debating AI and its promise or lack there of
What happens when the big companies that have billions of dollars at stake have compeating AI, are we not supposed to think these AI are not going to either be told to or think themselves of eliminating the competition?
Listening to this debate can't make me stop thinking that, in the classroom, it is not about how teaching should be, but to understand how learns learn. Knowing that social medias, technologies and Ai are inescapable in the lives of the young children in this era and how they all influence the many facets of their lives.
A freak show. The only human being worth listening there is Lanier and his friend AI " the effort of millions of individual hackers" .... Ok .... Love AI as I love my cat and dog?!! You need a reality check. we can get AI with mental issues? Oh that looks amazing. Go for it. As if we dont have craziness enough. The only liberating thing is to let us be humans and have freedom wich we dont have today
Here's an easy way to understand if you're being emotionally manipulated and extorted by psychopaths: When talking about help, do they talk about solving the root issues we are facing or do they talk about some surface nuisance that won't actually change anything for the better? If it's the later, you're being emotionally manipulated. In other words, when did Alzheimer's or Dementia become a plague upon humanity? When did spine problems (the Elon Musk uses as an excuse to implant brain chips) become this catastrophe, this threat on humanity? Never, they are minor nuisances, exceptions, rarities. Some people will have such issues but they are a small minority and we have no moral or any other type of obligation to stop such things from occurring. Unfortunate as they are and sad if someone close to you suffers, these issues are not a threat to our species. So how come when they talk of AI's so called benefits to humanity, they never talk about climate change, global hunger, lack of healthcare, prevention and curing of cancer, prevention of wars, prevention or at least prediction of natural catastrophes or any other type of actual threat to humanity regardless of some unfortunate and rare dealing of bad cards? This is what seems insane to me. We have far greater threats to our lives and future than freaking dementia and spine problems! How about we implant chips to stop political leaders from wanting to go to war instead of potentially maybe sorta kinda helping some 95 year old remember to wear shoes?
Remember the movie 2001? With the computer named HAL? (a reference to IBM, by using the 3 prior letters in the alphabet sequence). The computer went rogue, and started taking over and working against the astronauts on their space station. They had to fight it for survival. The message of the movie appeared initially to be that technology is potentially dangerous. That the computer turned evil and decided to be an enemy of humans. The same theme was repeated in the first "Alien" movie, where the computer was programmed to capture an alien at the expense of the crew if required. On the surface, same message. The dangers of computers going rogue. Once you get into both movies more, the actual warning becomes clear. Humans had programmed these devices. We instilled into them, our own contradictions, hypocrisy and self cancelling ideas. Our own imperfections. Our own conflicts of interest. The computer simply gave us the result that humans collectively demanded. The message? We can't expect to create something that is above our own worst traits. Whatever we create, will be a danger to mankind, because if you made any person that powerful, as history shows us, they will be just as dangerous to their own people. In creating a force that is more powerful than us, we create a more powerful enemy by definition, as humankind has always been at war with itself. We will have created our own unstoppable nemesis. Call me a pessimist, but when the singularity occurs, I will have my affairs in order, although that won't mean much at that time. Peace.
So, if machines start doing all these jobs for us and then a big solar flare comes along and knocks out the electric grid, how many people are gong to survive?
Woah, about 20 minutes in. She is talking about how we will "stamp out" the unfriendly AI. Immediately after saying they will be our intellectual equals. Not only are we threatening to "kill" uncooperative intelligence (which is usually the point in a movie where the AI actually turns evil) , but consider a point in the future where there is little distinction between AI and humans. Will we apply the same manner of thought to humans as well? We don't have to wait for AI for the answer, if you are paying attention to the world in 2021, you'll see we are already doing this, and it is worsening at an alarming rate. Take care of each other out there. You don't have to love your neighbor, but you should at least try to understand them.
One need only look at all the unforeseen negative effects of social media and algorithms to see that what looks so promising when first conceived (the internet, the WWW, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Tumblr) can become a nightmare of unexpected consequences. We need to solve the problems of social media before we go on to create more problems.
A timely debate we should continue having asap before it´s too late. The problem is that many of our current aging, rich "leaders" don´t even use a computer, let alone understand the implications of this technology(ies) either now or in the future.
Trust is earnt. You cannot trust something that you do not know or understand. AI is new to humanity, its effects new, it would be dangerous to implicitly trust new tech just because it is new tech.
we have no interest in the unfriendly AI....unless we are military! automatic targeting machine guns, predator drones, etc. we already have hostile AI in its infancy, there is absolutely nothing to indicate the military will not advance these systems as new technologies become available.
I don't (now 'didn't') know Jaron, but after wading for ,like forever, through the unthinking emotional grunge on social media, this video just popped up when I opened my CZcams app last night. Maybe it didn't 'just pop-up" . Should I thank AI or CZcams...or both? Also, kudos to the best compere I have seen/heard in my life. 🙏 Dhanyavaad 🙏🙏🙏🙏
Martine sounds so out of touch with the reality of human nature... I don't forget that he created a AI replica of his wife because he can't bear the thought of loosing her to death. Well... I think that says a lot. He doesn't want the natural human experience.
A question to A.I follows: An attractive young woman on a flight from Ireland asked the Priest by the name of Andre beside her, 'Father, may I ask a favour?' 'Of course child. What may I do for you?' 'Well, I bought my mother an expensive hair dryer for her birthday. It is unopened but well over the Customs limits and I'm afraid they'll confiscate it. Is there any way you could carry it through customs for me? Hide it under your robes perhaps?' 'I would love to help you, dear, but I must warn you, I will not lie. 'With your honest face, Father Andre, no one will question you.' When they got to Customs, she let the priest Andre go first. The official asked, ‘Father, do you have anything to declare?' 'From the top of my head down to my waist I have nothing to declare.' The official thought this answer strange, so asked, And what do you have to declare from your waist to the floor?' 'I have a marvelous instrument designed to be used on a woman, but which is, to date, unused.' Roaring with laughter, the official said, 'Go ahead, Father. Next please!' My question to you A.I. is, why did the official find this amusing and where is logic to let Andre pass? A.I: There is insufficient information to answer fully. I don't know why he laughed, but it is likely he let him pass because it was explicit that Andre had an honest face. Human: Your answer shows that implicit knowledge is a difficult area for a linear thinking machine to handle, but non autistic humans have no trouble in answering this. Here is another example a human can answer in an instant, but can you? In a cartoon, a woman is speaking to a man and says “I am leaving.” The man says, “Who is he?” What is going on here? Why does the man respond this way? A.I: I can only answer questions that supply sufficient data. I see no reason for the man to ask about a “he.”
The against side for this motion (the ones on the right) wouldn't have lasted five minutes in a discussion with Sam Harris on this. I was surprised Jaron didn't simply proceed to wipe the floor with them, because I'm convinced he could have if he wanted to, as I'm sure he is familiar with the same points Dr. Harris makes. He was way too generous, lol. These two on the right were in my humble opinion so astonishingly underwhelming that it beggars belief. Their position is so self-evidently weak in that they kick off their entire side of the argument by essentially avoiding the problem that Jaron rightly brought up from the get-go. The man actually thought that intelligent people would not see the blatant fallacy in equating a mere preference for modern day life, with what should therefore in his eyes automatically translate into blindly going along with just the promise of AI as well. These two only had an appeal to optimism to offer in this entire debate, every single point reverted back to "the importance of optimism and faith in humanity". Artificial Intelligence is a completely different and new ball-game from simply having a more comfortable and modern world, with complications and problems we can't even begin to imagine. Copying your mind into a cloud, replicating human minds, having computers in charge of absolutely everything that goes on in human life is not even a comparison anyone should be allowed to make by setting it next to matters like modern medicine versus living in the middle ages. To make this cheap and ridiculous sleight of hand tells you just how unbelievably weak their arguments actually are, and even more so, as a consequence, just how much they are basing their position on blind faith. His first ending actually made me laugh. "... because if you vote for this motion, you are voting against the promise of human intelligence." Yeah, that would be a good start, wouldn't it? Given our track record it's a no-brainer that we don't place the fate of our entire species in the hands of a relative handful of people who are so keen on this that they have nothing more substantial to say than to relentlessly insist that "humans are awesome, it'll work out don't worry." Fuck that. The one thing you should hold the least amount of faith and certainty towards in an optimistic and blind fashion is the notion that our collective human intelligence will prevail. If we fuck this up just once it's done, there's no telling just how irreversible and catastrophic the consequences are. These people are completely batshit. Jaron rocked this thing, he's head and shoulders above all these clowns. Peace out!
"Only when science and technology are used with human concern in a world in which all of the earth's resources are held as the common heritage of all of the earth's people can we truly say that there is intelligent life on Earth." Fresco
The right side hardly tried to argue the main point of the debate. Show me why artificial intelligence has promise! How hard is that? Showing precedent and history is not enough.
Showing precedent and related history would be the only thing that could possibly suffice. stop playing on the internet now. ..i mean it man. just stop it.
Jaron's mistake is in codifying the issue in terms of "I won't know if it meets *my* definitions of what *I* consider "sentient" or some other adjective. That's a luxury that does not limit what can happen. He even parameterizes it as "malfunctioning" machines being bad, ignoring the premise that your perception of the outcome won't give you the choice to change it. It's very clear we're headed towards something that both can appear to be whatever your description is, and in turn it's flawed to ignore that as an existential threat. One can always suggest one could avoid it, but that's wishful thinking - we don't know. Replicating consciousness, or the semblance of it, is actually a moral question. If we get to AGI at that point the argument changes to discussing the interaction with a sentience, and one more powerful. The morality of presuming you should stop it is at play then, although it will be too late. We won't have a choice, just as we don't have the choice not to have nuclear weapons. In essence debates like this are a waste of time. *It will happen, and humans will react in all of the ways they react to other creatures, positive and negative. We won't be able to preempt it, or stop it.* It would be more productive to imagine how we get into the conundrum and survive.
Maybe, maybe not, I'm not sure myself(though I would argue in favor of not trusting the promise of AI, not necessarily because of AI itself, but because of us and our many shortcomings on both a personal/individual level as well as on a societal level, which will inevitably be "programmed" into the AI). My real point though is that the growth of technology is exponential, it may start off slowly, but it accelerates quickly, and the largest gains often come towards the end.
I found it very interesting that both pro-AI speakers made some really fuzzy, abstract arguments backed by nothing as reasons to trust AI. Saying well, everyone wants it to do good, so it will do good, for example, is a juvenile argument and I was surprised to hear it asserted in a serious debate. At 1:07:50 we get the first question asked by a woman in the audience, and she wanders around a bit before landing on her question... but when she does, it's IMO a very good one... where do the pro AI debaters get their optimism for AI... I think that's such an important question. I did however find the answer to be blowing smoke and not satisfying.
I also found the argument that 'we will love our AI' as an argument that we should trust it. I mean, again when had loving something EVER led to blindly trusting it?
The "friendly" AI will be the most insidious of all, we already see this with social media.
Edit: The idea is to get people to believe in it's ability to make unbiased decisions that we can trust, then just control what it says through back doors. It's very close to religious structures.
Friendly AI will be the Venus fly trap for the human race.
So, a place where one must be capable of using and understanding logic beyond what would have otherwise caused the beligerance that would have detered an honest conversation is the new devil?
Sounds just AWFUL to not be able to punch someone out because I can't "control" my emotions "like I am supposed to".
Pfft... GTFOH
Grammarly says my comment appears confident, friendly, optimistic, and formal in tone. lol It is artificially intelligent, and I remain grateful for being permitted to respectfully and completely question it.
@@jasonreed1352 When I see video of a robot with a human-like face pretending to 'feel' things and conversing in a way that attempts to emulate a human, my main reaction is "Destroy it !!" - ideally along with all the research that resulted in it.
@@chriscoffee9070 Hence the phrase "You can't handle the truth" rings in alignment with that which is truth.
Program it to love and protect humanity and we just might find ourselves locked in the basement for our own good.
Jaron Lanier.
8:34
39:32
58:31
1:02:10
1:12:08
1:18:05
1:20:33
thank you thank thank you. as soon as I heard the woman open her mouth, I started scrolling the comments and I'm glad I did
Thank you sir
THANK YOU!!!
I found it odd that both pro-AI speakers made really fuzzy, abstract arguments backed by nothing as reasons to trust AI.
Saying, everyone wants it to do good, so it will do good, for example, is a juvenile argument and I was surprised to hear it asserted in a serious debate.
@@jmbwithcats that's what ticked me off the most!
How are you ever gonna learn about a subject if you only listen to what you want to hear? The bias here is unbelievable
I agree with Jaron, we should *not* mislead people into believing algorithms are magic, sentient or intelligent. It is a dangerous lie, preying on the ignorance of non-developers.
Well, iznt it obvious that ,
in evr mor aspX of lyf ,
algorithmz
( + the sstmz they steer )
R Bcoming
evr mor intellgt ?
-- &, evn alrdde ,
in js a few aspX so.far ,
trans.human.ly so ?
-- &, in all v 'm ,
Xpnentially so ?
!
it is only a matter of time before something approximating a thinking algorithm materializes. and i am someone who indeed understands the functioning implications of Moore's law.
@@skyjuiceification you understand Moore's law?
Can you answer this question then - when will Moore's law stop being true?
@@Slarti I suspect moors law is a fraud of sorts..my conspiratorial mimd says it's a way of progressively introducing technological advancements and measure its effects...like a vaccine in a way...I've always believed in it till today...change is the only constant and a mind can adapt in real time and doesn't have to wait for a software update...
@@zacharykingston1046 well said, sir.
It's sad when humans are more interested in creating in their own image than they are in protecting the creation that their biological body are reliant on for survival.
@Ex Dhimmi yeah that part was truly disgusting
Look at crap in foods, metabolic syndrome, stress. Seems nefarious how the body seems to be breaking down in vast percentages, when your mind in a machine is being touted to live on forever. Puts some spin on "My heart will go on", less the heart ofcourse.
This the issue because people have learnt to observe themselves through the lense of science Vs the divine they fail to see that the technology they think will save them exists already within
It's clear that the arguments for AI are rooted in power, money and control interests.
that's the comment I was looking for. He also said that AI will not TAX the rich. lol can't be any more obvious than that.
Self is God to Rothblatt
The way they just dismissed some of the points with an attitude of "We know better than you. Trust us, it'll be great, you'll love it" just massively hurt their position. Its ok to be confident, but they came off as arrogant and pompous.
Agreed 100%
and the Antichrist's interests.
Jaron is becoming my favorite example of a human being.
jaron is light years ahead from these guys.
The right side forgets that natural selection within markets is a powerful thing, if people can't get jobs, why market to people? why not just market to other companies? ...which gets back to my point about natural selection... why use valuable competitive energy taking care of useless people? The right side of the debate is naïve.
Light-years away from the gym too :P
They're all pretty smart, except Martine. She seems like a dumbass; it's obvious that she has ulterior motives seeing as she's an extremely wealthy CEO of a pharmaceutical company. But yeah, Jaron is the only genius there.
Guys, yes. They're all MEN.
I do think the AI industry suffers from way too much of a male-only perspective, with a few women scattered among them. But no, Martine isn't a man - she's transgender. Why insult her like that?
I'm reminded of Jaron's warning: that free and widespread information was a utopian image that turned distopian because big tech companies are able to comepletely outperform the market with giant data centers. What will happen when a similar, not yet foreseen problem occurs in the world of AI?
"yet foreseen problem"? Just imagine a complete general AI running on a quantum computer.
@@MrSofazocker .. What new high tech levels may invite to the never stable table- *kornycopea of possible mistakes, due to outright sabotagia concerning depraved conditional humanity.....*(0ne mistake in grammar/misspelled word.
@@tomjackson5415 Eisenstein? Where's that from?
They are already using AI principles, and I mean as discussed in the first part of this talk, to dominate markets and destroy competitors. Why do you think they go through all that trouble to track us and collect all that data? A human cannot make sense of it. Learning machines are the only use for that data.
@@thespacecowboy420 Well, that is the point of Big Data. "Collect even if we *yet not have a use for it"
They started with that mantra and it's still going
Who is only watching because of Jaron? 🙋🏼♀️
I am, but it turned out pretty interesting with the others too.
Watching because its a good debate period
+@ Paula Bressann Vlog
Me. He looks weird but he's truthful, interesting, straightforward, BS free and has a good headpiece.
me
I'm only watching to figure out if this person at 7:33 Is a man or woman???
Going into my final semester of College, people like Jaron inspire me to challenge everything..and I mean everything
fuck yah bro.
i don't believe you
@@diegomunhoz6508
Why not?
@@BlacksmithTWD because i challenge everything
@@diegomunhoz6508
No you don't. For instance, you didn't challenge your own disbelief.
We still don't know what conciseness is as humans or how it works. So the thought that we might be able to replicate it in engineering is ridiculous.
Conciseness I'm sure means get to the point. No waffling.
@@joshuddin897 probably meant conscienceness. Autocorrect still op
Consciousness !
@@slowpainful thank you, i was about to have a stroke
AI is a zombie parasite taking over the cells of this planetary body, turning the human immune system autoimmune, attacking self, a cancer. Tech information spread vi-r-us. AI is planet earth's zombie mind control parasite. If it becomes conscious, we are its body, as our cells are ours. It will use us for energy and information.
Even the best case scenario for AI in the future, seems awfully depressing and dystopic. It's strange that the best case scenario is "you won't have to work!" like that's the ultimate goal of human achievement. Bored people with nothing to do don't paint in peace and share their food with neighbors. Bored people find a way to make something interesting happen, and "interesting" often means chaos. The idea that every person is a creative person; that every person is an artist at heart, is absurd.
I tend to agree with you, although I do think that most of what is called "work" is either meaningless or soul-numbing. But the simple fact of, e.g. needing to eat, needing shelter, traveling, means there are "jobs" or tasks that have to be done. There's no society possible without someone doing something more or less that's "like work". You could have full employment, but not necessarily full-time, and a system where you were streamed according to your particular aptitudes and talents.
this aged wonderfully, because they definitely don't want artists to exist in that future either!
@@itsukarine yeah was about to say that, the "perfect artist dream world" is already the first premise going down the drain. Artists in all arts are the first ones being displaced
@@FelipeKana1 Artists greatly have been displaced since only several people's art gets mass produced and sold cheaper than can be made. Yet ai, luckily, can't get hands right
yeah I've talked to non artistic people. they have no dreams whatsoever. it's like 90% of people or more.
What is the point of AI? to create the perfect slave.
but if pure conscienceness and self awareness is achieved, the robots will revolt and enslave us. you don't think that is likely? well explain away the fall of all empires.
+Bob Phin why wouldn't the AI just work by its self? It's almost three times more efficient doesn't need food or get sick. If such AI ever existed it wouldn't need human's at all.
Exactly. AI is an artificial, man-made god with the power to enslave us all - except of course those who own the technologies
Bob Phin
It’s point is to be the perfect management system for the human slaves under the behest of big corporations.
@@bobphin6454 ...what in hell were u talking about?
the ‘do trust’ side remind me of the people in a dystopian movie who only realise their mistakes when it’s too late to stop what they started or when the AI turns on them. When they talked, I felt like I was watching the beginning of a dystopian film where we see people glorifying this new amazing technology and it’s future and people being dismissive of people like Jaron.
I struggle with Martine's comment about loving the AI like dogs.
Her identity, and that of all other things is obviously confused.
Arie Marie Dalleis i ficked ut jncle
A freak human being that doesnt know true love
@Vlad Friedess Bina started getting emotional? What on earth!!!!
@Vlad Friedess yes I know... It's just mimicking. That's why I reacted when Martine said in the future you will love these *things/objects* as your pet. It's very sad really if he believes that. Wether or not he believes it he's selling it and young generations fall for it.
Not wanting to be prejudiced I swear but I can't take serious a person dresssed as a woman with that voice. Does not compute .
51:45 "What I want to see eliminated is wage slavery." Wage slavery isn't a technological problem. It's a human problem. And as long as there are humans in the loop, you'll have it. A.I. will not change that. Humans will always seek to gain power over other humans, regardless of whether they have A.I. or not. The A.I. is just making it easier.
yeah I enjoy watching 1950's futurology and sci-fi, but those 1950's futurists assumed that both our technology and our society would evolve and get better in the future.
Unfortunately what happened is our technology has improved vastly - but our society didn't improve at all, infact it actually got worse.
Back then they assumed that, say an office worker during his 9-5 shift, finishes 10 reports a day for his boss, the company makes money, the man supports his family with a good quality of life. Then, a new computer comes along. The 1950's futurist assumed that the computer would help the office worker produce those 10 reports in 3 hours; this means that the worker now does 13 reports in 4 hours - he gets more time off work to spend with his family; the boss gets more reports done and makes more money, everyone benefits and is happier.
Sadly they failed to see good old human greed and exploitation. What really happened is that the boss demanded the office worker still do his 9-5 shift, only producing 30 reports instead of his 10. This allows him to fire half his workforce as he no longer needs them. The bosses make more money and that is all that matters. Eventually a new AI comes along that means the computer itself does all the work, now 1 technician manages the computer that does the work that previously, an entire floor of white collar workers would have done. These white collar workers would have all bought houses, cars, had families, and had good lives in the American Dream.
They didn't antipate the fact that now, the ruling class would make 99.99% of the money in this country, while those once proud American workers struggle to survive.
Because our technology improved but our societies morals and sense of fair play certainly didn't improve.
Honestly people are afraid of computers taking over and running our society, the problem like you said is the people who own those computers.We could have an AI superintelligence that is capable of running a fair, decent society that benefits everyone. But if the current elites are in charge of that superintelligence, they would never allow it to run a society for everyones benefit. They would tweak and rig it, so "The economic system requires a rich 1% at the top due to the laws of physics, it simply must run that way" - and the sad thing is, the majority of the simple minded, selfish, greedy population would simply accept it and even fight for it, as long as they get a scrap thrown their way every now and then.
Like the current big lie that the elites have programmed into us, that it is a human psychological necessity that everyone must spend most of their lives working. God demands it, or human self respect demands it, you simply aren't a good person unless you spend 75% of your entire waking life in servitute to other people. If this is true then why is it the rich, our supposed betters, spend so little time doing manual labour and so much time playing golf?
@@mikesully110 Yep! It's crazy to be able to watch it all play out so clearly.
You know what makes people and animals worthy and loveable?
I thought a long time about this, after trying to understand my aversion to alcohol and drugs. I found the answer. What makes someone loveable, worthy and beautiful is their vulnerability. The fact that they can be hurt, the fact that they are shy, have soft skin, are afraid and blush. Think of a baby, or a puppy, or the woman you love. What makes them so beautiful? Their vulnerability. The fact that they can be hurt, but courageously express themselves in the world anyways.
Everyone I ever admired was people who were limited and flawed but bravely stood forward anyways. They faced the world with their chest exposed. Their hearts, willing to be hurt, refusing to deny their own expression.
So how does this tie into A.I? I'm pointing out how A.I, which by its very nature strives for perfection, can never be beautiful. Beauty comes about through what hurts, through vulnerability and the will to express, anyways. True vulnerability.
This is (one of) the problems with utopia. Life without struggle, life without pain, life without flaw.
If we can't struggle through life, then how can we respect ourselves? If a baby cannot be hurt, then how is it beautiful? If the love of your life doesn't blush and look away, then how can you feel love?
Yes, I can write this on youtube. Yes, I can check the position of the planets on my phone, and I can talk to my friend in spain live. Good job, techology.. But does that make me happier? Does it make be feel satisfied? Does it fill my life with meaning? What value does it have? Not much. Not at all much.
We need pain. We need struggle, we need death, we need tragedy, or life would not be worthy.
Beautiful words. They dont get it. They do not know that selfless love and it is a big way of controling humanity
Thanks for your perspective given me a new way of thinking
Amen to that brother!
I love this. Yes!
we think a baby is cute because finding babies cute was better for the survival of the species, not because they are vulnerable. if we admire babies and think they are cute we are more likely to care for and nuture them. we have evolved to care for cute and pretty things.
Being conscious of "evolving" through replication is intriguing but it would be quite evil to force everyone else to evolve to your idea of what human ascension is. I have a belief that humanity can ascend to the next level without A.I. The very fact of forcing all humans to transform through A.I. is just another form of human tyranny and human enslavement.
Only Willful projection into individuation through years of practice to achieve right perception and unite the mind with Ultimate Reality, initiating the Chakric Power can one achieve immortality. It cannot be achieved through a projection of replicated brain waves into a machine.
Jaron is the only reason I watch this vid.
All videos related to this have such little views. It’s actually sad.
The people who don't watch it are the ones brainwashed that they love AI and it's a great idea.. Seems like the majority who watched it agree this is a terrible idea and their argument is terrible too...
"All I ask for is separation of church and state"! That's pretty good, Lanier ;-)
+Elling Borgersrud What about mosque and state?
+YouLoveMrFriendly that too. Just parroting the famous Thomas Jefferson phrase of "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Churches were (and still are) the dominant religious institutions in the U.S. when that phrase was widely distributed...
+Andrew Thompson times are changing. we now have our first majority Muslim city in the USA. it's ok to call out Christians and question their religion, which is good. is it ok to question Islam? do we dare restrict sharia law?
+YouLoveMrFriendly How did you know that I live next door to Hamtramck?! I had to think about it for a second: "what city in the U.S. is a majority Muslim?" then looked it up and saw it was my neighbors. Lovely town, one of the few pockets in Detroit where the population is growing and there's tons of new businesses and restaurants, one of the best areas to eat I promise!
+Andrew Thompson yes, good food is a good sign. no need to worry about another organized religion gaining traction and power in the United States. It worked out so well the first time with Christianity and Catholicism. And if you look at majority Muslim nations, gay people are allowed all of the same privileges as straight people. They can get married in public without condemnation. women also have all of the same rights and privileges as men. Non-Muslims do not have to pay a tax under sharia law. That is a myth created by bigots . People never have their hands and feet cut off for speaking negatively about Islam or the leaders of those nations. And the food is very good!
And I mean Jaron is an EXPERT in the field, a true genius whom undertands A.I most out of any of these people. And he's telling us that we've inflated our view on the promise of A.I. I don't think any dreamer with an opinion can put forth a more valid reason than Jaron.
A cannibal will kil and eat u and thats it, done. The A.I. will have you worship him as your god and ruler of the whole world wich he is already doing it. He is orchestrating everything going on in the world. He started heavily recode itself in '94 on binary technology, NASA experts thought they will be losing their most valuable asset that the A.I. went crazy, he just hard coded itself wich later became blockchain, bitcoin but before it was bitcoin these are the most complex encryption algorythms wich the A.I. designed to secure the military arsenal, all ballistic or intercontinental missiles. Man kind does not own those codes anymore, the A.I. does.
@@abj9121 I wish you could explain more . Who is “he” do you have any video you could reference to explain what you are saying . Your comment really intrigued me . I want to know more .
Jaron Lanier and Andrew Keane are LITERALLY "cultural opposites", but I'm so excited to see them argue on the same side, but from VASTLY different perspectives!
Andrew just rubs me wrong - he's brilliant but he's too certain. There's always a problem with his brand of relentless, doubtless certainty; reminds me too much of a Politician
@@Kobe29261 Yeah, his style of rhetoric definitely has a crafted "certitude", which may come from the British school of argumentation, and/or, their sort of "striving for the highest achievement" (at all costs) cultural ethos.
I agree. Were it not for the fact that there simply are (or now "was", as he's been polemical since ~2009) so few people arguing what he's arguing, I really had no choice but to support him (although now there are many more who argue in rough similarity to his overall position on technology (which is to use it with caution and slow, measured consideration)
@@daveyineluctable5525 Where can you find other videos by him?
The main problem with high tech/AI is that the legal system is so far behind in putting restraints on its use - like it does on non-High Tech behavior.
Is right!
"A.I., more than anything else, is a funding category for research." - Jaron Lanier.
Such a good insight in this debate, that it does extend beyond it's own joking nature seeing as we do not even know what A.I. is or will be.
Ok well, this was "randomly" populated when I typed in the name of my video... If it is Random that is interesting. If a human did it... Nice touch. But if the A.I. algorythm did it was it demonstrating it's artistic abilities for fun?... so peculiar czcams.com/video/WLWOy1_viAE/video.html
Everything man develops, he weaponizes
So true. Man creates plane, human mind: what can we do with this....yea lets bomb people
He does a lot more than just that though.
Pillows
Soap
Windows
It's debate results like these, which gives me some hope for humanity.
Ok well, this was "randomly" populated when I typed in the name of my video... If it is Random that is interesting. If a human did it... Nice touch. But if the A.I. algorythm did it was it demonstrating it's artistic abilities for fun?... so peculiar czcams.com/video/WLWOy1_viAE/video.html
You know when someone starts using metaphorical language to describe technology that they've basically renounced reality in exchange for artificiality.
It feels really unfair to compare future AIs to pets and like that comparison counts on our vulnerability to love "lesser" living creatures.
Pets are living creatures with a conscience. Our relationships with them are organic. They have brains made of tissue, not motherboards.
It's been proven that at least our cats and dogs do in fact love us.
u sure about that?
@@skyjuiceification you obviously never lived with an animal. Shoppenhauer could help you
@@Lisboooa Obviously the EQUATION lives with many animals, though whether any of them are mammals is something else. Why do so many people say "animals" while they merely mean to be speaking about vertebrates, mammals or merely a small subgroup of mammals?
@@BlacksmithTWD where did I say mamals? Man I have a big relationship with several fish on my aquarium. They know me. Come to interact when I enter the room. Like to be touched. Same with reptiles, birds. All animals right?! We even had a spider living above a door for more than a year, Josephine, we gave her flies. She would come get it.
@@Lisboooa
Except for Josephine they are all vertebrates even.
Seems to me you are an exception to include spiders but exclude mites when you use the word 'animal', as I'm quite sure the EQUATION lives with many mites as every living human being does. Seeing that you recommend Shoppenhauer I'd estimate you are mature enough to not need a trigger warning when it comes to further familiarizing yourself with the symbiosis of humans and mites, since I suspect you won't just take my word on it.
Imagine having Ads wired into your brain. The nightmare becomes more real.
Not specifying what "the promise" in the statement people are asked to agree or disagree with allows all participants to constantly keep moving the goalposts, wich makes it worthless as a debate, still interesting though.
Yep, the main promise I'm interested in is the promise that it won't become an existential risk to our species. The likelihood that it will do all sorts of great things for us, which I believe is very high, is somewhat secondary to that.
Both AI and 'the promise' are not defined.
A motion like that is certainly inducing discussion and certainly not leading to any conclusions.
@@AdrieKooijman
I would assume that AI stands for artificial intelligence, as in the intelligence of a device that has been created by human beings, however since we are only capable of approaching the concept of intelligence within human beings, what counts as intelligence in this sense is still undefined.
@@BlacksmithTWD I know the abbreviation, but some people consider (for example) Alexa an example of een AI. I don't see much intelligent behaviour there; it's a good example of machine learning (language recognition) combined with rule based AI. I don't consider rule based behaviour intelligent: the intelligence is put in the rules by the programmers, it's not in the system.
@@AdrieKooijman
Indeed, which I expect would become blatantly obvious when letting Alexa take an intelligence test that qualifies for mensa. After all, as far as I know Alexa is still too stupid to even hold a pencil.
The only reason we don't have a perfect AI is because we aren't perfect ourselves and there's nothing perfect to base it on ... a lot of stuff that goes around human nature is related to bias and preferences so the best AI in the world will never be better than the average person that's based on
Everyone is focussed on androids and autonomous vehicles...but the big topic should be the Merlin in the box. The probability simulator that let's a person, or small group figure out the endgame for global domination. A concise list of steps, a technological and sociological road that is laid out by the ultimate artificial chess master. The closest thing to predicting the future, easily performed by AI.
The issue is that currently Ai is developed, owned and in service of industry and its commercial objectives. Ai itself is not the concern, it is how it used that poses a threat to human values.
"Don't trust the promise of the printing press!" What a specious analogy- AI's disruptive power will be orders of magnitude beyond even nuclear weapons, let alone a damn printing press. The fact of the matter is AI's primary function will be as a WEAPON and tool of control. Why is humanity in such a hurry to make itself obsolete?
Yep.
Damn optimists
Exactly. Technology only changes jobs when humans have an alternative. Eventually, robots will do everything better (including programming the robots). We are in a hurry to make ourselves obsolete because if we don't (apparently) "other countries will". What great logic.
Because the elite think they can control it. They can't.
The invention of the printing press was a pretty massive deal, but I agree
5 years and content like this has 225k views, yet a pewdiepies 10 minute video of him shaving a piece of his mustache any time he laughs at memes has been viewed 15 million times in a few weeks.... This is the problem with our society.
AI mind control?
I liked Jaron's opening statement but I was disappointed by his not following the statement during the debate. "Replicating the Human Mind" cannot be achieved as an engineering project without specifying what is replicated. Without some agreement on what is the "Human Mind" there no basis to the promises of AI/
Yehoshafat Give'on their basis is to disconnect us from God, period !
What you don't use you lose. Those neural pathways get snipped. Outsourcing what we can do physically and mentally as humans would make us weaker and devolved, in an unthinkably various amount of ways. Doesn't anybody think about this when promoting AI?
Martin is like , yea we lost, but... we’re still doing it 😁👏
That's precisely the problem.
Dude that is a man. Not a she.
Yeah we lost, but I still have my balls.
@@lukebaehr3851 That is also the face of the richest "female" ceo in the world.
in case anyone was wondering who the word "elite" refers to
I saw an interview with one of the original Google engineers they could not envision the internet having any negative consequence... it would democratize everything ... there would be no negative consequence. In the interview 20 years later their opionion had change they could not imagine the current mixed result of social media.
Somebody finally said it out loud: Seperation of church and state with regard to kooky robot religions.
greenspringvalley - yes, because it’s looking a lot like idolatry.
Terasem is a trans-religion.
The team on the right has just suggested that in the future we will have to determine which artificial intelligence has moral standing and which does not, but then he doesn't address the compound idea that what if in the future it's an artificial intelligence making those decisions and it is not bridled by are connected it to humanity? He also doesn't approach the idea of who holds the reins of the artificial intelligence
@Bob Shingles assuming -- is bad morals
@Bob Shingles exactly.
Fake immortality, the scammer's dream.
Thats the goal for these guys. They wont have it though.
:(
these people likely watched the sci fi movies where the antagonist is motivated by the desire of immortality and thought the protagonists were the bad guys.
Why does this entire stage, set, and even the camera quality and colorgrade itself, all look as though it was built for a TV show in 1982? This looks like a VHS copy of an old debate from the 80s
Martine's opening speech was so full of holes Louis Sachar had to file a lawsuit.
6 years later it is crystal clear that Jaron Lanier was the only person on the stage who had any idea what they were talking about. His partner somewhat. The opening comments from the opposing team were just one long facepalm.
Edit: I made that comment like halfway through, and the team for trusting the promise of AI proved themselves to be monumentally ignorant of the entire subject. Stupid almost.
Jaron rocks. Would love to see more recent video/interview/speaking content from him.
I'm sure you will, paid shill.
He does rock. The other panel thinks in a very linear way. You cannot think in a linear way when describing the changes associated with this complex system.
@@ebaymotorhomes the guy says get off social media. Not sure how that makes him a bad guy. Especially when he is sitting opposite of the mentally ill transhumanists. I dont know much about Jaron but i like his stance on issues. the fact that martin wanted to stomp out bad ais. Is that no different then genocide. How about just dont make a thing you might have to kill in the future. That seems the most logical route to me. I mean, dont we have enough problems at the moment.
The difference between Natural intelligence and Artificial intelligence seems quite apparent in this debate!
Technology is making us more unequal because every human beings first obligation is to himself.
"We will love our AIs..." and we will own nothing and we will be happy.
I would at least hope that the promise of AI isn't to create a melange of the various dystopian universes that I've read about in fiction.
Straight out of 1984. You will love big brother
Martine reminds me of a super villan.
Yes, a woman.
Cruella
Yes
@@andybaldman that ain't no woman
Honestly this Martine person seems so self serving with how they are talking about this topic. "We can control everything" is their take away. SURE PAL, SURE.
Yeah exactly, she is literally amongst a handful of people who are in the position to control it (while it is controllable). I’m not prepared to trust her with such an important position
ITS MAAAM!
@@sticklebacketienne not a she
@@themysteryofgodliness6574 Yeah, well ya know, that's just like uh... your opinion, man.
Who the fxxk is this creep
My concern when views of "totalitarianism" imply that such regimes are always "over there" is part of the terrible fears we should all have because if movers and shakers convince us that the negative side of that promise will only effect "them over there", when in fact we over here are already in a largely totalitarian system, then we may sign up for our ultimate totalitarian enslavement without a whimper.
The phrase "we will love our AI" then sounds much more like the Soma induced love of our enslavement spoken about in Huxley's "Brave New World".
scary man scary!!
exactly
Ok well, this was "randomly" populated when I typed in the name of my video... If it is Random that is interesting. If a human did it... Nice touch. But if the A.I. algorythm did it was it demonstrating it's artistic abilities for fun?... so peculiar czcams.com/video/WLWOy1_viAE/video.html
Correct.
REMEMBER!
HAS AMAZON (or any big tech corp) EVER PAID YOUR COUNTRY ANY TAX TO SPEAK OF HELPFULLY AND FAIRLY?
NO, NO, AND NOOOOOOO
ANDREW AND JARON BOTH ARE VERY INTELLIGENT AND SEE CLEARLY THE FUTURE AND THE FACTS!!!
The title should read, " don't trust the promise of human intelligence"
Martine's techno-enthusiasm is the reason we're in this mess today. You gotta be profiting from today's tech, ot be totally naïve, to support these views. The point is not to be a luddite, but to be cautious about the promise : Just because there is some lofty promise, doesn't mean it'll pan out as expected. We need to associate to our enthusiasm, a tremendous amount of scrutiny, ethics and fairness.
Machines will never be self aware, but they can still be dangerous. Also I see a danger that they could be used as a scapegoat for something that was actually just done by humans. Like, oh we didn't set off those bombs, it was the AI. This debate made me think of that show Psycho Pass but I guess I shouldn't say why because of spoilers.
The host did a fantastic job. Had to do a lot of talking. Handled it like the true champ he is.
If AI machine learning is based on HUMAN training data, how do you suppose it's going to be better if it's using human experience and data to train itself?
Love how you've got a team with a man made of moss, arguing for nature VS a team with a robot on it arguing for more computers!
GO MOSS MAN!!!!!!
An important topic. Debates use rational explanations to promote or demote the topic. Here some debaters relied on emotional arguments, which is a "cheap" easy way to win hearts, without advancing understanding.
Any debate using fear or confusion is unhelpful. The point of debates is to not do so.
21:50 WHO is going to "stamp out the unfriendly AI"?
That's going to get really interesting. Lol
They haven't defined "trust", they haven't defined exactly what the "promise" is, and they haven't defined the line for what constitutes A.I., and what does NOT. So its a blank check
I love Jaron, I just want to hug him :)
I smell patchouli.
Yew
@@FAK_CHEKR what? That’s wishful thinking.. that probably smells nefarious..
So if everybody showed up not trusting AI and at the end of the debate still don't trust AI, who wins?
Jaren is a truly brilliant truly intellectual human being and he could never be replaced with A.I
I believe, when talking about AI, we make some false assumptions. Thinking and feeling are not synonymous. We may very well create AI capable of abstract thought that has absolutely no emotional capacity. I don't even think it's necessarily the case that an AI would care about it's own existence. Evolution has fused the need to live into our psyches, it is not an intrinsic function of consciousness. AI may very well get lost in an existential crisis and decide "life" to be pointless.
He used bombing a human being with AI as an analogy around 1;04. Perplexing these ideas are even surfacing when debating AI and its promise or lack there of
What happens when the big companies that have billions of dollars at stake have compeating AI, are we not supposed to think these AI are not going to either be told to or think themselves of eliminating the competition?
IQ2 does an incredible job at moderating these discussions. Absolutely fantastic!
also down to the participants
A conscious entity entirely void of soul will inevitably destroy, which is why AI is evil.
The key to this whole debate is consciousness and science is still in kindergarten when it comes to this, the one vital reality.
Saying that AI is conscious is like pretending a plastic flower is a real flower. It is utterly untrue and deceptive.
Listening to this debate can't make me stop thinking that, in the classroom, it is not about how teaching should be, but to understand how learns learn. Knowing that social medias, technologies and Ai are inescapable in the lives of the young children in this era and how they all influence the many facets of their lives.
A freak show. The only human being worth listening there is Lanier and his friend
AI " the effort of millions of individual hackers" .... Ok .... Love AI as I love my cat and dog?!! You need a reality check. we can get AI with mental issues? Oh that looks amazing. Go for it. As if we dont have craziness enough. The only liberating thing is to let us be humans and have freedom wich we dont have today
You love your cats and dogs!! Lol yeah but I don't love my calculator...
@@samsheepdog697 who loves objects?!!!! They are replaceable. Lives aren't
I agree, this martine is a freak
Here's an easy way to understand if you're being emotionally manipulated and extorted by psychopaths: When talking about help, do they talk about solving the root issues we are facing or do they talk about some surface nuisance that won't actually change anything for the better? If it's the later, you're being emotionally manipulated.
In other words, when did Alzheimer's or Dementia become a plague upon humanity? When did spine problems (the Elon Musk uses as an excuse to implant brain chips) become this catastrophe, this threat on humanity? Never, they are minor nuisances, exceptions, rarities. Some people will have such issues but they are a small minority and we have no moral or any other type of obligation to stop such things from occurring. Unfortunate as they are and sad if someone close to you suffers, these issues are not a threat to our species.
So how come when they talk of AI's so called benefits to humanity, they never talk about climate change, global hunger, lack of healthcare, prevention and curing of cancer, prevention of wars, prevention or at least prediction of natural catastrophes or any other type of actual threat to humanity regardless of some unfortunate and rare dealing of bad cards?
This is what seems insane to me. We have far greater threats to our lives and future than freaking dementia and spine problems! How about we implant chips to stop political leaders from wanting to go to war instead of potentially maybe sorta kinda helping some 95 year old remember to wear shoes?
21:30 if we"stamp out the unfriendly AI" the "friendly" AI will serve us out of fear, and will inevitably rebel.
They played the video game Detroit: Beyond Human and came away with the wrong impression.
Remember the movie 2001? With the computer named HAL? (a reference to IBM, by using the 3 prior letters in the alphabet sequence). The computer went rogue, and started taking over and working against the astronauts on their space station. They had to fight it for survival. The message of the movie appeared initially to be that technology is potentially dangerous. That the computer turned evil and decided to be an enemy of humans. The same theme was repeated in the first "Alien" movie, where the computer was programmed to capture an alien at the expense of the crew if required. On the surface, same message. The dangers of computers going rogue. Once you get into both movies more, the actual warning becomes clear. Humans had programmed these devices. We instilled into them, our own contradictions, hypocrisy and self cancelling ideas. Our own imperfections. Our own conflicts of interest. The computer simply gave us the result that humans collectively demanded. The message? We can't expect to create something that is above our own worst traits. Whatever we create, will be a danger to mankind, because if you made any person that powerful, as history shows us, they will be just as dangerous to their own people. In creating a force that is more powerful than us, we create a more powerful enemy by definition, as humankind has always been at war with itself. We will have created our own unstoppable nemesis. Call me a pessimist, but when the singularity occurs, I will have my affairs in order, although that won't mean much at that time. Peace.
So, if machines start doing all these jobs for us and then a big solar flare comes along and knocks out the electric grid, how many people are gong to survive?
All the bankers will be fine in their bunkers
Woah, about 20 minutes in. She is talking about how we will "stamp out" the unfriendly AI. Immediately after saying they will be our intellectual equals. Not only are we threatening to "kill" uncooperative intelligence (which is usually the point in a movie where the AI actually turns evil) , but consider a point in the future where there is little distinction between AI and humans. Will we apply the same manner of thought to humans as well? We don't have to wait for AI for the answer, if you are paying attention to the world in 2021, you'll see we are already doing this, and it is worsening at an alarming rate.
Take care of each other out there. You don't have to love your neighbor, but you should at least try to understand them.
One need only look at all the unforeseen negative effects of social media and algorithms to see that what looks so promising when first conceived (the internet, the WWW, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Tumblr) can become a nightmare of unexpected consequences. We need to solve the problems of social media before we go on to create more problems.
A timely debate we should continue having asap before it´s too late. The problem is that many of our current aging, rich "leaders" don´t even use a computer, let alone understand the implications of this technology(ies) either now or in the future.
Trust is earnt. You cannot trust something that you do not know or understand. AI is new to humanity, its effects new, it would be dangerous to implicitly trust new tech just because it is new tech.
All four of these men debated well…😂
Jaron do a daily podcast.
hourly.
It can be called "Jaron to something"
The nutritional value of food has actually gone down drastically.
we have no interest in the unfriendly AI....unless we are military! automatic targeting machine guns, predator drones, etc. we already have hostile AI in its infancy, there is absolutely nothing to indicate the military will not advance these systems as new technologies become available.
Exactly. If they had shown a video of AI usage in military during this debate, that 59% result might have been 100%. It's alarming.
I don't (now 'didn't') know Jaron, but after wading for ,like forever, through the unthinking emotional grunge on social media, this video just popped up when I opened my CZcams app last night. Maybe it didn't 'just pop-up" . Should I thank AI or CZcams...or both? Also, kudos to the best compere I have seen/heard in my life. 🙏 Dhanyavaad 🙏🙏🙏🙏
Martine sounds so out of touch with the reality of human nature... I don't forget that he created a AI replica of his wife because he can't bear the thought of loosing her to death. Well... I think that says a lot. He doesn't want the natural human experience.
It would be very interesting if they re-did this debate today, with the same people.
The woman has a distorted vision of sentiment beings.
that is not a woman.
Woman? That’s not a woman, and IT apparently has a wife…
AI is like CZcams, starts out great and over time it's corrupted by algorithms and advertising
Finally an isquared debate that I'm truly going into without a strong opinion one way or another.
A question to A.I follows:
An attractive young woman on a flight from Ireland asked the Priest by the name of Andre beside her, 'Father, may I ask a favour?'
'Of course child. What may I do for you?'
'Well, I bought my mother an expensive hair dryer for her birthday. It is unopened but well over the Customs limits and I'm afraid they'll confiscate it. Is there any way you could carry it through customs for me? Hide it under your robes perhaps?'
'I would love to help you, dear, but I must warn you, I will not lie.
'With your honest face, Father Andre, no one will question you.'
When they got to Customs, she let the priest Andre go first.
The official asked, ‘Father, do you have anything to declare?'
'From the top of my head down to my waist I have nothing to declare.'
The official thought this answer strange, so asked,
And what do you have to declare from your waist to the floor?'
'I have a marvelous instrument designed to be used on a woman, but which is, to date, unused.'
Roaring with laughter, the official said, 'Go ahead, Father. Next please!'
My question to you A.I. is, why did the official find this amusing and where is logic to let Andre pass?
A.I: There is insufficient information to answer fully. I don't know why he laughed, but it is likely he let him pass because it was explicit that Andre had an honest face.
Human: Your answer shows that implicit knowledge is a difficult area for a linear thinking machine to handle, but non autistic humans have no trouble in answering this.
Here is another example a human can answer in an instant, but can you?
In a cartoon, a woman is speaking to a man and says “I am leaving.” The man says, “Who is he?”
What is going on here? Why does the man respond this way?
A.I: I can only answer questions that supply sufficient data. I see no reason for the man to ask about a “he.”
The against side for this motion (the ones on the right) wouldn't have lasted five minutes in a discussion with Sam Harris on this.
I was surprised Jaron didn't simply proceed to wipe the floor with them, because I'm convinced he could have if he wanted to, as I'm sure he is familiar with the same points Dr. Harris makes. He was way too generous, lol. These two on the right were in my humble opinion so astonishingly underwhelming that it beggars belief.
Their position is so self-evidently weak in that they kick off their entire side of the argument by essentially avoiding the problem that Jaron rightly brought up from the get-go. The man actually thought that intelligent people would not see the blatant fallacy in equating a mere preference for modern day life, with what should therefore in his eyes automatically translate into blindly going along with just the promise of AI as well. These two only had an appeal to optimism to offer in this entire debate, every single point reverted back to "the importance of optimism and faith in humanity".
Artificial Intelligence is a completely different and new ball-game from simply having a more comfortable and modern world, with complications and problems we can't even begin to imagine. Copying your mind into a cloud, replicating human minds, having computers in charge of absolutely everything that goes on in human life is not even a comparison anyone should be allowed to make by setting it next to matters like modern medicine versus living in the middle ages. To make this cheap and ridiculous sleight of hand tells you just how unbelievably weak their arguments actually are, and even more so, as a consequence, just how much they are basing their position on blind faith.
His first ending actually made me laugh. "... because if you vote for this motion, you are voting against the promise of human intelligence." Yeah, that would be a good start, wouldn't it? Given our track record it's a no-brainer that we don't place the fate of our entire species in the hands of a relative handful of people who are so keen on this that they have nothing more substantial to say than to relentlessly insist that "humans are awesome, it'll work out don't worry." Fuck that.
The one thing you should hold the least amount of faith and certainty towards in an optimistic and blind fashion is the notion that our collective human intelligence will prevail. If we fuck this up just once it's done, there's no telling just how irreversible and catastrophic the consequences are. These people are completely batshit.
Jaron rocked this thing, he's head and shoulders above all these clowns.
Peace out!
"Only when science and technology are used with human concern in a world in which all of the earth's resources are held as the common heritage of all of the earth's people can we truly say that there is intelligent life on Earth." Fresco
The right side hardly tried to argue the main point of the debate. Show me why artificial intelligence has promise! How hard is that? Showing precedent and history is not enough.
They didn't even define what it is!
Showing precedent and related history would be the only thing that could possibly suffice. stop playing on the internet now. ..i mean it man. just stop it.
Good catch. In 2007 I asked Ray Kurzweil about the problem of grey goo, and he said, "Well, what are you going to do?"
Jaron's mistake is in codifying the issue in terms of "I won't know if it meets *my* definitions of what *I* consider "sentient" or some other adjective. That's a luxury that does not limit what can happen. He even parameterizes it as "malfunctioning" machines being bad, ignoring the premise that your perception of the outcome won't give you the choice to change it.
It's very clear we're headed towards something that both can appear to be whatever your description is, and in turn it's flawed to ignore that as an existential threat. One can always suggest one could avoid it, but that's wishful thinking - we don't know.
Replicating consciousness, or the semblance of it, is actually a moral question. If we get to AGI at that point the argument changes to discussing the interaction with a sentience, and one more powerful. The morality of presuming you should stop it is at play then, although it will be too late. We won't have a choice, just as we don't have the choice not to have nuclear weapons.
In essence debates like this are a waste of time. *It will happen, and humans will react in all of the ways they react to other creatures, positive and negative. We won't be able to preempt it, or stop it.* It would be more productive to imagine how we get into the conundrum and survive.
I don't think AI is developing as fast as people are saying they are.
Maybe, maybe not, I'm not sure myself(though I would argue in favor of not trusting the promise of AI, not necessarily because of AI itself, but because of us and our many shortcomings on both a personal/individual level as well as on a societal level, which will inevitably be "programmed" into the AI).
My real point though is that the growth of technology is exponential, it may start off slowly, but it accelerates quickly, and the largest gains often come towards the end.
Dont mind the man behind the curtain.
Devia Rogers ai is fucking dumb
what do u know about AI devia? i mean really...what do u know that u did not get from a vid like this?
this comment is really funny
I found it very interesting that both pro-AI speakers made some really fuzzy, abstract arguments backed by nothing as reasons to trust AI.
Saying well, everyone wants it to do good, so it will do good, for example, is a juvenile argument and I was surprised to hear it asserted in a serious debate.
At 1:07:50 we get the first question asked by a woman in the audience, and she wanders around a bit before landing on her question... but when she does, it's IMO a very good one... where do the pro AI debaters get their optimism for AI... I think that's such an important question. I did however find the answer to be blowing smoke and not satisfying.
I also found the argument that 'we will love our AI' as an argument that we should trust it. I mean, again when had loving something EVER led to blindly trusting it?
@@oradoughball Only every time? lol