We’re Probably Not Inside an AI Simulation
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 05. 2024
- Jim Keller of Tenstorrent discusses AI and his role in guiding its development. (Are we in a simulation? Probably not.)
Watch the full WAN Show: • Why Do CZcamsrs Keep ...
► GET MERCH: lttstore.com
► GET EXCLUSIVE CONTENT ON FLOATPLANE: lmg.gg/lttfloatplane
► SPONSORS, AFFILIATES, AND PARTNERS: lmg.gg/partners
► OUR WAN PODCAST GEAR: lmg.gg/wanset
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL
---------------------------------------------------
Twitter: / linustech
Facebook: / linustech
Instagram: / linustech
TikTok: / linustech
TikTok (LMG Clips): www.tiktok.com/@_lmgclips_
Twitch: / linustech - Věda a technologie
For what it's worth. IBM is a much bigger company than many people think. They have over 300k employees. More than Apple, Microsoft or Google. Yes, they don't sell PC's or consumer equipment anymore but they are far from gone. Their current investments in quantum computing may be the next big move in computing. So I wouldn't count them as out.
Not to mention Red Hat
I think he meant "gone from the public eye" but I can't know what he meant
Quantum computing is never gonna take off, it's borderline a scam if you actually look into the progress that's been made. The highest number a quantum computer has been able to factorise is 23. I could do that in my head in seconds, and a regular computer can do it billions of times a second, and can "even" go higher without spitting out random garbage
@@alfiegordon901323 is a prime number- it has no other factors
@@alfiegordon9013 What you want to know to evaluate any technology is fourfold:
-What is its rate of progress
-What is its theoretical limit
-What is slowing down progress
-Is it really what I think it is
Here our answer is:
-Constantly accelerating over the past 5 years
-The same as regular computers, the smallest size of its atoms
-Quantum theory is difficult problem to work with, we have yet to have great abstractions to work with it
-Modern quantum computers can solve an entire class of problem faster than our fastest supercomputer
Does any of this make it a "borderline scam"?
You should look at the history of the topic before speaking on its legitimacy, especially when mentioning "actually looking into the progress that's being made".
The first model of was described in 1980, the first universal quantum computer was described in 1985, it took until 1988 to get even an idea on how to implement the theory in real life. The first quantum logic gate was only built in 1995. In 1998, we see 2 qubit and 3 qubit quantum computers for the first time. These are still NMR computers, which depend on molecules and solutions. You have to wait for 2005 to have entanglement demonstrated for the first time, and 2009 to get a programmable quantum computer and an electronic one too. We had to wait for 2019 for a 53 qubit processor and quantum supremacy (a problem a regular computer can't solve in a feasible amount of time). It turns out that while it took 200 seconds, the Summit supercomputer could do the calculations in 2.5 days, instead of the claimed 10k years. That's still orders of magnitudes faster than any supercomputer. Only 4 years later, IBM broke the 1000 qubit threshold.
this title is literally the opposite of what he thinks and was talking about
Yeah, whoever cut up the clips didn't listen properly. :)
it literally isn't
6:30 "Here's the really funny part."
I think Keller's real opinion (not in a simulation) was cut out or came from a different interview. Here, he just found it amusing / ironic that if we were in a simulation, we have theories that limit computation, and prevent us from looking too deeply.
@@ytechnology Yup my guess as well but in the clip he lists the main strong arguments that 'shit it could be'
I'm not so sure I agree with the title; I've seen some guys with fucked up fingers
Toes even
I’d like to comment on Jim’s views of AI in art and entertainment. It seems to me that a lot of tech/AI guys just like, don’t really understand the idea of art. They often only refer to it as, “content,” and, “entertainment.” And certainly entertainment is a part of it, but not the only part. The reality is, the method/medium of art and storytelling, and the presence of an artist or storyteller, has never been a limitation that needs to be fixed.
I also don’t think movies (my personal preferred medium) will ever go away because you can start, “living,” the experience. If that were true, games would’ve already killed off movies because they’re more immersive and interactive, and movies probably would’ve killed off books because they show you a reality instead of asking you to create it. But none of those things happened, because none of these mediums are inherently better or worse than the others. Some people may have preferences, but they all have strengths and weaknesses that simply make them unique. As do comics, and audio dramas, and animation, and sculpture, and painting, etc.
Lastly, regarding his comments on the actors’ and writers’ strikes: He says that in his eyes they’re just avoiding progress, like automated weaving machines. But there’s a HUGE fundamental difference here. To many, weaving is a chore. Just a job that needed to be done as a means to an end. Acting is not a chore to actors, and writing is not a chore to writers. It’s their art. The thing that they love and live for, that gives meaning to them, and helps others find meaning in their own lives through experiencing that art. Art isn’t a job that needs to be automated. That’s the difference.
Anyway, I’m not saying that Jim is anti-art or anything. He’s clearly a very smart guy. But I do think he at least somewhat misunderstands the appeal and importance of art, both for the creator and for the audience.
i think he addresses this at the end of the video, there will always be human-made movies just as there is human-made clothing right now
@@raidwipe But the difference is that human-made art isn’t some sort of luxury like human-made clothes. Humanity is the whole intrinsic point of art. He’s just describing a new, different medium or method that couldn’t substitute art as we know it.
Your belief in what makes art valuable is anecdotal.
"The reality is, the method/medium of art and storytelling, and the presence of an artist or storyteller, has never been a limitation that needs to be fixed."
Nobody is "fixing" that? What reason do you have to state that?
"I also don’t think movies (my personal preferred medium) will ever go away because you can start, “living,” the experience."
Yes, Jim literally says that: "There will be a guy with a rotary phone and java script in the corner... but it's not going to be material of your everyday life" When someone says a phrase like "Nobody is going to be watching movies in 10 years" they mean it won't be popular. Nobody watches VHS anymore, surely you agree? Well there's nobodies who watch VHS, and it's not a material of our everyday life anymore.
"Lastly, regarding his comments on the actors’ and writers’ strikes: He says that in his eyes they’re just avoiding progress, like automated weaving machines. But there’s a HUGE fundamental difference here. To many, weaving is a chore. Just a job that needed to be done as a means to an end. Acting is not a chore to actors, and writing is not a chore to writers. It’s their art. The thing that they love and live for, that gives meaning to them, and helps others find meaning in their own lives through experiencing that art. Art isn’t a job that needs to be automated. That’s the difference."
This type of luddite argument is always the most insulting. Weaving is art. You literally can't argue against that. Your bias against weaving is just insulting - because it's already been automated, you feel no regret trampling on the enjoyment of weavers calling what they do "a chore" Well the exact same thing will happen to you. Drawing is useless chore that nobody needs and will be automated away. I literally don't think or believe that, but guess what? Artists take that attitude so easily, as you've just shown, that I have no doubt I will see that point made in the next 10 years when the next big automation comes along and some luddite needs a punching bag to say "See! Automation then was useful (because of course it was, you're living the benefits) but now it's evil (because it threatens the current state of my job)"
Not only that, but your point about what is or isn't a chore to artists is also anecdotal. Literally meaningless. Jim isn't anti-art, but have you considered that you might be? I'd be much nicer if you didn't say the BS about the weaving machine lmao. A banana taped to the wall is still art. Pretentious talk about human element, love for the medium, uniqueness; it's just flowery language. You can make art with none of that. You can even make art with hate. You're allowed to love art ofc; but love for the process of art doesn't define art, that's nonsensical.
Established artists devalue the past before them to present their work as more "valuable" and "special" in a way "that can't be, or shouldn't be automated" Then when the future comes with automation that does just that, they yell up the wall trying to stop it until they make themselves so unpopular that people move onto new artists. It's not subtle in the least no matter how you present the argument, and it loses every time because the automation tends to provide more value than what was lost. Weavers can be great artists, the task they do can be enjoyed and make great work. But clothes for everyone is more useful. It's as simple as that.
@@ReservoirDolphin So is classical theater performances and books, but what do humans consume more of? I think theyll consume this more than regular media because it will be more entertaining to most.
@@bobvance8354 Theater has never been as accessible to the masses as it's limited in its potential audience, but books are still a massive market and medium. People haven't stopped reading.
Did this guy really just tell me that my thousands of hours on CZcams University amount to nothing
He doesn't mean what Linus also misunderstood. He meant hours and hours of recorded video from the car traffic to train an AI.
If we're in a simulation I'm happy with the FOV.
no i want 180 degree fov
@@bobtheblob2770 Our fov is about 220 degrees. I'm worried anything more might cause frame dips if resolution isn't lowered.
@bobtheblob2770 hey, buddy, raise your arms to your side, you can still see them
@@Gwizz1027 are you a deer?
you arent?@@bobtheblob2770
Some people who were born during the Civil War saw the moon landing. That is crazy to wrap my head around
wrap*
So many people misunderstand the story about the Luddites. They weren't opposed to new technology, they were opposed to rich capitalists using new technology to make their working lives worse. They wanted the new technology, just in a way that allowed them to continue living their lives. Of course, they did lose, but that's maybe a lesson to be less enthusiastic or passive about the coming AI revolution. Rich people will absolutely try to use it to destroy the lives of lots of workers, and if history plays out as it has, they'll probably be successful.
Thank you. People need access to the resources and the education to use them.
You say it like all rich people are evil
@@MrGTAmodsgerman I must have missed that part, so I read it again. Where did he say that?
@@MrGTAmodsgerman There's an idiom about power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely that seems appropriate. I'm sure that there are some very nice rich people out there, but the existence of super rich people like billionaires is not a good thing for society as a whole.
@@benallen7403 Well, I know what you mean, but money is just a reflection of a person's character. The more a person has it, the more it shows his character. People with narcissistic personality disorder often find themselves in these positions because they can make extreme decisions without feeling bad about it. Which is often an requirement for such high level jobs. Like a manager who have to fire 1000 of people in order to change a company direction or to safe on costs. This creates the image of these extremely rich people. But this picture doesn't help anyone.
It's become too mainstream for me that people are always going after rich people so they have someone untouchable to blame. I think the solution lies somewhere else than just hating rich people while there are so many who aren't just evil but don't just share it with the world just to show how cool they are (narcisstic).
Repeating these phrases doesn't really contribute anything positive. The influence of large corporations, for example, can be regulated if you want. Here in the EU it started more to more to be a thing. To be more regulated. But unfortunately, the people who complain about these companies often contribute to the fact that these companies can do this in the first place. Why, for example, are there still the majority of people using WhatsApp? After all the scandals that have happened in the last few years? Why do so many people still take a well-known person seriously after they've always lied?
It's more than just the rich influential man. The Western world is able to defend itself against all of this, but apparently they are not doing it big enough.
“probably”
that’s not a zero chance
cant prove a negative
there's a non zero chance that I'm in your closet watching you sleep
Oh there’s absolutely a non zero chance that we are, it’s just incredibly unlikely
@@JeremyPeters What if we make AI to make better AI, but that AI that we made is inside its own simulation...
Fools are sure. Scientists are merely fairly certain.
with the note of "people aren't data intelligent, we're computationally intelligent". That does help me better understand the self, thank you!
“I’m not sure we live in a simulation but are brains sure are” what an elegant statement.
Jim Keller is stating a lot of profound insights in this video... You can tell the information and technology surrounding AI is weighing heavily on his mind. 🤯🤯🤯😳😳😳
"I'm still gonna see if I can get a hot take out of you." Linus, give the man a break. He dropped several hot takes, maybe not to people involved in computational philosophy or whatever, but those things burned me they were so hot!
Up till now every industrial revolution wasn't really job negative. With a little extra training the displaced workers could do different jobs. This isn't the case this time. Alot of blue collar jobs are being replaced by white collar workers. It's not going to be a smooth transition for most of those workers.
It'll force an economic and political shift to left and right respectively.
@@robeagleRHuh? What sort of political shift to the right is necessary to accommodate an A.I. future?
Not really, no people who did thing will now instead look after an "AI" doing things.. for a lot less money too, probably
Show me an Ai that can plumb and do electrician work and I might believe you. And that’s before you start with farming mining etc, and before anyone comments on the latter two the use cases in farming and mining are tiny and a long way of compete implementations.
@@MarkLynskey trades are a very slim portion 0f jobs in the world. Transportation and food services are the highest in terms of total jobs between the two. Both would be extremely easy to automate the vast majority of positions. We are not that far away from it.
Something about the guest is just so refreshing, down to earth and realistic without trying to "sell a vision" or any of the nonsense that we tend to see in these conversations. This was good, thanks.
what are you talking about, homie starts talking about Ray Kurzweil not even a full minute into his _clearly_ prepared monologue. are you looking at the same video?
@@cheater00 he's not selling anything with that though. If he prepared a speech it's a very down to earth and refreshing one.
He's not *a guest* lol. He is Jim Keller, inventor of x86_64 and lead designer for Athlon64, Apple Silicon, AMD Zen and Tesla autopilot chip.
He's been one of the most influential people on the planet in the last 2 decades
@@rivox1009 "one of the most influential people on the planet in the last 2 decades" lol
@@cheater00Kekw you can't say those technologies didn't influence you in some way now can you?
I wasn’t ever expecting to see Jim Keller interact with Linus. Interesting!
In ten years, I am gonna watch a movie just to prove this guy wrong. I don't see it being like Star Trek where the Holodeck came along and no one ever wanted to watch anything scripted anymore.
"I'm still gonna see if I can get a hot take out of you."
Some people just can't underatand exponential curves...
No one really can. Knowing that you can’t, you can kind of compensate and get closer, but it’s still an approximation that will probably ultimately fall flat.
it's everyone not just some people. even experts in their fields are usually wrong about how fast things will progress. theres just too many things converging for our barely not a monkey brain anymore to nit together. you can compensate for it by knowing this but youll still have a pretty trash accuracy rate
Some people don't understand sigmoid curves, either.
So when is Ai gonna write a Linux kernel without being trained on that?
Currently it's just a parrot that can calculate probabilities on what to say next. No understanding.
@David-ty6my Exactly. Right on the nose. Seems most people have a fundemental misunderstanding of what AI actually is, and what it is therefore capable/incapable of. Especially the people that loudly proclaim they understand it without having the most basic computing background knowledge.
Thank you to Old Keanu for the insight.
Ai feels like it’s not ready.
*we are not
it wont be, it doesn't make sense in most places where its forced.
@@LarrysUniqueHandle well there are applications of machine learning where the difference can be clearly observed as a positive already. At the end of the day trying to see if the peg fits in all manner of holes is also a good idea.
You don't understand exponential acceleration
@@babybluesky9238 As of right now, AI is not ready for all the tasks we're trying to push it into and sometimes we're literally just throwing mud at the wall, trying to see if any of it sticks. We've already had a few high profile fails and there's a whole lot of wankers trying to catch a quick buck by chasing and perpetuating crap trends. That's a fact and objecting that "it's gonna get better" does in no way invalidate this fact. It will be better in the future, but right now it's not ready.
Great video
This guy ended up as way more than a hypeman for AI than it started out. 10 years for all software as we know it being replaced by AI? Not even to speak on 40+ year old mainframe codebases written in COBOL, but also the computational cost. Does my video Editor really need to call to the cloud to do everything? Who is paying to run these AI models because they are not cheap
“Full self driving is a bit quirky”… looks at the news: Motorcyclist killed by Tesla while in full self driving mode. So yeah I think it’s a bit more than just a bit quirky
3:05 the doomsayers have been wrong? There is a direct curve going up consistently that separates the 1 percent with the rest of the world. It’s not an overnight thing, it’s a slow process that has no sign of stopping. Ai itself already revolves around hyper expensive equipment. When labor jobs got replaced, many people switched to entertainment. But once entertainment is also taken, what other job exists? Even before industrialization took over the world, entertainment was a thing at a far lower scale
So we didn’t solve food production for 8 billion, reduce infant mortality by a factor of 10, increase life expectancy, eliminate catastrophic diseases, move billions out of poverty, increase literacy towards universality, etc. yes we have challenges ahead: climate change, pollution etc, but we’re working on that. So yes the doomsters are wrong
15:20 Holy sh*t! Huge change!
So he sees our world becoming the Starset world sooner than later.
Idk I lost a lot of faith in the validity of this guy when he said nobody is going to be watching movies in 10 years. Just gives me flashbacks to all the “nobody is going to use X in ten years and will instead use Y” where in almost every case Y ends up flopping. IE: Crypto, AI cars, hyperloop, etc.
I have a feeling people who say this stuff don't understand what makes good movies, music, etc valuable. They see them for their utility as something to keep on in the background or for their economic value, not as things that can move you and challenge you with new perspectives and experiences. A lot of people caught up in the technical side don't understand art is not a problem that can be solved. If I'm around in 10 years, I'll watch a movie just to prove him wrong.
I don’t buy the simulation theory simply because it’s untestable. In my mind it’s just a more science friendly manifestation of creationism.
It also relies on the fact that simulation of another universe is even possible, and I don’t believe it is.
@@zachb1706 Not to mention if we were in a simulation, then most likely what is "above" us would also most likey be in a simulation, and above them and so on, it basically creates an infinite loop, which means if any "above" simulation went down, so would all the others. Science friendly manifestation of creationism is spot on lol, its the God story but for tech bros
The simulation must have a purpose. We should be trying to reveal it's purpose so we can do what the programmers want. Only by learning to play the game can we advance and find the purpose for our simulated existence. What do the programmers want and how can we please them?
@@zachb1706 99% of the "universes" would be in its "final state" (ie cant simulate another universe), so probabilistically we'd be part of one of those. of course our universe makes it seem like we cant simulate another universe, if we're in the final state, but thats not to say the universes "above" us cant.
I wouldn't call our brain a simulation, since it's not trying to simulate something, it just does what it does.
people like what people do
Can you build a measuring device inside a simulated universe that can detect things outside of the simulated universe? If not then whether we are simulated or not is irrelevant. If so then build that
Do you really think that an AI powerful enough to simulate not just earth but the entire universe would’ve left to chance the possibility that it’s simulation would be able to detect that they’re a simulation?
@@JeremyPeters I'm asking in the general sense. Could you in a computer
Create anything that can examine its own source code? Can you build a soft microscope that can detect "real" objects? If not then why should we expect ourselves to be able to?
I think it comes back to the old thought experiment. An entity that lives in a 2d plane can theoretically measuring things in 3d. They could see the outputs that 3d objects present to them, and possibly mathematically figure it out. But actually trying to figure out what to look for in the first place is the hardest part, as everything in 2d is part of 3d.
@@FFXfever has there been any experiment ran or built or designed or conceived of that could in principle measure said higher dimensions? If not. Why? If so, then please show me said device or it's plans or it's abstract.
@@JDSileo I remembering hearing about experiment by stephen hawking
I disagree that traditional media and films will go away in favor of procedurally generated entertainment. Books and paintings didn't go away when we got movies and games, and there's also the value of human artistic expression.
It won't entirely, but it will become niche.
Yeah it seems to me that a lot of tech guys just like, don’t understand the idea of art. It’s only, “content,” and, “entertainment.” The method/medium of storytelling has never been a limitation that needs to be fixed.
@@CasepbX I don't even think this would be the case, at least not when the stories that machine learning can tell is limited by the wealth of human knowledge and experience In it's current implementation at least, just like what we've seen with the attempts at AI art, eventually it will come up against the limit of what's been experienced and told, and exists on the internet to scrape from. Once it starts pulling from what it makes itself, or other algorithms have made it quickly begins to devolve and can no longer refine.
If we ever get to the point where real, definitive AI is made that makes things different of course, but at that point we're talking about sapient intelligence on a level of our own, at which point other questions start coming up like whether or not such beings should be considered our equals, and if they are, that's when their creations could be considered as important as our own, because they would be able to express their experiences in a way not dissimilar to how humans do today.
As "AI" is today though, it's like a room full of monkeys with typewriters and brushes that can process information at the speed of a computer. We can direct it but it cannot come to it's own conclusions without being told what those conclusions should be.
I learnt how to skateboard by watching 100's of hours of videos and hundreds of hours of playing and examining the animations in EA's Skate.
OH THANK GOD CZcams CHANGED THE LAYOUT BACK!!!! Anyway, wish i had time to watch the whole interview with this guy because he seems super smart, intelligent, yet down to earth and realistic.
It would be funny if light being a particle/wave when being observed was some sort of particle culling for performance
I dont understand how this guy seems any more sane than people like sam altman, I went into this video excited to hear a perpective from someone who is supposed to be "down to earth" just to be met with "in 10 years movies will be interactive simulations." He literally just also seems to be hyping up AI. Im not an artist, but I also dont like how tech bros commodify art so much, art to tech is simply a product and nothing more, its gross consumerism at its finest.
Exactly
as soon as art became a career it became a product, if you dont want to make art as a product then ai will almost not affect you at all
@@Synthesia-ef7hj I dont agree that everything has to be so black and white, i think something can be sold and not be strictly a product, my main issue is as a society art can really only sustain itself when sold, I dont think its artists faults for selling art in order to make a living and subsequentially allowing society to treat art as nothing more than something to be consumed. We live in a world where in order to continue to develop your skiill you have to either be a rich kid, or, most likely, sell your art to survive.
@@Synthesia-ef7hj Most art is meant to be shared. Shared cultural experiences are part of what defines our societies. I want to see and hear what people have made. I'm not paying for something no one bothered to make.
@@RawrxDev hmm maybe when AI makes us all rich kids we can all pursue art without treating it as something to be consumed.
“AI is set to disrupt the global economy in ways we’ve never experienced before. Now, I won’t deny I dropped my fair share of hard R’s.”
Great vid HEY in still going to be able to use ai to play asherons call 2..
Well, as I always say. We built the computers by looking at the universe and trying to predict it. Not the other way around. So you could say that the universe is not a computer simulation but computers are kinda like little universes. I think we are confusing what comes before here. Also if the speed of light were to be infinite, everything would’ve happened at once and the universe would end in an instant. The atoms would collapse into themselves since the interaction speed is also infinite. There would be no time to speak of. Just everything happening at once in zero time.
The biggest evidence to be certain about everything not being a simulation is how rapid the advancements are coming out of nowhere.
In a simulation, this would not be the case, it will be more unformed.
This is just another S-curve of progress because of the success of transformer-based models which were proposed in 2017. It will take many more breakthroughs to get to "real AI"
Expected more simulation talk lol.
There are already over nine (9) VR simulation worlds that are 1 : 1 scale to Earth. That's just toy games.
BUT HOW DO WE KNOW? (I haven’t watched the video yet)
No speed runners. Q.E.D.
Human Race: Spawns AI
AI: Spends 99% of it's time tripping on DMT
Human Race: -pokes AI- Do something....
Even if we are, we won't be shattering the illusion anytime soon, it's a philosophical tangent. It's not fundamentally disprovable, possibly provable if true, but we don't and won't know barring an apocalyptic revelation. It's a trendy story telling device and philosophical paradox that people like to throw around. That's all it is though.
There are a lot of unresolved paradoxes like with time travel, something which is equally impractical to discuss.
9:41 "Humans drive cars really well."
Oh I respectfully disagree! It is my firm belief that driving any land-based vehicle is the one skill invented by humans with the highest rate of complete and utter incompetency.
Scotty Kilmer spot on!
Linus has clearly become a mod of our simulation and wants to throw us off the scent.
"... we don't need AGI to drive a car, it turns out."
That's what the simulation would want us to think
All these tech bros want to disrupt everything. What nobody talks about is what the fallout of the disruption is.
Everybody talks about it, especially when it comes to AI. There are literal multi-hour podcasts about the topic.
Jesus quite a few bots in here already
Yup, nearly every single video has them.
"Bots is the success of CEO's!"
Ai is really taking over lmao
jesus take the wheel
The problem with AI in the entertainment industry is that big movies still cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce. The studios are all in a race to the bottom. So yeah, while people will still seek out human-made movies, the only ones made will be shoestring budget indie movies. All the big companies will happily fire all their talent and have a computer generate endless sequels.
Seems there will be a lot of talent with a lot of free time, as long as we get rid of the whole "either your labor is valuable or you starve" system.
Oh, cool, thanks
I think we'll be ok as far as driving until AI can somehow dominate the racing sphere(i.e. F1, Nascar, rally driving)
It feels like he's lost in the hype bubble. I don't deny that a lot of cool things are coming, and a lot have already happened, but it's not as fundamental or as good as he claims, and it won't be there that quickly.
the speed of causality being so limited saves A TON of processing power and the uncertainty principle saves A TON of memory so yea its likely we are in a simulation but there are a possible of infinite unknown unknowns that we dont even know that we dont know them so just enjoy the show and make everyone enjoy it too
Im sorry but i disagree on the timeframe. 10 years? All our software gone, no more movies? We still have radio, today, and new forms of it (spotify, podcasts). For every 10 new webapps theres at least one competitor offering local software (and in doing so carving their niche)... even if things happen that fast (and i dont think it will be that fast) old form media and todays software will still be around - but of course changed. Image editing for example, there will likely be 2 dozen popular ai 'just prompt it' and 1 or 2 that will be like full suites- but instead of doing everything by hand injecting ai here or there it will more likely be adjusting the ai generation finely on the fly (and definetly with 'do by hand' option).
For comparison thats the kind of mentality that promised us flying cars by the 2000s, then the 2000s came and some predicted flying cars by 2020-2030. Were at 2024 and i dont see flying cars in 6 years, heck not even grounded fully self-driving ones. VR headsets started in the 70s and people were projecting VR revolution by the 80s, then surely coming by the 90s-2000...
Dont overshoot. Its an easy mistake but it shouldve been easy to prevent by now given our history overshooting tech projections. Also people often overlook all the dependencies tech needs like we could build great robots today if we had small super efficient bateries but our best bet is still too heavy. This isnt Civilization 5, isnt just getting 1 upgrade on the techtree to get everything after soon after.
I get what he's saying, but I'm frustrated that in every single example he gave of 'technology disrupting society' There was an actual human cost to that disruption that is being flat out ignored. So much of that human cost stemming from its implementation. Even something as innocuous sounding as the highway system has figuratively and literally destroyed communities.
Have these technologies made our world better, in a lot of ways yes You can't deny that. But none of it was sunshine and rainbows even if "The doomsayers are never correct"
Man, idk, maybe. Neurons in brains are so complex, I wouldn’t be surprised if inference and intelligence just can’t be replicated
no they aren't. neurons themselves are not super complex its the trillions of connections between them that make human intelligence and if nature can produce it why wouldnt we be able to?
It's just a bunch if chemicals dude, of course it can be replicated, it's just really really really f-ing hard
@@demonz9065 Well on a fundamental level we don't have a firm understanding of what consciousness exactly is. Can you transfer it? Moreover, from a training data perspective, nature has had billions of years of perfect simulation data. Right now, we have the technology capability of perfectly replicating the virtual structure of a human brain, but human brains come preprogrammed with dna and evolution so a baby has the optimal neural weights from birth. Discovering those weights without being able to generate our own perfect simulation of reality would likely be impossible.
Current famous AI programs are merely language prediction models. Sure, they excel at memoization and regurgitating pre-existing knowledge like doing taxes or lawyer work, but they still dont possess any form of logic or critical thinking capability. AI isn't anywhere near being able to generate new novel ideas on its own or perform scientific research breaking new ground.
Great my computer has depression
people used to think it's impossible to clone life. everything will be possible
Masterfully dodged all the hot takes 😂
No one has asked me if I want to live in a movie in ten years. I do not. This is a case of “should we” and not “can we”. I will always be on Team Human.
but we can try at least once, just to be sure. :D
Perhaps not you or me, but the generations to follow. Still, I like a choice between active entertainment like games (or future movies), and passive entertainment like movies today. Both fill a need.
Team human is pretty screwed right now.
@@MrMelonMonkey honestly all it takes is one try to completely derail. In the event that something goes cataclysmically wrong. That's the end of it. it just happened and we're screwed. Plus with technology like this you never just try it once and then get rid of it if it doesn't work out. Technology almost always becomes a mainstay. When it's something as big as this you don't just try it once it just becomes permanent. And I'm not even talking like an iRobot type of future. I'm talking about someone using deepfakes of world leaders saying genuinely terrible things. And getting us into another war because another world leader saw it and they don't understand that it's a deep fake or even what a deep fake is because all of our world leaders are old as hell. And rash. So they'll just pull the trigger on the nearest nuke because they're so angry. Lol.
It sounds fun, but I sure as hell won't stop watching movies. Some of these people are so caught up in the technical stuff that they don't understand art is not a problem to be solved. I doubt he really values movies made with a purpose and artistic vision much now if he thinks they'll just die off so we can live in the holodeck forever.
Thats what someone who wants us to think we're not in a simulation would say...
*hmmmm*
Big Tech is punching down. So the best that we can do is get behind everything open source.
Sony, Nintendo, Apple, FreeBSD, Blender, Godot, emulators (game dump, no pirating), Linux, GPL, MIT. The more time we put into the back end, front end, binary and source code of everything open source, the business will sway to get our good side and actually work with us to keep everything from oldest tech to modern alive.
AI is a function... What is the main program?
Humans arguably are data driven.
As a species not on an individual level.
Millions of years of data gathering and algorithm refinement packed I to the genetics that govern how the brain forms.
His comment on AI and general-purpose computing flipping is an interesting thought. At first it sounded absurd, but I kept thinking about it and I'm beginning to think it's inevitable. My grandpa went from only having radio to holding a smartphone and depending on how long this takes and how long I live, I may see the world taken over by AI.
The problem with technology it’s mainly not the creation of it but its adoption. He’s got a bit of wishfully thinking in his predictions, similar to how Elon makes predictions. In reality things are going very differently and there are many problems that you have to solve in order to make the technology adoptable. Like the gpt3 moment, it got off because they made a nice user interface for it so that it’s easy to use.
Many gpt3 moments need to happen for all these predictions to become real. We could achieve AGI today but that’s not happening because the tech is not easily adoptable
ustralia today Lest We Forget
Came for the title. Didn't get that content. I'm not mad that I watched the clip, but I am pissed that I was suckered into it. I will definitely remember not to trust the presentation of videos from this channel again.
ai is so different from all those other forms of tech, there is no comparison this is a tech that has been made by stealing millions of peoples work and talent. at one point he says he is against ai being controlled by 2 people but that's how its going to be unless we set some hard rules in place to protect people. as i always say tech likes to ask for forgiveness and not permission.
the thing is i am not against ethically sourced ai but todays ai is anything but ethical.
My view is that if it’s publicly accessible, something that any human can view and learn off of, then it should be something than an AI can view and learn off of.
But I also don’t think the epitome of AI will be looking at the internet, it’ll be an advanced agent learning in the body of a robot like a human learns.
@@zachb1706 if I put an image on my portfolio for a job you do not own the right to that image, and to use that image without paying me is theft.
Why do you think people get sued for taking music or using music on CZcams without the musicians permission.
I can access someone's album from a store or an app but I can't use it to make money or anything like that.
@@zachb1706 if I download this whole video from Linus and reupload it on CZcams am I allowed to monetize it?
I can access it, it was sent into the public sphere.
@@Apheleion no, but you’re able to watch it and learn from it to make you’re own videos.
That’s the difference. When running the AI doesn’t have access to any of the videos it’s learnt from, it has to create one based purely off tuned weights. Just like you create one based off neural pathways tuned from your own experience
@@zachb1706 but ai doesn't do that, it just prints and paste the original work in a lot of cases, this is why you see water marks in a lot of outputs, i mean Getty image has a huge lawsuit going on about it, also being able to type in an artist name after its been trained on their work is seriously unethical.
Probably are, and someone's being setting the sliders to ultra stupid now that we can record such 24/7
❤❤❤❤❤
My response is to reject it for most everyday situations. AI has a lot of great applications, especially in things like the medical field, but we get by just fine without ChatGPT and image/video generation.
I will not use it, I will look down upon anyone I meet who uses it. I will encourage people to value physical, tangible talents that the AI cannot replicate.
I've heard a lot of people suggest the idea that culturally, after decades of rampant irresponsible use of technology, many people are going to push back. Not rejecting tech, but promoting much more restrained use of it.
Modern day Amish
It won't help, it's too late. While you personally may remain disconnected, the arms race has begun and choosing not to participate results in being subjugated by those who use every advantage available to them.
Not long ago people were saying just what said about phones, then there was the "im not good on computers" generation and then there was the hand held portable telephone everybody was rejecting
You're going to be one of these people and that generally leads to under performing in comparison to embracing new technologies. You would never have turned away a bronze age chariot in favor of a stick.
It sounds like you're wasting a lot of time. You're looking down on people who use AI while they run laps around you in terms of productivity lol.
@@linklovezelda They have a point to an extent though, I think a huge portion of AI uses will be in medical, scientific and commercial/enterprise - with consumer tech coming out much later.
That's kind of how it always goes though so...
@@linklovezelda Lol what are they "running laps around me" doing? I'm going to graduate school in the fall without any student loans, I enjoy creating art and writing, and sharing it with people, and I have a happy family.
I fail to see how the AI can supposedly min max my happiness. I've tried using it in my creative and school work, and found it a waste of time. It's much easier to just draw what I want rather than wasting time prompting, much easier to just write my own essays instead of trying to use ChatGPT.
Thats what an AI Simulation would say /S
I still don’t get how people will keep saying things like “unsure about the simulation/ unsure about god” you know you can ask, right? Just ask God directly for an answer. Infinite intelligence and power can answer you. And will.
Infinite intelligence spoke to you and you are here in the YT comments talking about it? Now that's fkn funny.. lolz
Pills
I did ask God. She says she loves black people
Where in gods simulation, bois. Be kind
should've just let him talk longer instead of interrupting on every question, you guys talk about useless crap for 40 mins sometimes maybe let him ramble on a bit longer....
No movies in 10 years?
AI hypemen are everywhere now. And for some reason everyone is taking their words as truth.
If I was the owner of an AI chip company I would also try to hype the tech that would make me the most money. Take everything he says with a cup of salt.
AI is cool and definetly has its real world aplications. But some people just want to sell their chips.
I want autonomous cars now. I'm soon 33 and I don't want to deal with the process of getting a driver's license, overpriced and seems annoying 😄
Aw dammit just when i thought i had it all figured gosh darn
(Yes im joking)
"I'm going to get a hot take out of you", dudes been spewing hot takes for 10 minutes. 😂
That hot take sucks. Bro rooting for almost all entertainment and creativity to be replaced by machines? In 10 years? I don’t know. Sounds like a nightmare.
Linus could you act like you care about his answers instead of cutting him off mid sentence?
Our universe does have characteristics in common with simulations. Simulations have limited resolution and rounding errors that can be described statistically, but not predicted within the system and we have QM. It has propagation delays between parts of the simulation that result from a maximum speed of propagation. We also have such a limit. Not smoking gun evidence, but still not ignorable either.
Also quantum entanglement
You sure its not the other way around? We build simulations that try to simulate reality?
@@39zack We have limits in simulations do to actual limitations in what we can do, not as a deliberating simulating the limits of reality as we know it. The limits of simulations are not for lack of trying to remove them. If you could run simulations with infinite resolution in anything approaching reasonable time we would.
What about expansion of the universe however? That's something without a firm maximum limit
@@danielhu6485 Nor a clear value for it's rate. Right now we get incompatible measurements for how fast the universe is expanding. It could be a feature of the simulations or an artifact of our measurements. If the simulation has expansion built in that could affect the speed of the simulations, but I can think of no way we could detect changes in the simulation speed.
Yeah but Unreal 5.4 looks pretty real and if we can make the world look so pretty than our pretty world could be made.
Unreal at a core level is absolutely nothing like the real world. Unreal uses various techniques to give things the appearance of the real world, it in no way actually simulates it. That's like saying because we can Photoshop images of Godzilla we could create Godzilla
@@CatMeowMeowyour argument relies on our reality resembling the "real world".
Any given n dimensional space has more than enough computational power to simulate a n-1 dimensional space.
Who's to say some 4/5/6th dimensional computer isn't running the simulation.
My issue with simulation is that it's just atheist "god". Derivative crap
@@CatMeowMeowBut in a 200 years we might be able to.
@@paro2210 I really doubt it, graphics is all about pretending, its all just math that mimics the look of reality, but it literally couldnt be less fake, it works nothing like how our reality works at all, not even close, If I draw a sun on a piece of paper I didnt create a star, it just looks like it, but that is the least important part of a star, it will not behave even slightly like a star.
@@RawrxDev But that's now. We will come to a point where we have enough computation to simulate a star down to the molecular level. The only real limitation is computation.
how much did you guys get paid to put this guy on our screens
8th comment
1st
Be quiet 🤫
Video 13 Linus please build me a free PC
..Weird title, considering the latest evidence suggest we are.. lol
Elon shill
4 minutes ago 6 likes fell off
Numbers.