The Evolution of Consciousness - Yuval Noah Harari Panel Discussion at the WEF Annual Meeting
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 06. 2024
- How will human decision-making processes, accountability, empathy, trust and even consciousness be impacted by the technological revolution and the rise of artificial intelligence? From the World Economic Forum annual meeting 2018 - a panel discussion featuring Prof. Yuval Noah Harari, Prof. Daniel C. Dennett, Prof. Jodi Halpern and Amy Bernstein.
How fortunate am I that I can listen to this for free. To be born in such a time that such content is so easily accessible.
Yuval is a fool
@@jesuschristisrisen3519 Takes one to know one?
@@jesuschristisrisen3519 we are all fools, I am a fool have nothing against a fool. He is not correct in everything but straight forward gives his idea without bullshit talking, and that’s important.
good discuttion..!!!
What an absolute treat this was to watch! I just loved Prof Yuval and Prof. Jodi's take on this subject and also the discussions triggered by Prof Daniel's comments.
True. One gets totally immersed in the discussion particularly when YNH takes the mic.
Bot
I love that AI found this for me to watch and possibly 99% of fellow viewers. The horse seems to have all ready bolted.
The horse is indeed out of the stable, it's just not very fast yet. It will be the Kentucky Derby winner eventually, though. Weird.
No, I think, because I am actively choosing what to respond to or ignore.
Its no different than walking past shop window displays and only shopping when a need has been actively decided on ?
You missed the point about what it hasn't presented to you.
The Eagle has landed
Thank you for sharing this event.
Leaving even decision making to AI is not always a good idea. Allowing AI “create” your life by choosing what it thinks you want based on data in in itself artificial. Humans need some uncertainty and chance in order to grow intellectually and emotionally, think creatively, etc. It’s how humans change, evolve and acquire higher levels of consciousness. Algorithms based on data may bring you what you are comfortable with, what you may want to purchase but it doesn’t offer uncertainty and chance which is needed for expanding your views, creativity, etc.
Having listened to several such panels like this one, the conclusion that I seem to discern is that we're skating on thin ice, and we're blind to where the dangers are, but we know broadly that there ARE a lot of dangers, and that some dangers lie this way or that, but we really don't know what we're doing, where we're going, or if/when we'll crash through into the freezing water and drown. And while the best idea is to get off the ice, as Yuval says, we can't because we can't afford to be left behind, because of all the choices, that one certainly leads to death unless every single person decides to get off the ice too, which simply won't happen.
If we survive to the end of the century, I think it will be 90% because we got lucky at the right times in the right ways, and only 10% because we made the right decisions.
Yuval Harari, have you read up Indian thought on Consciousness, esp the way Advaita Vedanta defines
What an incredible discussion, thank you so much.
"We need to protect humans, not jobs" -YNH. Profound. And is one of the reasons why I support the idea of universal income and universal health care.
You do that because women are more communitarian, but in reality when everyone is taken care of, people who can’t afford kids will continue to have them, creating more strain on the system , thus destroy it. It’s not going to work
@@satoshinakamoto7253 It is already working ( e.g in scandinavian countries). Dysgenic fertility has causes beyond social welfare network/benefits. Bangladesh, nigeria, niger have an insanely high fertility ratio with one of the lowest GDP/capita and no social welfare network at all. US ( especially the bible belt) has also a very high fertility ratio. You are brainwashed to believe that the 'lazy" are gonna steal your taxes when you are being robbed daily by an elite that wants you to think you are a future millionaire ( just not there yet).
@@Lalakis nope. birth rates below replacement rate, no innovation, encourages people to be lazy. Its a positive sum game in capitalistic competence hierarchies
@@Lalakis you live in denial.
Consciousness Iss. All inclusive and endlessly more. Be aware of Davos, stay present and awake to our devine and human nature, cherish both.
I strongly agree with Dan Dennett''s point on potentially becoming "hypercautious, hyperfragile, hyperdependent beings" as a result of AI ubiquitousness; and his sailboat example in being unable to experience a sense of adventure due to AI guidance.
Respect to all but Yuval is way ahead in every aspect.
Obviously. I love him for his intelligence
True!
Dan Dennett is one of the best philosophers in the world.
yaaa.Yuval is the best
I don't think this was a competition ☺️ kidding but half the time they were talking about empathy.
This is my third time watching. What a valuable conversation! Deserves far more views.
You're lame. So is that baldy Yuval
He's auditioning to he the antichrist, duh
Brilliant discussion! At 39:14 Professor Dennett took his audience into the realm of poetry! Love that wistful sadness he expresses about losing human capacity no matter how flawed and self destructive that may be! At 51:47, Yuval nails on the whole point of this session! Enlightened monk Bopryun from S Korea also talks of emotional intelligence and resiliency of mind in an ever changing environment.
one great thing about youtube is that you can fast forward the video to listen Yuval only, I am not interested in the rest of them
Harari and Halperin's back and forth on the ethics of delegating less important decisions to AI can be well illustrated in the episode of The Adventures of Rick and Morty where Summer is stuck in Rick's space car and the on board AI is given the directive to "keep Summer safe" while Rick and Morty have to go off to deal with more important matters.
I'd love to see Professor Yuval Noah Harari, a contemporary master of the outer world, in conversation with Eckhart Tolle, a contemporary master of the inner world. Though, I don't know who would sponsor this meeting of very compatible thinkers.
Harari says Vipassana meditation, which he began whilst in Oxford in 2000, has "transformed my life". He practises for two hours every day (one hour at the start and end of his work day), every year undertakes a meditation retreat of 30 days or longer, in silence and with no books or social media, and is an assistant meditation teacher. He dedicated Homo Deus to "my teacher, S. N. Goenka, who lovingly taught me important things", and said "I could not have written this book without the focus, peace and insight gained from practising Vipassana for fifteen years. "He also regards meditation as a way to research
That’s why he is ahead of everyone onstage. He has observed his own mind enough to see that the human mind itself is primitive “artificial intelligence”
Brilliant idea !
@@amputd From the point of view of Buddhism, all intelligence is artificial. Consciousness is the golden goose.
Read more
Still one of the better talks I've experienced. Great minds.
I truly enjoyed the banter between the Prof and Yuval.
Fabulous. This needs to be shared with anyone who cares about being human!
Busy times for the Professor :)
This is the only thing the internet should be about, a true place of comfort and sense.
Unfortunately, Daniel C. Dennett doesn't get it anymore.
He still understands what it's about. But he cannot let go of
various of his own beliefs. And he feels it crudely.
Yuval Noah Harari is clear and in time.
Jodi Halpern is good and well-founded.
I was going to write the same thing. His discussion about the need for AI to have skin in the game doesn't make sense. AIs aren't human and its human-centric to judge them by those specific standards. It can likely use some form of future smart contract to guarantee some better than any human contract which needs an outside body to enforce. His statement about sailing was ridiculous, all he does is blame insurance companies. Also the robot from Short Circuit is insanely humanoid, like so much you'd think he was trying to say the opposite of what he did.
I think Dennett is on the point actually, Yuval is clear, I feel Jodi is more interested in showing her academic career rather than pursuing the truth.
I disagree, on your first point, he isn't talking literally about skin, but about being able to loose something, negotiation always involves an equilibrium between two or more parts, and equilibrium about what? I guess the answer has to do with the skin metaphor, wouldn't you agree here?If a part has nothing to loose in a negotiation then that part isn't really negotiating, a contract is the end result of a negotiation process.
or, perhaps, Heinrich doesn't get Dennet
I guess he doesn't, even though I feel Dennet always finds new clever ways to explain things
46:25 absolutely brilliant, thought-provoking answer to the question.
Does anyone find Prof Halpern's constant use of the words "I", "my" and "me" rather annoying? Why can't she just answer the questions rather than constantly relating everything back to her?
Most people do that, it annoys me a lot. I noticed that a long time ago.
I think she was nervous, being intimidated by the intellectual giant sitting next to her, and trying to compensate by driving the point about her academic achievements.
I am addicted with lecture of professor yuval
really a very civil discussion. thank you
Do other people have a hard time following the train of thought in this discussion? Like why (23:00) are they discussing whether ai can incorporate serendipity (and yes, the answer is yes.)
The answer ( and also advice ) Yuval gives to the question of the guy ( between 51 - 53 min ) ! Brilliant
the most interesting discussion I have ever seen
In his ubiquitous presence on various panels, conversations and lectures Harari seems to himself become a human example of machine learning.
Learning? Seems to me like he repeats always the same things over and over again
@@Louis13XIII yes, indeed. Quite standard
I like what Prof. Daniel Dennett said about his library experience. There are many things in life which are ruled by randomness and have no pre-set path. Personally, I have read books, watched great movies and have found great food in very unlikely places which I would never gotten through an AI controlling my preferences. An AI would actually make a person more fundamentalist in his opinions and tastes by validating his stance on every move. It's quite evident in social media like Google,WhatsApp,Facebook etc.
Do not agree at all. Being fed, indeed overfed, with your current interests, is the best way to make you start seeing the limitations and limits of your views.
Just think, if you like a particular food or drink, the quickest way to be done with the obsession is to indulge in it without any limitations, physical, financial or otherwise.
As far the randomness of encounters, Yaval answered that question perfectly: you simply dial in the amount (and "flavor") of the randomness you think you'd like to encounter, anything beteween 0 and 100 %.
I think youtube just tweaked it's algorithms to show opposite views to one's own too.
randomness is something we ascribe to things we don't understand. It is just an interim solution, a placeholder if you like.
I agree with your disagreement. The social media algorithms feeding people only what they primarily gravitate to is an excellent example. One cannot program an algorithm that duplicates the bits of knowledge & information that falls into your lap accidentally ie: the book that falls of the libary shelf that grabs your interest or the book you grab by mistake but teaches you something wonderfully useful. You cannot program natural organic randomness. This is not saying an Ai algorithm cant produce awesome outcomes in say philosophical learning im simply saying they will be different. Also who knows what mental deficits might be created by eliminating the cognitive function of making decisions? If i let a machine do all my lifting my muscles atrophy
A personal AI would look at everything you consume and figure out the mix. The concept of feeding you data that supports your confirmation bias is not AI, it's Google.
Love to listen this brilliant conversation!
If AI controlled this panel, only YNH would remain
And I wouldn't like to be on a sailboat with him.
@@ejpmooB zo opor b oo
@@ejpmooB oo
And those Who follow him 😉
Harari is clarifying for us whenever opens the mouth. The others too just fog and unable to talk to people, they talk to themselves...
I agree with you and I wonder what they teach to their students with their heads like this.
Thanks to all of you, to make it absolutly clear on who is geting it and who is not.Two out of tree is out of bounce, right on target it,s all about making desitions here and now, not what a great person
I’am.
Better to have Yuval in 1x1 discussion then have to wait listen to other panelists
WhT happened to talking about consciousness?
I literally wanted to skip the parts when Daniel C. Dennett speaks.
dhiraj kumar I feel you. He's a very clever philosopher but he clearly cannot understand consciousness from an experiential point of view nor grasp certain neuroscience models of mind because of his biases against consciousness being tangible. Whereas Yuval Noah Harari is an advanced meditation practitioner and science professor. So one knows consciousness in depth and the other is purely philosophical in approach. Dennet's wrong view is blatant!
As born Groovists, there's nothing more important than spreading The One Groove. This is our purpose for Being & must Be , before the Earth can no longer sustain us.
A lovely point.......as a cyclist I used to enjoy getting lost on country roads, and using the setting sun to gage direction home. Now I carry my phone and know exactly where I am at all times. It is a profound trade off.....but ultimately the GPS wins.....as I used to miss so many trails, towns, and landmarks....just because I had no idea that they even existed.
Thank you Yuval Noah Harari!
Not necessarily way ahead, but he does have some good points. He made reference to trusting the A.Is to curate our decisions and choices which is very destructive for the human mind. The more we outsource the very process that sharpens our minds eye (thinking), we become a boat lost at sea, unable to sea our own boundaries of mind. A.I may swallow us if we are not careful. As Professor Dennett notes, loss of agency in our lives. It's already happening. Google maps, Tinder, Amazon....We are letting the algorithms choose our mates, our foods and everything else, and we're not sure where it leads us at the end of the rabbit hole. Our human minds are much more fragile and blind than we notice. Unfortunately, Our egos, especially the more educated we are, and based on culture creates an eddy, narcissism. We're unable to see beyond ourselves.
That was truly one of the phenomenal discussions. I loved particularly the moderator, and her grasp and decoding competence of each intellectual's complicated views. YNH always triggers one's mind.
Great points all round, it was a good discussion!
Apasionante discusión sobre la manera en que tomamos decisiones y experimentamos nuestras realidades, pero sobre todo el cambio que estas pueden sufrir con el incremento de la inteligencia artificial en nuestras vidas.
Consciousness is awareness of reality. Humans are aware through the senses, like the animals are, but unlike the animals, humans have free will, the ability to think.
We have the capacity of conceptualizing our perceptual experience, conceptualizing those concepts, et al- building, retaining and using vast amounts of information in order to live, a feat that the lower animals can’t achieve.
Robots can’t achieve it either because they aren’t alive; we build them in order to live better.
Some humans choose not to discover how to exercise their capacity to think or exercise it consistently and without contradiction.
To be or not to be is the choice to think or not- which is the choice to be human or not.
I love Daniel Dennet but he's showing his age in this discussion, especially his thoughts on serendipty seem quite juvenile. He reached for a book in the library and saw one next to it that greatly influenced his life.. but imagine the nearly infinite space of books that could not have ended up near the one he reached for due to an uncountable number of reasons (different language, different section of the library, etc). He's so hyperfocused on the sliver of traditional, analog serendipity that he's experienced that he's unable to see the nearly unbounded mass of serendipity that could be provided with the assistance of AI. Yuval, as always, is an absolute treasure.
Many years ago, I watched a short movie made for TV titled, "The Electric Grandmother". I was charmed by it, easily remembering it 40+ years later. As a young woman who never knew my grandmothers, I would have wanted one of them as a child. Now, as an aging person, I find I would still like one.
I ask myself why, how would it work, and how it would impact my life as I continue to grow old? As I listen to this discussion, I think much of its substance is about the possibility of such an 'Electric Grandmother'.
("The Electric Grandmother is a television movie that originally aired January 17, 1982, on NBC as a 60-minute Project Peacock special, based on the 1969 science fiction short story "I Sing the Body Electric" by Ray Bradbury. It stars Maureen Stapleton and Edward Herrmann and was directed by Noel Black." Wikipedia))
I’m going to see this seems so cool.
This was great. These guys should get together again. How about every 1/2 year? Things are changing so fast.
I love the comment Harari makes that "we need to take care of people not of jobs" He has such a good grasp of the story of Homo sapiens and is clearly a step ahead of the rest! True visionary!
thank you for pointing this out. I have been aghast at how working people are always talked about in terms of jobs, not people. Everyone works, not all earn money. We need to give people value.
Uh my God, let save any second minute for only Professor Yuval Noah Harari speaking from his feeling and truthly heart please. We as the watchers, other faces are horable to see and to hear, especially the lady who come from former president of IMF! Sorry to be honestly!
Prof Jodi's point is interesting. If we let AI to do all our logical work, then our day to day tasks require utilization of emotional brain. How this gradual change will impact our brain, as neuron survival is based on "use it or lose it" principle. Populations that are mostly emotional and less logical can cause social strains. Prof Dennet's observation about Touring test is spot on. Products are designed to pass the test and as a result deception becomes a feature. His observation about AI/Children learning through feedback loop begs the question, who is teaching? who will set the guidelines on the seed Data. Children learn from books and teachers certified by a board. But deep learning and neural networks has to rely on data that's so vast that cant be meaningfully governed. That problem is similar to weeding out misinformation on social networks. Very difficult to do... So similar to children, AI can learn biases. Interesting questions will be around the topics of social learning in AI systems, deep learning based on analogy and extrapolation and AI systems with personality traits and instincts at firmware level..
IMHO, in the future, these values of certain sense of consciousness will also be changing. Now we are going to that direction with all the technological disruption we have now, not to mention the influence of social media. It either changes our own views on the use of AI and its magic or the way we enjoy things... gradually. My point is that people already living on the totally different realm where they focus on their smartphone, internet, etc...spending much time here rather than having a real and genuine connection with fellow humans. Such human experiences will all be digitalized and it will be much more important ones. For me, the point of entry is clear.
We need to narrow the definition of consciousness. It’s not intelligence per Yuval. It’s not feeling. It’s not motor activity. It is awareness of feelings, intelligence, and physical activity. That’s a start. What has the awareness? What we call “self.” The self is conscious. Another precise definition is needed, “self.”
thank you for sharing this event and I learned many things from this video.
"I'm not sure that people who make the most important decisions in the world are also the most compassionate." YNH
Politicians are not used to act with heart and feelings. But this is the only way to resolve our problems worldwide.
The world needs more of these type of discussions between intelligent individuals that don't sacrifice integrity for a sound bite, have left their ego's at the door and genuinely want the best for humanity.
Consciousness: Awareness of Self, evaluation of self, imagination of desired self, regulation of self to move towards imagined self, implementation of regulation, readjustment, and imagination of self in society and the impact thereof.
Then what is the ‚self‘ ?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmazing!!! this was amazing... drama of decision making as the point of life!!! maybe not!!! so what is it Noah!!! I get the first part, life seems to be larger than that but what is it instead???
Excellent talk Thankyou
Yuval in the beginning states that there is a common mistake between consciousness and intelligence. Dennet says he agrees. But I think Dennet is one of the thinkers making this confusion between consciousness and intelligence (in his dismissal of questions such as the so called hard problem of consciousness).
They all make great points, loved the conversation.
Consider the impact who determines how get to control everybody else. Not really funny.
On the topic of jobs, for example here where they say taking care of the demented is not a good way of life- I would disagree. Isn't taking care of other humans in all their strange biological states and emotions part of the human experience and how we become more empathetic towards others? Is it really a smart choice to separate ourselves from that? To numb us from these uncomfortable experiences that make up being human? My mom is a elderly care worker and many of her clients have Alzheimer, etc. There is the risk of compassion fatigue but her position is very rewarding, and her clients appreciate her, as well as the families of those clients. Humans needs humans.
I suppose there's a subjective side to it, as always with meaning, values and experiences. Something unpleasant might be interpreted by one individual as ultimately incredibly rewarding, but the opposite can also happen.
Though my question is not related to the topic discussed, it is related to consciousness. I would be deeply thankful to the person who can throw some light on how the consciousness develops in the child? What are the different stages of development f the consciousness and what are the factors that contribute to healthy development thereof. The consciousness I want to know about is as described by Professor Dentte in the first few minutes of discussion: "to represent our representations and to reflect on our own reflection" is certainly not present at birth but is acquired over years during the successful journey to healthy adulthood.
Did Jodi got through Berkeley because of affirmative quotas?
Daniel Dennett has become the incarnation of the OK BOOMER meme.
No, not really
@Sapiens if a progressive liberal pro-evolution anti-religion atheist like Dennett, *someone who was born closer to the 19th century than the 21st century,* counts as a boomer, then the word no longer carries any meaning
A round of applause for Robert please!😆
Bertalanffy gave me indirectly an extended idea of consciousness with his General Systems Theory; I define consciousness as the cybernetic circuit of input-process-output in inert beings, input-process-output-feedback in living beings and input-process-output-feedback-feedforward in living rational beings (by process we must assume from the simplest to the most complex systems), and by such definition, I must say that awareness and self-awareness are consciousness but consciousness is not only awareness nor self-awareness; thus consciousness is a category where it is included processing of physical reactions (like a hydrogen atom always reacting the same in a determined condition because of its properties and functions maintained by its structure, like a representation of physical memory; also e.g., molecules and viruses), reaction of simple sentience (like bacteria, fungi and plants), reaction of complex sentience (like animal instinct and emotion which are awareness), and reaction of rationality (like intelligence, which in conjunction with senses produces self-awareness).
As you can see, I have extended consciousness to non-living beings thanks to the cybernetics' field. Now because of this, I say Intelligence is part of consciousness, but intelligence is not self-aware if it doesn't feel through senses, instinct and emotion, i.e., intelligence is not self-aware if it doesn't feel alive. Now, if we would want to create robots that are self-aware, we would need to create artificial senses, artificial instincts and artificial emotions, in other words, artificial life; but such self-awareness requires death threat because that's what made evolve life into all kinds of consciousness that there are today. So things were put together randomly (entropy and inert entities) until it emerged an organic (determined) way of sustaining more complex structures (living beings and negentropy); by this evolutionary process, we came to believe that we are a "we" when it is very likely that there is no such thing, and such illusion that feels so real is what we will create when we make artificial self-awareness.
Could it be more real our subjective experience of classical physics than the objective superpositioned realm of quantum mechanics?
What do you think Yuval?
are you schizophrenic?
Thank you.
I lovr what harari said abt decision making not being what human life is abt! Very forward thinking.
what is life but the drama of decision-making ... modern ideology
Was this the discussion on consciousness?
I , like most people , appreciate the fact that dear prof.Harari make the most complicated issues , completely understandable for us , more than EVERYTHING ELS! And most important , he talks to awake awareness and responsibility in us, something that not all profs are talking FOR!
The others over-complicate with self-conscious and anecdotal devotion to their identities & careers (the language of their experiences). Humans are not good at making ethical decisions, TRUE. Yes, nobody can read a contract, don’t wonder why it exists, just ask Hal to synthesize. We have powerful computers (and data information) we can’t program for ourselves - if we consciously don’t want anything to do with what is most popular.
thanks for sharing it was one of the best panels
Advertisements sound great high beautiful sounds ... but can hardly hear the conversation
Dennett's first comment nailed the issue and, I think, reframed the unfortuante framing that Ms. Halpern made where she seemed to assume that some form of AI would take moral responsibility for what has traditionally been our responsibility.
Mostly I agreed with the comments of Ms. Halpern but not where she states that she would like an AI implant that would make basic existential decisions (e.g. whther to marry, have kids, etc) primarily concerned with outcome as opposed to decisions that have to do with empathy where organic emotion has traditionally been crucial.
If human beings want to maintain a sense of individuality and take responsibility for our choices then I think the best use for AI is simply as another resource, not as something we turn over our autonomy to.* We could use AI to give us probabilities of outcome-oriented issues we are wrestling with, but to turn over -- essentially a part of our humanity -- that has to do with responsibility is an existential problem.
(*It's very telling, I think, that Ms. Halpern would like such an electrode implant and her students would not. She seems to be framing the matter as if it were a matter of empirical or measurable benefit. I think she isn't taking into account that the reason she would opt for the implant is that she is a mature woman who is aware, perhaps, that she could have made better decisions in her past. Her students want the same agency that she had, to make decisions, even though they might turn out, in the long run, to have been the wrong decisions -- this is why people always say, "If only I knew then what I know now".)
Of course, we who have infinite insight into the terrible decisions OTHERS make would probably like others to use AI in as many facets of their lives as possible because we are constantly being impacted by, not just our own bad decisions but, others' bad decisions (how else would we end up with a President Trump?). But then if we mean to be ethically consistent and would want that agency for ourselves then we have to allow others to have it.
Obviously computers could make all our of our decisions for us if we allowed them to (most of the functioning of our physiology is not something we consciously have a role in). The question is about agency and responsibility. In one definition of the term, philosophically, we are all responsible for our actions but at the level of social function and law we are not: some people have a level of agency that means they are responsible and some do not (e.g. children, ignorance for some good reason).
Here, I think is where an IS becomes an OUGHT. Just because we are human (and will have the technical means to do so) we ought to restrict tampering too much with recreating the definition and function of human beings. After all, what becomes of crucial importance here is who are the people making the choices to make fundamental changes in human nature. Sure, we have always been evolving biologically and socially but that process has been more or less a matter of normative behavior we all participate in more or less (obviously the elites in all cultures have had more of a say on the social project and direction) but we will soon be at a point where the choices made by a generation or two (or 3 or 4) will fundamentally change the options of the next generations for all time; there will be no going back.
Once again, the technological advancements of human beings, as with the nuclear bomb, for example, tend to exceed our ability to employ its utility wisely. (Also, since the advent of the hand gun any human being can end the life of another in a second with this technology. And the hand gun murder rate, though it could of course be higher, is at an alarming level and is an example of a tool that too many human beings use unwisely.) Human cultures lack wisdom, not intelligence..
BLESSINGS.
💬
I'll take "the mystery" behind door number 3, Yuval. 😉
How is experience divorced from decision making? 🧐 I think the responsibility of decision making and the consequences are a seminal part of one's experience. Guided by AI is not the same as having algorythms choose for you and limit choice by doing so. As well, this technology transfers some responsibility to the person programming the algorythm.
those mics need to be longer....gosh
Your are talking about consciousness as the process of decision-making. But consciousness involve also the process of self-acknowledgment of awareness of self
AI Being able to fast forward every time Halpern speaks. :)
Science has a long way to go regarding "understanding" consciousness. For one it has to drop quite a few assumptions;
1. People think about consciousness in terms of their and own. How about a concept that consciousness is like a see, in which we are bathing.
2. People see logic of consequences in life. So consciousness has to be in these consequences. But what if, consciousness is out of time? What if, one can make a conscious choice now, and the change happens 5 years in the past? But it has happened, so first the change happens, than the choice.
3. People see consciousnesses as what happens, when they are awake. But what if that is not connected? What if consciousness is, but can be experienced only, when we are awake?
4. We want objective measurement. but what if our bodies are the only devices capable of tapping into that mysterious consciousness? How to measure it than? Especially taking into consideration, that consciousness may be out of time, may be only one for everyone and everything, it may be the source of matter and consequences and time. How to measure something like that?
So science has some way to go. See you than and there.
I believe having the illusion that you make your own decisions is what makes or breaks your sense of fulfillment in life. So maybe the best AI wouldn't make decisions for you per se, but would rather just change your mind.
there can be a provision for persuasion in AI algorithms, so that they will intelligently and present you with a summary of the data and give you a few best scenario options to select from, and brief you of their consequences of course. Either ways i am convinced humans are too lazy even for that and they will just go with "AI make all decisions for me and let me eat my sandwich in peace"
if AI changes your mind and you know it is doing that, then you would have greater concerns with the technology because it tinkers with the very fundamentals of freewill, you become its slave, a robot, a tragic paradox
The claim that "free will is an illusion" is a paradox. The very ability to doubt the existence of free will proves its existence. The truth that most of us make decisions that we falsely believe are our own while they really aren't, doesn't mean that it's impossible for us to make any decision of our own. *Reason necessitates will.*
@@crawfordtorr8749 Only if you recognize that you don’t want to be a slave, you still have the choice not to be. You want to be responsible, you wish to retain autonomy.
watched it because of Yuval)
Great panel
J'ai l'impression de voir Matthieu Ricard à la première ligne. Juste devant la Prof. Jodi Halpern. Voyez vous le même?
Great theme 👍
Looks like Yuval has deleted all the negative comments from this video.
Intelligent speakers.. What on earth are single use plastics doing at Davos?
consciousness it is not imagining, it is perceiving
There is the expression of putting the cart before the horse. We now have the cart so far in front that we can't even see it -or even imagine it. If we could put the cart in its rightful place, this debate would be about the effects of radio or the automobile, perhaps even the horse. Science marches on because everyone wants more dollars. Dollars buy power.
Yuval's point on intelligence and consciousness. Some believe, credibly, that feelings are just how the brain perceives 'black box' inbuilt algothrithms in operation. Intelligence allows us to figure out new algorithms from scratch to solve new problems or old problems in new ways (including the understanding of those inbuilt algos in our brains). So there is no funamental separation there.
The key here is still 'who' s doing the feeling and the figuring out. The answer as usual is that it is what we call the 'conscious being'. But wtf ist that? Most believe that it 'lives' in the prefrontal lobe, where the 'executive'/oversight function resides. But then u can easily build an AI or even simple machines that have that schematic design and executive centres but in no way 'conscious'.
Fantastic! Thanks!
The real danger of AI is the machine learning part where machines are going to rewrite and improve their own code and reach levels of intelligence that are beyond our comprehesion with completely unpredictable outcomes. This discussion seems to focus on AI as a Google assistant that is limited to advisory activity. Of course, nothing against it and we're all using that already. They're missing the point of the real dangers with the possible exception of Harari who seems to be more into this.
What if humans get to a stage where we don't want AI? Wouldn't it cause a war between humans and AI , especially if we are not merged with AI? Is this what we are being warned about? That the safest thing for modern humans to do is to merge with AI?
I dont understand because I am learning english I need to improve my listen, but is good studing with excellent people.
yes about Dennett. i have read all his books but now he needs to pass the baton
Consciousness comes from Curiosity. It is the ability to see and explain more and more complex matters in simple terms. The more conscious people are, the more they are able to understand, empathise, and connect the dots of Life. AI is an expression of the consciousness of its inventor. Whether subsequent users will use AI consciously depends on extent of their consciousness. Is AI conscious? Only when humans switch it on. AI, although a super fast calculator, has no Curiosity of its own.
Consciousness is being aware that you are conscious
It’s not about time, it’s about the process that measures ethical actions. This discussion needed Jordan Peterson to get more depth
I believe that this video is not named correctly. This is not about the evolution of consciousness. This is a debate between ai decision making and conscious decisions. Yuval makes a good point that we have not explored consciousness. If we truly want to explore consciousness…discuss monks….discuss biocentrism…discuss philosophical debates about our internal world.