Artificial Intelligence and human consciousness​

1. As Carl Sagan said: "'If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." The same is true of the brain and of consciousness. Human consciousness is the result of potentially infinite and infinitely shifting atoms and particles that have evolved to produce this thinking thing that I am. In consciousness the universe becomes self aware.

   Reply

2. No one should need religion after seeing this.

   Reply

3. Great PROGRESS here

   Reply

4. Why is the. Colour gray attractive as a background

   Reply

5. When it comes to the right to abortion, don’t we have better things to worry
   About

   Reply

6. Existence comes through experience, not thought

   Reply

7. Good job.

   Reply

8. We don't want something that is independently conscious? We will build such things regardless. It will be sooner rather than later. As you said, there's nothing magical to it, and we don't require ginormous resources for it. Why wouldn't we want that? It's going to unlock all the things you've been criticising about current AI in this talk, it's going to revolutionize our study of consciousness and the understanding of our place in the universe.
   Seems like the argument comes from a place of insecurity about our future in all this. But if we know one thing from dialectical materialism, it is that humanity too–at least in its current form–will not last forever.

   Btw memories + capacity to use language alone is not enough … by that definition LLMs should be conscious. What's necessary is the capacity to form models of the world (=compression/intelligence/generalization) through interaction with the world (active inference).

   Reply

9. Thanks for this talk. I agree with most of your analysis. Just one brief comment about electronic computers – I work as a computer programmer, and in order to get a computer to do anything, some human has to write a program (in a human readable language) convert it to machine-language (zeros and ones), install it in the computer's memory, and then start the clock that tells it to execute, one command per tick of the clock. All electronic computers (binary and quantum) need an internal clock to push them to execute the next command, tick, the next command, tick, the next command etc… Whereas humans (with wet, conscious brains) can think about many things, without the need of an internal clock telling us to execute the next thought! Yes, computers are fast, and most of the time accurate, and despite Kubrick's cautionary tale of "Hal", they can improve our lives, but so much depends on how technology is used, what kind of economic system – one that enriches a few humans, or enriches all of humanity.

   Reply

10. Viewing consciousness as software explains it quite well: Consciousness is a virtual property. Like software, it has no physical manifestation. It only exists when it is actually "implemented" / runnning, actually interacting with the world. It might arise precisely through this interaction, a simulacrum of what it would be like as an agent with causal influence acting in the world, a tool to help form predictions and control future world-states, a tool to form coherence in our mental representation, i.e. a mechanism for top-down consensus forming … quite akin to democratic centralism!
    Whether a software is running on silicon hardware, brain cells trained to execute it, or whatever other substrate makes no (fundamental) difference (same with the question of the body… interaction with the world is necessary, but the precise form does not matter).
    It is a result of the self-organization of sub-units maximizing their agency (i.e. control over future states of the world).
    This actually also fits the evolutionary explanation of consciousness and ideas! It is the evolution of "programs", of patterns, from the cell level to the level of ideas, consciousness and society.

    Reply

11. Absolutely fascinating talk

    Reply

12. Nothing about dialectical materialism implies machines won't be able to think. That's just silly. Your talk about consciousness being something that was achieved historically and socially is ultimately nothing but a diversion. The current AI methods are limited, but there is nothing, in principle, that says future techniques won't be able to duplicate the processes of the human mind, which are material. In fact, not all AI is passive learning of patterns in data (ie self-supervised learning), there is also reinforcement learning, which is active learning from trial and error. AI also has a history (it is built on the basis of a technological society with a history) and access to social knowledge (since it can learn from human-produced works). You can't substitute a few general philosophical observations for a serious study of the subject matter. This talk not only betrays a lack of knowledge of the subject matter, but an arrogant, philistine approach to scientific knowledge. Compare to the serious approach taken to the sciences by Marx and Engels themselves.

    Reply

13. Video starts around 6:15

    Reply

14. AI what a waste of time ⌚ / is better to be human than an AI🤖 human 😭hybrid robot, you could lose imagination🎨 spontaneity 💓charm 😉charisma 💄and probably the sensation of feeling 💔another human, 🚿🧹

    Reply

15. this was a really thoughtful talk on how many of the constituent features of consciousness are social or environmental (language, the self as formed through interactions with others, memory etc), but i think its still failing to get at the question of what consciousness is. the most telling part for me was when he said that we often misconceive of consciousness as a kind of picturing in our head, and then pointed out that it is difficult to picture a 3×3 crossword puzzle. but the 'picture' most people are thinking of when it comes to consciousness is not a matter of 'picturing' something in that way, it is the extremely vivid image that appears when i look at something with my eyes. where in space is this image? what is this image made of? as far as i can tell, nobody knows, and people's guesses are still in the realm of absurdities like 'perceptonium'. but that's exactly the reason why the question of consciousness's materiality or immateriality continues to bother, and can't simply be brushed under the rug.

    Reply

16. Data is dead labor.

    Reply

17. I don't want to listen what communist bullshit making about these when communist have not made this

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.