29:00 "I think, therefore I am" *is* only meant to prove that you yourself exist to yourself. Like, saying it's wrong because it doesn't prove a baby exists to you doesn't make sense since it's outside the scope. Though that *also* doesn't mean it implies nothing else is real, just that you'd need a different proof for it.
True, while outside of Descartes' scope, I still think you yourself can't truly exist if others don't exist, so while I said at the end that Descartes's argument wouldn't claim that a child, let alone any other people, can be sure to exist, I still think that's a flaw in his argument, since you can't foundationally exist without others. I should have put that point in an earlier section though
@@AsukkaTV fair, I think I understand your point a bit better then. I think the title saying "_proves_ (..) wrong" isn't entirely correct, since it's more of a different perspective, but it is a nice yt title.
@ITR yeah if it wasn't TH-cam I'd probably name it something else, but the CTR on this one speaks for itself - I wouldn't necessarily call it clickbait, but I don't think it's quite catchy
Reading the title, I had a suspicion that you misinterpret "I think therefore I am". Just to be sure, I watched the entire video and I was slightly disappointed. Yes, you mention the more correct interpretation, but only after using a very flawed one for most of the video. Even then, you left out the most important part about only proving the existence of oneself and not the existence of others until very close to the end of the video. I find this rather unproductive. In addition, the last part was so mumbled, that I could not understand most of what you were saying. Overall, I would suggest to mention these things earlier so the rest of the video is more enjoyable. I personally would not be mad if you resolved the click bait earlier and used the common interpretation as a starting point. This seems more deceptive, as you just seem to tack on some things to cover yourself, just to be able to tell people that they "did not watch the entire video" if they attacked your points. Even if that was not your intention, it seemed that way to me.
Yeah this sums up most of my own problems with the video - i included the important part to the end, as I had only just thought of it at the end of writing, which I then should have worked it in throughout the entire video but I thought it worked better in the conclusion. I have learned my lesson on this one. And I got very tired of voiceover as I had done it all in one day, so I kinda gave up during the conclusion; which, again, I shouldn't do. I have a bad habit of that. Thank you for this comment, as I'm sure it sums up the thoughts of many that watched this video. And, more importantly, thank you for watching the entire video - most people wouldn't do that, so I truly do appreciate it. I will do better for my next video
Descartes' cogito was a huge change in how people thought about the mind and thinking and while revolutionary it was almost certainly wrong. There's a book called the Bi-Cameral Mind" and it argues that what we today called schizophrenia was in fact consider a normal state as hearing voices of the dead and of the gods was just part of their normal reality. As language and social complexity increase modern people developed this idea of the introspective self that does thinking whereas ancient culture have the idea that "thoughts" are things/events that happen to people and the "I" isn't a generative being producing thoughts but rather a vehicle whereby the universe express thoughts through the vehicle we call a person or soul. Every ancient culture had what we call an "Eastern" Natta Anattā idea because they didn't recognize the cogito at all because self introspection was "Maya" so to speak.
Extremely interesting, especially for someone who experiences psychosis themselves. I'd probably argue against the idea that Schizophrenia was a normal state back then, as I believe it's caused by expanded consciousness theory (watch "Explaining Away Psychosis" on this channel if you haven't already for a much more detailed explanation on that one), but I also would say a less identifiable and solidified sense of self is a huge cause of exteneralized consciousness, and that people back then certainly experienced that, so I definitely won't rule out the possibility!! Fascinating comment, thank you
0:40 for comments about this segment, I have them in the trailer. 3:46 Sweet, fresh reaction. I am very proud of where the plot and characters are going. The quality progression has a lot in common with Deltarune chapters, and nothing in common with BB or GF pilots to second episode 5:21 I have been into AI since before the Pandemic. I am a person with great emapthy and a very strong anthropomorphization instinct that I have to suppress. I don't have the different shards of my mind all in a row, and my understanding is kinda limited in that regard. I personally don't focus much on what is a human, because the line between dog, human and avalanche are not so clearly defined when it pertains to their practical implications in day to day existance. I am a huge advocate for not ending the human race, then giving AI equal rights afterwards, but I also think it's not my job specifically to think about it. Nonetheless you'll have my ideas. 5:44 I hate how thoughts, feelings, reason, qualia, models, calculations and concepts all get conflated together XD. The layman's language is not equipped to make this unambiguous. 6:31 It depends on how you qualify it, but it was probably either along the lines of "[Vibration percieved]" if it was in the womb, or along the lines of "[PULSING MOTION]" or " *[COLD!!!]* " if it was close to birth. If you mean after I became sapient, probably along the lines of "[Comfy]". No way I can give you an exact one. My first memories date back to being like two and a half years old. 7:51 I studied early development in kids. Not quite like that, but I could email you a pdf about it if you know spanish (or look for an english translation, maybe). But yeah, the mind is the emergent properties of those nerve impulses, a level of abstraction possibly. It's hard to describe 8:37 Recent research suggests that the conscious mind has a bandwith of only a few dozen bits per sense, and that the unconscious filters stimuli with a great deal of compression to feed into out permanent mental model, which need not correlate to reality (what people used to say about us "living in the past" or being deceived by our senses. Also explains why change blindness happens. We never reload the model from scratch unless we are suddenly elsewhere). So reminder that "the mind" is far greater than what we are conscious in. 9:46 I have some problems with this analogy, but I will refrain from discussing them due to time constraints 10:41 I mean, they, or at least classic deep learning agent AI, work more like cultures of organisms than a child. They spawn thousands, test them in an environment, pick the ones that do best, kill the rest and split a thousand from the good candidates before repeating. It's not as applicable to what everyone thinks of AI now, but it's broadly correct. For more information, I'll referr you to the Robert Miles AI Safety channel, specifically the video about "Why Not Just: Raise AI Like Kids?", and "Why would AI want to do bad things? Instrumental Convergence". They are somewhat outdated due to being 6 years old, but I prefer recommending two short videos rather than making you read 6 pdfs and a research paper XD. 11:23 Not quite, just that in their "evolution" process there's no selective pressure to dodge cars. Just like how Moths get super trapped by lights because for so long Light pointed only to the sun, which was usually a shortcut for the "up" direction, and thus lamps confuse them into orbiting them while trying to flee to the open sky because there was no selective pressure to distinguish between bright light sources. 11:37 That is broadly inaccurate. AGI is presumably an emergent property of a critical mass of weak AI prowess, but that prowess requires inputs of a wide variety of tasks, or being trained to research and having a goal that requires that research. Consult the previously mentioned video, and the AI explained video on [I forgot the title, it has to do with emergent capabilities. If I find it I will put it here]. 12:28 While AI usually have small context windows (that is changing), they can integrate lessons into their own being, so while they cannot "recall" where the capability or response came from, they can use it. AI do not think like animals or us do. They are a very complicated mess of graphs, sliders, indexes, switches and triggers. If you want a peek at them, I'd recommend the AI safety talks video (very heckin long) "Cocrete Problems in Mechanistic Interpretability". The individual components are very alien. Take a look at some AI being asked to output the image that would most trigger a given neuron(s), like "Car". Like deep-fried Futurism paintings, at best +22 AI Explained has a video on that too. 13:41 I think that with proper definitions the answer is yes. Free will is mostly unnecessary, unless consciousness of its absence demotivates, which is easy to lie about. Sentience is a very easy thing to measure, and qualia have been extensively researched (inconclusively, of course). If you want to see a world where that is not the case, I recommend the book "Blindsight", written in 2005. Very good fiction, and mostly based on science at the time. Somewhat problematic, but very fun. 14:28 Interpretability tries to measure that, so we can know how it thinks. I still think that a chess machine is a bad example, those are mostly just efficient search algorythms. 15:11 Not a mind like ours, at any rate. They certainly have Desire, and Problem-solving, but the rest might come in a very alien way. For philosophy on this I could recommend a dozen Isaac Arthur videos, but they are not very scientific half the time. 15:56 Pointland, NGE, sensory deprivation, etc. 16:39 Operative word being "can". Our impulse to do so has a long evolutionary history. No guarantee that any mind with have said impulse if it developed relatively alone, especially goal-driven AI. I'd wager that the slightly below average result would be the smile maximizer, you can look it up. 18:13 Some big asterisks there, it's not the only path, and People might even be completely sidestepped if we are not careful. 18:55 So true brother. With a realism disclaimer of course 21:02 It's valid, comprehensible, but not quite sure it's true or sound. I would need to cite a few brain research papers. 22:54 Also big asterisks here. We do not know how to make AI that can actually be raised in that manner, not beyond a year or two at least. Many heuristics for learning do not apply there. But yeah, capabilities is getting like 10 times the budget that Safety is, at most. I recommend "AI ruined my year" by Robert Miles for a thorough reading list on this topic, but not on slow growth AI. 23:31 There was a Star Trek fanfic that used this as the justification for the Self Insert existing. Not a bad one, but by that point you probably should focus on Whole Brain Emulation. 24:30 Aside from the fact that he cheats down the line by invoking a God, his further findings about science and analysis are much more interesting than the evil genie theory, but that's a lot of pages to read :) 28:19 Solid video for a newbie on the topics. Could have used a bit more research but this is remarkably coherent and good for something that probably had 0-1 beta readers. Good job. 29:45 Sartre moment
0:40 I still have to read those actually 3:46 Yeah Episode 2 really stepped it up for me!! 5:21 I definitely feel you on the anthropomorphic thing, although probably (or maybe not) for very different reasons, as I've discussed in others videos and also discussed in my Psychopomp analysis 5:44 I'd probably label all of those things under the very broad "thought" umbrella, but I'd certainly have to think more on that before I made a definite conclusion 7:51 me trying to learn Spanish is like a cat trying to solve Quantum Physics - foreign language is easily the thing I am worst at in this world, but if you had an English translation I'd be more than happy to read it, as it’s something I'm very interested in. I have my email in my bio if you'd be willing, I would certainly count that as a "business inquiry" lmao 8:37 very true, I didn't really get into the unconsciousness and subconsciousness parts of the mind, that is starting to sound very Carl Jung (from what very little I know of his stuff). I think focusing on the consciousness parts of the mind kept the video more cohesive, so I don't necessarily regret not including those discussions, but I now think it's vital in replicating humans that AI have that unconscious mind. Perhaps I may have to make a follow up someday 9:46 I'd be interested to hear the Spark notes version 10:41 that makes me rather sad, but I'll make a note to check out those videos. I am quite a newbie to AI so I'd definitely like to expand my knowledge more on the subject 11:23 a misunderstanding of the material on my part, my bad on this one 11:37 will do 12:28 kinda seems like a system with individual parts that aren't connected, more advancement will have to come in the future. Perhaps I can try and spearhead the research (as in fund it) if I ever get rich 13:41 I think I'm gonna do a deep dive into Qualia, seems very interesting 14:28 fair point 15:56 what is Pointland? 16:39 a major problem I found with this video is that I'm basically saying that those with anti-social personality disorder both aren't human and don't even really exist as sentient being. Not really being able to have empathy or sympathy to correspond emotions is certainly the antithesis of what I think sentience is, so that's my bad 18:13 very true 18:55 glad we see eye to eye on this!! 22:54 as I said, I'd like to spearhead the science fiction of something like Sword Art Online and the Amazing Digital Circus with their AIs into reality, which I would theorize once we had AI equipped with the proper hardware framework it would take about 16 years in a closed environment - I'm starting to think it'd be best to run them in a giant simulation, as not only would it (probably) be easier and cheaper, I don't think we should really interact with them - it'd literally be like having an actual conversation with your god at age, like, 5 24:30 I'd definitely be willing to read that, once I finish Chainsaw Man of course 28:19 thank you!! I'm definitely still a newbie, and this was more me taking a fun dip in the waters before diving headfirst - the nature of sentience and consciousness is something I'm deeply interested in, and yet the furtherest I've got into the research is some Hawthorne short stories. And yeah, I've never had any beta readers, nobody has ever read a script before posting - the only time I've ever tried was with "Explaining Away Psychosis" but nobody I knew was even close to versed in the topic nor interested in it, and I couldn't get Matpat to respond to me lmao. 29:45 ah Sartre, have you ever played NieR: Automata? I may have asked before, but the robot that is Sartre's stand in is hilarious All and all, thank you for this comment!! I look forward to hearing your response, and I most certainly look forward to your thoughts on my Psychopomp video essay, you're either gonn love it or hate the interpretations I came away with, at least I think. Cheers!!
@@AsukkaTV 5:21 Still haven't finished it. I got through the first chapter but had to redo all of it due to missing the transient location. I am not used to that kinda game 7:51 I'll look into it, but I am not sure one was made. The US and europe tend to be very... elitist about which countries can get their crap peer-reviewed 8:37 They already have that. Most of what they do seems explicit to us, from it's perspective it barely knows it's doing it, and that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. Until we get SIAI it may be as unaware of it's inner workings as we are if how the brain operates (enough for reward hacking and not much else) 9:46 Basically boils down to how forging changes the composition of the mineral a lot, cuts out a lot of the earth, roots and spare material in the ore, which is not what happens to a human. And a mold can change the qualities of the material much more than the % of neurology determined by nurture. A brief version is shown in that child ai video, but I'll see if I get the other pdfs in english 10:41 I hope you become happier about it later. If you want to see a homemade version of it, there are many like Code Bullet, training agents for playing stuff like "the hardest game ever made" 13:41 I only consulted Wikipedia, and like 5 papers. I am not expert. I am a communicator. I hope you have fun with it! EDIT: Also, a video just came out comparing the first challenge of the book with a scarily accurate prediction of ChatGPT, which I really should have written here before. Very good read. 15:56 A chapter in the novella Flatland. TVTropes has a good summary of it, but it's a satirical and easy to grasp analysis of victorian societies in the terms of geometrical dimensions. Pointland is zero-dimensional, so it's single inhabitant is unable to learn or graps anything that is not his own thoughts. We consider him quite mad. 16:39 Don't worry. Blindsight ended up saying that sociopaths were less sapient. Once you get back to having thousands of views, you might want to make pinned comments correcting that ideological mistake 22:54 Once extintion risks are not a priority, go right ahead 29:45 I have not. Yet. And don't be in a hurry to read Descartes! Not before reading the other thibgs in the comment, at least. He is a bit outdated. On Psychopomp I'm gonna have to see if there's meaning at all first xD
I thought the point of the cogito is that you can't doubt your own existence, because then there is no one to do the doubting.When you interact with other people in a dream, presumably they don't exist, and when you interact with other people while awake, presumably they do exist, but you can't be sure either way. The only thing you can be sure of is that you exist, since someone must be thinking about all these things. It does not specify what you are, exactly. You could still be a brain in a vat or a simulation, but on some level you must "exist". It does not follow that you have to assume other people exist because they think (you don't know for sure that they think, it could be all a dream for example), or that inanimate objects don't exist because they don't think (you don't know that for sure either). It's an attempt to have a starting point that is undeniably true, and from which we can start thinking about everything else.
"I think therefore I am" Is subsequently also "I feel therefore I am", the mechanism of forming a thought does not imply consciousness, as the mechanism by itself does not hold inherent value. However, you are able to "feel" the effects of the mechanism, and that is what consciousness really is, being able to feel, it is a mystery embedded in our very nature why we feel. It is what separates us from AI, to spare you the sleepless nights I spent writing my own neural network, AI is essentially a guessing machine, and at core it is simply calculus, It does not think, it simply predicts the next relevant output based on the data its been trained with. Although it may fool many people, AI is not conscious, AI does not feel, and if you claim that.. whats stopping you from saying that the CPU is actually feeling something the same way we do, at that point its no different. Even though AI was heavily inspired by the human brain, and the result of the mechanisms are visible through the output you're given, through and through AI doesnt feel anything. But you do, and thats why you are special.
The question ends up not being meaningful in the same answer is undefined manner as anything divided by 0. There is nothing to do or that could be done with a coherent answer even if one could be drawn up.Only what can be measured can be defined. We can't measure consciousness so it can't be defined. Being concerned then with if you have it or if machines have it is totally meaningless.
Yeah it wouldn't prove that others exist, I did acknowledge that as a flaw in my argument in the conclusion, probably should've done that earlier though lmao
What if I do not exist? All my memories, all my knowledge, all of it an illusion without a purpose. My love of music and writing, my regret over friends I've lost, my rage at what killed them and why. What if that simply does not exist, never existed. I suppose in a way it's a nice thought, all of the bad things are merely fiction. I can pretend I never knew the truth, believe what I perceive to be a lie no matter how nonsensical. Is that a reflection of a genuine understanding of reality? Or is it simply denial to avoid pain? Sure, if I don't exist than nether does the family I've grown up with. Not a normal family by any means, but if I don't exist then the only genuinely good thing about life is similarly fictional. But, on the other hand: everything bad is equally imaginary, equally theoretical. That would be nice, perhaps the pain from such events would then become fictional as well. Reality is such a slippery concept if it's thought about too much. I think my own desires to deny it affect my perception of it. I want to belive that my life has been great, and that I'm just broken for some reason that has no relation to my flashbacks and nightmares, no relation to the constant expectation I have for fear and pain to be a part of every experience. I want to be theoretical, can that be a measure of reality? I don't think it's a normal thing to think about, be that good or bad. I'm sure most people who find this subject interesting have struggled with suicidal thoughts before, after all how can we understand something as real if we never consider what it would be like if it didn't exist? On a happier note I think Gummigoo died the best possible death imaginable: sudden and unexpected That's the ideal death if you ask me.
Hey, im not trying to hate, but your script and the way you deliver it makes me feel like you're trying to sound smart without necessarily knowing what you're talking about. My main issue was that you made proclamations based on your personal beliefs as if they were objective facts like how "babies are neither human not animal as they can't feel emotions, just instincts" idk if that's the best example that caused me to feel this way but I thought you might want to hear of this
29:00 "I think, therefore I am" *is* only meant to prove that you yourself exist to yourself. Like, saying it's wrong because it doesn't prove a baby exists to you doesn't make sense since it's outside the scope. Though that *also* doesn't mean it implies nothing else is real, just that you'd need a different proof for it.
True, while outside of Descartes' scope, I still think you yourself can't truly exist if others don't exist, so while I said at the end that Descartes's argument wouldn't claim that a child, let alone any other people, can be sure to exist, I still think that's a flaw in his argument, since you can't foundationally exist without others. I should have put that point in an earlier section though
@@AsukkaTV fair, I think I understand your point a bit better then. I think the title saying "_proves_ (..) wrong" isn't entirely correct, since it's more of a different perspective, but it is a nice yt title.
@ITR yeah if it wasn't TH-cam I'd probably name it something else, but the CTR on this one speaks for itself - I wouldn't necessarily call it clickbait, but I don't think it's quite catchy
Reading the title, I had a suspicion that you misinterpret "I think therefore I am". Just to be sure, I watched the entire video and I was slightly disappointed. Yes, you mention the more correct interpretation, but only after using a very flawed one for most of the video. Even then, you left out the most important part about only proving the existence of oneself and not the existence of others until very close to the end of the video. I find this rather unproductive. In addition, the last part was so mumbled, that I could not understand most of what you were saying. Overall, I would suggest to mention these things earlier so the rest of the video is more enjoyable. I personally would not be mad if you resolved the click bait earlier and used the common interpretation as a starting point. This seems more deceptive, as you just seem to tack on some things to cover yourself, just to be able to tell people that they "did not watch the entire video" if they attacked your points. Even if that was not your intention, it seemed that way to me.
Yeah this sums up most of my own problems with the video - i included the important part to the end, as I had only just thought of it at the end of writing, which I then should have worked it in throughout the entire video but I thought it worked better in the conclusion. I have learned my lesson on this one. And I got very tired of voiceover as I had done it all in one day, so I kinda gave up during the conclusion; which, again, I shouldn't do. I have a bad habit of that.
Thank you for this comment, as I'm sure it sums up the thoughts of many that watched this video. And, more importantly, thank you for watching the entire video - most people wouldn't do that, so I truly do appreciate it.
I will do better for my next video
Descartes' cogito was a huge change in how people thought about the mind and thinking and while revolutionary it was almost certainly wrong. There's a book called the Bi-Cameral Mind" and it argues that what we today called schizophrenia was in fact consider a normal state as hearing voices of the dead and of the gods was just part of their normal reality. As language and social complexity increase modern people developed this idea of the introspective self that does thinking whereas ancient culture have the idea that "thoughts" are things/events that happen to people and the "I" isn't a generative being producing thoughts but rather a vehicle whereby the universe express thoughts through the vehicle we call a person or soul. Every ancient culture had what we call an "Eastern" Natta Anattā idea because they didn't recognize the cogito at all because self introspection was "Maya" so to speak.
Extremely interesting, especially for someone who experiences psychosis themselves. I'd probably argue against the idea that Schizophrenia was a normal state back then, as I believe it's caused by expanded consciousness theory (watch "Explaining Away Psychosis" on this channel if you haven't already for a much more detailed explanation on that one), but I also would say a less identifiable and solidified sense of self is a huge cause of exteneralized consciousness, and that people back then certainly experienced that, so I definitely won't rule out the possibility!! Fascinating comment, thank you
0:40 for comments about this segment, I have them in the trailer.
3:46 Sweet, fresh reaction. I am very proud of where the plot and characters are going. The quality progression has a lot in common with Deltarune chapters, and nothing in common with BB or GF pilots to second episode
5:21 I have been into AI since before the Pandemic. I am a person with great emapthy and a very strong anthropomorphization instinct that I have to suppress. I don't have the different shards of my mind all in a row, and my understanding is kinda limited in that regard. I personally don't focus much on what is a human, because the line between dog, human and avalanche are not so clearly defined when it pertains to their practical implications in day to day existance. I am a huge advocate for not ending the human race, then giving AI equal rights afterwards, but I also think it's not my job specifically to think about it. Nonetheless you'll have my ideas.
5:44 I hate how thoughts, feelings, reason, qualia, models, calculations and concepts all get conflated together XD. The layman's language is not equipped to make this unambiguous.
6:31 It depends on how you qualify it, but it was probably either along the lines of "[Vibration percieved]" if it was in the womb, or along the lines of "[PULSING MOTION]" or " *[COLD!!!]* " if it was close to birth. If you mean after I became sapient, probably along the lines of "[Comfy]". No way I can give you an exact one. My first memories date back to being like two and a half years old.
7:51 I studied early development in kids. Not quite like that, but I could email you a pdf about it if you know spanish (or look for an english translation, maybe). But yeah, the mind is the emergent properties of those nerve impulses, a level of abstraction possibly. It's hard to describe
8:37 Recent research suggests that the conscious mind has a bandwith of only a few dozen bits per sense, and that the unconscious filters stimuli with a great deal of compression to feed into out permanent mental model, which need not correlate to reality (what people used to say about us "living in the past" or being deceived by our senses. Also explains why change blindness happens. We never reload the model from scratch unless we are suddenly elsewhere). So reminder that "the mind" is far greater than what we are conscious in.
9:46 I have some problems with this analogy, but I will refrain from discussing them due to time constraints
10:41 I mean, they, or at least classic deep learning agent AI, work more like cultures of organisms than a child. They spawn thousands, test them in an environment, pick the ones that do best, kill the rest and split a thousand from the good candidates before repeating. It's not as applicable to what everyone thinks of AI now, but it's broadly correct. For more information, I'll referr you to the Robert Miles AI Safety channel, specifically the video about "Why Not Just: Raise AI Like Kids?", and "Why would AI want to do bad things? Instrumental Convergence". They are somewhat outdated due to being 6 years old, but I prefer recommending two short videos rather than making you read 6 pdfs and a research paper XD.
11:23 Not quite, just that in their "evolution" process there's no selective pressure to dodge cars. Just like how Moths get super trapped by lights because for so long Light pointed only to the sun, which was usually a shortcut for the "up" direction, and thus lamps confuse them into orbiting them while trying to flee to the open sky because there was no selective pressure to distinguish between bright light sources.
11:37 That is broadly inaccurate. AGI is presumably an emergent property of a critical mass of weak AI prowess, but that prowess requires inputs of a wide variety of tasks, or being trained to research and having a goal that requires that research. Consult the previously mentioned video, and the AI explained video on [I forgot the title, it has to do with emergent capabilities. If I find it I will put it here].
12:28 While AI usually have small context windows (that is changing), they can integrate lessons into their own being, so while they cannot "recall" where the capability or response came from, they can use it. AI do not think like animals or us do. They are a very complicated mess of graphs, sliders, indexes, switches and triggers. If you want a peek at them, I'd recommend the AI safety talks video (very heckin long) "Cocrete Problems in Mechanistic Interpretability". The individual components are very alien. Take a look at some AI being asked to output the image that would most trigger a given neuron(s), like "Car". Like deep-fried Futurism paintings, at best +22 AI Explained has a video on that too.
13:41 I think that with proper definitions the answer is yes. Free will is mostly unnecessary, unless consciousness of its absence demotivates, which is easy to lie about. Sentience is a very easy thing to measure, and qualia have been extensively researched (inconclusively, of course). If you want to see a world where that is not the case, I recommend the book "Blindsight", written in 2005. Very good fiction, and mostly based on science at the time. Somewhat problematic, but very fun.
14:28 Interpretability tries to measure that, so we can know how it thinks. I still think that a chess machine is a bad example, those are mostly just efficient search algorythms.
15:11 Not a mind like ours, at any rate. They certainly have Desire, and Problem-solving, but the rest might come in a very alien way. For philosophy on this I could recommend a dozen Isaac Arthur videos, but they are not very scientific half the time.
15:56 Pointland, NGE, sensory deprivation, etc.
16:39 Operative word being "can". Our impulse to do so has a long evolutionary history. No guarantee that any mind with have said impulse if it developed relatively alone, especially goal-driven AI. I'd wager that the slightly below average result would be the smile maximizer, you can look it up.
18:13 Some big asterisks there, it's not the only path, and People might even be completely sidestepped if we are not careful.
18:55 So true brother. With a realism disclaimer of course
21:02 It's valid, comprehensible, but not quite sure it's true or sound. I would need to cite a few brain research papers.
22:54 Also big asterisks here. We do not know how to make AI that can actually be raised in that manner, not beyond a year or two at least. Many heuristics for learning do not apply there. But yeah, capabilities is getting like 10 times the budget that Safety is, at most. I recommend "AI ruined my year" by Robert Miles for a thorough reading list on this topic, but not on slow growth AI.
23:31 There was a Star Trek fanfic that used this as the justification for the Self Insert existing. Not a bad one, but by that point you probably should focus on Whole Brain Emulation.
24:30 Aside from the fact that he cheats down the line by invoking a God, his further findings about science and analysis are much more interesting than the evil genie theory, but that's a lot of pages to read :)
28:19 Solid video for a newbie on the topics. Could have used a bit more research but this is remarkably coherent and good for something that probably had 0-1 beta readers. Good job.
29:45 Sartre moment
0:40 I still have to read those actually
3:46 Yeah Episode 2 really stepped it up for me!!
5:21 I definitely feel you on the anthropomorphic thing, although probably (or maybe not) for very different reasons, as I've discussed in others videos and also discussed in my Psychopomp analysis
5:44 I'd probably label all of those things under the very broad "thought" umbrella, but I'd certainly have to think more on that before I made a definite conclusion
7:51 me trying to learn Spanish is like a cat trying to solve Quantum Physics - foreign language is easily the thing I am worst at in this world, but if you had an English translation I'd be more than happy to read it, as it’s something I'm very interested in. I have my email in my bio if you'd be willing, I would certainly count that as a "business inquiry" lmao
8:37 very true, I didn't really get into the unconsciousness and subconsciousness parts of the mind, that is starting to sound very Carl Jung (from what very little I know of his stuff). I think focusing on the consciousness parts of the mind kept the video more cohesive, so I don't necessarily regret not including those discussions, but I now think it's vital in replicating humans that AI have that unconscious mind. Perhaps I may have to make a follow up someday
9:46 I'd be interested to hear the Spark notes version
10:41 that makes me rather sad, but I'll make a note to check out those videos. I am quite a newbie to AI so I'd definitely like to expand my knowledge more on the subject
11:23 a misunderstanding of the material on my part, my bad on this one
11:37 will do
12:28 kinda seems like a system with individual parts that aren't connected, more advancement will have to come in the future. Perhaps I can try and spearhead the research (as in fund it) if I ever get rich
13:41 I think I'm gonna do a deep dive into Qualia, seems very interesting
14:28 fair point
15:56 what is Pointland?
16:39 a major problem I found with this video is that I'm basically saying that those with anti-social personality disorder both aren't human and don't even really exist as sentient being. Not really being able to have empathy or sympathy to correspond emotions is certainly the antithesis of what I think sentience is, so that's my bad
18:13 very true
18:55 glad we see eye to eye on this!!
22:54 as I said, I'd like to spearhead the science fiction of something like Sword Art Online and the Amazing Digital Circus with their AIs into reality, which I would theorize once we had AI equipped with the proper hardware framework it would take about 16 years in a closed environment - I'm starting to think it'd be best to run them in a giant simulation, as not only would it (probably) be easier and cheaper, I don't think we should really interact with them - it'd literally be like having an actual conversation with your god at age, like, 5
24:30 I'd definitely be willing to read that, once I finish Chainsaw Man of course
28:19 thank you!! I'm definitely still a newbie, and this was more me taking a fun dip in the waters before diving headfirst - the nature of sentience and consciousness is something I'm deeply interested in, and yet the furtherest I've got into the research is some Hawthorne short stories. And yeah, I've never had any beta readers, nobody has ever read a script before posting - the only time I've ever tried was with "Explaining Away Psychosis" but nobody I knew was even close to versed in the topic nor interested in it, and I couldn't get Matpat to respond to me lmao.
29:45 ah Sartre, have you ever played NieR: Automata? I may have asked before, but the robot that is Sartre's stand in is hilarious
All and all, thank you for this comment!! I look forward to hearing your response, and I most certainly look forward to your thoughts on my Psychopomp video essay, you're either gonn love it or hate the interpretations I came away with, at least I think. Cheers!!
@@AsukkaTV 5:21 Still haven't finished it. I got through the first chapter but had to redo all of it due to missing the transient location. I am not used to that kinda game
7:51 I'll look into it, but I am not sure one was made. The US and europe tend to be very... elitist about which countries can get their crap peer-reviewed
8:37 They already have that. Most of what they do seems explicit to us, from it's perspective it barely knows it's doing it, and that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. Until we get SIAI it may be as unaware of it's inner workings as we are if how the brain operates (enough for reward hacking and not much else)
9:46 Basically boils down to how forging changes the composition of the mineral a lot, cuts out a lot of the earth, roots and spare material in the ore, which is not what happens to a human. And a mold can change the qualities of the material much more than the % of neurology determined by nurture. A brief version is shown in that child ai video, but I'll see if I get the other pdfs in english
10:41 I hope you become happier about it later. If you want to see a homemade version of it, there are many like Code Bullet, training agents for playing stuff like "the hardest game ever made"
13:41 I only consulted Wikipedia, and like 5 papers. I am not expert. I am a communicator. I hope you have fun with it! EDIT: Also, a video just came out comparing the first challenge of the book with a scarily accurate prediction of ChatGPT, which I really should have written here before. Very good read.
15:56 A chapter in the novella Flatland. TVTropes has a good summary of it, but it's a satirical and easy to grasp analysis of victorian societies in the terms of geometrical dimensions. Pointland is zero-dimensional, so it's single inhabitant is unable to learn or graps anything that is not his own thoughts. We consider him quite mad.
16:39 Don't worry. Blindsight ended up saying that sociopaths were less sapient. Once you get back to having thousands of views, you might want to make pinned comments correcting that ideological mistake
22:54 Once extintion risks are not a priority, go right ahead
29:45 I have not. Yet.
And don't be in a hurry to read Descartes! Not before reading the other thibgs in the comment, at least. He is a bit outdated. On Psychopomp I'm gonna have to see if there's meaning at all first xD
I thought the point of the cogito is that you can't doubt your own existence, because then there is no one to do the doubting.When you interact with other people in a dream, presumably they don't exist, and when you interact with other people while awake, presumably they do exist, but you can't be sure either way. The only thing you can be sure of is that you exist, since someone must be thinking about all these things. It does not specify what you are, exactly. You could still be a brain in a vat or a simulation, but on some level you must "exist". It does not follow that you have to assume other people exist because they think (you don't know for sure that they think, it could be all a dream for example), or that inanimate objects don't exist because they don't think (you don't know that for sure either). It's an attempt to have a starting point that is undeniably true, and from which we can start thinking about everything else.
that intro when unbelievably hard
Thank you!! :)
This video is incredibly underrated, and also impeccably organized and presented :)
Thank you, I appreciate the kind words!! (: I'm hoping this one will blow up
"I think therefore I am" Is subsequently also "I feel therefore I am", the mechanism of forming a thought does not imply consciousness, as the mechanism by itself does not hold inherent value. However, you are able to "feel" the effects of the mechanism, and that is what consciousness really is, being able to feel, it is a mystery embedded in our very nature why we feel. It is what separates us from AI, to spare you the sleepless nights I spent writing my own neural network, AI is essentially a guessing machine, and at core it is simply calculus, It does not think, it simply predicts the next relevant output based on the data its been trained with. Although it may fool many people, AI is not conscious, AI does not feel, and if you claim that.. whats stopping you from saying that the CPU is actually feeling something the same way we do, at that point its no different. Even though AI was heavily inspired by the human brain, and the result of the mechanisms are visible through the output you're given, through and through AI doesnt feel anything. But you do, and thats why you are special.
fire video and amazing choice of music i love niers ost
The question ends up not being meaningful in the same answer is undefined manner as anything divided by 0. There is nothing to do or that could be done with a coherent answer even if one could be drawn up.Only what can be measured can be defined. We can't measure consciousness so it can't be defined. Being concerned then with if you have it or if machines have it is totally meaningless.
AI does not truly think.
And the ability to think, to self reflect only proofes to you, that you must exist.
Yeah it wouldn't prove that others exist, I did acknowledge that as a flaw in my argument in the conclusion, probably should've done that earlier though lmao
What if I do not exist? All my memories, all my knowledge, all of it an illusion without a purpose.
My love of music and writing, my regret over friends I've lost, my rage at what killed them and why. What if that simply does not exist, never existed.
I suppose in a way it's a nice thought, all of the bad things are merely fiction. I can pretend I never knew the truth, believe what I perceive to be a lie no matter how nonsensical.
Is that a reflection of a genuine understanding of reality? Or is it simply denial to avoid pain?
Sure, if I don't exist than nether does the family I've grown up with. Not a normal family by any means, but if I don't exist then the only genuinely good thing about life is similarly fictional.
But, on the other hand: everything bad is equally imaginary, equally theoretical. That would be nice, perhaps the pain from such events would then become fictional as well.
Reality is such a slippery concept if it's thought about too much. I think my own desires to deny it affect my perception of it. I want to belive that my life has been great, and that I'm just broken for some reason that has no relation to my flashbacks and nightmares, no relation to the constant expectation I have for fear and pain to be a part of every experience.
I want to be theoretical, can that be a measure of reality?
I don't think it's a normal thing to think about, be that good or bad.
I'm sure most people who find this subject interesting have struggled with suicidal thoughts before, after all how can we understand something as real if we never consider what it would be like if it didn't exist?
On a happier note I think Gummigoo died the best possible death imaginable: sudden and unexpected
That's the ideal death if you ask me.
Was this video written by AI
I certainly can't deny the possibility
@@AsukkaTV spoken like a politician.
Hey, im not trying to hate, but your script and the way you deliver it makes me feel like you're trying to sound smart without necessarily knowing what you're talking about.
My main issue was that you made proclamations based on your personal beliefs as if they were objective facts like how "babies are neither human not animal as they can't feel emotions, just instincts" idk if that's the best example that caused me to feel this way but I thought you might want to hear of this
Yeah it's kind of just my style of writing, but I will try to work on it