157 Scientists Demand An Investigation
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ม.ค. 2025
- Consciousness scientists Jonathan Mason on the open letter urging the acceleration of consciousness research, a reaction to break-neck AI developments. Are these AI tools? Prediction machines? And are we all that different from a word calculator? As we race towards AGI and deepfakes blow through Turing tests, hear about the wild ways that advances in large language models like chatGPT could change everything if AI becomes conscious.
▶️ Read the article on Forbes.com rb.gy/skdim
▶️ Buy me a coffee ☕️ buymeacoffee.c...
▶️ Subscribe here: rb.gy/qqo0i
Subtitles [CC] have been proofread by a human :)
Interview edited for time. Integrity of expert commentary respected and preserved.
___________________
▶️ Check out more of my articles on Forbes: rb.gy/pstfz
_________________
I’m Andréa Morris, an interdisciplinary researcher dedicated to advancing the field of investigative journalism, contributing more than 80 science and tech news stories to Forbes. My work explores complexity science, theory of mind, consciousness, intelligence, inspiration, intuition, motivation, productivity, creative problem-solving and the exploration of diverse intelligence-substrate independent.
This channel features documentary style interviews with subject matter experts, highlighting research that informs my reporting. It also examines the philosophy underpinning scientific paradigms, challenging assumptions and addressing human exceptionalism in the context of generative AI, LLM, AGI, machine learning, exponential technology, and credible accounts of UAP.
At the heart of this channel is a commitment to continual learning, critical thinking, and the joy of lifelong learning.
AI can mimic consciousness at best.
I dont think its possible to mimick conciousness. Conciousness is a concept and an action, not a physical thing. Its like saying photoshop mimicks art. It might be able to mimik a painting or drawing but "the concept of making artwork". Nobody says that. It simply is used to create works of art. Or like saying a calculator is simulating calculations. No, it actually adds and subtracts.
- It is reassuring that the work of those companies will not remain hidden. -Consciousness is impossible in silicon. Great points all the way. -Relative content within consciousness and its determinism... It would be wonderful to listen to Jonathan again. Thanks for this.
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Max Planck
Maybe the aether is consciousness
Interesting, this looks like my field. Let's see how accurate the common science view is.
1:20 Well, no, it isn't outside scientific knowledge. It is outside of what has been published. This research has been going on for close to nine years, but it remains confidential.
2:25 No, Jonathan is completely wrong here. It can be shown with scientific certainty that no AI system is or ever will be conscious.
2:40 It isn't related to complexity. AI systems will never be conscious regardless of memory, processing power, or lines of code. AGI theory is not derived from nor does it fall under computational theory. Brains are not computers.
3:30 Jonathan gave a non-answer. He is more of a LLM advocate than a scientist.
4:00 Actually, it is known. LLM like ChatGPT are not conscious.
4:07 No, there is nothing special about neurons versus silicon. A non-biological consciousness should be possible, but not by using computational theory. The substrate is not the issue.
5:09 Again, the substrate is not the problem.
6:00 AI can't evolve into AGI through training. A machine would have to be specifically built for AGI.
7:00 The Turing Test was falsified several years ago.
7:30 We already know how to tell the difference between mimicry and actual consciousness.
8:40 That blather was another non-answer. He has no idea.
9:30 There are 30 models but they don't really help and the published theories have all been disproved.
11:30 Pain is a good point, but it can't be included in a model.
12:00 There is no possibility at this point of building an artificial consciousness. None of the current projects are working in the right direction and it isn't something you can do accidentally.
12:30 I can assure you that when the theoretical work is completed, non-biological consciousness will be built. That isn't really a question.
13:00 Flaky? I started working on it part-time about 10 years ago. This isn't something recent.
13:30 No, money is not the problem.
Have you published any of your theories yet?
@@rivalrepairs
I assume you read this part:
1:20 Well, no, it isn't outside scientific knowledge. It is outside of what has been published. This research has been going on for close to nine years, but it remains confidential.
I get the impression that you think this is something that could be put into a journal article. That isn't the case.
@@scientious I read your initial comment on this vid and thought it was interesting and concise, so followed your online comment trail. I was just wondering if you had published anything that expands on your ideas that could be read, as you seem to have a logical approach to these topics and some insight. Any suggestions on what i can read next? Thanks
@@rivalrepairs I withheld the 2015 and 2016 research from publication back in 2017. That hasn't changed. The backlog now is similar in size to the seven books in the Harry Potter series and the research isn't finished.
What are you interested in reading?
@@rivalrepairs😂
Appeal To Authority Fallacy
There is a process by which the transient state of some physical systems are sampled as data and are passed through the filter of some kind of codex to produces phenomenal experiences. That which is informed (literally shaped) by this experience is consciousness. It is not clear at all that the data itself that is conscious. I think the probabilities of that codex being physically embodied are very low, as all the physically embodied codexes we have ever encountered always translate the state of a physical system into the physical state of another system, therefore chances are high that the codex that produces phenomenal experience belong to the class of codexes that is not embodied in the state of matter. In other words that codex may very well be another natural law. Good luck finding the segfault in reality that will let you exploit whatever it is that determines what data is sampled to inform consciousness. My opinion is that it makes more sense to worry about eating anything that has not died of natural causes than to worry about LLM consciousness.
Is it not the case that these systems cannot be conscious because they are not cynically learning? I understand they learn by ways of highly controlled episodic training exercises. They are not free to define their own learning.
When I was 13 I had a series of minor epileptic seizures. I would lose the ability to speak or even frame sentences in my mind. Nothing I saw or heard in those episodes would register with me. I would have no recollection of them on exiting the seizure. This led me over the years to wonder if consciousness was an emergent property of continuous broad sensory inputs. Something current LLM / AI platforms would seem to lack.
Apologies I did not mean “cynically learning” but “continually learning”.
What would multiply conscious minds be like?
my take on consciousness is it's just the subjective quality of intelligence
no that's not what I meant by "subjective", "quality", or "intelligence". for greater understanding of what I mean when I use "subjective", "quality", and "intelligence" consult a current dictionary. as to if Reality implies tangible, factual, absolute objective existence? yes, but I believe it says nothing further about Reality. Then there's your speculations...
@@Reso-pn7kr This is a very pleasant pineapple.. I'm afraid I find no joy in speculating on the existence of souls.
@@Reso-pn7kr oh fine I'll read the second part.. uhh, you're right the error is fundamentally in your definition of objective, see Descartes' demon, the rest should be epistemological. annd for the rest of it, soul, free will, they appear to be interchangeable arguments to me, so yeah, as per my previous statement.
@@Reso-pn7kr ever seen the movie The Silent Flute?
You do good work. I hope you succeed. Also, be open to the idea of God's existence. People need to be held accountable for the wrongs they do. And only God suffices to do it. And also, there needs to be reward for doing the right thing, too, which might not come in this life, either. That's what God means, is "Judge" in Hebrew. Or "Placer" in Greek.