MyHeritage is having a promotion right now. Click here - bit.ly/AlexOConnor_MH - to find out your ethnic origins. To support my work and get early, ad-free access: www.alexoconnor.com
Hi Alex, any advice on how you stay present I find social media is making me a bit foggy in the brain. Do you know anything about this to do with psychology and your thoughts on this? I’d love to know
You are wrong in #2: There is no universal frame of reference for speed but yes for acceleration. Earth is accelerating around the sun because it changes both direction and escalar speed. Also we change speed as earth spins because we change the direction of our movement. If earth was really static there wouldn't be coriolis effect and centrifuge acceleration.
Are you saying that minty and spicy are NOT opposites? It’s possible that peppermint is a sort of oxymoron. I don’t know how I feel about it, but what I do know is that mint and spice feels very similar in my mouth while still being different. Spicy is a sort of hot, zingy feelings, while mint is a more cold, relaxing feeling while both are still extreme flavor profiles. Speaking of which, it’s like hot and cold, even though they are opposite, at the extreme they often feel pretty similar. If you touch something insanely hot, you will pull your hand away in the same manner as if you were to touch something insanely cold.
Peppermint is not a kind of pepper. It's only called a peppermint because it is more pungent or "spicier" compared to its parents spearmint and water-mint. Mint is chemically the opposite of spice since the active ingredient in mint is Menthol which tricks your mind into tasting cold. Spice does the opposite of mint through the chemical Capsaicin, tricking your mind into tasting hot.
First off peppermint is not a kind of pepper. It's only called a peppermint because it is more pungent or "spicier" compared to its parents spearmint and water-mint. Mint is chemically the opposite of spice since the active ingredient in mint is Menthol which tricks your mind into tasting cold. Spice does the opposite of mint through the chemical Capsaicin, tricking your mind into tasting hot. All that's left arguing what 'mild' means, bland or barely spicy.
The stache can stay so long as the beard is allowed to rejoin it. If he's gonna keep the pedostache, however, may as well lean fully into and grow out a mullet.
The child soldiers take stops short. By their logic, anyone over 40 should be conscripted too, many of whom would probably be more effective in combat than children and teenagers.
That's making a generalization, age is not the most accurate quota to measure functional value from. It's likely based on a bunch of factors including those in the nature and nurture of the individual. There is also the issue of knowingly living in a society that with assess you based on a quota, where ones goal may be to gimmick some rating system in order to avoid conscription than to actually be a productive member of the society. Edit: Saw a good point that Functional value also changes based off the needs of the society, a child in an underpopulated area is functionally more valuable than one in an overpopulated area. The situation that happened with birth restriction in China is a great example of the nuance on how this moral philosophy could play out.
Sending all elderly to fight would be like burning own libraries. They need to stay for propagation of wisdom and culture. Whereas bunch of 10 year olds lost in war can be quickly replaced as long as adults are willing to breed like rabbits. Take my punjabi spicy take.
Regarding controversial take #1, the "transactional, mathematical morality" that explains why a child's life is considered more valuable than an adult's is that a child has more life left to experience and is therefore being robbed of more in dying than an adult. If you had to choose between saving the lives of three 80 year old humans or two 25 year old humans, you could morally justify saving fewer people with more life left to experience using this basic math. If the average life expectancy is 75, the value of the two groups is 100 years vs -15 years. I'm not fully endorsing this logic, but its pretty straightforward and isn't based on emotion.
All moral evaluations are based on emotion regardless of people trying to convince themselves otherwise. Life needs to be given a " net positive value" for this to make sense.
@@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060 Broadly speaking, you may be correct, but the "net positive value" of life assumption was built into the original question, so I added no extra emotion in my response beyond what was already presupposed.
No, that's not it. It's about resources. Evolutionarily speaking, children are much less likely to reproduce (not as a child of course, don't go there). You have already put the resources into the 25 year old, and they have proven they can survive. So transactionally it makes more sense to save the ones who can contribute to survival. That would be the 18-35 first, older but healthy second, older children third, and the sick and infants last, since they are the most likely not to survive anyway. Which is why infanticide was common at some points in history.
@@littlebitofhope1489 If the premise of your argument is that the highest value people in a society are those with the most resources, then the "older but healthy" group that you list second would actually be first. They typically have more material wealth then military aged males. They also typically (and not coincidentally) have more power and influence than military aged males, and usually make up the majority of the political class who send military aged males into combat to protect them, their wealth, and the women and children who make up their society. Arguing that people should be prioritized based on resources is not a hot or spicy take, its business as usual. The second part of your argument, that adults have "proven they can survive" (with the clear implication being that children have not), falls apart with a cursory glance at data on mortality. Even prior to modern medicine, a child who made it past the age of two had a standard life expectancy, and now there is essentially no higher risk of death for infants as long as they are born healthy. There are also no infant child soldiers, so if we are staying on topic, its a moot point. Children of all ages do require resources that they are not fully able to provide from themselves (though some of that is cultural, since farming and agricultural work were done by children throughout history and are still done by them in other countries) and that cost is largely passed on to older members of society, but you'd have to weigh that against the negative societal costs of adults aged 18-35. Adults in the 18-35 group are far more likely than young children to engage in a whole host of damaging, dangerous and self destructive behaviors (drinking, drug use, self harm, violent crime, etc). All of this is fun to discuss but is a digression from my original point. Whether you agree with it or not, an argument exists for prioritizing the lives of children over the lives of adults that can arise from a "transactional, mathematical morality" rather than a purely emotional one.
On the point at 9:15 - it's also worth noting that babies born of incest _aren't_ 'often' born disabled. While inbreeding increases your relative risk substantially, in absolute terms the baby is still probably going to be completely fine. This is particularly true if you are talking about cousin incest - it's been a while since I looked at the stats, but I think in absolute terms the likelihood of a child having major congenital issues goes from 3% to 4.5%, if it's over a single generation. Which is comparable to having kids when you're older, and potentially less risky than having kids if you know you and your partner carry deleterious recessive alleles. Sibling or parent-child incest is risker, but still. Probably fine. It's not really a philosophical point, just getting it out there that the idea that all or most children born of incest look like Quasimodo is mostly a myth.
They are very common when it's sibling or parent-child couple -- around 50% in a couple of studies I could find. It all depends on how many genetic defects the parents are carrying. First cousins are a lot less of an issue, as you say, though if it is widespread in extended families over several generations, the mental and physical decefits do become a cause for concern.
@@EnglishMikeI believe you're misreading that statistic. It likely says 50% increase, which would mean 3% to 4.5%. There is absolutely no way a study found 50% total probability. It will certainly be below 10%.
Not sending child soldiers to the front lines of a war is no where near a purely emotional moral intuition, it has an obvious functional benefit of long term continuation of the species and the next generational source of mental and physical labor. Any society that values preservation and wishes prosperity or comfort for individuals past the "ideal age" will want to preserve a stock of children to perform those tasks they carried out in their young adulthood. If humans had evolved to value the lives of adults more than children, we would not have survived a few generations. It's much more functionally arguable that the elderly should be sent the front lines, if it weren't for their declining physical fitness.
Alex, Been watching your videos for a while now, I remember being a kid in middle school and learning what I thought about my own beliefs in the context of a lutheran family and finally converting to atheism through your videos. I remember trying to learn how to play "with you" because I thought that song was the shit. To see you grow to where you are now with the level of success and knowledge you gained from your studies alongside my own growing up and almost finishing my own degree has been a pleasure. Keep it up.
To me, whether incest should be permissable or not comes down to whether or not we think a State ought to enforce eugenic standards for breeding. If there is no proper interest in The State enforcing genetic standards, then incest should not be banned. If there is a proper interest in The State enforcing genetic standards, then that would not only make the banning of incest proper, but it would also prompt the question as to how far we should go in enforcing eugenic standards for breeding. Why wouldn't it also be proper to force everyone to get a genetic test, and, before you reproduce with someone, you have to compare your genotypes from that test to find out how particularly risky your particular pairing would be, and, if the test shows that your pairing would be much liklier to result in a disabled baby than an averaged pairing, should that couple not be banned from breeding as vociferously as we would ban incestuous pairings? Because, at the end of the day, the logic is the same: you are preventing particular people from breeding because you have demonstrated that their pairing is uniquely dangerous to the health of the prospective child.
A woman in Florida once shot her son in the back of the head at a gun range because he hadn’t been old enough to have sinned yet, but she already resigned herself to the belief that she had sinned and was going to hell regardless. She guaranteed his trip to heaven while not altering her situation any. Also emotivism is wrong, but I can’t possibly explain why here.
@CosmicSkeptic So given ethical emotivism, are you cool with people saying homosexuality is immoral because it’s icky (even if you disagree with them?). I’ve seen anti gay prejudice used as a knock on Christianity by a lot of atheists, but it would seem like on emotivist grounds; there isn’t exactly anything wrong with this type of argument against homosexuality
It would be just a fact that they feel that way, no moral value at all. But they cannot base their argument in that feeling, as that feeling has no moral force. They could say it is icky to me when people are gay, ok, but that has no bearing on whether or not people should or can be gay.
@@timm9818 but on Ethical Emotivism that’s all that ANY moral claim is, so “it’s wrong to murder” also means “I think it’s icky when people murder” Frankly since studies show that straight people find gay kissing etc to be grotesque and that’s the majority of the population, I don’t see why on ethical emotivist terms there’s not at least a plausible path to social conservatism on something like homosexuality
@@davidcooke4384 you are taking it backwards. yes, ethical emotivists say that moral claims are just someone’s feelings about something. you are saying that someone’s feeling, therefore, has objective moral weight. that is not an argument made by emotivists, and i also think is untrue. the best emotivists can get you is the argument “i subjectively think homosexuality is wrong, because it feels bad to me” that is fine, it is a good reason for you to not be gay, but if someone else feels differently they would have no reason to listen to your argument
and the idea that if the majority felt bad about something it shouldn’t be allowed, on what grounds? how are you grounding the argument that people shouldnt feel bad in emotivist terms? that feels very utilitarian
@@timm9818yeah but people that are against homosexuality are against public displays of homosexuality because of how they react to it. For them it's the equivalent of having a pile of trash instead of a container, or fixing a car with duct tape instead of having it repaired. And for the religious it's a sin, not so different from adultery.
It does until you realize that there is great benefit to human society as a whole when the strong (those with the power) defend the weak. You're much more likely to be in the "weak" category (it's a numbers game), so it is greatly to our benefit when society as a whole places greater value on defending the defenseless.
@@EnglishMike This still places more value on the strong, take a trolly problem with one productive age 30 man vs. a 3 month old baby, many would say the moral option is to save the baby over the functioning member of society. The difference comes down to defending the weak vs. sacrificing for the weak.
@@Plasmapigeon except that the value of the strong in this context is in defending the vulnerable, to the point of sacrifice if need be. If we don't allow the strong to go to war, instead we have the weak do so, because the strong are valuable and the weak aren't, then the value of the strong ceases to be.
@@UntoTheDepths But by this logic the weak then become the strong because they are sacrificing themselves for the strong (which are now the weak). The ability to sacrifice in your example is not exclusive to the strong, yet you say it's the only value the strong have. I'm saying, at a surface level glance, the strong have other values that make them worth prioritizing over the weak.
@@Plasmapigeon I'd argue that the weak don't sacrifice for others (self-sacrifice), which is a part the the reason they belong in the "weak" category. Cowardice and being overly selfish is a moral weakness whereas self-sacrifice is a moral strength. Sacrifice is the value of the strong in the context I commented under. If you want to expand upon the values of the strong we can get into that.
12:10 The nuclear thing for Spongebob is a bit more than a theory. Bikini Bottom is a reference to it being under Bikini Atoll, where the US tested nukes in the Pacific. How directly they are affected is up for discussion, of course, but there is a canonical basis for it.
"The strong defending the weak" (argument against child soldiers) is a very important ethic in a social species like ours. Where it holds, it ensures that the vast majority of people can live in relative safety compared to places where the strong only look after themselves. Protecting other people's children is just a part of that.
Adults have also already had the chance to produce offspring, and war was often a way of thinning the unmarried male population to prevent them from becoming restless and violent within the community.
Incest is actually one of the topics that a lot of people feels like its wrong, but only with themselves. I don't see people getting mad when they meet some married relatives, for example.
It's also very culturally dependent, growing up in a family with a muslim background, people around around me regularly made fun of the "goddless west" marrying their sisters either indirectly (because no one there knows who their parents are) or some times even directly (those godless heathens have sex with their mothers and sisters). Yet since I was like 4 or 5 I was all but officially engaged to my first cousin, and our parents are still abit sore that me didn't actually get married 😂 In my cultural at least 1st and 2nd cousin marriages are seen as superior because they keep it in the family, I think it's a culture of honor thing. That internal visceral disgust reaction is totally absent from this, it is not suppressed it is literally just not there.
@@Mo95793 Cousin marriages were perfectly normal in the West until very recently - Einstein and Darwin were both married to cousins. I don't really know why it stopped. Interesting question!
@shenanigans3710 yeah i bet that's a great topic for a video essay, unless there is some mundane answer we just didn't think of, like the cultural sensibility towards the age of marriage
I think the issue gets mixed up when people say something along the lines of ' it does not seem morally wrong in situation X and Y so therefore shouldn't be illegal' Because law, social order, crime and punishment for a certain thing is a different argument, people think that laws automatically are the same as morality or individual morality. A good example is gambling 'well what is wrong with sticking $10 on black at roulette' ...well nothing is wrong but it might be wrong for a casino to arrive and turn your town into a tourist place for degenerates and attract crime, it could still be a social ill or something you discourage and set rules against. With law you have to consider a wider perspective.
The idea of traumatized child soldiers coming back to society in huge numbers sounds scary as fuck. I think that adults having more attachment to societal norms due to their familiarity with them makes them more stable or at least more likely to internalize their trauma so it doesn't come up and blows up at everyone around them, since children are less likely to handle this the same way you may be running into a much bigger risk of just bringing the war back home
I have to respectfully disagree sir. Alex's mustache is only 2nd to mrThoughty2's. It is a moral duty of society to preserve, for the reason of being an example for future generations to see what an intelligent, intellectual man should look like and be immediately recognized among a group of ppl. Think of the goat, Nietzsche. Who would benefit from his work had he shaved that glorious stache??
Children have potential value. Maybe we take that into account as well. We not only evaluate based on present capabilities but also on the potential for future value?
Exactly we train adults who mostly aren’t capable of doing much else to be soldiers and train kids to be useful to society. Those soldiers will be more effective than poorly trained children. After that though it would probably be efficient to immediately start training children and making as many as the budget allows for a continual supply of sacrificial pieces. Morbid ideas but that would probably be what we’d do if we were purely rational beings.
Future value of children is not the only thing to consider, since it requires resources to raise children into the state when they can provide that value. Raising children into adults is a long-term investment. The reasoning for an adult being more valuable is because the cost of raising the person (education, food, healthcare, time, etc) has already been mostly paid.
On AI Human referencing art is meaningfully different different from AI The take that it isn’t seems to be coming from ppl that are not deeply involved with art. - The way we practice or learn from each other in art is very specific. You ask a million questions and try to answer them trying to think like the artist you are studying, the process feels like a conversation of problem solving. And after we learn what do we do? Do we just replicate others' art endlessly? No, we incorporate technique or mindset into parts of our own work. Is it fully original no ofc nothing is as you said, but what makes it ours is the reflection of our life experiences, likes and skill level into the artwork. - So what at the end of the say you copied from someone somehow why is it different from the AI. Well we are all artists duh we give each other a pass cuz we know how deep the study process is and the fulfillment of learning. And even if we didn’t we can’t copyright shit, other people have lived similar lives, found similar techniques you can’t be sure almost ever, but we don’t care. All we would do is be intrigued if someone has a similar taste like us or be glad someone found inspiration in us enough to sit down and learn our thought process. - And that is the heart of the issue, why did an artist do it cuz they loved something and wanted to learn/recreate or adapt that is their goal - Be for real what is the goal of doing an AI artwork: it's a quick product for free or to compete with the people you stole from for money. Typing words is not showing me you want to learn or that you love my art enough for you to pick up a pencil and even try, not only that but you want to compete with me with my own work. How can I give this a pass? - And worst of all it's useless. This technology is a full waste of energy. Keep that where it belongs in research and medicine. TLDR; we don't care if its an artist cuz it comes from interest and respect + it doesn't hurt us and we care when its AI cuz its from a place of greed + it hurts us
mfks really think im about to sue a 12 year old for copying me, but i just wouldn't care if a billion dollar company scrapes our work with no permission and go on with it. even if they were doing the same "copy" (they aren't doing the same) don't you guys see the problem of putting these 2 examples next to each other and treating them the same?
Its not whether its right or wrong, its whether its meaningfully different, and I don't believe it is, except in order of magnitude, as you stated. This does read like special pleading, though. Yes it hinders you. Yes it encroaches on your field. But so do other artists(sometimes). The specific parameters of the neural network *is* your guesswork. The neural network is doing something functionally similar to the process you mentioned. Every network is different. AI art is a means for people without skill or time to be able to invest the energy in a way they are comfortable with. In essence, its a powertool. The complaints here, I'd imagine, are functionally similar to complaints about needing less hands in the field to farm, with the industrial revolution, for example. Good art can come out of AI, and its actually a skill to invoke it properly. I actually think its a good thing, In a word: It gives more people access to "make"(as this is your contention, but I think make works perfectly fine) beautiful things without giving up early.
This is so hard to read without any punctuation. I still don’t understand what you think the meaningful distinction is between the two, it just seems like you’re saying ‘I like one and I don’t like the other one’
AIs "learn" by discovering patterns in art and so do people. I don't think AI is copying art at all, instead it's discovering patterns and then combining them with noise to produce new images. I think you are ultimately saying that AI images have low value, which is not really a hot take.
1:32 yes absolutely morality is based on functional value. The same way a neural network is mathematical. Our emotional reaction is just a long term calculation and the time it took to evolve into these emotions, optimizing for our survival. Ethical emotivism can also be reduced to the computation that is evolution.
5:30 I feel like there’s a difference between someone taking inspiration from art and an AI generating art because a person can bring their own experiences and creativity into the art, which an AI could never replicate
and the music example is not very good because there are a finite number of patterns in pop music so some chord progressions or melodies are going to repeat in different songs from time to time
That is just a bald assertion. Who is to say an AI can't do that? By what metric are you measuring creativity and experience other than your feelings? I say it can, so what now?
weird way to put it. it's not as if the AI don't experience. experiencing things magnitudes of degrees more than the average human can is kind of their whole schtick creativity makes a bit more sense but it's not really anything anyone can measure, and it's really kind of a meaningless word. creativity at the end of the day is the ability to come up with things that haven't existed before, which is already something AI can do
AI is also copy protected from using content produced by major corporations whereas the general public has to hide their content on private platforms that limit their reach just to avoid having it mass produced by robots working for millions of people and creating content within seconds.
I work in both the music and software industry. I think the original take is completely correct. Creativity is a vague concept. The standards for copyright infringement when it comes to AI art should be the same as with human art. If someone listens to a bunch of Stevie Wonder songs and then writes one that sounds stylistically similar but doesn't directly copy any of them, that would not be considered plagiarism. Same should apply to AI music.
For someone who's not a moral realist, Alex frequently assumes that we share intuitions about morality. Especially if you're an emotivist, what morality is "really about" is entirely subjective and changes from person to person. I actually do have an intuitive need to weigh suffering against wellbeing. I always have, for as long as I have memories. It's not a "cold calculus." I care so much about people's subjective experiences that I want to do my best to get it as right as possible. And going off of vibes isn't as effective as stopping to consider all the potential impacts. It's extremely weird to me that others don't have this intuition, but you don't see me claiming that their intuitions are impossible.
I think your utilitarian worldview is ultimately based on how you feel though. Why do you believe that other people's happiness is important except that it feel right to you?
@_Squiggle_ oh absolutely! I don't deny that for a second. I just think that if you acknowledge as much, I don't know how you can make statements about what ethics is "really about" without the qualifier "to me." Or how you can talk about "our intuitions" rather than "my intuitions."
Moral anti-realism doesn’t necessarily imply relativism, and it’s important to bear in mind that ‘subjective’ and ‘relative’ don’t mean the same thing. We could all be emotivists and also all believe that the human psyche is identical, or near-identical, in all who possess it; this means that it’s at least conceivable that we can be emotivist and also believe in shared moral intuitions.
no one asked but, my hot takes on the hot takes, which I made after hearing the hot-take but before hearing Alex's take on it Child soldiers: We should save the children from war because they will provide more utility in the future, over someone already in their twenties or thirties. While an adult provides "more" utility at this exact second (arguably), a child will end up able to provide that same utility in the future, for longer. so an adult soldier dying who has already served a portion of their utility to society will end up with a lower loss of utility over a child soldier dying who still has all of their utility left to serve for society. Geocenterism 2.0: Lame, just an idea about the universe that's very close minded. Just because we haven't found other life does not mean we are the only life. We are the product of other people: Yeah no duh, that's how babies are made. In a personality sense, only partially. There is the "nature v.s nurture" debate, but it's always been both. Anyone who tries to narrow it down or declare that one or the other is more important is reductive and doesn't understand that each person is different, both due to the nurturing the received as they grew up, and the nature of how their brain is wired. Some people are more Nature, some people are more Nurture, but both play a role and that's just how it is, because it literally couldn't be any other way. A.i. "art" : No. Wrong. in the same way that using the heroes journey as a baseline for writing a story because you liked the lord of the rings books, is different than just retelling lord of the rings except the hobbits are anime girls with big bazongas now. Art and A.I. 'art' are completely different morally. One is inspiration, the other is THEFT. Art is meant to be shared, to inspire others. From afar. Taking a direct copy of the artwork and using the fucking smear tool to make something similar is theft, and that's basically all A.I. "art" is. a computer program using the smear tool on a million pieces of stolen artwork to make something incredibly derivative and worthless. Christian babymurdererguy: Yeah, as an Atheist I'm normally against using the bible for moral arguments, but the ten commandments are supposed to be there as the 'blanket rules'. Basically, "Follow these unless god directly tells you otherwise." and "Don't Murder" being one of the ten commandments makes this guy wrong, on a religious level. Incest: I mean, eh? Realistically the "as long as it does not produce offspring" part is leaning into the territory of using Eugenics as an argument, but also, the only really truly consensual incest there could be is two siblings or cousins who are very close in age, because otherwise the power dynamic being introduced by an older member of the family being seen as an 'authority figure' and having unbalanced power in the relationship is too high for it to be safe and consensual, in a similar way to a boss and an employee or a teacher and student having a relationship. Emotivism: I mean, yeah. Basically all religion is based on "I don't understand this rationally, so I'm going to use emotions to create a baseline for what I mold my conscious ideas into." Ala "man that big yellow light in the sky moves a lot but things don't move without something moving them. I bet there's a giant invisible sky man that moves it." and Emotivism is (using and simplifying your own example from the last take) "I don't have any really great arguments against why Incest is wrong, and this is a hang up for other secular moral philosophy's, but it's kinda gross and I don't like it, so it's wrong, thanks Emotivism." Ayn Rand: as someone whose never read any of their work, I cannot comment. Spongeman bobguy: eh. No. Stephen Hillenburg was never really all that "anti" materialism. He was more just a well educated guy that wanted to make a cartoon that pulled kids into being interested in marine biology.
Ayn Rand's philosophy in a very very boiled down nutshell is: If someone is really exceptional at something (really smart, really artistic, really good at producing money, etc.) then the law should get out of their way and let them do that thing, and they should be able to conscript "lesser people" to help them however they can. It's basically Capitalism at its free-est. If you've ever seen the first Raime Spider-Man movie, the part where Green Goblin gives his speech to Spidey about the "teeming pile of masses exist to lift exceptional people up", it's basically that.
I think we evolved to put emphasis on protecting children. If children die, they don't become adults and the species dies off. It has been known that infants and toddlers have many of the physical characteristics that people tend to find attractive in adults. The theory is that this compels adults to tolerate these young ages more and want to protect them.
*"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy"* ----Christian Minister Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Okay, a few points here: 1. 0:11 This case completely falls apart once you consider that, from a purely _practical_ standpoint (not even moral), children don't make good soldiers. You're telling me that a six-year-old who doesn't even know where to start when told to clean his room is capable of operating heavy artillery, flying a fighter jet or aiming an AR-15 at the appropriate target on command? 😂 2. 1:45 I would very much like to know what evidence the commenter and Alex have that intelligent life doesn't exist _anywhere else_ in a universe that is 93+ _billion_ light-years across, with planets just like Earth that potentially number in the trillions. 3. 3:00 Factually incorrect. It has long been established that genetics plays a critical role in shaping who we are. The question currently being asked is whether it is _totally_ determinative of all that we do (the nature vs. nurture debate), and I strongly lean towards no. 4. 4:58 This is clearly false. If the human creative process was sufficiently similar to that of AI, the arts (visual, music, architecture, and so on) would not exist. Unless one believes that humans learned art from another intelligent species (tying back to a previous take for a moment 😂), art _must_ have come into existence at some point in the past (caveman drawings?) purely due to a conscious creativity that AI, in its current stage of development, cannot replicate. In other words, AI requires input (a database consisting of prior works of art) to produce output (new AI-generated artwork)-- humans do not. 5. 6:18 This assumes that 1) children are not "predestined" to go to hell regardless (as Calvinists believe) and 2) children cannot hold any sincere religious convictions of their own (in which case the vast majority -- Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on -- will just go to hell sooner anyway) and/or that they won't be trapped in purgatory (as Catholic doctrine teaches). 6. 7:43 As a committed _classical_ utilitarian (not a negative one like the commenter at 9:49 arguing from a harm reduction standpoint) whose only objective is to maximize the well-being of sentient creatures (as opposed to minimizing suffering), I believe to my core that there is nothing ethically objectionable about two consenting adults engaging in whatever activity produces happiness in private no matter who they are. End of conversation. 7. 10:28 As a moral semi-realist, I am not vulnerable to such an interpretation. 😂 8. 11:09 Ayn Rand sucks. Ask any academic philosopher, they'll tell you. Nobody who has actually studied her work has ever accused her philosophy of being coherent.
Fully agree with the AI take. People who use "AI is theft" or "it's just rearranging other people's work" as the crux of their argument for why it's immoral or 'not art' are building on very shaky foundations. As someone who dislikes the current state of AI art I've fought against these arguments and instead gone with the following: - Our economic system means that automation makes the average person poorer and funnels wealth to the top - this sucks bus isn't specifically an AI issue. - AI art in its current form is bad art. It's so focussed on imitating other styles without an understanding of them that it creates technically proficient pieces that say nothing. Much in the same way that a plain photo of the Mona Lisa, tribute bands and someone who only makes fake Mondrians are bad art.
I think AI art is often bad art in the sense that it doesn't convey much intentionality, I think AI art makes fine image, though. Clip art or birthday party invitation decorations, etc. There's a lot of images that are used that aren't used because they "capture the human spirit" but instead are used to convey information or provide utility Are you fundamentally opposed to all automation, then?
@@_Squiggle_ 100% agree with the point that there's so much art that nobody cares about or wants to be making and that it's a perfect use-case for AI. Elevator music and corporate slideshow art are my go-to examples. I also think there are things that AI art is uniquely good at, like capturing the uncanny. Just like how the best photography doesn't seek to imitate still-life fine art, I think the best AI art will go in a direction untrodden or poorly trodden by existing art forms. I'm fully in favour of automation and other increases to efficiency, I just think the economic system needs to be restructured to accommodate it. More production for less labour is a fundamentally good thing (unless we want to get really get into the weeds of it), but it has disastrous results in a society that requires people be doing that labour to afford to live.
"AI art in its current form is bad art" - there is plenty of art where the artist sets a system going and the final piece is what the system made on its own without explicit design from the artist - for example, swinging a leaky paint can on a string. Artist sets up the initial conditions, and takes the result. AI art is similar to those kind of things. There's also plenty of AI art out there that you wouldn't know is AI without someone telling you, so this idea of "says nothing" is a bit weird. And wow, tribute bands = bad art is an awful blanket statement. They engage with the audience and get their juices going, and if you have decent musicians who can read the crowd, you've given the audience a great night out. There are bad bands, yes, but that doesn't mean the form itself is bad.
There is also the fact that the way copyright law exists for humans is already entirely broken, so a lot of the AI debate is muddied due to that. A great deal of art should be in the public domain that is not. Many cultural touchstones that have a personal impact on all our lives are owned by a bunch of people who didn't make it and have no personal connection to those who did. The iterative nature of art means that each new piece is a conversation with the last: look at ancient myth or fairy tales where new generations who grew up with the stories would put their own spin on it. But we have outsourced that to corporations who have no connection to the material, and now we are letting AI do what humans arent allowed to do. They will iterate and blend are together without thought or connection, further separating people from culture.
Initially I was outraged by mint being the opposite of spicy. But my girlfriend pointed out to me that the coolness of menthol mint works by latching onto your mouths coolness receptors in the same way that capsasin does that to heat receptors for spice. Therefore working identically but on receptors measuring the two ends of the same spectrum. All in all, I now agree with you.
I do think it's very possible to make an ethical statement based on something other than emotion. Take any given crime that has a victim, for example. I can say, "Murder is bad because it has this effect and that effect on these people and these things and says such and such about the perpetrator." A lot of things absolutely come from emotion, but I think that saying that all ethical beliefs come from emotional reaction ignores other reasoning.
Having child soldiers fight to protect having adults is a specific warfare strategy. It's usefulness is very narrow. Having adults protect children is for the sake of extending the genetic line and it's use is broad scale. Mostly for times when the entire country isn't at war during a specific scenario where protecting honed skills and knowledge is paramount.
Art might not be produced in a vacuum, but AI aren't people. AI are owned by someone, and has no personhood. AI is a fancy brush. And what it's painting is copies. And the people owning the AI are doing a plagiarism.
The vast majority of AI images are not copies of existing work, they are actually new images. They have recurring styles, and sometimes people's styles are clearly ripped off, but the image is unique, that's kinda the whole point.
Disappointing take on AI, I know it's a fast paced video but there are so many things that could have been touched on like: - There's no compelling evidence that AI is actually intelligent or aware or feels emotion, and good reason to think that 'AI' is simply a marketing term to evoke science fiction and futurism in place of words like 'algorithm' and 'machine learning'. People are already anthropomorphizing AI, and that's good for business. - Can something be considered art of the author is simply the unfeeling churning of statistical algorithms? - Can you really say it's the same thing for a person to grow up exposed to a variety of art and transmute the abstract impressions of that art into something entirely new, which has intention, humour, vision and finely tuned details that all work together in an original way? AI simply recognises patterns via statistical analysis based on a perfectly remembered and vast data set and guesses what should go next to what. This data only captures the structure of art, whilst a human memory revolves more strongly around the emotions a person felt when they experienced it, and the values and aspirations it played into. AI has nothing like any of that relationship with the art it's trained on. It is unfeeling statistically correct slop churned out with no intention or attention or aspiration. It's the Soylent Green of art.
That really was a disappointing take and the first thing is that people place the blame on "AI" when really the issues should be split into those regarding the person doing the prompting and those regarding the scraping to do the dataset and customising the generating tool (like when they remove "Pixar" from the list of words you can use to generate an image :) ). If they had to remove artists still living or those who haven't died 80 years ago and aren't in the public domain yet or whatever, the dataset would be laughably small... and they know it. Oftentimes people just get those mixed up and think that if one gets a pass then so should the other. Big brands are already ahead of it, making sure the algorithm won't recognise whatever you wanted when you type in "Disney". They've protected themselves well. What can a beginner artist without a lawyer do? Nothing, ofc, just watch how his work gets their watermark removed without any notice. People stopped posting their works anywhere online just for this reason alone. I'm sure a great deal of democratisation (whatever AI fans claim AI brings) was lost when professional artists are now only in few local galleries. It just shows how little Alex knows about the subject. Or he would rather ignore the "real" part of it - he's doing a Jordan Peterson level of work with this one. edit: let's not forget about the big no-no's of midjourney: sure, it's reasonable that you can't use terms to creative aggresive imagery, or abusive or whatnot, but guess what other random terms are banned from use? Xi JinPing, Putin...
No, "AI" is just the actual term for it. Artificial Intelligence is a whole academic field that has been around since at least the 1970s (at least that's when the core training technique underpinning what we have today was invented). The business world adopted a product of science, not the other way around. There is a simple mathematical proof you can do to show that no, these programs cannot just be "perfectly remembering" everything. I'll use Stable Diffusion as an example, here goes: Training Dataset (LAION-2B) Size: 100 TB Model Size: 5 GB Keep in mind that 100TB dataset is already compressed, and yet the AI has somehow "perfectly remembered" its contents despite throwing away 99.995% of it. You talked about guessing what should go next, which sounds like you are talking about language models, but those work in an entirely different way to image generators, which don't do anything word by word; they affect the entire image a little bit on each step. But regarding LLMs, if you'd like to see what "recognizing patterns via statistical analysis" actually looks like, try using your phone's autocomplete. You'll see that this is not anything like what we have now. And finally, even if we accept calling how it actually works a statistical trick, you still haven't proven that isn't how human brains work under the hood. What we call emotions might just be effectively vectors of numbers that alter the most likely next word we produce.
@@joanabug4479 I think that's a different topic. Disney and other companies don't want AI to generate images of their copyrighted characters. Artists don't want AI companies to steal their *style*.
@@ThingsAreGettingTooSpicy I understand that this is the scientific field of study's name for it, but the way it is used commercially right now to indicate true intelligence is still a misnomer because it's not supported by evidence, and there's no doubt this term is deployed in this way because it's good marketing and not because it's an accurate representation of the truth. The name AI is currently still aspirational, we are not there yet. That requires the ability to think; to be conscious. Digital compression is not analogous to the imperfect and impressionistic recall of human memory. Yes I refer to LLMs but this line of reasoning applies just as well to music and image generators because it is the passionless algorithmic following and blending of patterns, there are different sophisticated mechanisms but without thought or emotion or inspiration that's all they can be at the highest level. And finally you've reached the crux of it by asserting that I have to prove that AI does not operate the same as a human mind; not so. This is a positive claim proponents of AI make all the time, and the burden of proof is on the claimant. It's not my job to prove it's not true, it's your job to prove it is. And that evidence simply does not exist.
The incest question is interest to me cuz people always focus on the disability of the child. Well, it is proven that older mothers have much higher rates of disabled children. Should we look at someone having a baby at 40 the same way as we look at an incestuous couple?
I have 11 siblings, been to many Graduations. As I got older, I noticed these Fully Grown Adults would applaud as their Children would go and serve and fight in wars they wouldn't even dream of fighting. This last memorial day, I watched this Army ad. It had that song Hear You Me by Jimmy Eat World. That is a big thing that really plauges my mind as of late. Seeing those Parents applause and everyone speaking of Philosophical Morals, while that song is playing watching those kids stand up for something they truly know nothing about. We all have our roles to play in The Great Game of The Cosmos, I suppose. "May Angels Lead You In..."
I am convinced if we raised the age of consent to join the military from 18 to 25 we would have less than half of the soldiers we do today because it would be harder to convince mature adults to risk throwing their lives away for someone else's war (or to line someone else's pockets), whereas 18 year olds still think it is all about "freedom and protecting the country".
@@GoeTeeks The young adults I know who joined the military seem more interested in learning a skill or doing fulfilling work than intangible ideals. Going into the military has a pretty strong benefits. I think older adults would be less likely for the same reason older adults are less likely to go to college: they already have careers, they have families, etc.
that ai take i think will only be valid once we have true ai and they alone are making art consciously without a human typing prompts into it and then getting mad when people call them out because they put no effort into the art "they" made
The Nonidentity problem sounds very interesting. I will be looking forward to that. It ties into something I often think about regarding children born with disabilities that could have been screened for and avoided. My goto for it right now is "Everyone that exists has a right to exist, but anyone who doesn't exist yet does not have the right to come into existence"
it's kind of a mistake to view moral choices in a vacuum or from a single position any choice is part of an emerging pattern and choices you make might seem irrelevant from our narrow perspective, but observing the ripple effect it can have through time is what shapes functional morality. Incest might seem innocuous in principle, but the ripple effect is increased chance of genetic degeneration in a population over time, we are always dealing with probabilities and influential downstream effects that said, we don't have a perfect way to gauge the validity until we explored potential dead ends (with death/survival being the ultimate deciding factor)
We don’t forcefully abort children who we know 1.are going to be born with disabilities, or 2. are carrying dna that has a high chance of a specific genetic abnormality. That specific reason for outlawing incest doesn’t hold up under critique.
@@DevourerSated 'we' don't do that because just a few hundred years ago nature took care of that for us, ensuring less viable genetics would not survive at significant scale. Whether it's a good & moral thing to allow certain disabilities and heritable diseases to permeate is yet to be seen, we might just be pushing the issues to future generations if fast forward 1000 years and the world was a horror show of genetic disorders and abnormalities, morals would likely be very different it's about understanding consequences over time, not altruistic grandstanding in the present (im not advocating for any kind of lawmaking, it's an organic thing just as our human morals are - if anything people should make such decisions themselves, but it's unnatural for most individuals to consider future consequences)
If you make the agrument a numbers game this would require a sufficiently large part of the population to be genuinely interested in incest in the first place, which I find highly dubious.
Alex, what is your take on the problem of the Laplace demon? In this case I am talking of the problem that emerges when you take the position that Laplace suggested (an intelligence capable of knowing every position and speed of every particle in the universe, and with this, it would be able to see the future entirely) the problem is, if that intelligence is programed to be rebel or to deny the future, in this case it would go against what it predicted that it would do, but this of course creates a loop and a logical problem, the thing is, this doesn't necessarily create any problems on the deterministic view because its impossible( for what we know at least) to know every position and speed of all the particles in the world in the same instant, because of how observation in the quantum realm works. But a more interesting idea, would be if we develop this problem to the Christian god, because it wouldn't be limited by observation, god technically is omniscient so it has exactly the same position as the Laplace demon, falling exactly to the same logical issue. I have worked around this idea for a while, and I believe it proves that an omniscient and omnipotent being with free will, cannot exist. Most christians argue that god is not in time so he doesn't fall to the same problem, even though I don't really see how that takes the problem away, because there clear instances of actions, like the creation of our universe, and if he had an instance of action ( even if he isn't just in a point of time) he still falls to the same problem. I would be really glad if you contemplated around this idea.
Also, on the incest thing, the stats are not even likely to create disabled babies by default. From memory, it's something like a 3% increase in the chance of negative genetic mutation, and so mothers older than 35 already have a higher risk of disabled children than the increased risk factor from incest alone.
Here is something, let’s hear your input. I call it the “The law of balance” Things will always balance themselves… if something gets too extreme in one direction, it causes things to go extreme in the other direction.
The most common response I've seen to the question of "Why is a child's death worse than an adult's death?" mentions some aspect of potentiality. I'm curious if you think the prospective future of a child is worthy of consideration. If so, would the same be said regarding a fetus?
that child or fetus has the same chance of adding nothing to society as it does adding to society plus it needs to be invested in. a full grown adult is already contributing to society with no need of investment of time or money
@@markjuckenburg6006 This view assumes a very short term growth mindset. If we didn't prioritize the potential futures of the next generation, the survival of the species would diminish and there'd be no assurance of a continued societal production value for individuals who live to old age.
But the child thirty years later will be more valuable than the adult 30 years later. In the end, their value would even out. And if we think that education is improving overtime then children might be slightly more valuable in the long run
Usually a lot of youtube vids are backloaded to make sure you get the full view time. And yet here is alex putting the spiciest right to the start, saying that 'minty is the opposite to spicy'
As someone who is into really niche art few artists produce actually good pieces on, AI has been somewhat of a blessing. Yes, 95% of it looks like garbage, yes 99% of it won't even get revised and uploaded with its typical AI artifacts and 'AI artstyle' but there's still the 1% of AI 'artists' who actually use these generative AI models to produce new (yes, new), AI *based* art that looks as good if not better than 'real' art. Can you zoom in and notice it's not actually drawn by a human? Most of the times, yes. Doesn't matter though because nobody analyses brush strokes of digital art and analysing lighting or colour theory on AI imagery can still be done.
Yeah, the real problem with AI art at the moment is the economic incentives, i.e. it's being used to replace actual artists, whilst using the art they create as dataset to train said AI, basically using the artists' own creations to strike against their careers, just for companies to be able to save a few bucks. But if we remove that aspect, AI can be used for creative pursuits. It can be just a new tool that people can use to create cool stuff. Just like photography didn't kill painting because we could find ways to use painting to express things by not having to just perfectly replicate reality, AND, at the same time, photography became an art in and of itself, the revolution brought by AI art could go in a similar direction. But ideally, we need to make sure the current artists don't actually suffer because of the economic issues brought by the ways the tool is currently being used.
the second take circles back to us being a product of ourselves, since if the first premise is held true, that means others is also a product of us and since we are products of them, we are essentially products of ourselves.
Pageau did a whole talk on the geocentric universe and its implications, one of my favorite videos of all time. I think you would love it. "A Full Frontal Attack on The Copernican Revolution"
Alex, let me be first and congratulate you on MILLION subscribers, I like to be first and because it inevitably happen soon, thanks for your work, I always enjoyed the content from almost begging, cheers
6:10 I could not disagree more with this take. “Why can’t AI take from multiple sources like a human does?” Because it is AI. In a perfect world I would agree that there is no harm, but we don’t live in a perfect world. We live a world where humans get fulfillment and virtue from creating something. We also live in a world where people need to have a profession of some kind to be able to survive. Automating this process and taking it away from living humans from my perspective is morally abhorrent in both a personal and economic standpoint. On top of that it is taking the working artist work and using it to push them out of what fulfills them in life and puts food on the table. By moving to an ecosystem that has generative AI as a widely accepted tool or process, you are effectively turning people into consumers when they would be creators. Which from a psychological and personal perspective is much less beneficial and is more harmful to the person. In my opinion it is harmful to the creative spirit of humanity itself. This level of spice of that take should put your ass in the fucking hospital.
Do you think all automation is harmful to society or just automation that displaces artists? What makes an artist's job more valuable than a plumber, or a programmer, or a factory worker?
@ Great question. I think automating something that defines or grows human experience is immoral in a broad sense. Obviously what defines human experience is a slippery concept that means something different depending on the person and perspective. With something like art or creation in general there is a long tradition of the act of creation adding meaning to one’s life, and adding a depth that wouldn’t have been there without creating something new. With a more blue collar job like plumbing that becomes a grey area. Non-plumbers would certainly just see plumbing as meaningless labor or work so they think “Why not automate plumbing?” It would save time and free up that persons time for something else. But that plumber might get all of their meaning from solving problems related to that. Their “music” in life comes from the satisfaction of making a very clean and efficient piping system work for people. That the act itself adds to the person’s life, and if something means that much to someone should we deprive it systematically? This concept could be applied to basically any type of profession. So from that angle any type of automation could be taking away something from a person’s experience and meaning in life. But obviously there is a lot of automations in our life that are useful, and someone might have enjoyed doing something industrial by hand in the past that is now a widely accepted automation. In practice, I think it depends on the case at hand. I think we should not be taking away opportunities from real individuals to have real experiences of creation from a philosophical level. From an economic perspective it is taking away creative opportunities from the individual and giving it to cooperations with comparatively way more power already. But ultimately I have no idea on where the line is. I am just an artist and professional artist that is in love with the act of creating itself, and my heart bleeds for the implications going forward for human made art in the commercial space.
@@troutfish8590 Thanks for having a balance and nuanced take on this issue. I think I ultimately believe that automation of image creation outweights the negative impact of artist job loss. But I realize there is a give take
@@_Squiggle_ lemme ask you this Is your ultimate wish for society that we eventually sit in pods with all our needs are handled by robots and we simply experience a digital specifically designed to make us happy? Because the ultimate conclusion to automating everything is that. Art isn't a necessity for survival, it's something we do to add meaning to our lives, that's the sole thing it is for. So why are we trying to automate it?
Spicy Take: Moral Emotivism collapses into Moral Egoism. A moral framework or theory is useless if it never tells you that you are wrong about something. Both emotivism and egoism lack this limiting principle, as no fact outside the persons' subjective experience can ever have a real persuasive pull on them against their will (or against how they feel about something). Your emotions are not right or correct or good, necessarily. Relying on them for moral clarity is useless at best, and dangerous at worst.
Jordan Peterson says "you need to be the best toilet cleaner ever to find meaning in your life". I'd say f*** that. I'll wait for my dad to hire me as his business manager.
I'd like a bit of clarification on the ethical emotivism standpoint on incest mentioned here. You essentially stated that despite there not being a good reason to condemn it as wrong, simply having that "icky feeling" about it is enough to say that it *is* wrong. To me, that sounds awfully and uncomfortably similar to the reasoning many people have that leads to viewing things like gay sex as wrong. Is there any reason that exact same argument couldn't be used to justify homophobia, and if not, does my current "icky feeling" towards ethical emotivism mean that using ethical emotivism is wrong?
*Spicy takes:* You have no unified identity and willpower does not exist. You just think willpower exists because the processes that lead to your behavior don't share a unified set of preferences. Meaning and purpose are no more the purview of philosophy or religion than maintaining a social life is. They are just instincts that evolved to make you do things to get a healthy social group and social status. As in the case of professional athletes it doesn't matter whether what you're doing is plausibly making the world a better place, only that you get great respect for it.
Abrahamic monotheism is not a religious system. It is a political conspiracy. The story of the Exodus occurred in history however all of the details were deliberately reversed in the Holy Bible, in one of the first propaganda spin stories, in order to make the monotheists look like the victims and the Egyptians look like the aggressors. In reality, it was the monotheists who were the aggressors and the Egyptians were the victims. In the 13th dynasty of Egypt - 3,500 years ago - people known by modern historians as the Israelite pharaohs, AKA “shepherd kings” or "Hyksos", conquered northern Egypt taking control of its throne for their own purposes. This foreign occupation lasted for about 300 years until a pharaoh descended of those original conquerors named Amenhetep the 4th tried to force monotheism on the Egyptian population; taking as his new name, one of several aliases, Akhenaten. An alias referencing his singular god “Aten”. For the native Egyptians, who had long suffered the machinations of their foreign rulers, this was the last straw. Five Egyptian generals funded by the southern treasury of Egypt launched a military coup and exiled Amenhetep along with his Levitical priesthood. It was after his expulsion that, realizing he couldn’t work openly anymore, Amenhetep took his last alias - “Moses”; a name truncation derived from one of his relatives named Thutmoses. From that point, the propaganda of the Holy Bible was written.
I don't think that a political conspiracy and a religion are necessarily mutually exclusive. Regardless of its origin, the Abrahamic faiths are still religions. Also, having a single story be factually incorrect does not exclude any spiritual significance from other unrelated books in the Bible (or other scripture). In fact, it doesn't even preclude spiritual significance from being in the factually incorrect story
5:34 really? There isn’t a meaningful difference AT ALL between a human being inspired to make their own art consuming an entire lifetime’s worth of art and a machine spitting it out at the press of a button? I mean, in your own description the process for a human is so much more in depth and requires so many more steps. No, you can’t create art in a vacuum, but surely there is something meaningful about the presence of a human’s perception in questioning what qualifies as art to begin with, right?
Alex is not an artist. It's troublingly easy for non artists to lack insight and empathy for why they're wrong when they equate what AI does to what the conscious/sentient can do.
It astounds me how people tend to forget that the imagination aspect of AI art still comes from humans. Humans provide prompts, guidance, and ultimately select which piece(s) of art to use and present. Like, yeah, most of the legwork is done by AI that uses references of lots of different work, but humans still give it some guidance. And the more guidance they give, the better the piece of work usually ends up being.
There's also the fact that a human artist can and should be expected to credit their inspirations and influences, but AI rips us artists off with no credit and no links back to the original.
For the first issue, one utilitarian argument against child soldiers is that children, who are in their formative years, are much more impressionable than adults, so the horrors of war have a relatively stronger impact on their minds than they do on an adult mind. Which means that if we want to reduce the overall negative effects on our collective psyche, it makes sense to have grown-up soldiers, whose sense of self are (again, relatively) less affected by war.
My ethical hot take is that ethics as a whole constitute the set of actions we as a society have decided we can afford to do (or not do) with a view toward the improvement of the society as a whole on an arbitrarily long-term time scale.
The ai vs human art thing is basically null because humans actually do something new to it. We don’t just mix every chef’s best dish into a soup, we select the ones we’ve tried and liked then add some spices and herbs or whatever to change the final product.
As a Hard Consequentialist, my (hot? I don't think so) take is that Emotivism, wether is secular or theistic, is just another fancy word for Relativism, and like it, a refusal or claudication to unpack the emotions that might be indicating a real consequentialist value at a subconcious level. In the case of incest, the "ickyness" might be indicating that we know it will carry a plethora of societal and psychological consequences post facto, even putting pregnancies aside. QED.
The absolute relativity of inertial frames only applies to observers moving at constant speed. In cases of rotation and acceleration, we can absolutely determine which bodies are spinning around what and what objects are propelling and attracting others to themselves.
I don't see why one should make a distinction between rotational motion and motion along axes. What is stopping me from asserting that earth is stationary and that everything else is rotating relative to earth? Sure, the sun is more massive than the earth but the designation of "center" is completely arbitrary so we might as well call our own reference frame the center.
@@dogsteve All acceleration is caused by forces and all rotation involves acceleration - not in the sense of speeding up linearly, but changing the direction of the velocity vector. Since the Earth is revolving around the Sun, constantly changing its direction of motion perpendicular to its orbital path, there has to be a force that explains why that acceleration is happening, which is gravity. If we hypothesized a center of the solar system around anything other than the center of mass (the barycenter - which is inside the Sun), there'd be no force that explained why all the planets were moving in epicycles around Mars, Jupiter, or Earth. The frames have physical relationships that define which object is being accelerated by all other objects. If we think about the case where two objects of equal mass are gravitationally attracting each other from rest, they will eventually collide at a point exactly between them. Neither reference frame could ever claim that it remained stationary while the other fell toward it, because each would be affected by the gravity of the other due to how we know gravity is a product of mass' influence on space.
MyHeritage is having a promotion right now. Click here - bit.ly/AlexOConnor_MH - to find out your ethnic origins. To support my work and get early, ad-free access: www.alexoconnor.com
what do you thinkof solipsism
Hi Alex, any advice on how you stay present I find social media is making me a bit foggy in the brain. Do you know anything about this to do with psychology and your thoughts on this? I’d love to know
You are wrong in #2: There is no universal frame of reference for speed but yes for acceleration. Earth is accelerating around the sun because it changes both direction and escalar speed. Also we change speed as earth spins because we change the direction of our movement. If earth was really static there wouldn't be coriolis effect and centrifuge acceleration.
Isn't evolution necessary to continue the human race? Maybe protecting women and children makes perfect sense
can you imagine all the kids running around and getting bored of killing so they start making friends with the other kids
bro hung out with destiny for an hour too long and started debating incest
Open relationships are a good idea.
@@jesseparrish1993 blue hair is not a cry for attention
Many such cases
@@jesseparrish1993 😭 😭
Don't forget dogwarts
The minty - spicy controversy should really end once you think about the word peppermint.
My God....
Are you saying that minty and spicy are NOT opposites? It’s possible that peppermint is a sort of oxymoron. I don’t know how I feel about it, but what I do know is that mint and spice feels very similar in my mouth while still being different. Spicy is a sort of hot, zingy feelings, while mint is a more cold, relaxing feeling while both are still extreme flavor profiles. Speaking of which, it’s like hot and cold, even though they are opposite, at the extreme they often feel pretty similar. If you touch something insanely hot, you will pull your hand away in the same manner as if you were to touch something insanely cold.
His God 😮 @@phillystevesteak6982
Peppermint is not a kind of pepper. It's only called a peppermint because it is more pungent or "spicier" compared to its parents spearmint and water-mint. Mint is chemically the opposite of spice since the active ingredient in mint is Menthol which tricks your mind into tasting cold. Spice does the opposite of mint through the chemical Capsaicin, tricking your mind into tasting hot.
First off peppermint is not a kind of pepper. It's only called a peppermint because it is more pungent or "spicier" compared to its parents spearmint and water-mint. Mint is chemically the opposite of spice since the active ingredient in mint is Menthol which tricks your mind into tasting cold. Spice does the opposite of mint through the chemical Capsaicin, tricking your mind into tasting hot. All that's left arguing what 'mild' means, bland or barely spicy.
much like Samson, Alex’s wisdom is now stored in his moustache. he has a moral duty to keep it for all time.
His moustache is watered and fed by the bitter tears of viewers who hate the thing...
YES YES YES!! I like the stache
The stache can stay so long as the beard is allowed to rejoin it. If he's gonna keep the pedostache, however, may as well lean fully into and grow out a mullet.
The child soldiers take stops short. By their logic, anyone over 40 should be conscripted too, many of whom would probably be more effective in combat than children and teenagers.
i also agree with this. human value is a bell curve with the peak being a young adult
It's a transactional argument. It's even more expensive to reach 40 and they are valuable in other ways (wealth generation, etc).
That's making a generalization, age is not the most accurate quota to measure functional value from. It's likely based on a bunch of factors including those in the nature and nurture of the individual. There is also the issue of knowingly living in a society that with assess you based on a quota, where ones goal may be to gimmick some rating system in order to avoid conscription than to actually be a productive member of the society.
Edit: Saw a good point that Functional value also changes based off the needs of the society, a child in an underpopulated area is functionally more valuable than one in an overpopulated area. The situation that happened with birth restriction in China is a great example of the nuance on how this moral philosophy could play out.
@@markjuckenburg6006_modern_ human value.
Sending all elderly to fight would be like burning own libraries. They need to stay for propagation of wisdom and culture. Whereas bunch of 10 year olds lost in war can be quickly replaced as long as adults are willing to breed like rabbits. Take my punjabi spicy take.
Regarding controversial take #1, the "transactional, mathematical morality" that explains why a child's life is considered more valuable than an adult's is that a child has more life left to experience and is therefore being robbed of more in dying than an adult. If you had to choose between saving the lives of three 80 year old humans or two 25 year old humans, you could morally justify saving fewer people with more life left to experience using this basic math. If the average life expectancy is 75, the value of the two groups is 100 years vs -15 years. I'm not fully endorsing this logic, but its pretty straightforward and isn't based on emotion.
All moral evaluations are based on emotion regardless of people trying to convince themselves otherwise. Life needs to be given a " net positive value" for this to make sense.
@@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060 Broadly speaking, you may be correct, but the "net positive value" of life assumption was built into the original question, so I added no extra emotion in my response beyond what was already presupposed.
No, that's not it. It's about resources. Evolutionarily speaking, children are much less likely to reproduce (not as a child of course, don't go there). You have already put the resources into the 25 year old, and they have proven they can survive. So transactionally it makes more sense to save the ones who can contribute to survival. That would be the 18-35 first, older but healthy second, older children third, and the sick and infants last, since they are the most likely not to survive anyway. Which is why infanticide was common at some points in history.
Was about to make this same comment until I saw yours
@@littlebitofhope1489 If the premise of your argument is that the highest value people in a society are those with the most resources, then the "older but healthy" group that you list second would actually be first. They typically have more material wealth then military aged males. They also typically (and not coincidentally) have more power and influence than military aged males, and usually make up the majority of the political class who send military aged males into combat to protect them, their wealth, and the women and children who make up their society. Arguing that people should be prioritized based on resources is not a hot or spicy take, its business as usual.
The second part of your argument, that adults have "proven they can survive" (with the clear implication being that children have not), falls apart with a cursory glance at data on mortality. Even prior to modern medicine, a child who made it past the age of two had a standard life expectancy, and now there is essentially no higher risk of death for infants as long as they are born healthy. There are also no infant child soldiers, so if we are staying on topic, its a moot point. Children of all ages do require resources that they are not fully able to provide from themselves (though some of that is cultural, since farming and agricultural work were done by children throughout history and are still done by them in other countries) and that cost is largely passed on to older members of society, but you'd have to weigh that against the negative societal costs of adults aged 18-35. Adults in the 18-35 group are far more likely than young children to engage in a whole host of damaging, dangerous and self destructive behaviors (drinking, drug use, self harm, violent crime, etc).
All of this is fun to discuss but is a digression from my original point. Whether you agree with it or not, an argument exists for prioritizing the lives of children over the lives of adults that can arise from a "transactional, mathematical morality" rather than a purely emotional one.
A white dude in the British isles with the name O'Connor is Irish? Imagine my surprise...
He might as well be called Paddy O´Leary
There's a reason why these sorts of DNA testing kits are more popular in America than Britain.
controversial take- that moustache is fine
Indian Spicy
No.
agreed
No.
Lol it's not but go off lol
On the point at 9:15 - it's also worth noting that babies born of incest _aren't_ 'often' born disabled. While inbreeding increases your relative risk substantially, in absolute terms the baby is still probably going to be completely fine. This is particularly true if you are talking about cousin incest - it's been a while since I looked at the stats, but I think in absolute terms the likelihood of a child having major congenital issues goes from 3% to 4.5%, if it's over a single generation. Which is comparable to having kids when you're older, and potentially less risky than having kids if you know you and your partner carry deleterious recessive alleles. Sibling or parent-child incest is risker, but still. Probably fine.
It's not really a philosophical point, just getting it out there that the idea that all or most children born of incest look like Quasimodo is mostly a myth.
Good point
They are very common when it's sibling or parent-child couple -- around 50% in a couple of studies I could find. It all depends on how many genetic defects the parents are carrying. First cousins are a lot less of an issue, as you say, though if it is widespread in extended families over several generations, the mental and physical decefits do become a cause for concern.
@@EnglishMikeI believe you're misreading that statistic. It likely says 50% increase, which would mean 3% to 4.5%. There is absolutely no way a study found 50% total probability. It will certainly be below 10%.
of course this also only implicates straight relationships
How often do you normally stay abreast of the most recent statistics on incestrial defects?
Not sending child soldiers to the front lines of a war is no where near a purely emotional moral intuition, it has an obvious functional benefit of long term continuation of the species and the next generational source of mental and physical labor. Any society that values preservation and wishes prosperity or comfort for individuals past the "ideal age" will want to preserve a stock of children to perform those tasks they carried out in their young adulthood. If humans had evolved to value the lives of adults more than children, we would not have survived a few generations.
It's much more functionally arguable that the elderly should be sent the front lines, if it weren't for their declining physical fitness.
“Mild Incest” is a sweet punk-bluegrass band name
Midwest Incest would be good too
What is mild incest 🤣😭
@@destructorzz7197 2nd cousins or cousins would be mild i think
@@simonpeyton-n3h I guess you're right!
Alex just want to let you know that you are a legend, love your work! You inspire me!
Alex,
Been watching your videos for a while now, I remember being a kid in middle school and learning what I thought about my own beliefs in the context of a lutheran family and finally converting to atheism through your videos. I remember trying to learn how to play "with you" because I thought that song was the shit. To see you grow to where you are now with the level of success and knowledge you gained from your studies alongside my own growing up and almost finishing my own degree has been a pleasure. Keep it up.
2 solo videos from Alex in 1 week? Whatever this is, I love it.
To me, whether incest should be permissable or not comes down to whether or not we think a State ought to enforce eugenic standards for breeding. If there is no proper interest in The State enforcing genetic standards, then incest should not be banned. If there is a proper interest in The State enforcing genetic standards, then that would not only make the banning of incest proper, but it would also prompt the question as to how far we should go in enforcing eugenic standards for breeding. Why wouldn't it also be proper to force everyone to get a genetic test, and, before you reproduce with someone, you have to compare your genotypes from that test to find out how particularly risky your particular pairing would be, and, if the test shows that your pairing would be much liklier to result in a disabled baby than an averaged pairing, should that couple not be banned from breeding as vociferously as we would ban incestuous pairings? Because, at the end of the day, the logic is the same: you are preventing particular people from breeding because you have demonstrated that their pairing is uniquely dangerous to the health of the prospective child.
I think that it´s to do with level of risk. Two siblings is about as high as it can get, or a parent and a child, having a child.
3:30 I did the my heritage test, my ethnicity came back as nicotine 🤷
Oh you're Scottish too fam?
Yes the Nicotine Empire was in a century long struggle with the Byzantine Empire.
A woman in Florida once shot her son in the back of the head at a gun range because he hadn’t been old enough to have sinned yet, but she already resigned herself to the belief that she had sinned and was going to hell regardless. She guaranteed his trip to heaven while not altering her situation any.
Also emotivism is wrong, but I can’t possibly explain why here.
Could you give a link to the story?
She was obsessed with a mythical afterlife denying both her and her son to enjoy life on earth
@@hegeliandianetik2009Or, she helped her son escape the troubles of life, an Antinatalist would argue.
@CosmicSkeptic
So given ethical emotivism, are you cool with people saying homosexuality is immoral because it’s icky (even if you disagree with them?). I’ve seen anti gay prejudice used as a knock on Christianity by a lot of atheists, but it would seem like on emotivist grounds; there isn’t exactly anything wrong with this type of argument against homosexuality
It would be just a fact that they feel that way, no moral value at all. But they cannot base their argument in that feeling, as that feeling has no moral force. They could say it is icky to me when people are gay, ok, but that has no bearing on whether or not people should or can be gay.
@@timm9818 but on Ethical Emotivism that’s all that ANY moral claim is, so “it’s wrong to murder” also means “I think it’s icky when people murder”
Frankly since studies show that straight people find gay kissing etc to be grotesque and that’s the majority of the population, I don’t see why on ethical emotivist terms there’s not at least a plausible path to social conservatism on something like homosexuality
@@davidcooke4384 you are taking it backwards. yes, ethical emotivists say that moral claims are just someone’s feelings about something. you are saying that someone’s feeling, therefore, has objective moral weight. that is not an argument made by emotivists, and i also think is untrue. the best emotivists can get you is the argument “i subjectively think homosexuality is wrong, because it feels bad to me” that is fine, it is a good reason for you to not be gay, but if someone else feels differently they would have no reason to listen to your argument
and the idea that if the majority felt bad about something it shouldn’t be allowed, on what grounds? how are you grounding the argument that people shouldnt feel bad in emotivist terms? that feels very utilitarian
@@timm9818yeah but people that are against homosexuality are against public displays of homosexuality because of how they react to it. For them it's the equivalent of having a pile of trash instead of a container, or fixing a car with duct tape instead of having it repaired. And for the religious it's a sin, not so different from adultery.
By definition, the Earth is the center of the observable universe
that first one is actually making sense in a terrible way
It does until you realize that there is great benefit to human society as a whole when the strong (those with the power) defend the weak. You're much more likely to be in the "weak" category (it's a numbers game), so it is greatly to our benefit when society as a whole places greater value on defending the defenseless.
@@EnglishMike This still places more value on the strong, take a trolly problem with one productive age 30 man vs. a 3 month old baby, many would say the moral option is to save the baby over the functioning member of society. The difference comes down to defending the weak vs. sacrificing for the weak.
@@Plasmapigeon except that the value of the strong in this context is in defending the vulnerable, to the point of sacrifice if need be.
If we don't allow the strong to go to war, instead we have the weak do so, because the strong are valuable and the weak aren't, then the value of the strong ceases to be.
@@UntoTheDepths But by this logic the weak then become the strong because they are sacrificing themselves for the strong (which are now the weak). The ability to sacrifice in your example is not exclusive to the strong, yet you say it's the only value the strong have. I'm saying, at a surface level glance, the strong have other values that make them worth prioritizing over the weak.
@@Plasmapigeon I'd argue that the weak don't sacrifice for others (self-sacrifice), which is a part the the reason they belong in the "weak" category. Cowardice and being overly selfish is a moral weakness whereas self-sacrifice is a moral strength.
Sacrifice is the value of the strong in the context I commented under. If you want to expand upon the values of the strong we can get into that.
12:10 The nuclear thing for Spongebob is a bit more than a theory. Bikini Bottom is a reference to it being under Bikini Atoll, where the US tested nukes in the Pacific. How directly they are affected is up for discussion, of course, but there is a canonical basis for it.
Grinding to 1M
Respect
"The strong defending the weak" (argument against child soldiers) is a very important ethic in a social species like ours. Where it holds, it ensures that the vast majority of people can live in relative safety compared to places where the strong only look after themselves. Protecting other people's children is just a part of that.
Adults have also already had the chance to produce offspring, and war was often a way of thinning the unmarried male population to prevent them from becoming restless and violent within the community.
Re: Geocentrism.... only if there aren't one or more intelligent alien species somewhere in the cosmos.
"my heritage made it pretty easy for me" is a sound bite the internet is gonna have a field day with
Oh, man. You got this, you are nailing this new post-TH-cam-post-TV TH-cam based content and the delivery. I'm impressed.
Since last Sunday I can call myself an official fan of O’Connor’s videos.
Congratulations:)
Incest is actually one of the topics that a lot of people feels like its wrong, but only with themselves. I don't see people getting mad when they meet some married relatives, for example.
The same thing occurs with lots of things of the sexual nature, especially specific kinks/fetishes.
It's also very culturally dependent, growing up in a family with a muslim background, people around around me regularly made fun of the "goddless west" marrying their sisters either indirectly (because no one there knows who their parents are) or some times even directly (those godless heathens have sex with their mothers and sisters). Yet since I was like 4 or 5 I was all but officially engaged to my first cousin, and our parents are still abit sore that me didn't actually get married 😂
In my cultural at least 1st and 2nd cousin marriages are seen as superior because they keep it in the family, I think it's a culture of honor thing. That internal visceral disgust reaction is totally absent from this, it is not suppressed it is literally just not there.
@@Mo95793 Cousin marriages were perfectly normal in the West until very recently - Einstein and Darwin were both married to cousins. I don't really know why it stopped. Interesting question!
@shenanigans3710 yeah i bet that's a great topic for a video essay, unless there is some mundane answer we just didn't think of, like the cultural sensibility towards the age of marriage
I think the issue gets mixed up when people say something along the lines of ' it does not seem morally wrong in situation X and Y so therefore shouldn't be illegal'
Because law, social order, crime and punishment for a certain thing is a different argument, people think that laws automatically are the same as morality or individual morality.
A good example is gambling 'well what is wrong with sticking $10 on black at roulette' ...well nothing is wrong but it might be wrong for a casino to arrive and turn your town into a tourist place for degenerates and attract crime, it could still be a social ill or something you discourage and set rules against. With law you have to consider a wider perspective.
The idea of traumatized child soldiers coming back to society in huge numbers sounds scary as fuck. I think that adults having more attachment to societal norms due to their familiarity with them makes them more stable or at least more likely to internalize their trauma so it doesn't come up and blows up at everyone around them, since children are less likely to handle this the same way you may be running into a much bigger risk of just bringing the war back home
The thumbnail is CRAZY!
As always, thanks for the content, Pablo Escobar.
*Paul O'Scobar, as we found out from his heritage test.
A moustache without a beard is like having frosting on a cupcake without the cake.
I have to respectfully disagree sir.
Alex's mustache is only 2nd to mrThoughty2's. It is a moral duty of society to preserve, for the reason of being an example for future generations to see what an intelligent, intellectual man should look like and be immediately recognized among a group of ppl.
Think of the goat, Nietzsche. Who would benefit from his work had he shaved that glorious stache??
New idea: a Mennonite punk band called "Unfrosted Cupcakes"
Children have potential value. Maybe we take that into account as well. We not only evaluate based on present capabilities but also on the potential for future value?
Yes, but since it's easy to make those babies with the same potential value, value of babies overall decreases. What now???
Exactly we train adults who mostly aren’t capable of doing much else to be soldiers and train kids to be useful to society. Those soldiers will be more effective than poorly trained children. After that though it would probably be efficient to immediately start training children and making as many as the budget allows for a continual supply of sacrificial pieces. Morbid ideas but that would probably be what we’d do if we were purely rational beings.
Future value of children is not the only thing to consider, since it requires resources to raise children into the state when they can provide that value. Raising children into adults is a long-term investment. The reasoning for an adult being more valuable is because the cost of raising the person (education, food, healthcare, time, etc) has already been mostly paid.
On AI
Human referencing art is meaningfully different different from AI
The take that it isn’t seems to be coming from ppl that are not deeply involved with art.
- The way we practice or learn from each other in art is very specific. You ask a million questions and try to answer them trying to think like the artist you are studying, the process feels like a conversation of problem solving. And after we learn what do we do? Do we just replicate others' art endlessly? No, we incorporate technique or mindset into parts of our own work. Is it fully original no ofc nothing is as you said, but what makes it ours is the reflection of our life experiences, likes and skill level into the artwork.
- So what at the end of the say you copied from someone somehow why is it different from the AI. Well we are all artists duh we give each other a pass cuz we know how deep the study process is and the fulfillment of learning. And even if we didn’t we can’t copyright shit, other people have lived similar lives, found similar techniques you can’t be sure almost ever, but we don’t care. All we would do is be intrigued if someone has a similar taste like us or be glad someone found inspiration in us enough to sit down and learn our thought process.
- And that is the heart of the issue, why did an artist do it cuz they loved something and wanted to learn/recreate or adapt that is their goal
- Be for real what is the goal of doing an AI artwork: it's a quick product for free or to compete with the people you stole from for money. Typing words is not showing me you want to learn or that you love my art enough for you to pick up a pencil and even try, not only that but you want to compete with me with my own work. How can I give this a pass?
- And worst of all it's useless. This technology is a full waste of energy. Keep that where it belongs in research and medicine.
TLDR;
we don't care if its an artist cuz it comes from interest and respect + it doesn't hurt us
and we care when its AI cuz its from a place of greed + it hurts us
mfks really think im about to sue a 12 year old for copying me, but i just wouldn't care if a billion dollar company scrapes our work with no permission and go on with it.
even if they were doing the same "copy" (they aren't doing the same) don't you guys see the problem of putting these 2 examples next to each other and treating them the same?
Its not whether its right or wrong, its whether its meaningfully different, and I don't believe it is, except in order of magnitude, as you stated.
This does read like special pleading, though. Yes it hinders you. Yes it encroaches on your field. But so do other artists(sometimes).
The specific parameters of the neural network *is* your guesswork. The neural network is doing something functionally similar to the process you mentioned. Every network is different.
AI art is a means for people without skill or time to be able to invest the energy in a way they are comfortable with. In essence, its a powertool. The complaints here, I'd imagine, are functionally similar to complaints about needing less hands in the field to farm, with the industrial revolution, for example.
Good art can come out of AI, and its actually a skill to invoke it properly.
I actually think its a good thing,
In a word: It gives more people access to "make"(as this is your contention, but I think make works perfectly fine) beautiful things without giving up early.
This is so hard to read without any punctuation. I still don’t understand what you think the meaningful distinction is between the two, it just seems like you’re saying ‘I like one and I don’t like the other one’
AIs "learn" by discovering patterns in art and so do people. I don't think AI is copying art at all, instead it's discovering patterns and then combining them with noise to produce new images.
I think you are ultimately saying that AI images have low value, which is not really a hot take.
Or personality is from meat being shocked what makes you think a machine/human can't do the same
The complexity of the human brain and our unique journey through reality makes human shared experiences too important to be reduced to computation.
1:32 yes absolutely morality is based on functional value. The same way a neural network is mathematical. Our emotional reaction is just a long term calculation and the time it took to evolve into these emotions, optimizing for our survival.
Ethical emotivism can also be reduced to the computation that is evolution.
5:30 I feel like there’s a difference between someone taking inspiration from art and an AI generating art because a person can bring their own experiences and creativity into the art, which an AI could never replicate
and the music example is not very good because there are a finite number of patterns in pop music so some chord progressions or melodies are going to repeat in different songs from time to time
That is just a bald assertion. Who is to say an AI can't do that? By what metric are you measuring creativity and experience other than your feelings? I say it can, so what now?
weird way to put it. it's not as if the AI don't experience. experiencing things magnitudes of degrees more than the average human can is kind of their whole schtick
creativity makes a bit more sense but it's not really anything anyone can measure, and it's really kind of a meaningless word. creativity at the end of the day is the ability to come up with things that haven't existed before, which is already something AI can do
AI is also copy protected from using content produced by major corporations whereas the general public has to hide their content on private platforms that limit their reach just to avoid having it mass produced by robots working for millions of people and creating content within seconds.
I work in both the music and software industry. I think the original take is completely correct. Creativity is a vague concept. The standards for copyright infringement when it comes to AI art should be the same as with human art. If someone listens to a bunch of Stevie Wonder songs and then writes one that sounds stylistically similar but doesn't directly copy any of them, that would not be considered plagiarism. Same should apply to AI music.
The most important philosophical question of our time: Spongebob
For someone who's not a moral realist, Alex frequently assumes that we share intuitions about morality. Especially if you're an emotivist, what morality is "really about" is entirely subjective and changes from person to person. I actually do have an intuitive need to weigh suffering against wellbeing. I always have, for as long as I have memories. It's not a "cold calculus." I care so much about people's subjective experiences that I want to do my best to get it as right as possible. And going off of vibes isn't as effective as stopping to consider all the potential impacts.
It's extremely weird to me that others don't have this intuition, but you don't see me claiming that their intuitions are impossible.
I think your utilitarian worldview is ultimately based on how you feel though. Why do you believe that other people's happiness is important except that it feel right to you?
@_Squiggle_ oh absolutely! I don't deny that for a second. I just think that if you acknowledge as much, I don't know how you can make statements about what ethics is "really about" without the qualifier "to me." Or how you can talk about "our intuitions" rather than "my intuitions."
@@lexaray5 People tend to project what would be their own motives onto others, but maybe I'm just projecting.
@OP i am curious as to what your answer for the trolley problem is. The original one (5 lives Vs one+your involvement)
Moral anti-realism doesn’t necessarily imply relativism, and it’s important to bear in mind that ‘subjective’ and ‘relative’ don’t mean the same thing. We could all be emotivists and also all believe that the human psyche is identical, or near-identical, in all who possess it; this means that it’s at least conceivable that we can be emotivist and also believe in shared moral intuitions.
no one asked but, my hot takes on the hot takes, which I made after hearing the hot-take but before hearing Alex's take on it
Child soldiers: We should save the children from war because they will provide more utility in the future, over someone already in their twenties or thirties. While an adult provides "more" utility at this exact second (arguably), a child will end up able to provide that same utility in the future, for longer. so an adult soldier dying who has already served a portion of their utility to society will end up with a lower loss of utility over a child soldier dying who still has all of their utility left to serve for society.
Geocenterism 2.0: Lame, just an idea about the universe that's very close minded. Just because we haven't found other life does not mean we are the only life.
We are the product of other people: Yeah no duh, that's how babies are made. In a personality sense, only partially. There is the "nature v.s nurture" debate, but it's always been both. Anyone who tries to narrow it down or declare that one or the other is more important is reductive and doesn't understand that each person is different, both due to the nurturing the received as they grew up, and the nature of how their brain is wired. Some people are more Nature, some people are more Nurture, but both play a role and that's just how it is, because it literally couldn't be any other way.
A.i. "art" : No. Wrong. in the same way that using the heroes journey as a baseline for writing a story because you liked the lord of the rings books, is different than just retelling lord of the rings except the hobbits are anime girls with big bazongas now. Art and A.I. 'art' are completely different morally. One is inspiration, the other is THEFT. Art is meant to be shared, to inspire others. From afar. Taking a direct copy of the artwork and using the fucking smear tool to make something similar is theft, and that's basically all A.I. "art" is. a computer program using the smear tool on a million pieces of stolen artwork to make something incredibly derivative and worthless.
Christian babymurdererguy: Yeah, as an Atheist I'm normally against using the bible for moral arguments, but the ten commandments are supposed to be there as the 'blanket rules'. Basically, "Follow these unless god directly tells you otherwise." and "Don't Murder" being one of the ten commandments makes this guy wrong, on a religious level.
Incest: I mean, eh? Realistically the "as long as it does not produce offspring" part is leaning into the territory of using Eugenics as an argument, but also, the only really truly consensual incest there could be is two siblings or cousins who are very close in age, because otherwise the power dynamic being introduced by an older member of the family being seen as an 'authority figure' and having unbalanced power in the relationship is too high for it to be safe and consensual, in a similar way to a boss and an employee or a teacher and student having a relationship.
Emotivism: I mean, yeah. Basically all religion is based on "I don't understand this rationally, so I'm going to use emotions to create a baseline for what I mold my conscious ideas into." Ala "man that big yellow light in the sky moves a lot but things don't move without something moving them. I bet there's a giant invisible sky man that moves it." and Emotivism is (using and simplifying your own example from the last take) "I don't have any really great arguments against why Incest is wrong, and this is a hang up for other secular moral philosophy's, but it's kinda gross and I don't like it, so it's wrong, thanks Emotivism."
Ayn Rand: as someone whose never read any of their work, I cannot comment.
Spongeman bobguy: eh. No. Stephen Hillenburg was never really all that "anti" materialism. He was more just a well educated guy that wanted to make a cartoon that pulled kids into being interested in marine biology.
Ayn Rand's philosophy in a very very boiled down nutshell is: If someone is really exceptional at something (really smart, really artistic, really good at producing money, etc.) then the law should get out of their way and let them do that thing, and they should be able to conscript "lesser people" to help them however they can. It's basically Capitalism at its free-est.
If you've ever seen the first Raime Spider-Man movie, the part where Green Goblin gives his speech to Spidey about the "teeming pile of masses exist to lift exceptional people up", it's basically that.
The geocentrism argument is minty asf, considering that it’s essentially the way we all view the universe anyway.
I think we evolved to put emphasis on protecting children. If children die, they don't become adults and the species dies off. It has been known that infants and toddlers have many of the physical characteristics that people tend to find attractive in adults. The theory is that this compels adults to tolerate these young ages more and want to protect them.
*"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy"* ----Christian Minister Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Okay, a few points here:
1. 0:11 This case completely falls apart once you consider that, from a purely _practical_ standpoint (not even moral), children don't make good soldiers. You're telling me that a six-year-old who doesn't even know where to start when told to clean his room is capable of operating heavy artillery, flying a fighter jet or aiming an AR-15 at the appropriate target on command? 😂
2. 1:45 I would very much like to know what evidence the commenter and Alex have that intelligent life doesn't exist _anywhere else_ in a universe that is 93+ _billion_ light-years across, with planets just like Earth that potentially number in the trillions.
3. 3:00 Factually incorrect. It has long been established that genetics plays a critical role in shaping who we are. The question currently being asked is whether it is _totally_ determinative of all that we do (the nature vs. nurture debate), and I strongly lean towards no.
4. 4:58 This is clearly false. If the human creative process was sufficiently similar to that of AI, the arts (visual, music, architecture, and so on) would not exist. Unless one believes that humans learned art from another intelligent species (tying back to a previous take for a moment 😂), art _must_ have come into existence at some point in the past (caveman drawings?) purely due to a conscious creativity that AI, in its current stage of development, cannot replicate. In other words, AI requires input (a database consisting of prior works of art) to produce output (new AI-generated artwork)-- humans do not.
5. 6:18 This assumes that 1) children are not "predestined" to go to hell regardless (as Calvinists believe) and 2) children cannot hold any sincere religious convictions of their own (in which case the vast majority -- Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on -- will just go to hell sooner anyway) and/or that they won't be trapped in purgatory (as Catholic doctrine teaches).
6. 7:43 As a committed _classical_ utilitarian (not a negative one like the commenter at 9:49 arguing from a harm reduction standpoint) whose only objective is to maximize the well-being of sentient creatures (as opposed to minimizing suffering), I believe to my core that there is nothing ethically objectionable about two consenting adults engaging in whatever activity produces happiness in private no matter who they are. End of conversation.
7. 10:28 As a moral semi-realist, I am not vulnerable to such an interpretation. 😂
8. 11:09 Ayn Rand sucks. Ask any academic philosopher, they'll tell you. Nobody who has actually studied her work has ever accused her philosophy of being coherent.
I think humans require input to be able to be creative as well. The dataset cavemen used was the images their eyes were able to see
However Ayn Rands promotion of free market ideas and her fight against collectivism certainly don't suck.
Fully agree with the AI take. People who use "AI is theft" or "it's just rearranging other people's work" as the crux of their argument for why it's immoral or 'not art' are building on very shaky foundations.
As someone who dislikes the current state of AI art I've fought against these arguments and instead gone with the following:
- Our economic system means that automation makes the average person poorer and funnels wealth to the top - this sucks bus isn't specifically an AI issue.
- AI art in its current form is bad art. It's so focussed on imitating other styles without an understanding of them that it creates technically proficient pieces that say nothing. Much in the same way that a plain photo of the Mona Lisa, tribute bands and someone who only makes fake Mondrians are bad art.
I think AI art is often bad art in the sense that it doesn't convey much intentionality, I think AI art makes fine image, though. Clip art or birthday party invitation decorations, etc. There's a lot of images that are used that aren't used because they "capture the human spirit" but instead are used to convey information or provide utility
Are you fundamentally opposed to all automation, then?
@@_Squiggle_ 100% agree with the point that there's so much art that nobody cares about or wants to be making and that it's a perfect use-case for AI. Elevator music and corporate slideshow art are my go-to examples.
I also think there are things that AI art is uniquely good at, like capturing the uncanny. Just like how the best photography doesn't seek to imitate still-life fine art, I think the best AI art will go in a direction untrodden or poorly trodden by existing art forms.
I'm fully in favour of automation and other increases to efficiency, I just think the economic system needs to be restructured to accommodate it.
More production for less labour is a fundamentally good thing (unless we want to get really get into the weeds of it), but it has disastrous results in a society that requires people be doing that labour to afford to live.
"AI art in its current form is bad art" - there is plenty of art where the artist sets a system going and the final piece is what the system made on its own without explicit design from the artist - for example, swinging a leaky paint can on a string. Artist sets up the initial conditions, and takes the result. AI art is similar to those kind of things.
There's also plenty of AI art out there that you wouldn't know is AI without someone telling you, so this idea of "says nothing" is a bit weird.
And wow, tribute bands = bad art is an awful blanket statement. They engage with the audience and get their juices going, and if you have decent musicians who can read the crowd, you've given the audience a great night out. There are bad bands, yes, but that doesn't mean the form itself is bad.
There is also the fact that the way copyright law exists for humans is already entirely broken, so a lot of the AI debate is muddied due to that.
A great deal of art should be in the public domain that is not.
Many cultural touchstones that have a personal impact on all our lives are owned by a bunch of people who didn't make it and have no personal connection to those who did.
The iterative nature of art means that each new piece is a conversation with the last: look at ancient myth or fairy tales where new generations who grew up with the stories would put their own spin on it.
But we have outsourced that to corporations who have no connection to the material, and now we are letting AI do what humans arent allowed to do.
They will iterate and blend are together without thought or connection, further separating people from culture.
Why do pieces have to say anything? Sometimes you just want something that pleases the eye, or you let your imagination do the work.
Initially I was outraged by mint being the opposite of spicy. But my girlfriend pointed out to me that the coolness of menthol mint works by latching onto your mouths coolness receptors in the same way that capsasin does that to heat receptors for spice. Therefore working identically but on receptors measuring the two ends of the same spectrum. All in all, I now agree with you.
Bro if you're here who's moderating your subreddits
51% british and 49% irish? Holy crap get off that island!!! lol
More than 51% British lol because Scottish and Welsh were lumped in with the Irish
I do think it's very possible to make an ethical statement based on something other than emotion. Take any given crime that has a victim, for example. I can say, "Murder is bad because it has this effect and that effect on these people and these things and says such and such about the perpetrator." A lot of things absolutely come from emotion, but I think that saying that all ethical beliefs come from emotional reaction ignores other reasoning.
Half Irish? Never could have guessed, Mr. O’Connor.
Having child soldiers fight to protect having adults is a specific warfare strategy. It's usefulness is very narrow. Having adults protect children is for the sake of extending the genetic line and it's use is broad scale. Mostly for times when the entire country isn't at war during a specific scenario where protecting honed skills and knowledge is paramount.
Great video concept, love it!
Alex have you played a game called The Coffin of Andy & Leyley?
I did not expect this crossover.
Art might not be produced in a vacuum, but AI aren't people. AI are owned by someone, and has no personhood. AI is a fancy brush. And what it's painting is copies.
And the people owning the AI are doing a plagiarism.
The vast majority of AI images are not copies of existing work, they are actually new images. They have recurring styles, and sometimes people's styles are clearly ripped off, but the image is unique, that's kinda the whole point.
Disappointing take on AI, I know it's a fast paced video but there are so many things that could have been touched on like:
- There's no compelling evidence that AI is actually intelligent or aware or feels emotion, and good reason to think that 'AI' is simply a marketing term to evoke science fiction and futurism in place of words like 'algorithm' and 'machine learning'. People are already anthropomorphizing AI, and that's good for business.
- Can something be considered art of the author is simply the unfeeling churning of statistical algorithms?
- Can you really say it's the same thing for a person to grow up exposed to a variety of art and transmute the abstract impressions of that art into something entirely new, which has intention, humour, vision and finely tuned details that all work together in an original way?
AI simply recognises patterns via statistical analysis based on a perfectly remembered and vast data set and guesses what should go next to what.
This data only captures the structure of art, whilst a human memory revolves more strongly around the emotions a person felt when they experienced it, and the values and aspirations it played into.
AI has nothing like any of that relationship with the art it's trained on. It is unfeeling statistically correct slop churned out with no intention or attention or aspiration. It's the Soylent Green of art.
That really was a disappointing take and the first thing is that people place the blame on "AI" when really the issues should be split into those regarding the person doing the prompting and those regarding the scraping to do the dataset and customising the generating tool (like when they remove "Pixar" from the list of words you can use to generate an image :) ). If they had to remove artists still living or those who haven't died 80 years ago and aren't in the public domain yet or whatever, the dataset would be laughably small... and they know it.
Oftentimes people just get those mixed up and think that if one gets a pass then so should the other. Big brands are already ahead of it, making sure the algorithm won't recognise whatever you wanted when you type in "Disney". They've protected themselves well. What can a beginner artist without a lawyer do? Nothing, ofc, just watch how his work gets their watermark removed without any notice. People stopped posting their works anywhere online just for this reason alone. I'm sure a great deal of democratisation (whatever AI fans claim AI brings) was lost when professional artists are now only in few local galleries.
It just shows how little Alex knows about the subject. Or he would rather ignore the "real" part of it - he's doing a Jordan Peterson level of work with this one.
edit: let's not forget about the big no-no's of midjourney: sure, it's reasonable that you can't use terms to creative aggresive imagery, or abusive or whatnot, but guess what other random terms are banned from use? Xi JinPing, Putin...
No, "AI" is just the actual term for it. Artificial Intelligence is a whole academic field that has been around since at least the 1970s (at least that's when the core training technique underpinning what we have today was invented). The business world adopted a product of science, not the other way around.
There is a simple mathematical proof you can do to show that no, these programs cannot just be "perfectly remembering" everything. I'll use Stable Diffusion as an example, here goes:
Training Dataset (LAION-2B) Size: 100 TB
Model Size: 5 GB
Keep in mind that 100TB dataset is already compressed, and yet the AI has somehow "perfectly remembered" its contents despite throwing away 99.995% of it.
You talked about guessing what should go next, which sounds like you are talking about language models, but those work in an entirely different way to image generators, which don't do anything word by word; they affect the entire image a little bit on each step.
But regarding LLMs, if you'd like to see what "recognizing patterns via statistical analysis" actually looks like, try using your phone's autocomplete. You'll see that this is not anything like what we have now.
And finally, even if we accept calling how it actually works a statistical trick, you still haven't proven that isn't how human brains work under the hood. What we call emotions might just be effectively vectors of numbers that alter the most likely next word we produce.
@@joanabug4479 I think that's a different topic. Disney and other companies don't want AI to generate images of their copyrighted characters. Artists don't want AI companies to steal their *style*.
@@ThingsAreGettingTooSpicy I understand that this is the scientific field of study's name for it, but the way it is used commercially right now to indicate true intelligence is still a misnomer because it's not supported by evidence, and there's no doubt this term is deployed in this way because it's good marketing and not because it's an accurate representation of the truth. The name AI is currently still aspirational, we are not there yet. That requires the ability to think; to be conscious.
Digital compression is not analogous to the imperfect and impressionistic recall of human memory.
Yes I refer to LLMs but this line of reasoning applies just as well to music and image generators because it is the passionless algorithmic following and blending of patterns, there are different sophisticated mechanisms but without thought or emotion or inspiration that's all they can be at the highest level.
And finally you've reached the crux of it by asserting that I have to prove that AI does not operate the same as a human mind; not so. This is a positive claim proponents of AI make all the time, and the burden of proof is on the claimant.
It's not my job to prove it's not true, it's your job to prove it is. And that evidence simply does not exist.
Yes. Thank you.
I gasped when I saw the question and sighed when I heard the response.
A bit disappointing tbh
I bet you can't make a newborn child tomorrow.
Great video!! Lots of fun ❤
The incest question is interest to me cuz people always focus on the disability of the child.
Well, it is proven that older mothers have much higher rates of disabled children. Should we look at someone having a baby at 40 the same way as we look at an incestuous couple?
I have 11 siblings, been to many Graduations.
As I got older, I noticed these Fully Grown Adults would applaud as their Children would go and serve and fight in wars they wouldn't even dream of fighting.
This last memorial day, I watched this Army ad. It had that song Hear You Me by Jimmy Eat World.
That is a big thing that really plauges my mind as of late.
Seeing those Parents applause and everyone speaking of Philosophical Morals, while that song is playing watching those kids stand up for something they truly know nothing about.
We all have our roles to play in The Great Game of The Cosmos, I suppose.
"May Angels Lead You In..."
I am convinced if we raised the age of consent to join the military from 18 to 25 we would have less than half of the soldiers we do today because it would be harder to convince mature adults to risk throwing their lives away for someone else's war (or to line someone else's pockets), whereas 18 year olds still think it is all about "freedom and protecting the country".
@@GoeTeeks The young adults I know who joined the military seem more interested in learning a skill or doing fulfilling work than intangible ideals. Going into the military has a pretty strong benefits. I think older adults would be less likely for the same reason older adults are less likely to go to college: they already have careers, they have families, etc.
that ai take i think will only be valid once we have true ai and they alone are making art consciously without a human typing prompts into it and then getting mad when people call them out because they put no effort into the art "they" made
Interesting. So, the human adding the prompt is what makes AI images different than human-produced images?
The Nonidentity problem sounds very interesting. I will be looking forward to that. It ties into something I often think about regarding children born with disabilities that could have been screened for and avoided. My goto for it right now is "Everyone that exists has a right to exist, but anyone who doesn't exist yet does not have the right to come into existence"
The child soldiers would just lose every war to people who use adult soldiers. Wouldnt work well, dunno though im not a military strategy expert
And the tyranny of moustache continues , life is truly a suffering
it's kind of a mistake to view moral choices in a vacuum or from a single position
any choice is part of an emerging pattern and choices you make might seem irrelevant from our narrow perspective, but observing the ripple effect it can have through time is what shapes functional morality. Incest might seem innocuous in principle, but the ripple effect is increased chance of genetic degeneration in a population over time, we are always dealing with probabilities and influential downstream effects
that said, we don't have a perfect way to gauge the validity until we explored potential dead ends (with death/survival being the ultimate deciding factor)
We don’t forcefully abort children who we know 1.are going to be born with disabilities, or 2. are carrying dna that has a high chance of a specific genetic abnormality.
That specific reason for outlawing incest doesn’t hold up under critique.
@@DevourerSated 'we' don't do that because just a few hundred years ago nature took care of that for us, ensuring less viable genetics would not survive at significant scale. Whether it's a good & moral thing to allow certain disabilities and heritable diseases to permeate is yet to be seen, we might just be pushing the issues to future generations
if fast forward 1000 years and the world was a horror show of genetic disorders and abnormalities, morals would likely be very different
it's about understanding consequences over time, not altruistic grandstanding in the present
(im not advocating for any kind of lawmaking, it's an organic thing just as our human morals are - if anything people should make such decisions themselves, but it's unnatural for most individuals to consider future consequences)
If you make the agrument a numbers game this would require a sufficiently large part of the population to be genuinely interested in incest in the first place, which I find highly dubious.
Dude's got the last name "O'Connor" and still thinks he has to tell people he's half Irish
Alex, what is your take on the problem of the Laplace demon? In this case I am talking of the problem that emerges when you take the position that Laplace suggested (an intelligence capable of knowing every position and speed of every particle in the universe, and with this, it would be able to see the future entirely) the problem is, if that intelligence is programed to be rebel or to deny the future, in this case it would go against what it predicted that it would do, but this of course creates a loop and a logical problem, the thing is, this doesn't necessarily create any problems on the deterministic view because its impossible( for what we know at least) to know every position and speed of all the particles in the world in the same instant, because of how observation in the quantum realm works. But a more interesting idea, would be if we develop this problem to the Christian god, because it wouldn't be limited by observation, god technically is omniscient so it has exactly the same position as the Laplace demon, falling exactly to the same logical issue. I have worked around this idea for a while, and I believe it proves that an omniscient and omnipotent being with free will, cannot exist. Most christians argue that god is not in time so he doesn't fall to the same problem, even though I don't really see how that takes the problem away, because there clear instances of actions, like the creation of our universe, and if he had an instance of action ( even if he isn't just in a point of time) he still falls to the same problem. I would be really glad if you contemplated around this idea.
Why either rebel or deny though? What about neutral?
He already has stated that he believes an Omniscient and Omnipotent god cannot exist if free will exists.
I sensed that sponsor coming seconds before you even mentioned the word ancestors, at 3:09 Alex the salesman turns on😂
A NEW CHALLENGER HAS APPEARED..
*** KOREAN SPICY ***
My undergraduate degree is in physics, from a physics department dominated by astronomers. I am absolutely a philosophical geocentrist.
Also, on the incest thing, the stats are not even likely to create disabled babies by default. From memory, it's something like a 3% increase in the chance of negative genetic mutation, and so mothers older than 35 already have a higher risk of disabled children than the increased risk factor from incest alone.
Here is something, let’s hear your input.
I call it the “The law of balance”
Things will always balance themselves… if something gets too extreme in one direction, it causes things to go extreme in the other direction.
The most common response I've seen to the question of "Why is a child's death worse than an adult's death?" mentions some aspect of potentiality. I'm curious if you think the prospective future of a child is worthy of consideration. If so, would the same be said regarding a fetus?
that child or fetus has the same chance of adding nothing to society as it does adding to society plus it needs to be invested in. a full grown adult is already contributing to society with no need of investment of time or money
@@markjuckenburg6006 This view assumes a very short term growth mindset. If we didn't prioritize the potential futures of the next generation, the survival of the species would diminish and there'd be no assurance of a continued societal production value for individuals who live to old age.
But the child thirty years later will be more valuable than the adult 30 years later. In the end, their value would even out. And if we think that education is improving overtime then children might be slightly more valuable in the long run
Usually a lot of youtube vids are backloaded to make sure you get the full view time. And yet here is alex putting the spiciest right to the start, saying that 'minty is the opposite to spicy'
As someone who is into really niche art few artists produce actually good pieces on, AI has been somewhat of a blessing. Yes, 95% of it looks like garbage, yes 99% of it won't even get revised and uploaded with its typical AI artifacts and 'AI artstyle' but there's still the 1% of AI 'artists' who actually use these generative AI models to produce new (yes, new), AI *based* art that looks as good if not better than 'real' art. Can you zoom in and notice it's not actually drawn by a human? Most of the times, yes. Doesn't matter though because nobody analyses brush strokes of digital art and analysing lighting or colour theory on AI imagery can still be done.
Yeah, the real problem with AI art at the moment is the economic incentives, i.e. it's being used to replace actual artists, whilst using the art they create as dataset to train said AI, basically using the artists' own creations to strike against their careers, just for companies to be able to save a few bucks.
But if we remove that aspect, AI can be used for creative pursuits. It can be just a new tool that people can use to create cool stuff. Just like photography didn't kill painting because we could find ways to use painting to express things by not having to just perfectly replicate reality, AND, at the same time, photography became an art in and of itself, the revolution brought by AI art could go in a similar direction.
But ideally, we need to make sure the current artists don't actually suffer because of the economic issues brought by the ways the tool is currently being used.
the second take circles back to us being a product of ourselves, since if the first premise is held true, that means others is also a product of us and since we are products of them, we are essentially products of ourselves.
that advertisement segue was perfect
Yeah, it was remarkably good.
It's so cool that you mentioned Joe Satriani.
Pageau did a whole talk on the geocentric universe and its implications, one of my favorite videos of all time. I think you would love it. "A Full Frontal Attack on The Copernican Revolution"
Alex, let me be first and congratulate you on MILLION subscribers, I like to be first and because it inevitably happen soon, thanks for your work, I always enjoyed the content from almost begging, cheers
6:10 I could not disagree more with this take. “Why can’t AI take from multiple sources like a human does?”
Because it is AI. In a perfect world I would agree that there is no harm, but we don’t live in a perfect world.
We live a world where humans get fulfillment and virtue from creating something. We also live in a world where people need to have a profession of some kind to be able to survive. Automating this process and taking it away from living humans from my perspective is morally abhorrent in both a personal and economic standpoint. On top of that it is taking the working artist work and using it to push them out of what fulfills them in life and puts food on the table.
By moving to an ecosystem that has generative AI as a widely accepted tool or process, you are effectively turning people into consumers when they would be creators. Which from a psychological and personal perspective is much less beneficial and is more harmful to the person. In my opinion it is harmful to the creative spirit of humanity itself.
This level of spice of that take should put your ass in the fucking hospital.
Do you think all automation is harmful to society or just automation that displaces artists? What makes an artist's job more valuable than a plumber, or a programmer, or a factory worker?
@ Great question. I think automating something that defines or grows human experience is immoral in a broad sense. Obviously what defines human experience is a slippery concept that means something different depending on the person and perspective. With something like art or creation in general there is a long tradition of the act of creation adding meaning to one’s life, and adding a depth that wouldn’t have been there without creating something new. With a more blue collar job like plumbing that becomes a grey area. Non-plumbers would certainly just see plumbing as meaningless labor or work so they think “Why not automate plumbing?” It would save time and free up that persons time for something else. But that plumber might get all of their meaning from solving problems related to that. Their “music” in life comes from the satisfaction of making a very clean and efficient piping system work for people. That the act itself adds to the person’s life, and if something means that much to someone should we deprive it systematically? This concept could be applied to basically any type of profession. So from that angle any type of automation could be taking away something from a person’s experience and meaning in life. But obviously there is a lot of automations in our life that are useful, and someone might have enjoyed doing something industrial by hand in the past that is now a widely accepted automation. In practice, I think it depends on the case at hand. I think we should not be taking away opportunities from real individuals to have real experiences of creation from a philosophical level. From an economic perspective it is taking away creative opportunities from the individual and giving it to cooperations with comparatively way more power already.
But ultimately I have no idea on where the line is. I am just an artist and professional artist that is in love with the act of creating itself, and my heart bleeds for the implications going forward for human made art in the commercial space.
@@troutfish8590 Thanks for having a balance and nuanced take on this issue. I think I ultimately believe that automation of image creation outweights the negative impact of artist job loss. But I realize there is a give take
@@_Squiggle_ lemme ask you this
Is your ultimate wish for society that we eventually sit in pods with all our needs are handled by robots and we simply experience a digital specifically designed to make us happy?
Because the ultimate conclusion to automating everything is that.
Art isn't a necessity for survival, it's something we do to add meaning to our lives, that's the sole thing it is for. So why are we trying to automate it?
Spicy Take: Moral Emotivism collapses into Moral Egoism. A moral framework or theory is useless if it never tells you that you are wrong about something. Both emotivism and egoism lack this limiting principle, as no fact outside the persons' subjective experience can ever have a real persuasive pull on them against their will (or against how they feel about something). Your emotions are not right or correct or good, necessarily. Relying on them for moral clarity is useless at best, and dangerous at worst.
Jordan Peterson says "you need to be the best toilet cleaner ever to find meaning in your life". I'd say f*** that. I'll wait for my dad to hire me as his business manager.
Jordan Peterson also said that when the Bible said "Dragon" it meant "Predator"
You will still need humbleness to understand. For most, it doesn't hit till later in life.
If only ONCE, TH-cam could be without mentioning Jordan Peterson.. 🤮
Please continue the series about the gnostic gospel! Is the review of Q next?
Am I the only one who thinks he looks like Chico Buarque with that moustache?
Found the brazilian! Also, I agree
It took me embarrassingly long to understand that the words on the thumbnail weren't supposed to be read as one word.
Thank you Alex O'Connor for introducing me to the non-identity problem. It is so interesting and I am totally sucked in thank you so much
I'd like a bit of clarification on the ethical emotivism standpoint on incest mentioned here. You essentially stated that despite there not being a good reason to condemn it as wrong, simply having that "icky feeling" about it is enough to say that it *is* wrong. To me, that sounds awfully and uncomfortably similar to the reasoning many people have that leads to viewing things like gay sex as wrong. Is there any reason that exact same argument couldn't be used to justify homophobia, and if not, does my current "icky feeling" towards ethical emotivism mean that using ethical emotivism is wrong?
*Spicy takes:*
You have no unified identity and willpower does not exist. You just think willpower exists because the processes that lead to your behavior don't share a unified set of preferences.
Meaning and purpose are no more the purview of philosophy or religion than maintaining a social life is. They are just instincts that evolved to make you do things to get a healthy social group and social status. As in the case of professional athletes it doesn't matter whether what you're doing is plausibly making the world a better place, only that you get great respect for it.
Abrahamic monotheism is not a religious system. It is a political conspiracy.
The story of the Exodus occurred in history however all of the details were deliberately reversed in the Holy Bible, in one of the first propaganda spin stories, in order to make the monotheists look like the victims and the Egyptians look like the aggressors.
In reality, it was the monotheists who were the aggressors and the Egyptians were the victims.
In the 13th dynasty of Egypt - 3,500 years ago - people known by modern historians as the Israelite pharaohs, AKA “shepherd kings” or "Hyksos", conquered northern Egypt taking control of its throne for their own purposes.
This foreign occupation lasted for about 300 years until a pharaoh descended of those original conquerors named Amenhetep the 4th tried to force monotheism on the Egyptian population; taking as his new name, one of several aliases, Akhenaten. An alias referencing his singular god “Aten”.
For the native Egyptians, who had long suffered the machinations of their foreign rulers, this was the last straw. Five Egyptian generals funded by the southern treasury of Egypt launched a military coup and exiled Amenhetep along with his Levitical priesthood.
It was after his expulsion that, realizing he couldn’t work openly anymore, Amenhetep took his last alias - “Moses”; a name truncation derived from one of his relatives named Thutmoses.
From that point, the propaganda of the Holy Bible was written.
I don't think that a political conspiracy and a religion are necessarily mutually exclusive. Regardless of its origin, the Abrahamic faiths are still religions.
Also, having a single story be factually incorrect does not exclude any spiritual significance from other unrelated books in the Bible (or other scripture). In fact, it doesn't even preclude spiritual significance from being in the factually incorrect story
his segways into his ads keep getting better
5:34 really? There isn’t a meaningful difference AT ALL between a human being inspired to make their own art consuming an entire lifetime’s worth of art and a machine spitting it out at the press of a button? I mean, in your own description the process for a human is so much more in depth and requires so many more steps. No, you can’t create art in a vacuum, but surely there is something meaningful about the presence of a human’s perception in questioning what qualifies as art to begin with, right?
Alex is not an artist. It's troublingly easy for non artists to lack insight and empathy for why they're wrong when they equate what AI does to what the conscious/sentient can do.
@@viewsandrates Good news! I'm an artist with a studio and gallery work and everything and I say Alex is 100% correct. Glad to clear it up for you
It astounds me how people tend to forget that the imagination aspect of AI art still comes from humans. Humans provide prompts, guidance, and ultimately select which piece(s) of art to use and present. Like, yeah, most of the legwork is done by AI that uses references of lots of different work, but humans still give it some guidance. And the more guidance they give, the better the piece of work usually ends up being.
The problem isn't AI art- it's passing off AI art as your own art. Plus the lack of an artist's consent for their art to be used in the dataset.
There's also the fact that a human artist can and should be expected to credit their inspirations and influences, but AI rips us artists off with no credit and no links back to the original.
Missed the point entirely.
I feel like emotivism is wrong
For the first issue, one utilitarian argument against child soldiers is that children, who are in their formative years, are much more impressionable than adults, so the horrors of war have a relatively stronger impact on their minds than they do on an adult mind. Which means that if we want to reduce the overall negative effects on our collective psyche, it makes sense to have grown-up soldiers, whose sense of self are (again, relatively) less affected by war.
My ethical hot take is that ethics as a whole constitute the set of actions we as a society have decided we can afford to do (or not do) with a view toward the improvement of the society as a whole on an arbitrarily long-term time scale.
Imagine if Alex shaves the moustache a little bit from the sides 😂😂
Should we then call him The Fuher?
The ai vs human art thing is basically null because humans actually do something new to it. We don’t just mix every chef’s best dish into a soup, we select the ones we’ve tried and liked then add some spices and herbs or whatever to change the final product.
My spicy take is that I like Alex's mustache!
thank you for this video!
As a Hard Consequentialist, my (hot? I don't think so) take is that Emotivism, wether is secular or theistic, is just another fancy word for Relativism, and like it, a refusal or claudication to unpack the emotions that might be indicating a real consequentialist value at a subconcious level. In the case of incest, the "ickyness" might be indicating that we know it will carry a plethora of societal and psychological consequences post facto, even putting pregnancies aside. QED.
The absolute relativity of inertial frames only applies to observers moving at constant speed. In cases of rotation and acceleration, we can absolutely determine which bodies are spinning around what and what objects are propelling and attracting others to themselves.
I don't see why one should make a distinction between rotational motion and motion along axes. What is stopping me from asserting that earth is stationary and that everything else is rotating relative to earth?
Sure, the sun is more massive than the earth but the designation of "center" is completely arbitrary so we might as well call our own reference frame the center.
@@dogsteve All acceleration is caused by forces and all rotation involves acceleration - not in the sense of speeding up linearly, but changing the direction of the velocity vector.
Since the Earth is revolving around the Sun, constantly changing its direction of motion perpendicular to its orbital path, there has to be a force that explains why that acceleration is happening, which is gravity. If we hypothesized a center of the solar system around anything other than the center of mass (the barycenter - which is inside the Sun), there'd be no force that explained why all the planets were moving in epicycles around Mars, Jupiter, or Earth. The frames have physical relationships that define which object is being accelerated by all other objects.
If we think about the case where two objects of equal mass are gravitationally attracting each other from rest, they will eventually collide at a point exactly between them. Neither reference frame could ever claim that it remained stationary while the other fell toward it, because each would be affected by the gravity of the other due to how we know gravity is a product of mass' influence on space.