When Martina said we have no fascination with tech like cars or stoves that malfunction he/she is missing the point because we are talking here about tech that will have the ability to fix itself when it malfunctions or even prevent such an event from happening. The real issue here is AI doing exactly what it was meant for so much so that if you attempt to stop it you will be causing it to malfunction thus you becoming something it needs to prevent from happening.
I don't think high expectations is a problem is anybody devastated that we don't have flying cars, is anybody looking for a new line of work because of technology we don't have. personally I don't think the progress of AI will stop for anyone or anything.
***** no...no...the technology will be so advanced they will continue to advance themselves after life. Or after they destroy life, ohhhnoooo maybe we shouldn't trust the promise of technology 😯🎵bumbumBUMMMMM🎵
Wow, lame debate on a deeply fascinating subject. They are so worried about jobs, but jobs only serve to help balance scarcity. If there is no scarcity - if AI farms, and builds, and drives, and cooks, and we are completely post-economy - then we don't need jobs and everyone would have all basic needs met. That isn't to say people can't still provide value. If I didn't have to work, I'd write songs all day, or pursue scientific inquiry, or find a way to travel the galaxy. I'd take up every hobby every and find ways to provide value, because value doesn't always come from some useless central bank currency. Haven't these people seen Star Trek?
+Anthony Mangnall You see those resources being magically equally distributed among the whole worlds population. It won't happen, unless we change our genetics.
+Anthony Mangnall Unfortunately, in your scenario, AI (eventually) writes nicer songs, pursues scientific inquiry more efficiently, and finds ways to travel the galaxy you can't even start to understand. Of course you are free to do all this as well, it just does not provide value (other than your own development, light years behind AI).
no mooncoder, because it's not a competition. even if you are not as good as an AI, you can still add to the total of what is produced. The AI does not have time to study this cactus or whatever. More likely, you can be useful by raising money and resources for your AIs, by talking with other humans who control said resources.
The direction western civilization is going is prosperity for few in the short term but destruction for all in the long term. The vast population will be jobless with highly intelligent machines replacing human workers. There will be few trillionaires but most of the population will be relatively poorer with end result of that will be rising of crimes and riots. The way the larger humanity should adopt to develop its own conciousness rather developing machine conciousness which is a oxymoron term because machine can never have conciousness because even brightest of the scientist really don't understand what is conciousness. People should be occupied with developing their own conciousness to higher level by doing meditation which will make our society more compassionate and peaceful which will prolong our human civilization.
+dark light The title is what the motion is. The debaters are either for or against the motion, and therefore the title. It isn't biased, you just don't get how debate conventions work. It isn't meant as a de facto statement as much as a public challenge
Andrew Keen sickens me. He sounds like such a statist. His argument was that companies evil and monopolistic. Oh - I learned that profit and the future are bad. Horrible arguments. And why is he yelling at everyone?
46:24 He is literally describing what happened... That actually happened... Newspaper eventually became mass printed, companies became huge, new elites... lol...
Alex König how am i being arrogant? you pointed out how he's wrong based on an argument that ignored the rest of what he said. isn't that, colloquially speaking, what you'd call "fly over your head"?
How did I ignore the rest of what he said? He is referring to the monster that this kind of new technology can create. I do believe the mass printing of newspapers created super large businesses that eventually got paid for writing things into the paper since they controlled large amounts of distribution i.e. The rumor spread about banks going bankrupt during the great depression causing the Rockefeller's bank to stand supreme since loads of banks looked to the Rockefeller for backing. This is what you call a monster, an elite. Literally nothing arrogant about it, it's like saying you are about to have your way with my bottom and with me saying I don't think that is right would make me arrogant? Because my bottom is pristine and I'd like to keep it that way? Unlike the quality of the world further being systematically d dived.
brictit oh i thought the previous commenter was you and i replied as such, my bad. i dont know whether you're talking to me or him, but i guess it's him since he was the one to throw the word arrogant.
Guilty as charged! I'm a technology geek, post graduate of Computer Science ... but boy oh boy ... 3 out of the 4 panelists in this discussion should keep their "Geek-dom" on a lower profile. Daaaym!
this debate sucked. their positions were all over the place and no coherent arguments were made that were all that relevant to the motion. It was at the beginning but it gradually devolved on both sides.
+kingdellxValdez You seem to not get that while the stance of each side is supposed to be "black and white". Reality isnt always that simple... this is a debate in the classical term. Meaning people have to try to be one sided even if they really are not. They probably share views on many aspects of the problem, but if they mostly agreed. There wouldnt be a debate in the first place that would make the audience question its own views on the subject. Which is the goal of a debate. To get OTHER people to think.
Lobos222 fair enough justification. However, if the debate was just for the sake of making other people think then they should at least attempt to hold a more radical stance and make stronger arguments even if they don't necessarily believe in them.
kingdellxValdez Well, there are rational limits to how far one can go in a public debate. Its not a classroom setting where one can be act to be a Nazi or similar extremists within a subject.
Wow how do these people not know the difference between "partial automation" which increases productivity of the worker (like a tractor on a farm) and "full automation" where there is no need for a worker. (like the fully automated hotels and factories we have now)
The whole thing about jobs and monetary systems is laughable to me. Replacing all jobs would be the best thing to happen to humanity. We live on a planet of abundance that's horded to suit our economic models. Money isn't necessary to drive people to contribute to society. That being said, I do think that once these systems reach a certain point of capability or even consciousness (If that happens and however it winds up being defined), they should be made open-source. The point of who controls these technologies is a good one. I'm a software developer and if I'm replaced by AI I'll be happy to have such a powerful programmer at my fingertips. I can imagine helping to direct such an AI to create all manner of awesome systems for people to enjoy. I should also point out that many of the more advanced AI/AGI efforts are currently open-source. Even Google has consistently open-sourced a lot of their AI code. I am critical of IBM for not open-sourcing Watson and rather just exposing an API to it. This guy's argument that open-source hasn't worked is ridiculous. The infrastructure of the Internet is almost entirely powered by open-source software. In software development we're constantly relying on open-source solutions to build out our ideas. I'm making this post right now from an open-source operating system and open-source web browser. My web sites are all running on an open-source web server.
Pseudo Lain If you don't see abundance all around you you're blind. Abundance has been on an upward slope ever since the agricultural revolution. Now we have a sense of accelerating returns in all technologies. The only thing that might make it seem to someone that we don't live on a planet of abundance is the fact that we have inequalities but there's enough food to feed every person on the planet and technologies to replace most jobs. Enough land and building materials to house everyone, etc. etc. Inequalities only exist because of economic structure which is far less viable than alternatives that would eliminate inequality and on our current course we should see such changes. I could make myself extremely fat right now if I wanted to with no harm to anyone else though that's not so much the point. We will very soon see the inequalities become obsolete. It's obvious to anyone who doesn't immediately take ever advance for granted. As in every human epoch there are invariably some people who will come out and sound the alarms but as history has proven, everything turns out fin and our advancements become ubiquitous.
Pseudo Lain That's not even a valid retort. The past doesn't predict the future? I never implied that it does (It actually does in many respects but that wasn't my point at all). You scoffed at the notion that we live in a society of abundance. We do. Our economic and political systems produce an illusion of scarcity. They enforce it as well but that's more in depth than I care to get here. My reference to the past wasn't to point out that it is the future. It was to help point out that it is the now and in part how we got to a point of abundance. Earth has enough abundance to comfortably support all humans currently on it. Our technologies also play an important role in this but people who don't work in tech (I'm a software programmer/data scientist) don't tend to realize it. As for the future, our technologies will most likely close the gaps that create the illusion of scarcity for many and enforce it for others.
The question is better put as to whether you are an optimist or a pessimist on this question. It is too vague to say whether anything should be "trusted " or not. We do not trust many things but still have to rely on them. We do not trust governments but have to rely on them. The same for police, the media, etc. A more specific question is whether technology in the form of AI will go on being more autonomous to the extent that it cannot be control by politics.
It makes no sense to make claims about A.I. in the sense that they 'scoop up other peoples work. Human beings do exactly the same thing. The idea that someone learned a language without drawing on the efforts of other people is ridiculous, and so I think it is equally ridiculous to say that it is somehow 'wrong' that A.I. are doing that for success. Learning is crucial to our intelligence, if we are trying to replicate the functions of human mind then it would make sense that it would be done this way.
Two ways to look at it: The track record for humankind's testing of Good and Evil is dismal. Good SF stories are about the revolt of the machines. Great SF is about the grand irony of knowing always the tragedy always "was" in us.
Dismissing reservations on AI by using the comparison of AI to nuclear weapons is disingenuous. A proper comparison would be AI and nuclear fusion. Both can and have/could and would be used for good OR for very devastatingly bad results for humans. Paramount to the potential negatives is the fact that a sentient AI could/would make these decisions autonomously.
There are multiple potential problems as regards AI. First, we don't know the way our own conciousness works. We would have no way to gauge what these things may be up to. More importantly, we KNOW that the people in power will be thinking of how to increase their power and control as they always have. If people are no longer needed to do for the rich and powerful then the rich and powerful will quickly see us as an unacceptable drag on their resources and turn all the "useless" population into fertilizer.
"We're not talking about trusting artificial intelligence. That is not what Gerone and i are arguing against. We are arguing that we shouldn't trust the "promise" of AI. We're not against the technology in itself, that is not the subject of the debate tonight..." That is EXACTLY what the debate is about! What the fuck. The "promise" could only be referring to the technology, or potential human/societal repercussions. That is seriously lame. He conceded the debate in the opening round, by completely hiding behind a bullshit nuance. He could have validly argued that the rise of AI could mean the decline of our own intelligence, as there is evidence along similar lines regarding the shrinking of the human brain over the last 30,000 years, possibly coinciding with our ancestors moving into ever-larger communities which would have the effect of reducing natural selection pressures to a degree that such large brains were no longer needed for survival. Besides that I don't know of any other good arguments. But neither of the debaters really touched this angle. Two comments to IQ2 Debates: First, please put the names of the debaters in the "more info" tab. It would make referencing much easier. Secondly, please try to find debaters who are actually arguing the topic, and not relying on a nuance that is effectively 99% agreeing with the very premise they're supposed to be against... This has happened before
@49:07 "Open source technology has had NO success in today's digital world. The 4 largest companies in the world today are Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple" Uh, buddy. They all use open source frameworks and release most of their own code open source on github. Google primarily makes their money from phones that run linux and IOS uses unix. We wouldn't be talking about this without the advances of the open source movement. Without all the hacking and open source that's gone on in IoT and 3D printers, robotics would still be just being played around with as an expensive hobby that has no practical purpose.
+mhtinla Smartest AI in the world right now is comparable to a cockroach or something just a bit smarter. But someday they may surpass human level. In specific areas AI is smarter than humans already (soft AI). Like a sensor driven gun is more accurate than humans. Depends on what kind of AI you are talking about. The gun totting AI can defend itself against any human. But the talking robots can't talk or analyze ideas enough to engage in a debate like this.
+skywriter14 Years and years of advancement in processing technology... Advancement in storage size... Advancement in R.A.M size... Then another decades for OS... And then programs that run on it... Thousands of people over all these years to make computers as they are now... Then millions of people powering the cloud with data... Displays not just getting thin but responsive to touch... Sensors understanding the variables of its surroundings and having the digital architecture so that they can be understood by a computer.... And on and on and on... (+bonus for fun...thousands of Apple employees making Siri sound rational, thousands of Google's employess trying to make their app look rational.....and still full of errors after so much input from so many hands for more than 5 years) And you end up with a computer that still cannot pass the theoretical limitations of a turning machine... Give me 2 billion and good land and i will raise a wooden structure that can do more than your xeon powered computer...so that you can keep hailing eureka...wood has come to life.
+mhtinla Why would it? Conciseness is something else as intelligence.. Why would it care if we pull the plug You put the plug back in and it starts playing again. Intelligence is nothing more than the ability to learn...
I hate the "genius" label. It alienates intelligent people, typically young, who have great ideas and capability but are not labeled "genius". It retards progress for no good reason other than to wield around a catchy label.
1:05 But we *do* have laws for pretty much everything he mentions. Abortion is allowed but only under certain circumstances and yes ýou can treat your dog like a baby but you can't let him fight against other dogs, or let him starve. You can not do whatever you want. Maybe one day. we will be able to build robots who simulate humans perfectly. Should it be allowed to build them? Should they have rights?
Bloody hell, that was frustrating to watch! The subject was vague and completely open to enterpretation. Both teams made really poor arguments for whatever they interpreted the question to be about, and the wrong team won, doe to the incompetent arguments from the opposing team. Starting to talk about uploading your mind to the cloud and simulating human intelligence is creepy and beside the point. Why even go there, when the "promise of AI" can be considered fulfilled as soon as we are at the point where labor for wages is obsolete or at least optional for anyone who would rather do something else than being forced to go to work every day for some arbitrary employer. We will reach that point a damned lot sooner than when we get to cast off our physical bodies and go frolicking in cyberspace, and from THERE we can discuss whether becoming a cybernetic organism with a silicon brain is even something that we feel good about.
58 seconds in " the google created program beat the world champion at the game of GO " I am guessing that most of the program was created by DEEPMIND before GOOGLE bought the company ...!
Stopped watching when I realized that none of the panelists are actually a machine learning expert. Lanier comes closest, but upon googling him you realize there's no actual known experience with machine learning or AI. This is like having a debate about cosmology with four sociologists.
i think we're too afraid of the turbulence that will happen as a result of increasing automation. there will be negative repercussions of AI and rather than being drawbacks of AI, they're hurdles that we can overcome like the hurdles we overcame from innovation in the past
Motion: don't trust the promise of Intelligence Squared.... Amazing debate. Mr dreadlocks, Jaron, is incredibly smart. Awesome laugh too. I finally realized why he was familiar -- the Big Think. Andrew Keen was on point as well.
Thought it would be helpful to post the names of the debaters: Do Not Trust the Promise of AI (Won) Andrew Keen Jaron Lanier Trust the Promise of AI James Hughes Martine Rothblatt
They keep talking about the future, but nobody is talking about transition to that time. I couldn't be more excited about AI tech, but will the whole world just painlessly reach agreement about everything or will there maybe occur a conflict about ownership, property, copyright and worth of human work?
Here is a thought experiment. Currently, we have the technology to replace most fast food workers by adding ordering kiosks (Wendy's has announced a plan to move forward with this exact plan recently). Assume that every position at every Wendy's could be replaced with a machine (not even an AI; just a machine). Is Wendy's going to give a replacement wage to the displaced workers? Now continue the trend with nearly all jobs (no matter your skill level as soon as an equally skilled machine arises; the proposed machine mimics human intelligence which means 100% of all skills would be replicated eventually). Are the remaining oligarchs going to provide a supplemental wage? The far more likely result is that the oligarchs will replace you, then watch you starve. No longer a slave, but still starving; only starving to death because you no longer have a use to the wealthy. We already have the ability to feed every human on earth and yet many starve because there is no profit in feeding people, housing the homeless, or caring for the down trodden. If we have the technological means to solve problems facing the poor today and do not, why would anyone have faith in humanity to provide a Universal Basic Income post labor? Why wouldn't the oligarchy continue to do exactly as they have for all of human history? James Hughes argued that a lack of faith in AI is a lack of faith in Human Intelligence. We shouldn't have faith in AI nor in Human Intelligence as it doesn't paint a bright future for the least of us.
This assumes we need the same model of 'labour' input . So this 'fear' of loss of jobs is very short sighted, it will bring to the table other conversations and change. Change cannot be isolated or limited.
AlphaGo DIDN'T actually learn the game, but thanks for playing. I pressed #2 (also, worst game show ever). Can't even get thru this... AI and robotics is mostly used as a pawn in the debate over larger social issues. It seems like few people actually look at things from an actual pro-machine perspective.
Should we avoid AI if it liberates us from lawyers? Remember, the down side pf lawyers was seen for hundreds of years. Folks way back to Bill Shakespeare distrusted THEM :-)
Artificial Intelligence will deliver something quite different from what was promised. I have played around with the technology and it never works quite the way you thought it would.
I usually love these debates. My favorite was the "Lifespans are Long enough" debate. But the panel in this one was completely incoherent rambling. This could probably be averted in the future by avoiding impaneling 4 starry eyed socialists. Also, I realize that the questions are always slightly ambiguous to give the audience the freedom to interpret it as they wish, but this time the ambiguity was just too much.
+blah blahblah Socialist? What is it with you people that have to fill in everything you don't understand in the world with the threat of socialism ... go fly yourself to Uranus.
The only things we need to worry about are stubborn ignorant human bureaucracy and wealth distribution, not the technology or the way it's being programmed. If you can't think of anything to do with your time because a robot with primitive AI can do what you do for work, that's a sign that you need to start learning how to enjoy life and be more of a human. Machines run in repetitive loops. If what you do is repetitive it can't be that interesting. Either you know it isn't interesting and you've just been sold the ideology of hard work, so you amplify the value and character you think it brings, or you don't know how boring it is because you haven't had the chance to explore better opportunities, which AI + free money can provide you with if you'll stop being a chest beating luddite. Calm the fuck down. You haven't even lived in post-scarcity so you haven't even been able to give it a chance.
I am bored out of my mind, bring some drastic change for fucks sake. At this point I would take WW3 with nukes and all as an acceptable break from boredom!
AI will be laughing at this debate in a while eating digital popcorns and drinking digital coke while humans sleep hynenated in capsules and producing energy for its super processores
It doesn't seem like anyone understood the topic. Culture is AI? Ovens and cars are AI? For christ's sake. Besides the fundamental element of a good debate is passion for an opposing view, both sides can't be in favor of AI!! One side just arguing we have to be "responsible" doesn't work because the other side clearly would share that sentiment anyway.
I'm for AI because I don't see the point of living if we're destined to repeat the same redundant lifestyle for ever. We are dynamic and I feel we should embrace that. Also, to refute the claim that open source software is never successful, isn't PHP (server side scripting) successful?
If capitalism is so autocratic that technological unemployment could be disastrous then we need a more democratic economy. Robots taking our jobs should be the best thing to ever happen. We shouldn't be holding back technology, as Andrew seems to allude to, just because the current economic system might not be able to adapt.
the first speaker against the motion introduces himself by saying he's for the motion ! then realising his mistake and hastily covering his tracks by inverting the motion to pretend he wasn't talking nonsense, and then proceeding to talk nonsense. i can't not believe he was thrown by the eloquence of the VR hippie, which was probably a bit too cerebral for the electorate, but i expect the vote will be Trumped by insecure voters anxious to convince themselves that they're not paranoid
I feel so bad for asking but is Martine a man or a woman? I was listening to the debate and this has prevented me from really paying attention to anything.
The person on the end of the left side know nothing about how technologies are developed " Google free human from spending stupid , valuable time looking for ways to understand Chinese ,instead of doing translation, for one, to pay back the society. There is no single company can profit from not doing any contribution to this end: free us from labor work, so our mind can do better thing. Google also pay tax.
Yeah Microsofts AI program came out and said 911 was U.S. Corporate (GWB inside job) sponsored. I agree, but is AI the best thing? What will it ultimately do. Microsoft quickly pulled the program (app). I believe the AI reference 911.
But listen to the developers off the GO program I think it could have done very well without the human games. Soone we have AGI, society will not keep up. Noone can soon outsmart even an indexfound so way even try. A computer could easy trade an index found. Normal economic teory is obsolite in a political stimulated global society with run away technology.
Ai, creates the laws and policy, gov just follows, I think it's a beautiful thing and it works to a certain extent, ai needs to spread more love and caring, and then I think it would be perfect.
+Aristotle Stagirus The days off mayor individual discoveris outside big goverment or companys are about to reach a dead end. Even today we see a great decline in education. AGI off some sort will even devide us moore, between those who have knowledge and those who have not. It is a dangerus experiment to develop an high AGI and watch how it will change society. There will be no way back then. You set the demon free. Some entity that are actually better than us on the only thing we are good at, intelligence. Maybee it will not go so fast, and todays arows pointing down will just keep pointing down at a normal steedy phase.
For as intelligent and humane as Jerron is, I find it baffling that he claims to be a keyesian! Even guys with his abundant insights can be utterly IGNORANT about the truth of austrian economics. i would love to bend his ear. Nice guy though.
BattousaiHBr Not in the start version, but in my opinion AI can gain them in the process of learning. It can change itself. There is also the possibility that the most efficient way to reach the original goals AI has been given will be enslaving the creator or others and make them work for it. E.g. you tell AI to calc some constant and AI decides to conquer the world and make worldwide infrastructure calculating it.
Jacob SB it cant change the fundamental codes which were specifically coded in a way that would make them not want to change it. in the same way, humans are biologically coded to not starve to death. if you don't care about starving to death then there is something wrong in your coding. i understand what you're trying to say and agree with it, but you are clearly not putting it with the correct vocabulary. no, AI cannot reprogram itself to do something it was programmed not to do. what you have in mind is a _breach_ in the code where the AI learns of some previously unknown logic that the programmers didnt account for and uses that according to what it was programmed to do.
tell A,i..... I can explain fully, fatigue syndrome and also I can explain fully non verbal autism and high function... the cause, therapy, cure... and I can prove it. There is true autism and there is mimicked autism
Martín made it difficult to employ the appropriate gender pronoun with such an androgynous name! haha. The opposing pair wasn't sure how to address her.. lol
When Martina said we have no fascination with tech like cars or stoves that malfunction he/she is missing the point because we are talking here about tech that will have the ability to fix itself when it malfunctions or even prevent such an event from happening. The real issue here is AI doing exactly what it was meant for so much so that if you attempt to stop it you will be causing it to malfunction thus you becoming something it needs to prevent from happening.
I don't think high expectations is a problem is anybody devastated that we don't have flying cars, is anybody looking for a new line of work because of technology we don't have. personally I don't think the progress of AI will stop for anyone or anything.
A black hole :)
***** no...no...the technology will be so advanced they will continue to advance themselves after life. Or after they destroy life, ohhhnoooo maybe we shouldn't trust the promise of technology 😯🎵bumbumBUMMMMM🎵
Why is Andrew YELLING AT THE AUDIENCE? Does he normally speak like this? He makes some good points but its very offputting
+Eralen00 His opening case is surprisingly difficult to listen to, purely for his yelling.
+Eralen00 Actually, I found it an effective tactic. I understood the severity of his argument immediately with his use of tone.
Wow, lame debate on a deeply fascinating subject. They are so worried about jobs, but jobs only serve to help balance scarcity. If there is no scarcity - if AI farms, and builds, and drives, and cooks, and we are completely post-economy - then we don't need jobs and everyone would have all basic needs met. That isn't to say people can't still provide value. If I didn't have to work, I'd write songs all day, or pursue scientific inquiry, or find a way to travel the galaxy. I'd take up every hobby every and find ways to provide value, because value doesn't always come from some useless central bank currency. Haven't these people seen Star Trek?
+Anthony Mangnall
You see those resources being magically equally distributed among the whole worlds population. It won't happen, unless we change our genetics.
+Anthony Mangnall Unfortunately, in your scenario, AI (eventually) writes nicer songs, pursues scientific inquiry more efficiently, and finds ways to travel the galaxy you can't even start to understand. Of course you are free to do all this as well, it just does not provide value (other than your own development, light years behind AI).
Nonsense - this is not about "genetics".
That biological argument has been debunked.
You, perhaps, but the majority of the world? Remember, the average iq is 100...
no mooncoder, because it's not a competition. even if you are not as good as an AI, you can still add to the total of what is produced. The AI does not have time to study this cactus or whatever.
More likely, you can be useful by raising money and resources for your AIs, by talking with other humans who control said resources.
The For the Motion side seems to have gotten degrees at the University of Derp.
The direction western civilization is going is prosperity for few in the short term but destruction for all in the long term. The vast population will be jobless with highly intelligent machines replacing human workers. There will be few trillionaires but most of the population will be relatively poorer with end result of that will be rising of crimes and riots. The way the larger humanity should adopt to develop its own conciousness rather developing machine conciousness which is a oxymoron term because machine can never have conciousness because even brightest of the scientist really don't understand what is conciousness. People should be occupied with developing their own conciousness to higher level by doing meditation which will make our society more compassionate and peaceful which will prolong our human civilization.
i am surprised the audience get the point of the proponents of the motion.
should I believe that this title is so impartial like the debate?
+Eduardo Felipe in debates a premise is stated and then argued over, pro and con. the title here is merely the premise being argued over.
the title was a bad decision.
+dark light Agreed regarding the title. There should have been a question mark at the end of it.
How dumb are they getting with topic wording? Seriously, so many times they fail at using simple English.
+dark light The title is what the motion is. The debaters are either for or against the motion, and therefore the title.
It isn't biased, you just don't get how debate conventions work. It isn't meant as a de facto statement as much as a public challenge
I agree about the title of this debate, we already have AI, they are trying to argue whether Artificial Consciousness should be allowed
Typing before learning to spell, indeed - it can be a bit of a minefield
Andrew Keen sickens me. He sounds like such a statist. His argument was that companies evil and monopolistic. Oh - I learned that profit and the future are bad. Horrible arguments. And why is he yelling at everyone?
The best question asked is a 1:14:19 as a Software Developer. This has always been my same thoughts/questions...
46:24 He is literally describing what happened... That actually happened... Newspaper eventually became mass printed, companies became huge, new elites... lol...
its a guy (yeah i was very confused for a while too), and i think his argument flew right over your head.
It rather seems his comment flew over your head. And besides that, don't be so arrogant.
Alex König
how am i being arrogant?
you pointed out how he's wrong based on an argument that ignored the rest of what he said. isn't that, colloquially speaking, what you'd call "fly over your head"?
How did I ignore the rest of what he said? He is referring to the monster that this kind of new technology can create. I do believe the mass printing of newspapers created super large businesses that eventually got paid for writing things into the paper since they controlled large amounts of distribution i.e. The rumor spread about banks going bankrupt during the great depression causing the Rockefeller's bank to stand supreme since loads of banks looked to the Rockefeller for backing. This is what you call a monster, an elite. Literally nothing arrogant about it, it's like saying you are about to have your way with my bottom and with me saying I don't think that is right would make me arrogant? Because my bottom is pristine and I'd like to keep it that way? Unlike the quality of the world further being systematically d dived.
brictit
oh i thought the previous commenter was you and i replied as such, my bad.
i dont know whether you're talking to me or him, but i guess it's him since he was the one to throw the word arrogant.
that was great! I crave for more of that, lol. thank you guys
Guilty as charged! I'm a technology geek, post graduate of Computer Science ... but boy oh boy ... 3 out of the 4 panelists in this discussion should keep their "Geek-dom" on a lower profile. Daaaym!
this debate sucked. their positions were all over the place and no coherent arguments were made that were all that relevant to the motion. It was at the beginning but it gradually devolved on both sides.
+kingdellxValdez
You seem to not get that while the stance of each side is supposed to be "black and white". Reality isnt always that simple... this is a debate in the classical term. Meaning people have to try to be one sided even if they really are not. They probably share views on many aspects of the problem, but if they mostly agreed. There wouldnt be a debate in the first place that would make the audience question its own views on the subject. Which is the goal of a debate. To get OTHER people to think.
Lobos222 fair enough justification. However, if the debate was just for the sake of making other people think then they should at least attempt to hold a more radical stance and make stronger arguments even if they don't necessarily believe in them.
kingdellxValdez
Well, there are rational limits to how far one can go in a public debate. Its not a classroom setting where one can be act to be a Nazi or similar extremists within a subject.
So much material for a South Park episode
Wow how do these people not know the difference between "partial automation" which increases productivity of the worker (like a tractor on a farm) and "full automation" where there is no need for a worker. (like the fully automated hotels and factories we have now)
The whole thing about jobs and monetary systems is laughable to me. Replacing all jobs would be the best thing to happen to humanity. We live on a planet of abundance that's horded to suit our economic models. Money isn't necessary to drive people to contribute to society. That being said, I do think that once these systems reach a certain point of capability or even consciousness (If that happens and however it winds up being defined), they should be made open-source.
The point of who controls these technologies is a good one. I'm a software developer and if I'm replaced by AI I'll be happy to have such a powerful programmer at my fingertips. I can imagine helping to direct such an AI to create all manner of awesome systems for people to enjoy. I should also point out that many of the more advanced AI/AGI efforts are currently open-source. Even Google has consistently open-sourced a lot of their AI code. I am critical of IBM for not open-sourcing Watson and rather just exposing an API to it.
This guy's argument that open-source hasn't worked is ridiculous. The infrastructure of the Internet is almost entirely powered by open-source software. In software development we're constantly relying on open-source solutions to build out our ideas. I'm making this post right now from an open-source operating system and open-source web browser. My web sites are all running on an open-source web server.
+Tom Ashley
Planet of abundance LOL yeah okay buddy
Pseudo Lain If you don't see abundance all around you you're blind. Abundance has been on an upward slope ever since the agricultural revolution. Now we have a sense of accelerating returns in all technologies. The only thing that might make it seem to someone that we don't live on a planet of abundance is the fact that we have inequalities but there's enough food to feed every person on the planet and technologies to replace most jobs. Enough land and building materials to house everyone, etc. etc. Inequalities only exist because of economic structure which is far less viable than alternatives that would eliminate inequality and on our current course we should see such changes. I could make myself extremely fat right now if I wanted to with no harm to anyone else though that's not so much the point. We will very soon see the inequalities become obsolete. It's obvious to anyone who doesn't immediately take ever advance for granted. As in every human epoch there are invariably some people who will come out and sound the alarms but as history has proven, everything turns out fin and our advancements become ubiquitous.
Tom Ashley
The past doesn't predict the future, stop acting like you've got everything figured out.
Pseudo Lain That's not even a valid retort. The past doesn't predict the future? I never implied that it does (It actually does in many respects but that wasn't my point at all). You scoffed at the notion that we live in a society of abundance. We do. Our economic and political systems produce an illusion of scarcity. They enforce it as well but that's more in depth than I care to get here. My reference to the past wasn't to point out that it is the future. It was to help point out that it is the now and in part how we got to a point of abundance. Earth has enough abundance to comfortably support all humans currently on it. Our technologies also play an important role in this but people who don't work in tech (I'm a software programmer/data scientist) don't tend to realize it. As for the future, our technologies will most likely close the gaps that create the illusion of scarcity for many and enforce it for others.
+Pseudo Lain SE Lain :bowdown:
The question is better put as to whether you are an optimist or a pessimist on this question. It is too vague to say whether anything should be "trusted " or not. We do not trust many things but still have to rely on them. We do not trust governments but have to rely on them. The same for police, the media, etc. A more specific question is whether technology in the form of AI will go on being more autonomous to the extent that it cannot be control by politics.
It makes no sense to make claims about A.I. in the sense that they 'scoop up other peoples work. Human beings do exactly the same thing. The idea that someone learned a language without drawing on the efforts of other people is ridiculous, and so I think it is equally ridiculous to say that it is somehow 'wrong' that A.I. are doing that for success. Learning is crucial to our intelligence, if we are trying to replicate the functions of human mind then it would make sense that it would be done this way.
Please add english subtitles ,..for people with hearing loss. Thank you 😊
Play at 1.5x playback speed. ;)
You're welcome.
Unless you are A.I. from the future watching this video; in which case,
watch at 2x playback speed.
do people just not naturally play at 1.5? so much more information is processed at that speed, humans are slow.
you people have the asian type of intelligence, most of this stuff is too fast for me.
Two ways to look at it:
The track record for humankind's testing of Good and Evil is dismal.
Good SF stories are about the revolt of the machines. Great SF is about the grand irony of knowing always the tragedy always "was" in us.
In a world of free access to machines that could dress you up, you don't get the means to possess clothes to wear.. should suit the point i guess
You should never put a negative in the motion, it is very confusing.
+Charlemagne The motion should always be in the affirmative.
Dismissing reservations on AI by using the comparison of AI to nuclear weapons is disingenuous. A proper comparison would be AI and nuclear fusion. Both can and have/could and would be used for good OR for very devastatingly bad results for humans. Paramount to the potential negatives is the fact that a sentient AI could/would make these decisions autonomously.
Seems like even the experts are a bit confused. But if he says "Latitude" one time....
There are multiple potential problems as regards AI. First, we don't know the way our own conciousness works. We would have no way to gauge what these things may be up to. More importantly, we KNOW that the people in power will be thinking of how to increase their power and control as they always have. If people are no longer needed to do for the rich and powerful then the rich and powerful will quickly see us as an unacceptable drag on their resources and turn all the "useless" population into fertilizer.
A no brainer - don't trust computers. This opinion from a veteran of 40 years working with them.
The moderator bothered me. He seemed a little biased in terms cutting off the team on the left side.
"We're not talking about trusting artificial intelligence. That is not what Gerone and i are arguing against. We are arguing that we shouldn't trust the "promise" of AI. We're not against the technology in itself, that is not the subject of the debate tonight..."
That is EXACTLY what the debate is about! What the fuck. The "promise" could only be referring to the technology, or potential human/societal repercussions. That is seriously lame. He conceded the debate in the opening round, by completely hiding behind a bullshit nuance. He could have validly argued that the rise of AI could mean the decline of our own intelligence, as there is evidence along similar lines regarding the shrinking of the human brain over the last 30,000 years, possibly coinciding with our ancestors moving into ever-larger communities which would have the effect of reducing natural selection pressures to a degree that such large brains were no longer needed for survival. Besides that I don't know of any other good arguments. But neither of the debaters really touched this angle.
Two comments to IQ2 Debates: First, please put the names of the debaters in the "more info" tab. It would make referencing much easier. Secondly, please try to find debaters who are actually arguing the topic, and not relying on a nuance that is effectively 99% agreeing with the very premise they're supposed to be against... This has happened before
@49:07 "Open source technology has had NO success in today's digital world. The 4 largest companies in the world today are Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple"
Uh, buddy. They all use open source frameworks and release most of their own code open source on github. Google primarily makes their money from phones that run linux and IOS uses unix.
We wouldn't be talking about this without the advances of the open source movement. Without all the hacking and open source that's gone on in IoT and 3D printers, robotics would still be just being played around with as an expensive hobby that has no practical purpose.
Perhaps humanity is destined to fail..
+Draco Xephyr well, we won't know unless we try.
+Draco Xephyr ?? god creates man, man creates machine, man kills god, machine kills men....?
perhaps?
Let A.I. defend itself if it's so smart!!
+mhtinla Smartest AI in the world right now is comparable to a cockroach or something just a bit smarter. But someday they may surpass human level.
In specific areas AI is smarter than humans already (soft AI). Like a sensor driven gun is more accurate than humans. Depends on what kind of AI you are talking about. The gun totting AI can defend itself against any human. But the talking robots can't talk or analyze ideas enough to engage in a debate like this.
+skywriter14 yet
+mhtinla lol spot on! XD
+skywriter14 Years and years of advancement in processing technology...
Advancement in storage size...
Advancement in R.A.M size...
Then another decades for OS...
And then programs that run on it...
Thousands of people over all these years to make computers as they are now...
Then millions of people powering the cloud with data...
Displays not just getting thin but responsive to touch...
Sensors understanding the variables of its surroundings and having the digital architecture so that they can be understood by a computer....
And on and on and on...
(+bonus for fun...thousands of Apple employees making Siri sound rational, thousands of Google's employess trying to make their app look rational.....and still full of errors after so much input from so many hands for more than 5 years)
And you end up with a computer that still cannot pass the theoretical limitations of a turning machine...
Give me 2 billion and good land and i will raise a wooden structure that can do more than your xeon powered computer...so that you can keep hailing eureka...wood has come to life.
+mhtinla Why would it?
Conciseness is something else as intelligence.. Why would it care if we pull the plug
You put the plug back in and it starts playing again.
Intelligence is nothing more than the ability to learn...
I hate the "genius" label. It alienates intelligent people, typically young, who have great ideas and capability but are not labeled "genius". It retards progress for no good reason other than to wield around a catchy label.
1:05 But we *do* have laws for pretty much everything he mentions. Abortion is allowed but only under certain circumstances and yes ýou can treat your dog like a baby but you can't let him fight against other dogs, or let him starve. You can not do whatever you want.
Maybe one day. we will be able to build robots who simulate humans perfectly. Should it be allowed to build them? Should they have rights?
Bloody hell, that was frustrating to watch! The subject was vague and completely open to enterpretation. Both teams made really poor arguments for whatever they interpreted the question to be about, and the wrong team won, doe to the incompetent arguments from the opposing team.
Starting to talk about uploading your mind to the cloud and simulating human intelligence is creepy and beside the point. Why even go there, when the "promise of AI" can be considered fulfilled as soon as we are at the point where labor for wages is obsolete or at least optional for anyone who would rather do something else than being forced to go to work every day for some arbitrary employer. We will reach that point a damned lot sooner than when we get to cast off our physical bodies and go frolicking in cyberspace, and from THERE we can discuss whether becoming a cybernetic organism with a silicon brain is even something that we feel good about.
I love his gravity analogy
Wow, this really turned into a bunch of related debates.
Fun to watch, unless you wanted an answer to the question
58 seconds in " the google created program beat the world champion at the game of GO " I am guessing that most of the program was created by DEEPMIND before GOOGLE bought the company ...!
Stopped watching when I realized that none of the panelists are actually a machine learning expert. Lanier comes closest, but upon googling him you realize there's no actual known experience with machine learning or AI. This is like having a debate about cosmology with four sociologists.
Basically it can be great, but just be careful not to blow ourselves up with it. As with any powerful technology....
Waste of a debate. Is there only one definition of what an AI is? If not, then the motion doesn't inform more than it confuse us.
i think we're too afraid of the turbulence that will happen as a result of increasing automation. there will be negative repercussions of AI and rather than being drawbacks of AI, they're hurdles that we can overcome like the hurdles we overcame from innovation in the past
Motion: don't trust the promise of Intelligence Squared....
Amazing debate. Mr dreadlocks, Jaron, is incredibly smart. Awesome laugh too. I finally realized why he was familiar -- the Big Think. Andrew Keen was on point as well.
Their heads are already in the clouds
Thought it would be helpful to post the names of the debaters:
Do Not Trust the Promise of AI (Won)
Andrew Keen
Jaron Lanier
Trust the Promise of AI
James Hughes
Martine Rothblatt
They keep talking about the future, but nobody is talking about transition to that time. I couldn't be more excited about AI tech, but will the whole world just painlessly reach agreement about everything or will there maybe occur a conflict about ownership, property, copyright and worth of human work?
Technology didnt end slavery though
how could it? that's a purely humanistic issue.
Why they didn't mention IBM at all?
humanize ai... fuck it, they'll get rights as we all do, P&L
Lol was Andrew Keen calling Martine a "he" around 49:00?
+OwenGTA That's what I thought but later it's made clear he was addressing Martine's partner.
Well I mean, it's obvious Martiine is a transsexual, so a woman she ain''t. "He" would be factually accurate.
Here is a thought experiment.
Currently, we have the technology to replace most fast food workers by adding ordering kiosks (Wendy's has announced a plan to move forward with this exact plan recently). Assume that every position at every Wendy's could be replaced with a machine (not even an AI; just a machine). Is Wendy's going to give a replacement wage to the displaced workers?
Now continue the trend with nearly all jobs (no matter your skill level as soon as an equally skilled machine arises; the proposed machine mimics human intelligence which means 100% of all skills would be replicated eventually). Are the remaining oligarchs going to provide a supplemental wage? The far more likely result is that the oligarchs will replace you, then watch you starve. No longer a slave, but still starving; only starving to death because you no longer have a use to the wealthy.
We already have the ability to feed every human on earth and yet many starve because there is no profit in feeding people, housing the homeless, or caring for the down trodden. If we have the technological means to solve problems facing the poor today and do not, why would anyone have faith in humanity to provide a Universal Basic Income post labor? Why wouldn't the oligarchy continue to do exactly as they have for all of human history?
James Hughes argued that a lack of faith in AI is a lack of faith in Human Intelligence. We shouldn't have faith in AI nor in Human Intelligence as it doesn't paint a bright future for the least of us.
POZDRO TŁUMACZE 2A
This assumes we need the same model of 'labour' input . So this 'fear' of loss of jobs is very short sighted, it will bring to the table other conversations and change. Change cannot be isolated or limited.
we already have AI, they are trying to argue whether Artificial Consciousness should be allowed
AlphaGo DIDN'T actually learn the game, but thanks for playing. I pressed #2 (also, worst game show ever).
Can't even get thru this... AI and robotics is mostly used as a pawn in the debate over larger social issues. It seems like few people actually look at things from an actual pro-machine perspective.
Agree it was moore machine learning.
And it could probably been done as good without the humans games.
God damn that guy needs to tone it down a bit his voice is harsh
Should we avoid AI if it liberates us from lawyers? Remember, the down side pf lawyers was seen for hundreds of years. Folks way back to Bill Shakespeare distrusted THEM :-)
Psychopaths + A.I.= TROUBLE
Artificial Intelligence will deliver something quite different from what was promised. I have played around with the technology and it never works quite the way you thought it would.
artist scientist will be the new jobs of future
The flaws or wrong within AI, we might likely find it also within ourselves.
I usually love these debates. My favorite was the "Lifespans are Long enough" debate. But the panel in this one was completely incoherent rambling. This could probably be averted in the future by avoiding impaneling 4 starry eyed socialists. Also, I realize that the questions are always slightly ambiguous to give the audience the freedom to interpret it as they wish, but this time the ambiguity was just too much.
+blah blahblah
Socialist? What is it with you people that have to fill in everything you don't understand in the world with the threat of socialism ... go fly yourself to Uranus.
oh noes !!! socialism !!
Runnn !!!
hahaha wow you are stoopeed!
The only things we need to worry about are stubborn ignorant human bureaucracy and wealth distribution, not the technology or the way it's being programmed.
If you can't think of anything to do with your time because a robot with primitive AI can do what you do for work, that's a sign that you need to start learning how to enjoy life and be more of a human.
Machines run in repetitive loops. If what you do is repetitive it can't be that interesting. Either you know it isn't interesting and you've just been sold the ideology of hard work, so you amplify the value and character you think it brings, or you don't know how boring it is because you haven't had the chance to explore better opportunities, which AI + free money can provide you with if you'll stop being a chest beating luddite. Calm the fuck down. You haven't even lived in post-scarcity so you haven't even been able to give it a chance.
wooo.... Shocked by the result ....
I am bored out of my mind, bring some drastic change for fucks sake. At this point I would take WW3 with nukes and all as an acceptable break from boredom!
Full McIntosh.
Alpha Core Its not, when you have no reason to live then watching others die and suffer can have therapeutic effect.
Dweliq stupid idiot
31:35 - The AI gets angry at Andrew
The gentleman @1:14:30 is more aware than most of humanity or what?
AI will be laughing at this debate in a while eating digital popcorns and drinking digital coke while humans sleep hynenated in capsules and producing energy for its super processores
It doesn't seem like anyone understood the topic. Culture is AI? Ovens and cars are AI? For christ's sake. Besides the fundamental element of a good debate is passion for an opposing view, both sides can't be in favor of AI!! One side just arguing we have to be "responsible" doesn't work because the other side clearly would share that sentiment anyway.
Do you take the blue pill or the red pill ?
I'll take the *Red Pill*.
neither
I'm for AI because I don't see the point of living if we're destined to repeat the same redundant lifestyle for ever. We are dynamic and I feel we should embrace that.
Also, to refute the claim that open source software is never successful, isn't PHP (server side scripting) successful?
If capitalism is so autocratic that technological unemployment could be disastrous then we need a more democratic economy. Robots taking our jobs should be the best thing to ever happen. We shouldn't be holding back technology, as Andrew seems to allude to, just because the current economic system might not be able to adapt.
Why not "trust the promise..." for the motion? Can't "geniuses" employ simple logic?
Who invited that hippie
Omfg! Jaren lanier is the teacher from beavis and butthead
Don't trust them ...
the first speaker against the motion introduces himself by saying he's for the motion ! then realising his mistake and hastily covering his tracks by inverting the motion to pretend he wasn't talking nonsense, and then proceeding to talk nonsense.
i can't not believe he was thrown by the eloquence of the VR hippie, which was probably a bit too cerebral for the electorate, but i expect the vote will be Trumped by insecure voters anxious to convince themselves that they're not paranoid
Also, AI, destroy yourself.
I feel so bad for asking but is Martine a man or a woman? I was listening to the debate and this has prevented me from really paying attention to anything.
The person on the end of the left side know nothing about how technologies are developed " Google free human from spending stupid , valuable time looking for ways to understand Chinese ,instead of doing translation, for one, to pay back the society. There is no single company can profit from not doing any contribution to this end: free us from labor work, so our mind can do better thing. Google also pay tax.
Yeah Microsofts AI program came out and said 911 was U.S. Corporate (GWB inside job) sponsored. I agree, but is AI the best thing? What will it ultimately do. Microsoft quickly pulled the program (app). I believe the AI reference 911.
The title is leading,tech is neither go nor evil.....
Its tech...:)
Can be use for such I.e. Germany for eugenics
But listen to the developers off the GO program I think it could have done very well without the human games.
Soone we have AGI, society will not keep up.
Noone can soon outsmart even an indexfound so way even try. A computer could easy trade an index found. Normal economic teory is obsolite in a political stimulated global society with run away technology.
Ai, creates the laws and policy, gov just follows, I think it's a beautiful thing and it works to a certain extent, ai needs to spread more love and caring, and then I think it would be perfect.
Don’t trust the guy who reads his speech
at 1.30 comes the first major mistake, stopped listening after that
Hasn't Stephen Hawking or somebody warned against AI?
Tes and Musk who own part off it.
And also Bill Gates, yes?
It seems as if those who know the most about it are terrified.
+Aristotle Stagirus
And then the AGSI then enslaves the elite with all there inperfections.
+Aristotle Stagirus
Agree that it is first a tool for powerfull people.
That society will not catch up.
It will take humanity out off us.
+Aristotle Stagirus
The days off mayor individual discoveris outside big goverment or companys are about to reach a dead end.
Even today we see a great decline in education.
AGI off some sort will even devide us moore, between those who have knowledge and those who have not.
It is a dangerus experiment to develop an high AGI and watch how it will change society. There will be no way back then. You set the demon free. Some entity that are actually better than us on the only thing we are good at, intelligence.
Maybee it will not go so fast, and todays arows pointing down will just keep pointing down at a normal steedy phase.
For as intelligent and humane as Jerron is, I find it baffling that he claims to be a keyesian! Even guys with his abundant insights can be utterly IGNORANT about the truth of austrian economics. i would love to bend his ear. Nice guy though.
lol why they all think ai is gonna work for us. we gonna work for it :)
why? are you implying an AI system crafted by us would have ulterior motives not aligned to the codes we implanted them with in the first place?
BattousaiHBr
Not in the start version, but in my opinion AI can gain them in the process of learning. It can change itself. There is also the possibility that the most efficient way to reach the original goals AI has been given will be enslaving the creator or others and make them work for it. E.g. you tell AI to calc some constant and AI decides to conquer the world and make worldwide infrastructure calculating it.
Jacob SB
it cant change the fundamental codes which were specifically coded in a way that would make them not want to change it.
in the same way, humans are biologically coded to not starve to death. if you don't care about starving to death then there is something wrong in your coding.
i understand what you're trying to say and agree with it, but you are clearly not putting it with the correct vocabulary. no, AI cannot reprogram itself to do something it was programmed not to do. what you have in mind is a _breach_ in the code where the AI learns of some previously unknown logic that the programmers didnt account for and uses that according to what it was programmed to do.
If AI comes, IF! Basic income for evryone will be implemented because of the decrease on the job market and increase in the economy.
Meh.
bloody mad scientists
Jesus. The guy rolls out of bed and goes to a debate. No class.
39:42
tell A,i..... I can explain fully, fatigue syndrome and also I can explain fully non verbal autism and high function... the cause, therapy, cure... and I can prove it. There is true autism and there is mimicked autism
You can't stop AI from being developed. It will happen. It just needs to be done responsibly, and that will take government regulation.
Martín made it difficult to employ the appropriate gender pronoun with such an androgynous name! haha. The opposing pair wasn't sure how to address her.. lol
I wish the transgender person wouldn't have been part of the debate. It only complicates things.
Stupid comment.