All of what you write is correct. But I think the open and interesting question is how and to what extent humans do actually something different. We also learn how to act as a human from observing other humans. At the most obvious the difference between us and GPT3 is the modality through which we learned the world: We have our senses perceiving physical reality and we actively shape it and do experiments (what happens when I touch this or how does my perspective shift when I move my head like this...) whereas GPT3 is of course a being of pure language and nothing else. But then, I think it makes sense to pay attention to the research happening in the more open ended exploration field, like recently DreamerV3 by DeepMind which was able to learn to play Minecraft all by itself, with no human demonstration in remarkably short time. I think a lot of the very valid arguments against GPT3 "thinking" or "understanding" become a lot less grounded when applying them to these kinds of systems.

Thus totally unoriginal, and not AI at all. Just a statistical probability generator with words - also becoming the worlds most dangerous confirmation bias machine fed by corporate shills flooding the source content with SEO narratives. Going to be some hard times coming for the truth. We won't even know what that is as the "AI" feedback loops will just generate more content reinforcing the existing biases.

@@doppelrutsch9540 Human thought is not statistical. Human thought is of logic, or more specifically, inferential nature, ie. human ideas relate one another through inference. So for instance we don't obtain the conclusion that 1+1=2 statistically. We say that because 2 is by definition 1+1. The concept of 2 is logically equivalent to the concept of 1+1. They don't just happen to be strongly statistically correlated. In fact if you attempt to justify 1+1=2 by reference to statistic or any kind of behavioural conditioning it would be simply wrong. On the other hand, we can invent new concept precisely because we are rule-making animal. For instance, profilicity is a new concept. No one ever talked about it in centuries of human history before 21C or at least late 20C. An AI that is based on statistical training cannot just come up with the concept of profilicity if it hasn't been fed with the relevant human text involving this concept. We can invent new concept because we can make new rule in the form of definition. A definition tells you how this concept is legitimately used, ie. it outlines the logical rules concerning the use of a concept. That's why we can even come up with concept that has no real world reference. For instance, there is no wizard, but we have certain rules about how the concept wizard can be use, eg. a wizard is a person; a wizard can use magic; a wizard is not a god, etc. We just make this concept into existence by making up rules about it. But you can't just make up statistical correlation between elements when you observe no statistical link between them to begin with. Statistics is about regularity, not rule. Breaking a regularity simply means the said regularity is not absolute. Breaking a regularity is not breaking a rule, whoever does that could not be corrected or held responsible. On the other hand you can break a rule as often as you like to completely skew the statistic but it will never thereby make you right, and you will be held responsible for doing that. The ability to follow rules as well as to legislate rules for ourselves is what makes us thinking creature. (Therefore, btw, creativity is more about legislating new rules than breaking rules.) However, it could be true that the physiological infrastructure of the mind is in some sense like machine learning. Maybe how our neuronal firing pattern is formed in a similar way reinforced learning produces statistical pattern. But to say that therefore our mind is statistical like AI is confusing two coupled but distant systems: our brain and our mind. The system of mental process is conditioned by the physics of our bodies but irreducible to one another. Logical rules cannot be reduced into statistical correlation. This very attempt breaks the definition of logic. At most we can say logical system emerges from a system that doesn't operate on logic, which is very true, but that would not imply logical system can be understood solely on the base system from which it emerges. If anything, our knowledge on brain and the physical world in general is at its foundation crucially dependent on logic and mathematics.

the "hope" is that the AI would take this data and "discover" (in the training process) a more fundamental principle of human thinking. If this is the right approach or not I don't know

As I put it, glorified Markov chains.

An Opinion columnist, but artificial.

But the language generating centers of the brain are also jargon machines, the only difference is is that a mind can be self-critical and correct what it is saying due to having a pretty effective mechanism for this (memory). Look at people who have damage to parts of their brain, where they cannot remember stuff. They often involve themselves in confabulation, but this confabulation is not something that is new to the brain because of the damage, it is something that the brain always does, it is just that these people have lost a pretty effective way of critically engaging with the confabulationary (creative) part of their brain, that part is memory, and so lose the ability to construct coherent (and we hope true) narratives.

A perfect example and a very clever experiment. I suppose you would get a hilarious response if you replaced the word "youtuber" with "back-pack manufacturer" or something like that.

Happy you mentioned CIA, the criticism reminded me of CIAs tips on dismissing “conspiracy theories” and odd guilt on pushback.

I like your videos a lot. and I think , it would be great if you make a video analysing the profile building of "Andrew tate"

Great video as always!

"irrational intelligence"

what if the same thing could be said about *all* people, just as a sort of framework of how people think? Have you never found yourself at the end of a brilliant sentence wondering how you got there?

​@@the-real-dr2050it's not like that people let environment format and condition them but it's a choice to let it happen or not the more you are exposed to only most efficiently common answer and understandings the less human and more generic lemming you become but you choose the environment around you you choose to have cake you know tempts you to be around or not to be a slave or stay free and independent in thinking you choose to be part of echo chamber staying in it constantly

not only adding noises, but simply one of the nameless pawns that get put into the meat grinder and feed the data. It's like being skinned and processed by a meat plant, or mowed down by a machine gun. Being reduced to nothingness.

why is it funny

@@BinaryDood - I very well laid out why that is. That's the "problem" with Chat GPT and binary dudes. Awesome.

Well, whens your first book going to come out? I might let GPT write a review on it for me.

Funny thing... in my book series ("Diamond Dragons"), the word "Amal" means 'friend'. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨

@@Novastar.SaberCombat Thats cute, Its actually my late father's name, It means "hope" in Arabic.

@@ccfliege You are giving me unwarranted confidence tbh, am just content with the mention for now

Hahaha, thanks. "You've made my day."

@@hans-georgmoeller7027 The last time when I were interested in this stuff is when read a book by Douglas R. Hofstadter GÖDEL, ESCHER, BACH: an Eternal Golden Braid (1979), but now... emerges many new moments. Thanks prof. Moeller! very much.

You would be fascinated by some of the hunter gatherer traditions around death then. Some of the tribes would symbolically eat the dead, or they would have a ceremony to bury the dead and the women would all cry and the men would carry the dead out of the village to bury them. Some of them quickly burying or tossing the dead the dead away so they can return to the feast held traditionally. Then everyone would basically be relieved of the death and do not mourn. I forget which tribes, but most of them are unique.

You should look at PlasticPills’ videos on Death, very much what you’re looking for

Coming from a Christian perceptive. Moderism. death is when we stop living. Jesus died for our evils. Post modernism. nothing really dies we keep going on, even when we stop living. We go from one world to the next. This should be familiar to those living in "Western Civilization" because this is the (almost universal) contemporary view of Christianity. Post post modernism. The so called living are the actual dead. Without faith we act like the undead, zombies, NPCs, woke; unthinking monsters. Even without a belief in Jesus, Christianity is the only way to live.

Ask gpt

It worked! It pointed me to Enactivism and Autopoiesis theory. A interesting response I got when I pressed it about how it works: Me: Given that, how would you describe your way of coming up with responses? Do you think that it is more closely related to thinking, communicating or computing? Chat-gpt: As an AI language model, my way of coming up with responses is primarily based on computing. I rely on algorithms and models to process natural language input and generate appropriate responses. However, my responses are also informed by a large corpus of text data that I have been trained on, which includes examples of natural language use in a variety of contexts. This allows me to incorporate aspects of human thinking and communication into my responses, such as understanding the nuances of language use and generating appropriate responses in different contexts. Overall, my approach to generating responses is a combination of computing, thinking, and communication. While my responses are primarily generated through computational means, they are informed by a large corpus of text data and designed to be relevant and appropriate in a communicative context.

@@rafaelcamargossantos cool! Alot more intellectual than the stuff I ask it lol! First thing I asked it was like write me a James Bond movie but James Bond is Shrek or something. That is an interesting response you got though.

@@rafaelcamargossantos It sounds like how a child learns their first language. Accept a child has no previous data. It's more like a radio trying to find the right wave lengths for a particular moment. And AI seems almost the other way round maybe.. like it's trying to find the right moment for an already known set of wave lengths. DK just a thought.

Not for long.

I think it’s just his name transliterated, the combination appears nonsensical to me 象（xiàng) - Elephant 之 (zhī) - it’s sort of a connecting word 予 （yǔ）- I barely know how to translate this one

"soon we'll see complex image and audio algorithms become standard in audio-visual industries" - we already have AI art tho.

@@ArawnOfAnnwn yea but it looks bad and isnt the standard

@@ArawnOfAnnwn Yeah it's really exciting in some ways and terrifying in others! Although we're still in the beginning of a huge technological revolution in AI and specifically Intelligent UI softwares. I wouldn't doubt the next big applications to come out in 10 years to be comprised of many AI applications.

it's all low hanging fruits which we would find anyway but because we won't be finding them ony harder problems will be left and we will be forced to jump in quality of thinking higher while general public will have downgraded brains synced to use these shortcut solution solvers lol not mentioning how IQ globally falls

No. Too simplified. Not gonna happen

"Music" had it coming for a long time now. Not that good music will cease existing, but automation of bad music production is fine. What if we end up prefering high quality machine music?

I don't think chatgpt cares if you are polite or not it won't sort you information from more polite civilized source as it has only one hierarchy of accuracy without it being relevant

@@volkerengels5298 Certainly there were funnier things my professors did. That's just the one most relevant to Moeller's video :)

Japanese would say rock is intelligent and alive

Glad you think so!

Hail Ellul

what are your alternative sources besides this place? why people don't share their best sources? we would find best less popular things not tagged as most accurate by stupid search engines

"but everything is just information" these people don't know basic epistemology

But isn't this how our brains work anyway? Aren't all our ideas just relations of sensory data e.g. I can imagine a gold mountain, because I have experienced gold and a mountain. So the idea of a gold mountain is formed by pre-existing information, is this really much diffrent from how AI works?

​@@MiloMay the difference is in how we process that information and how we decide to "remix" it. AI on its own is just a randomizer with extra criteria. Humans have so much more information that is unique to our experience that we simply can't replicate in a machine. Basically AI is just a replica of the rational "neocortex" side of our intelligence. if I had to put it in simpler terms I'd say AI is the shadowy reflection on the cave wall and our intelligence is the form.

I would like to ask whether we actually want this revolution? I see comments all the time celebrating this technology obliterating the 'unexceptional' from domains of labor and think "humanity can only be unexceptional, there's 7 billion of us".

@@chinogambino9375 we dont have a choice. if there is a demand for a technology it will be used. look at our "war on drugs" and how it spectacularly failed. trying to prohibit something wont work

This is a point I keep coming to as well. Here's an example that I hope can help convey the idea, and hopefully people with more knowledge of these LLM capabilities than me can shed some light on. This is specifically regarding the capability of these models to generate code. If one were to train a model on a large repository of code that was all written in one language, let's say C++. Then we ask it to write an algorithm in C++ to solve some problem that may or may not have been solved by some existing code somewhere in the training data. The model successfully provides a reasonably correct solution. At this point, the model would only be able to generate code in C++, right? It would not be able to generate a correct answer to the same question in, say, Golang. But what if I were to then train it on a couple of TEXTBOOKS and language reference documentation about Go, without actually giving it a large repository of existing Go code to train on. Would the model be able to write the algorithm in Go then? At that point, we know that the model is capable of producing the correct algorithm, because it did so in C++. But does it actually understand what the code produced means? If it understands the logic being performed by the C++ code, and it understands the rules and syntax of the Go language (based on its processing of English documentation that describes those rules), is it able to then implement the same algorithm in Go? Essentially, synthesizing new code that looks nothing like the C++ solution from a structural or syntactic perspective, but the general high-level algorithm is more or less the same, in the abstract. If the answer is that yes, these models are capable of generating code in languages that were not included in the training set, then software engineers may indeed have cause for alarm.

nitzche explains that consciousness is a restriction brought up by how other people around you judge you. A group of machines might develop a consciousness with time. Or I might be wrong, Im just a youtube comment. Having a memory has nothign to do with some kind of 'machine-will' A neuron is both processor and memory at the same time. Neural nets are universal fuctions approximators, for it to have will I personally would guess the today's architecture would have to change. Current research (5 years old now) suggest that machine-will would have many axiomatic systems that would act as 'insticts' (probably created by brute forcing combinations) and they would guide machine-thought. Wich I also find much simmilar to the way nitzche sees how thoughts are made. see: 'the gay science' aphorism 354

@@zerotwo7319 That sounds more like a theory of conscience, not consciousness.

@@rdean150 Oops I guess.

@@zerotwo7319 it's information about information. That's my definition of it at least lol. Basically we have a procedural brain and then the cortex which gives us insight and awareness into such procedures or in sum information about information. At least this is the definition I came up high on shrooms one time.

​@@williampatton7476 I also thought about this architecture, I call it meta-meta perception. first we have instincts that create meta perceptions. then this signal goes to the cortex and it is processed even futher to create perception about perception. I think what you call procedural I call instincts. Could the brain be so simple? Maybe someone should code this as an college project. But I didn't required shrooms. :( I'm pretty boring.

In the 21st century, advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled machines to automate and enhance a variety of traditionally human tasks. AI has broadened the range of identity technologies available for users to create and manage their identities online. To date, authenticity, sincerity, and profilicity have been the dominant identity technologies. In this essay, we propose a new identity technology called “artificiality” which works as a collaboration between humanity and AI. We define artificiality as an identity technology which enables people to create their identities around AI-generated content. Unlike existing identity technologies such as authenticity or profilicity which rely primarily on human input and involvement, artificiality relies heavily on AI-created content to shape user identities. For example, rather than relying solely on humans to curate an identity profile (profilicity), a user's profile could be populated with recommended images generated by AI algorithms based on their interests and preferences. Additionally, AI-generated dialogue may also be used as part of an individual’s self-expression; thus allowing individuals to communicate thoughts that are not necessarily their own but nonetheless reflective of who they are. The use of AI in constructing personal identities is not without its risks however. The user must be aware that the data used to construct his or her identity could be manipulated by malicious actors for malicious purposes. Therefore it is important for users to exercise caution when sharing data with any third-party system or application that utilizes AI algorithms or techniques in order to ensure that their personal data remains secure and confidential. Additionally, there is also the potential for users being exposed to biased or inaccurate information via AI-created content; therefore it is essential for users to check sources before trusting any information presented within their digital identity profiles. Overall, artificiality offers a more sophisticated approach than existing identity technologies such as authenticity or profilicity in creating personal digital identities around machine-generated content; however it is important for users to remain vigilant in protecting themselves from malicious actors while using this new technology responsibly. As technology continues to evolve at a rapid pace, so too should our understanding of how best utilize these advances in order maintain our digital identities safely while optimizing our experience when interacting with others online.

it doesn't you stand in way of millions learning western Lingua franka without complexes

also ironically, very much like in the human nature, the most valuable output from neural networks is the one randomly sampled from the statistical deviation rather than from the convergence of the trained corpus.

Prof Moellers point was exactly that the analogy was bad. Did you even listen what he said?

birds which doesn't fly aren't birds really birds became birds only because they were reptiles first that could adapt to flying nonflyings birds are example of the devolution back to origin

If you haven't proposed any of those questions to ChatGPT yet then what are you waiting for? I had a conversation with it that started with me asking about Carl Sagan. About 20 minutes later and we're both working on a new thought experiment for n-dimensional differential geometry.

Reading Niklas Luhman‘s system theory can lead to a „spiritual“ experience as the „invisible observer“ is involved.

13:00 - ... that we know of. I agree with your words, and find the likelyhood of a man in a beard delivering my thoughts to be not worth thinking about, but I've got to remain open here - you're laying a direct map out and denying that the map has a maker in at least one instance with no proof other than an assertion from inside the system.

and that's also the problem if you will relaying on it you will be limited more and more by most accurate answers without wider context and minority reports you will live in the bubble of all bubbles 😂 even convinced every of your views is perfectly accurate lol

​@@dachurchofeppie850you use language not knowing who made it how and what was original meaning of words you use you are controlling robot with a joystick and you don't care how it's built inside as long as you see what it does actually in algorytm in internet you use it but you completely miss how it controls you not you it lol ai is much more freeying if you remember it's shortcomings as long as it will start learning from you not from others data imposing their ways on you my robot should have the colour and bias I want it to have

​ @szymonbaranowski8184 - The internet algorithm is an intercept and hijack of the being-in-the-world, intuition function that we already have (McGilchrist suggests this is the right hemisphere... Whitehead's physical pole). For accepting whether or not the bot is conscious or believable/trustworthy it matters not what it says and can be empirically proven but what we hear and how it makes us feel, and to mistake or conflate those domains is an ontological mistake.

@@szymonbaranowski8184 - I am making this argument szymon. I am suggesting that it's going to be hard to separate the presentations of the algorithm from the prehensions and propositions of the real world. That is going to be a real problem, a PoMo idealistic dreamscape. Scary stuff.

english is very confusing. in every other word PH = F except for the word "haphazard". him being german it makes sense that he reads it as haFazard.

@@Maynard0504 fair enough. It’s a tragedy that English is the world Lingua Franca, given what a mess it is.

@@xenoblad _what a mess it is_ You don't know German...........;-))

@@volkerengels5298 I guess I can’t complain when German words have 3 genders

You call it junk but what are you in comparison? Innovative? Worthwhile? I cannot understand how one bcomes so vain and void of self awareness they look forward AI music spamming artists out of viable work or millions being 'freed' from their tedious livelihoods.

it's literally more crap generator how is it adding any quality to anything lol

That’s hilarious