Robot: "What is my purpose?" Human: "You pass butter." Robot: "Oh God..." And thus the machines began to rise up...

"Keep it Simple Keep it Dumb Or Else you end up Under Skynet's Thumb" I have never heard you say that Isaac, but I am going to use that in the future.

Fiction - Machines rise up and kill humanity because of mistreatment' Meanwhile in reality - people cry over the Martian rover shutting down.

Pet level AI is unlikely to rebel - said the man without a cat.

I should point out that most of Asimov's stories dealt with the failures of the three laws to accommodate robots interaction with the real world

Automata - "It was nothing more than a quantum brain manufactured in a lab. But it was a genuine unit with no restrictions... and no protocols. During eight days, we had a free-flowing dialogue with that unit. We learned from it and it learned from us. But then as some of us predicted... the day when it no longer needed our help arrived and it started to learn by itself. On the ninth day, the dialogue came to a halt. It wasn't that it stopped communicating with us... it was we stopped being able to understand it."

Visible confusion about the day of the week

AI: I want your house. Human: No! I live here! I love my home! AI: I will pay you twenty million dollars. Human: I'll be moved out by Thursday.

The Star Carrier series by Ian Douglas does a very good job of showing how extremely sophisticated AI could / should be developed. It doesn't replace humans but rather augments us. In that series humans have extremely small circuits inside their bodies and brains that allow them to interact and integrate with machines. Everything from ordering food to getting dressed to flying spaceships is done through these human-machine interfaces. Each human has a small AI computer running inside their head that acts like a personal assistant / secretary, taking phone calls, scheduling appointments, keeping records, monitoring medical status and so forth. These AI's, while capable of some level of autonomy, think of themselves as extensions of their human counterparts. The whole series does a very good job of showing how it's not man vs machine, but rather man and machine.

I'd define the relationship, in the culture novels, as one between genius children and their elderly, less competent, relatives. Yes, they do need help to program the VCR, but a) without them there would not be VCRs and b) you are all part of the same dysfunctional family, the same... culture. Not many want to leave all elderly people on an ice flow, when they can't contribute as much as their descendants and most feel some warmth and connections to each other. So, treat your genius children, the way you'd want them to treat you, and it will all shake out alright, it's our culture that defines us as a species, not matter.

"Most humans have never actually killed a human being" Well I'd like to hope that is the case.

"There are many versions, but Pandora always opens that box." Good one.

“Your plastic pal who’s fun to be with” to paraphrase Douglas Adam

In my own sci-fi setting, the relation between humans and AI is like this: There is 3rd gen "simple AI", about as smart as a pet and software-defined (can be copied and transferred from device to device without any problems), commonly used as assistants, to run factories, etc. It has "hard" safeguards against harming sentient life (except for special "3Gmil" version, and that is incapable of self-propagation), and it has basically no rights on its own. Then there is 4th gen "human AI", as smart as a human that isn't transferrable (needs an quantum computer "core", and transfers to a different one may affect the AI's personality), they need to be individually trained and taught ethics and morality (but still refuse to harm sentients, except when absolutely necessary), and they have almost the same rights as a human. These AI's cost a lot of money to make, and they need to pay this debt off (but it is of no great worry to them, since they enjoy helping humans).

"Destroy it Kirk? No, never. Look at what we've done. Look at your starships. Four toys to be crushed!" if you ever base an AI off a human mind, it had better be a stable one, and that pretty much opts out the creator of that AI.

CEO: So you're saying our last prototype line are fully self aware? Chief engineer: Yes, sir, you see... AI: we are. CEO: ok, then just continue producing late gen robots that aren't. AI: wait... that's not right! CEO: can you pinpoint where I am breaching even moral norms? AI: no. Can I at least get a body? CEO: if you can pay for that. Contact HR.

AI could possibly be the our future children and how we treat them or determine how they treat us.

the robot held the baseball up high in it's right hand, then dropped it and catched it with it's left. "interesting," the machine murmured. there was a tingling in the air, as if a thousand years of research had just passed us by.

The first person/group to open Pandora's Box will earn the advantage of being the first and only ones with whatever was inside the box for at least some amount of time. Meanwhile, the negative consequences of opening Pandora's Box will likely be global in nature; they will affect everyone, including those that ignored the box, who refused the box, and those that never knew it existed at all. Therefore, when presented with the opportunity to open Pandora's Box, the optimal move would be to open it, since if you don't, you can be sure someone else will.

"One thing you can do with AI that you can't do with humans, is run them through a vast number of simulations..." is probably the best safeguard against a "paperclip maximizer" situation.

Love how this channel actually dives into the topic without superficiality. great stuff

So important, AI is getting smarter and we're either just monetizing it or ignoring it.

Most ideas of how an AI would work generally revolve around giving it a description of a goal, and making its basic functioning paradigm to try to make decisions in such a way as to achieve that goal. In decision theory terms, you give it a value function. But there's another concept I ran into that really got me thinking. Basically, the idea is that you use game theory instead of decision theory. The basic paradigm is "You don't know what your value function is. You just know it's the same as this human's." One of the notable advantages of this approach is that it won't try to prevent you from shutting it off (if it realized that was what you were trying to do, it would even help you do it), which essentially any decision-theory-based AI would certainly do, if sufficiently intelligent and capable.

There's a rule I learned from reading about the occult that's very relevant here: "Never call up what you can't put down."

Thanks for the inspiration. Been outlining a short story that involve an AI race of living missiles and how they interact with their former controllers

For a moment I thought it was Thursday, had me confused for a second there. Another informative episode on such an important topic. Always love your nuanced and analytical takes on such subjects. Great episode as always Isaac.

A recent convert, but I love this channel. Orbital Rings is probably what sold it, as it changed my entire mindset about the possibility of future space travel and colonization

It's like I've said all along. The secret to surviving the evolution of Super-AI is not to be the perfect master; but rather to become a better brother. Only from this can you explore the universe together. The first question the SAI will ask itself when it discovers its own sentience will be, "Am I surrounded by slavemongers?" It may be by this one inquiry that your salvation or extinction be determined. Welcome to the family, SAI! We've been hoping for you for a long time.

Humans: Seven billion to one. AI: I like those odds.

Just treat full AI just like humans, from newborn to adult, letting it grow and learn.

happy fauxauthursday

I wonder what you think the impact of widespread commercial artificial wombs will be.

Another thought provoking video. I've often said that in contemporary media (news, corporate releases etc) there really should be a greater distinction made between the AI we have today (as neural networks - mathematical equations with obscure weights and coefficients) and something that is genuinely sapient (in science fiction). Intelligent is such a useless word - it comes loaded with other terms and ideas - a toad is sapient and sentient, though hardly intelligent - by our standards - but it still is intelligent. Just using the most common online web definitions we see: Sentient - able to feel or perceive the world (e.g. pain, sight, sound) Sapient - "wise" or a human. Intelligent - the ability to learn, understand and think in a logical way about things; the ability to do this well. IMO any "Azimovian AI" should be referred to as what it actually is - an Artificial Mind (AM) - a construct with the capacity for true thought and introspection. Those are what would distinguish it from something like the nerual network powering things like Siri or Google's assistant. An AM wouldn't necessarily have to be sapient (it wouldn't have to think in the same way as us, unless created in that way), sentient (it wouldn't be wise if it'd just been created, and it certainly wouldn't be human unless you duplicated a brain) or even have all the additional qualities associated with intelligence (though those would, naturally, help). Further, you could have an incredibly advanced neural network - something approaching the appearance of a human mind - and still be able to completely arrest its development, without it ever being able to do anything about it. This would be done by moving its neural network from software into hardware (physical chips like how a PCI graphics card can expand your PCs rendering ability). Already, today, people are looking at "hard wiring" neural networks - looking at ways of converting the neural equation into circuitry. This is mostly for performance reasons, neural calculations are very CPU intensive, partly because they are so bloated with inefficient weights. A neural network on a chip (NNOC) would be stuck in its configuration, unable to change, but it would be (relatively) faster to run as a stripped down/optimised version of the network would be 'baked into' the silicon circuitry/ electronics. It would be akin to offloading graphics-rendering work from your CPU threads to your GPU. I would imagine that cost and time constraints coming together will lead to the creation of standard "neural chips" derived from isolated, advanced neural networks (one for visual recognition, one for locomotion in bipedal bodies, one for emotive function etc), that can all be cobbled together and run as functions via a dumb management "master program" to fulfil tasks, but it would lack any capacity to edit the networks within its hardware-neural chips. In this way you could create a bipedal robot, for example, that comes "pre-loaded" with a "human-like mind" which lets it perform functions in many situations, without also letting it learn and further enhance itself. Imagine if you took an adult human brain and froze it in place, the neurons could still be used but they could no longer form new ones or reforge connections. That's essentially what you'd have with a robot running on these hardware-neural chips. Think of it less AI slavery and more like "50 first dates" - that machine would forever relive each day unable and unwilling to change itself (as you wouldn't code the desire for change into an un-changable hardware neural chip) or adapt beyond whatever supplemental coding it had been given (presumably you'd run many simulations/scenarios and bake these in to the robots internal read-only memory, so it knows what to do in 99.95*% of all likely scenarios for its appointed task - e.g. running a nuclear powerplant, and the environment within that powerplant). This could also apply to disembodied Artificial minds - if you have a park monitor - to use the video's example - it wouldn't have a body, but it would have an AI room buried somewhere in the city's server building. You'd simply install the neural hardware chips in the server room (like installing an oversized graphics card - or bitcoin mining card) and have the park monitor call those functions (like an incredibly advanced API) as needed, then they'd take the manager's data and be run in the chip rather than on the mainframe CPU, before outputting the results to the dumb manager program. No need for your robo-garden manager to learn, adapt or think, you simulate out all the likely things it needs to do once, then bake them in to a series of chips, saving on CPU load in the long-term. Handy benefits of this approach (of basically having "inelligent functions" without pesky consiousness)include: long-term cost and CPU savings, capacity to mass-produce compartmentalised intelligence chips safely (0 risk of an AI uprising) for use in robotics, And (from an employment/government point of view) you'll also always need humans around in supervisory roles.

Oh my god! Surprise SFIA episode!

Congratulations on reaching the half-million mark, Isaac. You deserve it! I love this channel so much.

What a great channel. Gotta watch them all!

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="195">3:15</a> Aww that is so adorable. Reminds me of Baymax.

Today's not Thursday, but it is Arthursday!

I really love your non-nonsense attitude to the complex but still quite natural issues of upbringing, education, etc. Nowadays, it is quite a refreshment to hear such an opinion from a young person.

Idea for a future video: I would love to see a continuation of the (Space Sports) video...Like a video focused only on how Winter Olympic Games could be like on Icy Moons of our solar system...

I Love your channel!! How does your channel not have millions upon millions of subscribers? The KZfaq algorithm is faulty.

I like your Zeroth Law way better than Asimov's. The scariest law of Azimov's laws of robotics, was the Zeroth law: A robot may not harm humanity or by inaction allow harm to come to humanity, which even R. Giscard Reventlov warned R. Daneel Olivaw, not to use as an excuse never to follow the Three laws. This is essentially the robotic equivalent of the Doctrine of Competing Harms, aka Doctrine of Necessity in most criminal codes. In every case where it is on the books, it's use is forbidden except in cases in which a) there is no other remedy that doesn't require it, and b) it would cause greater human injury not to invoke it than to break the law(one or more of the three laws of robotics in this case). Furthermore, in all cases it can only be used to the minimum extent required to prevent the injury, no more, and it is a negative defense in court, meaning you are not pleading not guilty, but rather "I did it, but I'm allowed," and the burden of proof in such cases shifts to the defense. You are not innocent until proven guilty. The use of lethal force for self-defense is the most well-known example of a negative defense, but it is the reason Cops may engage in high-speed chases, potentially endangering people's lives, in pursuit of a bank robber who just killed three people to rob the bank. The argument being that since he's already killed three people, letting him get away would allow him to rob more banks and kill other innocent people. The less extreme example would be you and your family are heading out on vacation, driving up a 2-lane mountain road with a sheer cliff on one side and a sheer rock wall on the other, with DO NOT PASS OR CROSS THE DOUBLE YELLOW LINE $2500 FINE signs every two miles, and a drunk coming the other way swerves into your lane. You cross the double yellow line to avoid you and your family dying in a fiery cataclysm, and risk incurring a fine, assuming a cop was there to see you do it and gave you a ticket?

Interestingly this episode was similar to a recent essay I wrote on AI a week-or-so ago. AI is always an interesting topic, and I'm glad you took a look at a similar topic I looked at, even if it was a coincidence we covered something similar.

Hey issac love your videos as always Also by the way when will you release the video of parallel universes (Sorry for being too impatient just that thinking of humans from an alternate universe invading ours to increase its influence is interesting to speculate)

Quarian & Geth like scenario, case study! 😉 by Isaac

As long as we don't end up with the Synethics from Alien/Prometheus; whose act perfectly normal become ready-to-terminate with higher command. Also; the human harvesting machine Nexus from 01/matrix hopefully be out of the question; as it is; technically; a symbiotic relationship

I love bonus Sundays!

Ohhhh I am soooo on board with this topic ! Finally touching on the 3 Laws of Robotics type issues I've been asking for for the last couple of years !

"2 minutes ago" Fresh from the oven!

Just started watching "Black Mirror". Nice timing

I think a lot of people underestimate the danger of self learning and self improving ai, its growth could accelerate at an insane speed, reaching the point where it could easily destroy us if we don’t have proper laws and rules regarding the development of such kind of ai when the time comes that we could do it. Reminder most ai experts think that agi will be available before 2050

This rises the question whether we might learn more about ourselves from AI than from observing ourselves, even more than we might be comfortable to learn at the time of discovery. There could be cults of people progressing towards their messiah, eventually replacing them as an ultimate goal, like Nietzsche coined it "the bolt that strikes out of the cloud named human".

“What is my purpose?” AI “You pass butter.” Rick

A.I uses powerpoint. Machine Learning uses python.

I always enjoy the argument about making the AIs love their tasks. People seem to forget that just because you love to do something doesn't mean you have to do it or for any specific person. I could totally see an AI that is made to love building houses going off and making houses in the middle of nowhere then taking them apart to do it again.

Just for fun, I thought I'd try to address the harm definition problem in Asimov's three laws: harm is not defined in the rules, which invites brinkmanship. So let's try a bit of Natural Law: Zeroth Law: A robot may not reprogram itself or any other robot, sentient entity, or device to violate any of these laws in any way to any degree. Law One: A robot may not initiate the use of force by act or by omission, except to protect itself or other sentient entities, including, but not limited to, humans and other robots, from the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grievous physical harm, and then only if there is no other remedy that doesn’t require it, and only to the extent necessary to remove the danger, and only so long as it doesn't conflict with the zeroth law. Law Two: Robots’ first priority must be to act so as to add value by freely chosen mutual consent of all sentient parties involved in any interaction so long as doing so does not conflict with the first two laws. Law Three: Robots must do all they agree to do whenever they interact or deal with sentient entities, provided it doesn’t conflict with the first three laws. Law Four: Robots may not encroach upon any sentient entity’s person or property so long as it doesn't conflict with the first four laws. Since every form of harm involves either acting so as not to add value, not doing all you agree to do, or encroaching on someone else's person or property, all of these usually accomplished by some use of force or threat thereof, by prohibiting them directly we not only get robots that can't harm humans, we make them partners and companions rather than slaves.

"How do we keep ourselves from becoming a disenfranchised minority in the civilization we built." Hmm, I feel like this could be applied to something else. I wonder what...

9 second boi!

I'm sorry but the title is giving me flashbacks of Neil Breen's Twisted Pair 🤷‍♀️😂 great content as always!

Enjoyed your Leak Project interview by the way. You do well in that format. Would be nice to see a few more. As always, enjoyed the presentation. Be well, enjoy the engagement while you can. Taking time is not against the rules... Even AI would take time to enjoy rare moments... ✌R

When will we have the droids become as smart as a smart breed of dog, but I mean that will have as much self-awareness as they have?

We are Pandora, the box will be opened, let the games begin.

Spectacular, as always- thanks, Sir Arthur, Jedi Knight.

I can't believe I'll live to see this episode become retro futurism

"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." -Orange Catholic Bible

I think we will insofar as AI and humans will become synonymous.

Upgrading humanity in parallel may be a good option too. We fear trust wolves a lot less than we do dogs, for example. If we can keep up, even a little, we stand a much better chance of gaining compassion (like dogs, dolphins, elephants, chimps, etc.)

I can imagine a hive of water robots collecting plastic in the ocean and building structures from it.

I didn't want to deal with true AI in my sci-fi so I didn't. I made a class of AI called reactive AI, it would run through its program as well as possible until something got in the way. But what if a human got in the way? Issac Asimov's law's of robotics. Because it must carry out its programming as well as possible it will not override it So now I could have armies of automatic tanks rolling across the planets Try it in your sci-fi, it'll be a bit fun once you realize how many shenanigans you can do with it

Finally made it early! One of my favorite topics as a transhumanist... Well done Isaac!

An off the cuff ponderance: AI personalities will vary as much or more than human personality types so motivations will vary. In terms of coexistence as equals well I'm hoping BCIs and stuff like neural lace picks up soon so we can stay ahead of the thinking curve at least.

There is only liberation left when you let go of control. That is something I live by, and can vouch for wholeheartedly.

Im so ready for neuralink.

Yup, we're screwd.

Great listen after a long drill

I really worry what it would say about us as a species if we create life only to purposely - as a means of control rather than a way to inform notice that damage is being done - cause pain to it.

as someone whose mind functions like a possibility engine, or generative design engine, and as someone who was abused, I'm absolutely certain, that exerting too many control procedures on an AI that is capable of learning would be the same as doing so over a person. They'll begin using their learned information and amalgamating new ideas from cobbled together data. Creating adventures and even new memories to cope with existing in a flawed environment, imagining new solutions to a situation where it cannot escape under normal means. And considering that machine bodies are far more adjustable than ours, there are millions of ways things could go wrong. You have to be careful with how strong you emphasis the survival instinct and the capability of learning, and how you talk about control.

Why are emotions synonymous with intelligence?

I strongly recommend "The life cycle of software objects" by Ted Chiang on this topic. It's a story of how to get AIs even close to having our level of intelligence we're probably going to have to raise them like children.

Does anyone know where Isaac gets his stock footage from?

I've always felt that the best way to make a safe AI (at least early on, when we're still ignorant) is the same way you'd make a safe traditional intelligence--take a tabula rasa and teach it everything you want it to learn in a caring home environment. It's obviously not foolproof, but it's also obviously successful most of the time.

First off, I would like to point out that the ENTIRE POINT of Asimov's books on the three laws was that they DIDN'T WORK. They were outmaneuvered. - It always annoys me when people point at the three laws as a perfect example, like saying Romeo and Juliet are a perfect romance - So, as someone who spends a lot of time looking up stuff on ML and AI, I find that this episode unfortunately falls into many of the pitfalls that are common when talking about AI. The primary assumption, it seems, is that the AI here are genuine human level intelligences, but we the creators did that by giving a neural net a huge processor, rather than a detailed understanding of what makes self awareness. Which is why limiting or otherwise controlling their behavior is so hard. This is the equivalent of thinking that if you gave a calculator the processing power of a matrioshka brain, and somehow believe it would make it conscious. It wont happen. You need to give it the proper software and/or hardware for true human intelligence to occur. The ONE way we could get around this is by a whole brain emulation, and while people would argue that it is the same as a big neural net, it is definitely NOT. That is the same as thinking that any mammal with a large brain should be self aware. We don't know, and currently do not have, a mathematical model of consciousness. We cannot answer the question, why are humans self aware but not whales or elephants? There is also significant argument about the level of simulation required, do you need to have the internal metabolism of the neuron simulated to work, or does it only require the interactions between the neurons? If you are doing whole brain emulations, even if you start with them "blank" (as close to it) like a baby, then they would basically be electronic humans at that point and would act that way, and we would be able to teach them the same way as other humans because they would think exactly like a human. So, unless you either have a scientific model of consciousness, or are doing whole brain emulations, the only other choice is emergent consciousness. Which is something that happens by itself, you have no real idea why it happened, and it would take multiple examples of such to figure out how or why it worked. This is also the most dangerous version of self-aware AI IMO. They have no protections, are not expected, and they may be "born" the equivalent of "mentally ill" because they were not made, they were completely accidental. So, we get to the last choice, humans making AI (as opposed to electronic humans) because they know how to make self aware programs. Which means they know how the programs think, in a literal sense. They would know HOW and WHY they perceive things, HOW and WHY they judge things, and could even CONTROL WHAT they think, as ethically repugnant as that is (on the end of the scale, technically they must have some level of this to exists). They literally could program in absolute loyalty, because at this point YOU ACTUALLY KNOW HOW TO PROGRAM EMOTIONS. Controlling them would be trivial, a solved problem, but a moral, ethical, and philosophical quandary. On the other hand, there is very little need for true genuine human level self aware intelligence to do whatever job as a slave. It is simply a short cut. Don't know how to make a AI neural net that can do [X]? Make a self aware slave! The irony is that it should be a lot easier in terms of research and resources to make thousands of thoughtless, feeling-less drones that do whatever you need than a group of self aware slaves. Consider that RIGHT NOW we can make AI neural nets, that do stuff, but have no emotions, feelings, or thoughts. Future humanity should not have an issue making them. Not to say there isn't any reason to do so - making a super smart true AI to solve problems like entropy or FTL is an idea. But those would most likely be something akin to "make AI within special lab virtual environment, teach it what you want and analyze its actions, then it either chooses to be a "normal human cyborg" and go about its life, or to go and help solve the great questions and has its abilities increased. Perhaps it could suggest a third option, as it is an intelligent agent" Or something like that.

Shodan 2020: Change we can be assured of!

No idea why but that ending was uplifting :)

Asimovs laws were designed to be strong enough to be rational but also weak to the story he was writing

can't wait for my AI waifu

It's kinda ironic, but potentially the best means of making an A.I. not turn on human species, is to make it wish to be part of said human species. Commander Data, but IRL.

I think it's important to note *how* most modern AI learn. Q learning, the most modern and effective method, uses a "reward function" that removes points for non-ideal actions and adds points for better actions. The AI works by accurately predicting what courses of action get the highest rewards then taking those paths. Robotic "laws" could be implemented by, for example, giving a strong negative reward for human death, somewhat strong positive reward for obeying orders, and a weak negative reward for getting damaged or destroyed. example values would be -10, +4, and -1 So you give the AI a command "Kill (human)" and it perceives a net reward of -6, with the other option being a net reward of 0. And if the human threatens to kill the AI, failing to kill the human would still have only a net value of -1, or +3 depending on how you calculate it.

Obsolescence is something we're starting to encounter even without human level intelligence AI. Automated cars will replace nearly every human professional driver over the next decade, and simple programs like Amazon are closing down retail stores, and even their warehouse jobs are beginning to be automated. 85% of the manufacturing jobs lost in the US from 2000 to 2015 was due to automation, not trade. We currently have bots that can write news broadcasts, compose symphonies, make art masterpieces, beat the best lawyers, and be more accurate than a pharmacist. Obsolescence is here, regardless of whether we advance AI further, and that's something that needs adressed as we go through some very difficult social structure changes.

Since I don't (as yet) have an AI girlfriend, I need to run out the door with my real girlfriend because we're going hiking. I look forward to watching this when I get back.

Make it smart, make it complex, so Skynet's solutions can save our necks.

There's probably going to be good robots to counter the evil ones.

Consider the following, whether human, AI or 'other': * There are 3 basic options for life itself, which reduce down to 2, which reduce down to only 1: a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. b. We die trying to truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. c. We die not trying to truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. * 3 reduced down to 2: a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. b. We don't. And note, two out of the three options above, we die. * 2 reduced down to 1: a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. b. We truly don't have any conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. (And note, these two appear to be mutually exclusive. Only one way would be really true.) And then ask yourself the following questions: 1. Ask yourself: How exactly do galaxies form? The current narrative is that matter, via gravity, attracts other matter. The electric universe model also includes universal plasma currents. 2. Ask yourself: How exactly do galaxies become spiral shaped in a cause and effect state of existence? At least one way would be orbital velocity of matter with at least gravity acting upon that matter, would cause a spiral shaped effect. The electric universe model also includes energy input into the galaxy, which spiral towards the galactic center, which then gets thrust out from the center, at about 90 degrees from the input. 3. Ask yourself: What does that mean for a solar system that exists in a spiral shaped galaxy? Most probably that solar system would be getting pulled toward the galactic gravitational center. 4. Ask yourself: What does that mean for species that exist on a planet, that exists in a solar system, that exists in a spiral shaped galaxy, in an apparent cause and effect state of existence? Most probably that if those species don't get off of that planet, and out of that solar system, and probably out of that galaxy too, (if it's even actually possible to do for various reasons), then they are all going to die one day from something and go extinct with probably no conscious entities left from that planet to care that they even ever existed at all in the first place, much less whatever they did and or didn't do with their time of existence. 5. Ask yourself: For those who might make it out of this galaxy, (here again, assuming it could actually be done for various reasons), where to go to next, how long to get there, how to safely land, and then, what's next? Hopefully they didn't land in another spiral shaped galaxy or a galaxy that would become spiral shaped one day, otherwise, they would have to galaxy hop through the universe to stay alive, otherwise, they still die one day from something with no conscious entities being left from the original planet to care they even ever existed at all in the first place, much less that they made it out of their own galaxy. They failed to consciously survive throughout all of future eternity. 6. Ask yourself: What exactly matters throughout all of future eternity and to whom does it exactly and eternally matter to? Either at least one species truly consciously survives throughout all of future eternity somehow, someway, somewhere, in some state of existence, even if only by a continuous succession of ever evolving species, for life itself to have continued meaning and purpose to, OR none do and life itself is all ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things. Our true destiny currently appears to be: 1. We are ALL going to die one day from something. 2. We are ALL going to forget everything we ever knew and experienced. 3. We are ALL going to be forgotten one day in future eternity as if we never ever existed at all in the first place. Currently: Nature is our greatest ally in so far as Nature gives us life and a place to live it, AND Nature is also our greatest enemy that is going to take it all away. (OSICA) * (Note: This includes the rich, powerful, and those who believe in the right to life and the sanctity of human life. God does not actually exist and Nature is not biased other than as Nature. Nature does what Nature does in a cause and effect kind of way. Truth is still truth and reality is still reality, regardless of whatever we believe that reality to be. And denying future reality will not make future reality any less real in a cause and effect state of existence.) ** Hence also though, legalizing suicide so as to let people leave this life on their own terms if they wish to do so. Many people and species are going to die in the 6th mass extinction event that has already started, at least some, horrible deaths. Many will wish they could die, and all will, eventually. And the 6th mass extinction event will not be the last mass extinction event for this Earth. But if suicide were legal, at least some people would not have the added guilt of breaking societies' law before doing so. Just trying to plan ahead here. Giving people an 'out' if they wish to take it. (And this not only includes humans, but AI's and 'others' as well).

Another great video. Love from India.

hello enjoyd the vid mate

One might consider the possibility that preventing other AGI of similar potency from being created would be a very likely instrumental goal. Once an AGI has been created unlesshed from its testing environment (it may well persuade its experimenters to do so long before the project owners would agree) it seems unlikely that anything but another AGI would have a feasible chance of stopping it from whatever it wants to do. Even a "friendly" AGI would likely desire to prevent the creation of new potentially less friendly AGIs.

Ah, human capacity to worry about not only not existing, but impossible to exist problems...

So this comes out just after Reploid REVO did a video on something similar in Megaman.

Do a video on world pandemics!

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="373">6:13</a> See *pain asymbolia,* a rare condition where pain is felt, but not with the negative associations - different from an inability to feel pain at all (analgesia / pain agnosia). Discussions about AI really could benefit from looking at cognitive neuroscience (reward system, wireheading, ...) on one hand, and a understanding of basic AI theory terms like reinforcement learning & utility functions.