He is very deep, and understanding his points require wisdom. Engineers are generally bright and smart but not wise.

@Miroslav Ristić yeah ..🍻

Nitul Das yup ... and hence the talk almost becomes meaningless ... it’s when two minds get to sit down and talk without any prejudices or corporations of their own to defend that it actually seems like a decent talk ... the one between Yuval and Sam Harris was pretty decent.

@Nitul Das Exactly so they are not philosophers or explorers but pawns in a bigger game and ultimately they do what they do for selfish reasons of pride or money and that is what will get us into big trouble they are like tiny children playing with toys they have no idea of the power of

You are right. Most people just don't understand what yuval conveys. They entirely miss the essence

I agree with you, but I would add that like psychoanalysis, it not only takes a lot of time, but doesn't really work all that well when people are not very motivated toward change.

Fei Fei was ackward in her jokes and way too emotional. This was not her typical technical AI talks, she should have known better. She gets to do her research by shilling for funding. Way too biased.

Fei-fei is just brandishing her woke credentials. Do you need to be hired by Stanford to make the comment "can love be hacked"

@@samsun01 well she is an engineer, not a philosopher or historian. And she can't go into technical details with a non technical person or vice versa. So no I don't really think she could've known much better. It's not her field of work.

@@Simon-nl3en That's where you're too infantile to believe technical details cannot be distilled and simplified for the layman to understand. It's actually a litmus test of what a good engineer would do. You need to go out more and learn more things. You're defending someone without knowing what you're defending. You're confused, son.

Whatever Yuval opined, you could easily think all that up yourself and probably better if you contemplate a little in those direction. What Fei Fei understands you can't without the same decades of rigorous training.

Rub one out Piyush.

Well said. Fei Fei showed very clearly she is not one of those leaders. She just cares about her funding. She sounds like an AI, no "love", just hitting those keywords to win credit points.

@@yushpi *robot noises*

I have watched many interviews and listened to podcasts that tackle the vast subject of AI, and it seems almost no one is willing or ready to suggest any answers. I think psychology has to be brought into the discussion. So, for example, Yuval mentioned the strange reappearance of stone walls. I think the psychological answer to this question is simple: it is pushback against the unknown coming; it is pushback against migration, which will increase as the climate warms; it is sheer fear manifesting from a very deep place in our long, long ago past and our amygdala. The question of the walls isn’t really a question about AI, but it is an example of the experts simply throwing out more questions. I know scientists hue closely to the rule about not opining outside their realm of expertise (N.D. Tyson being one scientist exception, who loves to explore all the connected avenues). But if time is of the essence, this just won’t do. I don’t think it’s enough for the experts to ask questions and pat themselves on the back for starting the conversation. The conversation has been going on for some years already. They have to start sharing ideas about solutions. Yuval made one suggestion, the AI sidekick. OK, what else? How do we restrain the corporations, in cahoots with government, from killing every job there is but being an AI technician? That’s just one answer we need, quick.

I appreciate it that you mentioned the body language. Feifei is being defensive of her position. I remember she said she had spent the past 20 years on AI, basically to take it up as her major, in the hope to and take pride in making positive contributions to the future society. She just can't swallow it being perceived as a negative contributor to the world. After all, who would feel fulfilling being perceived that way? I also viewed another clip between Mark Zuckerberg and Yuval Harari. Similarly Mark is being defensive of himself as well. He seems to be in a mode of void or blank in understanding why Harari cited Honduras to make his point. Back in Mark's mind, he was probably asking why is Hoduras relevant at all here. If I would voice my understanding: Yuval is basically saying people with no power or no platform for their voice are at the lowest end of the food chain, like a piece of meat on the kitchen chopping board, contributing their value while passively waiting for horrible consequences happening to them . They are the weakest link in the cycle comprised of data generators (facebook, amazon), data processors and algarithm creators (Feifei. Large corporation..), data benefactors (large corporation, powerful or authoritarian governments, powerful nations), data source (average grassroot powerless individuals). Yuval thinks it's unfair for the Hondurians and wants to evoke equitable protection for them - the data source group. Mark, on the other hand, only sees the damaging consequence if AI falls in the hand of an authoritarian government ie the data benefactor group. Mark seems to think that this group of data source is irrelevant at all in his equation. However, luckily we have Andrew Yang, extremely well-informed of what AI has brought about , whose campaign seems to hear what the data source group has to say and chooses to side with the weakest link by proposing 1000 dollars a month for each adult american. But more as a core solution to this problem, in my opinion, is "AI psychic" to help each individual better know oneself, as suggested by Yuval.

Samsung Cricket she is typical stupid school smart people who lacks deep knowledge of human spirit and history

so true. Yuval’s conversation with Mark Zuckerberg and Li Fei Fei kind of show the attitude of these tech people. They seem to found Yuval’s concerns too exaggerated, in this case she seems to even laugh about them and think he doesnt understand AI like she do... which really is a problem. They need to actually be humble and listen with open heart and not be so obsessed about their technology. But they are the people who grew up being maybe the smartest kid in class... this is gonna be hard

@@ChINNg28 Right, and they have also made a lot of money on the way and they are considered successful, which makes it more difficult for them to listen to a 'philosopher'.

Most financial drivers in technology need people interacting to keep money rolling in. The effects of this model will drive all other considerations To.the end of the que.

unbelievable he hasn't been on Joe's podcast!

Joe Rogen... Common they are not on the same level he is a matcho idiot who eats meat...

Why tf is that fat fucker such a big deal

@@adamlee9347 he is pretty stupid but funny

@Steve Kelsey yeah you are right

Long winded. Self congratulatory. Esoteric introductions.

Thank you, it was becoming painful. I'm glad i started reading the comment section.

Came to the comments for this

Then it follows the final question which lasts since ever "Who am I?"

So why would those who don't believe in free will be bothered?

This is bullshit. Belief in free will does not mean you think you're invulnerable to manipulation

0pl. P

Bismillah Arif she is one of those stupid school smart people

Exactly. Her visible intelligence does not match her credentials or experience.

I continued to watch more but I'm not sure if I can finish---if I got to have dinner with Prof Harari, I'd like to ask "is it painful to talk to these big name technologists who can potentially help address the concerns you are raising but who are talking without hearing, hearing without listening, reading without comprehension?" Is this the best minds the world has to offer now?? I need to see better minds in science and technology with more humility please!

@@permblue probably too late but yes you shouldnt have finsihed liek I did😕 But for those who arw not familiar eith yovals work should atleast watch his part. The other bring almost nothing interesting to the conversation.

This big ego woman would be called a "psycho" in another life. She has no points, just throwing around big words (keywords) to make herself feel adequate in front of Yuval's depth and breath

She is AI Deep Learning professor with a technical curriculum, I wouldn’t have expected her to read Yuval’s books… which is part of the catalyst for conversation, her being here is progress for me.

​@@samsun01p

They're both right.

I can host. Colorado kush and micro brews

Wow yes

Exactly. And worse, right after "we need to have this conversation", it's denial that we should have concerns (e.g. "AI is not as powerful as you think", "we don't need to worry about these for decades). Painful to watch.

She's the Dr Leana Wen of AI. "I mean, gosh, yes there are concerns, gosh, I mean really there are, but everything will be okay!"

Stratification of Technology ... Major & Minor ... Kind Of ... Difficult To ... Design A University Program ... Since One Size ... Does Not Fit All ... Meaning There Are ... As Many Degrees ... As Human Beings ... 7 Billions Plus ...

Trust In Democracy ... And ... MisTrust In Dictatorship ... That's The Q ...!

Trust In Democracy ... And ... MisTrust In Dictatorship ... That's The Q ...!

Cerebral Electronic Engineering Technology ... On The Table ...

All On One ... One On All ... Meeting ... ?

I know what you mean. I also wasn't impressed with Fei-Fei's contributions to the discussion and thought that Yuval had much more interesting and specific things to say. But that seems to be due simply to the difference between a philosopher/historian and an engineer/scientist. People in the latter category just aren't trained to step back from their own field and to imagine what consequences the subject matter of their study, in this case AI, might produce or will likely produce. They are completely focused on the technical details and, at least generally, though not always, don't think about the larger picture. The irony, of course, is that Fei-Fei was invited to participate in the talk precisely to avoid this problem and to think and talk about the forest rather than the trees. Her performance tells me that, just like Yuval worries, scientists/engineers just have no clue where their work may ultimately take us. They may genuinely believe and say that the consequences matter and should be taken into account, but ultimately they don't see that as their task nor do they have enough time for that.

@@roberthess3405 well articulated Robert... yup .. and one of the worst conversations was the one with Mark Zukerburg. It’s Ironic that Yuval comes from such a good neutral place, and a lot of them can’t see beyond their own institutions, their firms or their specific beliefs.

@@papergaery5257 Thank you, Papergaery. Yes, I agree, so far all of the talks with Yuval I have watched make his conversation partners look out of their depths. That is, to some degree, true even for his talk with Steven Pinker. Pinker is obviously an extremely smart guy with deep insight into the human condition. But he is focused more on the past than the future, and unlike Yuval seems to lack a solid understanding of the current state and potential future consequences of AI. Watch the video, you'll see what I mean.

@@roberthess3405 oh I have seen that one ... and yes ... actually you seem to give him more credit than I did ... though I have loved Steven Pinker, he was totally out of his depths on that one ... it sort of also made me feel that he was one of those old school guys who is close to an end ... and the likes of Yuval have taken over ... but the thing is there are very very few in the Yuval’s progressive framework ... I would probably put Elon Musk, Michael Gladwell and Rory Sutherland in Yuval’s mound, though they are all very different in their own ways :) glad to have this talk Rob.

@@papergaery5257 I am glad it wasn't just me who was surprised by Pinker's views. I have a lot of respect for the man and have read several of his books. I also agree that there are very few people who can talk about all this stuff at the level of Harari. Certainly most other historians can't. The reason is that Harari has an unusual high level of multi-disciplinary knowledge. To talk about the future of AI and what it may mean for the future of human kind, you have to have in-depth not just of AI, but also psychology (which Pinker does have, of course), medicine, politics, education, philosophy and many other areas. I don't purport to have such multi-disciplinary knowledge. But I can tell when others also don't have it.

Mitra, here is the answer: www.amazon.com/Walled-States-Waning-Sovereignty-Books/dp/1935408089/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

It is very surprising to me that Fei Fei of all people should have trouble understanding Yuval's arguments considering her roots in China. It's not US (or other democratic nations in Europe) where Yuval's hypothesis is most likely to come true in the beginning. It's countries like China and Russia where we will see most abuse of AI's power. I wonder if she has ever talked about China's abuse of AI technology. If not, is she purposely trying to avoid concerns that countries like China present when it comes to data collection and surveillance of human habits.

I think ironically the reason that Harari's points are so important is situations like this -- the people working in the field have their heads buried in the day to day details, and lose sight of the entire forest. I think Fei-Fei is underestimating how fast AI is going to evolve -- it's not a linear scale. And honestly her responses scared me, because she often didn't seem to appreciate the gravity of Yuval's observations. I honestly think Yuval hit the nail on the head again and again, meanwhile Fei-Fei was struggling to grasp why what he said would be true or why would it matter. Yet ironically, everything Yuval says is incredibly accurate.

doby simson ur on so on point bro

Well said! Yes, AI is going to become AGI eventually, but not next year. Even uber-AI people like Ben Goertzel admit its current limitations. We have some breathing space. Not a lot, but hopefully enough. Also, if we stick the landing on the short-term problems, the long-term ones will be less of an issue. We need clear minds on both issues.

@@ShadyRonin not to mention that Harari's thinking of an end point that is not here today, but must be discussed today. What is alarming is the AI arms race where powerful free market tech businesses (e.g. AWS) are warring against powerful totalitarian states (e.g. Chinese Communist Party) where people and governments are rendered slaves to either side. While I don't fear the CCP as an existential threat to my personal existence as a Westerner, I do fear their central state-serving strategic national plan for AI, and the export of their surveillance technology to other countries around the globe. What I fear from the Western tech companies is being manipulated by AI to a point in which algorithms never allow me/us to see/access things that it/they have not already preselected. I fear the filter affect. Existentially I fear widespread social manipulation from both sides and widespread social angst and loss of meaning and purpose.

It surprises me sometimes how far back other politicans are in regards to him. Most of the issues the other candidates speak of are things even Kanye West addressed in songs years ago😂. That isn't to say they don't still exist. However, it seems as if they are unaware of the current even more grave issues we are about to face. Most of the candidates have been talking about issues that have been there for so long, and to be fair can be fixed with a fair amount of focus. However we have no counter to AI and its displacement of human labour. What can we say about CRISPR and what it eventually means to be human or the great even more apparent Inequality that will exist hence from. Or even worse the lack of meaning we can readily feel in our societies and the prevalence of depression

​@@SAM-ft9jd I'm looking forward to the time when folks on the left figure out CRISPR is going to be used to engineer kids, and then they start arguing for the state to give subsidized access to it for all citizens. Then we can make sure that biologically based inequality is decreased at the same time that we improve the entire next generation. It will accomplish the wildest fantasies of the Eugenics movement at the same time that it decreases inequality. But yeah, nobody even wants to talk about the issues we will face. The debate will come in its own time, I think.

@@briankaul1201 Good lord imagine the shitshow that's going to ensue if genetic optimization results in a converging phenotype.

@@chahahc There are a bunch of potential problems, and that is a big one. I have no clue how those tools will get regulated. Would you have a lottery system for who could have the best genes to maintain optimal population diversity? It's not super clear how to think about the ethics of that technology, but the common stance of outright banning it isn't game theoretically stable, nor is it clearly correct ethically. Nick Bostrom has a good article about the ethics of human enhancement. Maybe start there? But that's a good point. Having a big clone army would be weird.

Bernie Sanders is remarkably aware of it for a 77-year-old man.

Computer Simulated Atomic Coded Reality literally he was alluding to Trump’s election win and brexit

Why 🤷‍♂️

Also Chris Hedges.

True.

hhhh

I agree. She talks the obvious.

No. She’s even a bit repugnant

We're doomed

Thas the thing technocrats usually lack the historical-humanitarian perspective.

The naivety of HAI professor’s view of human nature is scary. On the other hand, it’s also her brilliance ...

Agreed. Don't let geeks make decisions for the rest of us. Ends in disaster. They have no social intelligence whatsoever.

Her ignorance is astonishing

Peter Xing she just talks about dialogue and diversity and that she’s an engineer. Don’t even get the jokes and Says same things as any teen age “liberal” girl would say. Embarrassing! Stop forcing people in debates by label and identity! It works baaad

Also, moderator makes the argument that 1:03:13 "The US stockpile of nukes, kept the peace, until the Soviet Union collapsed" ......... WOW I can't believe he just said that. This guy was making an argument FOR a nuclear arms race. He forgot to mention that we dodged nuclear war, by a HAIR, when a soviet sub got the wrong signals, and the Soviet captain refused to shoot the missile. It came down to ONE MAN, and his conscience. The moderator is truly an idiot to believe that flipping a coin on the world and humanity when it comes to a nuclear arms race was a GOOD idea. If a toddler moderated this event, it would have gone smoother.

Spot on! 👍🏼 this talk exposed the naivete of the techies.

@ghanzo That was really well worded by you! Glad I read this today!

@@Ghanzo Read about THE MAN WHO SAVED THE WORLD. He is a Russian missile operator who didn't launch when ordered because he correctly thought it was a computer error.

@@2011littleguy Thanks man! I'll check it out!

Not necessarily... "It is always easier to raise up an intriguing question than answering it in an intriguing while practical way"

The question is much harder than the answer. Once the question is made the answer follows. Without the question you are completely lost. I disagree with Feifei staying open minded, in fact I don't think she seemed to understand Yuvals points. No clear answers whatsoever.

Her answers are vague to the point of irritating. Answering things like: -Humans have some transcendental feeling of love that is unhackable. Yuval pushes her to specify her answer, as she is the engineer and not the philosopher, she should be concrete. She doesn't answer. Love in the biological sense is hackable. -She says AI isn't omnipotent and will never be able to understand the complicated world. We are extrapolating. Then she says I can't multiply 2 digital but computers can, therefore AIs explainaility is possible, because AI is very powerful. She contradicts herself with with is and what is not possible with AI. Choosing one or the other when is convenient. She rushes to answer Yuval like a small child that only cares about being right or manifesting her point, rather than listening, trying to learn, and maybe even change her mind. She seems to completely dismiss Yuvals shocking points that she probably had never even thought about. Yuval deserved the credit for enlightening us. I am an engineer and these are the questions I need for ethical work. Not answers based on ignorance for a consumer market governed by manipulating AIs.

They just don't seem to get it

I think they don't listen. While Yuval speaks, they are thinking about how right what they already think is, being unable to stay open-minded.

I was just about to express my concern when I read your post. I have an awful feeling that a global catastrophe may be the only turning point from what seems to be a path to technocratic distopia.I hope that Mrs Fei Fei Li is not the best of what engineering has to offer in terms of understanding of humanity.

One uses the left part of the brain, and maybe the other uses the right part? Could it be reason?

It's because in the West, every body of knowledge is approached as a religion, dogma. It's a specifically Germanic deformation. Product of generations of culling, for obedience, conformity, servility, and an endless capacity for resignation. So u get autistic, roboticized, arrogant turds, getting paid enormous sums of money for their very limited set of skills. Not a person who can actually Think.

Her incompetence in this conversation doesn't mean most engineers have difficulty in understanding. She was simply the wrong person to be arguing from the other side.

@@ltrzepalko But what if she is though.

she doesn’t deserve to be there. she’s low level

Thanks; will have a look for it.

I can't stand his unbridled Utopian nonsense.

Excellent point! It's as if they don't understand the material at all

Fei Fei ruined the discussion. She knew nothing that Yuval knew about history, philosophy, and human nature. Taking her off the panel would have been a good idea.

@@2011littleguy xctly

Hopefully, she is not all that we got, as a human kind.

Some have to do with her early education in China though.

Little DesignSolution well she came to the US at the age of 16 and received high school - college - graduate education in this country. She is an American. Most of time I even don’t know what she is talking about.

Shen Laoshi nothing have to do with her citizenship and her later education, what forms her way of seeing and thinking is from the early education and the place she lived at. The philosophy is very different.

Extinction Rebellion are Doing what so many are not. AND THEY HAVE A PLAN

I appreciate your optimism but if you look at the uses of AI at present we seem to be headed in the opposite direction. Harari is sounding an alarm with that in mind. He does not minimize the good that could come from AI but his message, in response to all the cheer leaders, is that we should not minimize the potential harm.

feifei is not a theory thinker, she is an engineer~scientist, She solves specific probs. this kind of conversation is pro socio thinking, but not deep, real, specific scientific problems, this is not her arena to begin with.

@@henrikadewell7711 I’m not either of those things, but it’s plain as can day to me that she’s not getting what Yuval is saying. Also, she seems to be unversed in alignment issues which is surprising considering her 20 years of ML research. Kind of a Wtf moment.

Exactly. A common sign is they don't LISTEN!!

Glass water bottles would have worked nicely. Have some class, use glass in class.

Yes! Those plastic bottles are full of tap water anyway.

I liked her jokes.

I like it too. But I do side with Yuval's viewpoint.

i am afraid i agree that Fei_Fei showed an immense naivity about the potential dangers, waffled around the central important points, and seemed to be much more interested in promoting Stanford. I sincerely hope people like her wake up fast to the potential problems of Bio-hacking the human body before it all gets too late

The heroic white man joke saving the world at the end of mainstream sci-fi plots was on point though.

She is a negative for Stanford. Most students who were thinking of applying would not want to pay to listen to her say silly things like "we need to make AI algorithms understandable". Yea, as if teaching the public how the inside of nukes work would have helped prevent nuclear war.