descanse en paz. Te admiraré por siempre Minsky R.I.P.

Slight correction of Minsky: 'The City and the Stars' was rewritten as 'Beyond the Fall of Night' not by Clarke himself but by Gregory Benford (incidentally another of Minsky''s favorite authors) with Clarke's enthusiastic blessing.

He made a reasonable criticism of these systems (perceptrons can't learn xor). Which forced a reevaluation of the neural networks (to get multi-layer perceptrons). That's what science is. His approach was perfectly ligit and reasonable.

Your statement in parenthesise is the key to your point. I see your point, but I don't remember most of what I studied in school 15 years ago. Try imagining remembering what you learned 200 years ago.

Mr. Minsky has been working on these ideas for many decades. Please read his book, Society of Mind for more detail. Yes, people all over the world are working on developing these ideas & their own related ideas as well.

That was in 2003... Does anyone know if any research was done on classifying the types of problems and the ways to solve the types of problems?

Has anyone seen this since COVID-19?? Trippy man

I wonder, what was cut out 9:17-9:19.

Wonderful This reminds me of the POP Texas_NYC propitiatory problem I've been working on. It's no P = NP comp, or 4 color Topo,. It's something though. Something like If true then Dang, now theirs the rest of the world to play with. Yo's truly SonChai Jittlepreep

What was that ultimate sceen?

1:35 Well that aged well...

Dreyfus pissed this guy off. Minksky tried to have him fired. Years went by and Dreyfus was proved right.

This man is legand...

We seem to forget (or neglect)the fact that we are part of an planetary ecological system; in this system, populations that go up, always come down, with the decline usually just as precipitous as the incline. We may 'think' that the use of our 'brain' will change the final outcome, but our presence on this globe is just a small blip taken into consideration of the big picture. What goes up must come down.

In science absolute realism is necessary but seldom sufficient. It is however a matter of historical fact that researchers had encountered and addressed the shortcomings of the single layer perceptron prior to the initial publication of Perceptrons and had widely published the results within a year of it's initial publication. It is a distinct discredit to Minsky and Perceptrons that he waited more than a decade (1987) to amend the book and then he only did so in the foreword.

"I'm assuming he means that the future populations will live much more efficiently if there was a 92% drop in population, not that the 92% would be better off never born." I'm sure that's exactly what he meant. And my point stands regardless. It's better to be born than not to be.

500 million people, eh? Where have I seen that number before 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

OG Minsky before the ASMR years set in.

I agree with you, c6gunner. I just have a hard time seeing how they will ever get to that point. The population is way too high in a lot of places. They don't have enough good farm land etc. to ever support their own population. I'm not saying that we shouldn't support them but we need to do it in a smarter way. Right now we're just helping them make their own situation worse and making it harder for the country to ever "evolve". :/

If you haven't noticed, human 'time' is not on the same plane as ecological time. What goes up, must come down; it's a basic building block of nature.

I Really Like The Video Listen closely -- Marvin Minsky's arch, eclectic, charmingly offhand talk on health, overpopulation and the human mind is packed with subtlety From Your

You don't think nature has intrinsic value regardless of whether anyone values it or not?

MINSKY GENIAL

with hand shape

After seeing this video ... I am starting to believe that if we know too much, just like what this man did, we might end up crazy, just like what this man seems to be

Even though skilled practitioners like Grossberg were not fooled for a moment by Minsky and Papert's erroneous conjecture that the use of layers would not allow XOR to be solved, the real travesty was the misrepresentation to the novices that were not yet in the business of reading peer reviewed scientific journals.

Also, if his message was that we'd be better off having never been born than to have to live with the risk of getting sick from a handshake, I doubt TED would post his presentation on here. I'm assuming he means that the future populations will live much more efficiently if there was a 92% drop in population, not that the 92% would be better off never born.

Marvin Minsky at tedtalks? This must be a recent video; hence, Marvin is alive and well! He just might make it into the nano-era!

He might be a horrible speaker, but he's one of the most intelligent people in the world right now. Isaac Asimov: The only 2 people I've ever met that I admit are more intelligen than me are Carl Sagan and Marvin Minsky

It does not take a dictatorship to see the obvious, but they tend not to, compared to societies with free speech and open debate. But it DOES take a dictatorship to "cap population" as you advocate. Relax, the sky is not falling. The poor are getting more access to food, shelter, water and jobs and the "liberalization" of international and local markets is the cause. We need more of both, both for the sake of the poor and for the health of the planet.

Minsky isn't really trying to make any jokes in this talk; he's just an exceedingly eccentric personality. He is also, as it happens, the author of the single best explanatory essay on humor I have ever read.

unite the world into one big "country" and start looking for other planets

I'm sure the 5.5 wouldn't mind too much considering they wouldn't be given the opportunity to appreciate being born or not. I think the main difference between our perspectives is that I value nature and other life far more than you, while you value human life far more than me. Do you believe that because humans are the most dominant species that they have the right to pollute, destroy and change other species habitats to any extent they wish?

Would've made a charming, lovable Unabomber.

I'm taking a long-term view. There has been no famine in Europe since the early 1900's because of industrialization, which was caused by free market liberalization and the freedom to innovate and keep the profits. The rich employ the poor. The rich create jobs, but the poor tend not to, except for poor entrepreneurs, who create their own jobs. Trickle-down DOES work. Taxing the rich too much destroys jobs, hurts the poor, and reduces the incentive for the poor to become entrepreneurs.

No doubt Minsky is a genius, but as everyone who knows him would tell you, "he cannot talk himself out of a bag" :)

I seriously doubt that people would be any smarter if they lived 200 - 1000 years. They would have time to learn more of what knowledge already exists; languages, literature, etc. However, the expansion of new knowledge and discoveries would have nothing to do with people who lived longer.

500 millions people? he's obviously joking!

He is priceless!

"First, fewer people means less energy to be used...we don't need as to extract and transport as much energy." No kidding. So in all likelihood, it's a wash as far as energy is concerned. "You are saying there is no point to less pollution because there will be 5.5 billion people less on earth? I'm sure the 500 mil will appreciate less pollution" I'm sure 5.5 billion people would more greatly appreciate having been born.

End justifies the means, eh? I just don't think the sky is falling. I think population is levelling off, and I think the spread of free market policies in places like India is the real cause. Educated women tend to reproduce less, and education is only affordable if the country is more wealthy. More wealth comes from more entrepreneurship, and this is only possible if the local government gets out of the way, and acts to defend property rights for entrepreneurs. Dictatorship is a bad idea.

Not my favorite TED talk but the man's got a point. Our biggest problem is over population but we don't like talking about that. It's not politically correct. As long as being "PC" is more important to people than actually solving problems and talking about the real issues, we will never solve anything. It will be the end of humanity as we know it. We're trying to fight hunger but it's not natural for several millions to live in a desert. lol That's why they're starving to begin with. :p

If you want to live longer, barring some acute unfortunate demortalization, you must not give way to actions commiserate with anyone's idea of so-called "age-appropriate" behavior. I'm talking about ideas in that vein after one reaches 40 or so. You must act as though you perform a vital societal or special function and believe it. Your body will sense this and maintain itself accordingly. Naturally. Sorry. in a hurry.

500 million ... georgia guide stones!

Hmmm, I don't think you got the essential message of his speech. I didn't even watch it yet and I can tell that you misconstrue his points. First, fewer people means less energy to be used, if there is less people we don't need as to extract and transport as much energy. You are saying there is no point to less pollution because there will be 5.5 billion people less on earth? I'm sure the 500 mil will appreciate less pollution, as well as the rest of earth's creatures and organisms.

OMG i come up with the 100M people idea myself some time ago. easiest way to solve most of world problems.

yea... hes right.. parts of the world is over populated, parts of the world is underpopulated.. it aint spread out through out the entire world.. th reason y we re so freaked out is b coz of the rate of growth, we re scared tht we d b overpopulated in the near future..

i am an apeman =) proud to be too in the next few years we will see more talk about overpopulation if you look in nature when a species gets too numerous what happens? yeah...thats gonna happen to us too.

That's not true. Bad regulation that shielded corporate lenders from the risks of making risky loans to people who were bad credit risks is one cause. The government creating too much money supply, leading to inflation is another. Inflation is a stealth tax on the poor. Then there is the fed creating low interest rates, which inflated the stock market by encouraging too much debt. Government over-spending and taxing too. Mostly, the recession is caused by the government and bad regulation.

The incentives can be provided by the market if people are required to financially support the kids they have instead of relying on government handouts that effectively subsidize reproduction. But I don't want the government shoving a "moral message" down my throat. That's why the separation of church and state is such a good idea. But spreading low-fertility memes through private, peaceful means is just fine with me. I'm not convinced the sky is falling. Malthus was wrong, too.

OK, I accept that I am crazy because I think genocide is a bad idea (not saying you approve of it, just saying that I disapprove it). Also, with current simulations (seen it on TEDtalks) the population may reach 13 billion tops, and the would could sustain that, after which, population would decline via reproductive control (like China) and education (like Europe). I don't like the idea if living so crowded. But genocide is the other option, either killing or castrating. Still the same thing.

Frinktastic

Epidemics..... predictive programing

Hehe I know it's not all wasteland. :) There's a lot of it though and with the current climatic changes, there will be more in the future. I agree with you on the micro-lending thing. We need to help the local population get better at supporting themselves.. Otherwise we can keep sending food down there forever without solving anything. As long as we keep doing what we're doing now, the problems will just keep getting worse. :/

"I didn't even watch it yet and I can tell that you misconstrue his points." LOL! I understand all too well. He thinks it's better not to exist than to have colds and pollution. And he thinks that nature has intrinsic value, that it's valuable "for its own sake," regardless of whether anyone values it or not.

China's doing the right thing. Despite the humanity tragedy that its causing, it is more desirable than the doomsday scenario of an overpopulated world.

Vasectomy is a more human option than castration don't you think? ;)

I don't like genocide either. Hehe I don't think anyone really does. :) When I see the starving children on tv, I feel bad like most other people but I can't help wondering.. What is the point? They live in a desert. They will starve again as soon as the aid runs out. We're supporting people in places where life really isn't supposed to be. We're supporting even greater overpopulation. We do it cause we want to help, but aren't we doing more harm really? :/

statements that are absolute are always wrong.(;

nine9s... I think he meant what he said... That only a 10th or less of the world population should exist. I'm pretty sure he is a little crazy. Or very crazy... a case of too much scifi novels...

WEF improve this message lol

welcome to the eugenics forum! post your misanthropic elitist comments right here!

Pft, world is far from over-populated.

I think it's better to be born than not to be born, but for the sake of the earth and it's non-human inhabitants I'd say it's better not to be born.

lol welcome to the world of ted speakers! 90% is just gas emiited from their backside.

agreed.. his jokes are so lame, he has to move on to hide the fact that he just told a joke so as not to lose face..

He was a food buddy of Jeffrey epstein 🤔🤔🤔

pretty horrible lecture lol,

That list of "benefits" of having a smaller population is totally bunk. If there are fewer people, that means fewer people to extract and transport the energy we need. As for having less pollution... What's the point, if 5.5 billion people have to no longer exist to make it happen? Basically, he's saying "get rid of humanity's problems by getting rid of 92% of humanity." As if we'd all be better off having never been born than to have to live with the risk of getting sick from a handshake.

Ouch... this is painful to watch. I think I'l stick to reading his work rather than having him explain it to me live.

People blindly idolizing this fool is the one of the reasons behind the AI winter of the 1970's. His criticism of artficial neural networks and genetic algorithms are accepted as gospel by idolotars. Just like the end of this talk, he sometimes criticises without complete substantiation which historically has had far more of an effect than his positive contributions. Scepticism is the luxury of those without real problems.

Because his intonation makes it hard to follow when he's talking or "quoting". Because his jokes aren't funny. Because his sentences are poorly constructed and tied together with "anyway"s and "whatever"s and "euh"s. Because all his solutions are non-sensical and his ideas not his own.