It's crazy how well she does that, without promoting herself as an ASMR channel

Her voice, pacing it’s full ASMR material. But the topic she does is simply amazing. I always learn something.

What if she is a computer, she remained the same for 20min. ?

I wonder if instead the unit he was implicitly referring to was bits, still the fact that he more or less nailed the order of magniture is incredible.

@@luca5247 I don't think bytes was really a thing back in Turing's time, since this is more or less an artifact of memory organisation and addressing of instructions on the first integrated digital processors. So probably he meant tape positions, as in punch tape computer designs. Or at least that would have been the most immediate thing in his mind since also his theoretical descriptions of computers (Turing Machines) were utilising tape as a storage medium and they were storing symbols in each tape position. Could be considered equivalent to bits I think.

@@InTimeTraveller that was my thought exactly. It is such an amazing feat to be so forward looking and precise in the estimate considering how wildly different the underlying tech was at the time.

At 16:51 he talks about 10^10 to 10^15 binary digits, so he's thinking in terms of bits. 10^10 bits is about a gigabyte.

how is he omitting the unit like that in a paper 😂

Welcome to the '50s and 60's! We tend to think about the numerous government programs looking into ESP phenomena as silly, if not outright wasteful, but people believed based on the evidence of the time that there was something to be found. That evidence turned out to be shit and the whole thing has been categorically disproven but that wasn't the case at the time as rigorous experiments had yet to be conducted. It wasn't the first time nor the last that something considered ridiculous today was subjected to serious scientific consideration by otherwise well respected thinkers. I personally think that it is good that we do consider such things and also to test them because avoiding subjects simply to avoid future embarrassment is also not new and has set us back numerous times as well.

Maybe he knew something we don't.

Telepathy is real, but it varies by the super physical faculties of either party. Some people are receptive of the thoughts of others, either clearly or as an intuitive impression, but can't communicate their thoughts to the other, while others can do both. I have a spiritual teacher named Adi Da who made a comment to me the first time I stood in front of him, only he made no sound and I heard the comment in my head. He also frequently answered people's questions before they could ask them. So he could both hear their thoughts and impose a communication to their brain to be heard silently by them.

You implying that it isn't? But seriously, it is entirely fair to consider telepathy as a real thing when statistical evidence points to that. There are multiple studies showing that some form of extra-sensory perception or actuation exists. I shan't provide citations, just keep your mind open. Hehe.

​@@MrFilip121There were studies published by Rhine and co. But later reviews of these studies indicated that cheating was possible. No one has been able to replicate the results Rhine and co. produced since then.

Just understand in real life the team was huge, not a one man show like the film.

I think you missed the point of the movie. It was not made for computer scientist, it does explore it, but the purpose of the film is to tell Turing’s story of how he was murdered by the UK government who used chemical treatments to rob science of one of its most brilliant mind. Please consider watching again from the prospective of the director, writers and LGQBT+ peoples.

@@smarts_arts yes 🙌🏻 you are right besides I’ve said this from the prospective of Education or his works and visionary ideas 💡

@@smarts_arts i know who he was, just saying he did not do the job on his own.

@ Curious as to why you feel that is necessity to point out because I do not see that in the film. In fact that was a major theme, how the scientists learned to cooperate and appreciate each others genius. Maybe have another watch of the film. It won best picture that year because of its depth and complexity of story.

On that note, I think I wont be inclined to belive a machine to be conscious until it actually starts asking those questions by it's own initiative.

In philosophy of mind, these machines are called "Zombies", and it's not clear whether they are conceivable. We don't know whether you can have a machine process information the way we do, without it automatically having consciousness.

That's an interesting distinction and very important. We could probably get away with saying "let's see what Siri thinks" without being contradicted my the average person today and I know someone (a professor of philosophy, no less) who commonly says "I asked (x) AI about this and it said, . . . " That would definitely be getting into the ballpark of "speaking in terms of them thinking without being contradicted", even if we don't understand those machines to be "thinking" in the narrow sense.

His words say "does that machine think ?" is for practical purpose a useless question. The same way that "do my fellow humans think?" is : for sake of sanity we accept that our fellow humans think in the same way that we think we do, even though we have no way to know that.

​@@kalisticmodiani2613Yes, sentience is one of those things like gods, probably impossible to ever prove or disprove.

Good point. It seems to boil down to a question of form versus matter. A human-like robot might be able to fool us that it is human because it imitates the FORM of humanity. But in terms of its MATTER, it's really made up of circuits, not much more removed from what's found in a toaster. If we are prepared to say a robot can think, we should have no hesitation in saying a toaster can think.

Also Data’s Trial from STNG. Where Picard must argue Data is alive while Riker is forced to argue he’s a machine and property of Star Fleet.

The episodes about AI are all some of my favorites!!

Of course, a robot can be programmed to sacrifice itself if it leads to group survival.

@@smarts_arts Data was never proven to be other than a glorified toaster. However, I think the real message of the episode is not what Data really is, but how HUMANS behave. How do WE treat our creations? It's analogous to the question of how we treat animals?

Your brain proves that machines can think. If it is indeed the origin of human thought.

@@BarnaclebeardThat your brain is a “machine” performing “calculations” is entirely metaphorical outside of very delimited contexts. Previous to the digital age the metaphor was steam engines and pressures (e.g., see how Freud expressed himself). Future ages will look back on ours and see how faddish we were in using metaphors.

Exactly, humans are machines.

It's interesting that starting with the philosopher Fichte, it's believed that we must accept the existence of the Other or we cannot accept the existence of ourselves. I would call this Golden Rule epistemology. I'm not sure, however, whether Descartes would have accepted it.

I've met "other humans". I'm actually pretty convinced they don't think. Have you seen people? They're the worst.

@@brianb8003 Undoubtedly, Sartre would second that opinion.

This is the exactly the reason why I think we should never try to make robots that fully imitate humans. I don't want to see someone/something that looks exactly human and then have to question if it deserves moral consideration. On one hand, I don't want to treat something that might be an overly fancy calculator like a human, and on the other I don't want to treat something that might be a fully sentient being like an object.

I'm pretty sure that the goal posts would just be shifted again.

@@gasdive While I agree, at that point you can just throw the goal posts away and just say "then humans don't think either." Because there's no argument possible that can't be made for humans after that.

@@eXponentia seeing what's happening at the moment, there's basically a religious argument but they replace "soul" with "consciousness". Humans have it, machines don't. When machines get it then they'll be thinking, but there's no test that can detect it. It's like the infinitely portable goal post.

"Ahh but it must have copied how we created it", "surely it just looked in the mirror and distorted itself, then followed that design", "billions of years of unthinking evolution made us, and that thing uses randomness too. Doesn't take thought." "Ok it thinks, but does it experience anything?" "Ok it simulates itself and processes stimuli, but does it experience qualia?" If we do acknowledge that ai thinks, we'll still probably descriminate, bolstering ourselves as more important like people do about dolphins or ravens or octopus. However, the biological creatures we can still say "ahh but they lack technology and civilization!" An alien could meet us, their tech could be organic and we'd discount it. Maybe we'd only consider another organisms intelligent when they far surpass our own technology. But this is all a problem of species chauvinism. Machines who are verified conscious or thinking or feeling would still be descriminated, because people want to have machines for machine purposes, labor, tools. People who think of animals those sorts of ways are similarly stubborn and lacking in empathy

@@orbismworldbuilding8428 that pretty much hits the nail on the head

He consulted with a psychic for most of his life. A psychic told him that he would be a genius before he did anything noteworthy.

I might have missed it, but I don't think she talked about Turing completeness. That's about the sort of computational power a machine has.

​@@balijosuI need to research this more. Idk 🤷‍♂️

Turing Complet meas that the language can compute evrything that a Turing machine can compute. Wich is a roundabout way of saying, a language can compute anything wich is computabel (Church-Turing thesis).

I know some people really like it, but it drives a lot of us up the wall, and I really wish that people presenting important topics wouldn't use such a cheap tactic to get clicks.

​@@ericpmossI'm pretty sure that's just her style lol. It's not about clicks.

At that point it's essentially Blade Runner.

When people fail, they say "im only human" And the problem is forgotten When machines fail, we say "that's not like a human", and make it a problem. When a machine doesn't fail, we make that a problem too and up the ante. At the end, what kind of machine is most human like, and is that the one you really want?

She should have a 2nd channel where she does asmr with her voice

Chat gpt does pass the 70% threshold.

One question is enough to reveal ChatGPT in its current form as non-human. Trivially, e.g. the set of questions that immediately reveal its super-human speed in maths. More generally, I wonder if a chatroom setting can be designed, where a group of human experts knowing one another are able to consistently reach 100% accuracy in labelling the other chat participants as machine or human (resp. centaur, if that possibility should be included). Perhaps a very basic chat with a private sub-groups function is already sufficient context, to let the expert group's intuition and strategy find all present chatbots quickly and consistently. Intuitively I'd say that given enough time, even with only text chat, a group of humans shouldn't have serious difficulties to detect the absence of will, qualia, social and individual experience in an agent. Will that ever change? Note that having machines trying to fool us sounds exactly like the dangerous thing to avoid, rather than merely detect a posteriori.