joe -- are you enthralled , sounds like it .he is smart , no doubt but he and his ideas about deciding who to send through and who to hold back reeks .

Nice one! :D

@@michagardea7253 inexorably indubitably ergo yes

😂😂😂 Took me a moment. That's a good one.

Because mechanical tentacles. Everyone likes mechanical tentacles.

@@crimsonhalo13 giggidy

I totally agree with you, I was looking for a subject to fall asleep to and I was in two minds wether this subject would be too hard to follow whilst in a semi sleep state but wow he made it soo easy to follow (and no I didn’t fall asleep BUT I’m so glad cos of what I’ve learned) 😂

@JP interesting reasoning

Brag

@@SinanAkkoyun well a brag would be me telling everyone that I am working with him...which I am, I was just honestly telling what I personally feel about him.

@@billkemp9315 Wow, that's awesome! o.o I take it back, lol. May I ask how exactly you work with him?

@Sparkle Plenty ?

Completely agree

Robert's diagrams were far more pleasing to the eye. He was the artistic one in the Feynman family

@@RedBatRacing lol. Indeed, but at first no one took him serious. They did not understand the true meaning behind his art.

Just an observation about Feynman diagrams ... I once searched for a Feynman diagram on Google that was both simple to understand and busy enough to be fun for a casual reader of a report I wrote. It's stunning how many diagrams are out there with the space/time scale backwards. Forget social media, that's one of the most disappointing things I've seen on the Internet.

@@Hiker58 Flipping the axes has no effect on the physics the diagram is describing; time is symmetric in physics. If you take a diagram of a particle / antiparticle pair annihilating on contact and producing energetic photons, the time-reversal of that diagram describes an energetic photon spontaneously producing a particle / antiparticle pair. It's the same process but in reverse. You can do this with all the Feynman diagrams.

@@oscill8ocelot I believe you but according to some KZfaq videos I have watched the Universe doesn't seem to be symmetric in either time, space, ... the third thing.

(4) If the extreme message is legitimately bad, censorship will boost its credibility and perceived relevance.

(5) sometimes the extremists have valid points, and further if those points are ignored/suppressed long enough and unaddressed then those points will become a rallying cry in a revolution. (6) revolutions tend to be violent.

(7) all above points are invalid because they are extrapolations from a wrong premise

@@quelorepario (8) the above point is a point about itself.

@@quelorepario Mind explaining what the wrong premise is? 1 is practically tautological. "X is extreme" is an opinion. Since you disagree (with all points), please show how you *measure* the extremeness of a message, rather than opine on it, and how your threshold for "extreme" is not a matter of opinion. 2 is a given since without anything 'extreme', the band of what is not extreme will shrink until there is. Since you disagree (with all points), please explain how the phenomenon of "purity spiral" occurs, without relying on the same premises that you call false. 3 is an observation that has historically been consistently true. 5 is an observation of history. I would add it being dependent on the point being relevant for enough people. At which point they would be unlikely to censor it in the first place. 6, given that we're talking about politics, has "exceptions that confirm the rule". Which is why it says "tends to be". Since you state you disagree with all of the points, please give plausible alternate explanations for each, or if that's your angle, why these observations are not relevant. 4 is an observation with the same premises as the Streisand effect, which is well documented at this point. So your argument, that all points come from a bad premise, necessarily needs to disprove the Streisand effect. By appearances, you're just rejecting it, without much thought, as a response to cognitive dissonance, which would mean your world view doesn't go well with reality. If, rather than engage with the above questions, you'd rather modify your statement to be more precise, I'll accept that as well. However, after you said anything in the first place, stopping here only vindicates your opponents.

Let's remember and he would tell you, he didn't do all that work alone. Many people worked on it.

The internet is an extension of the world wide web. The work of sir tim berners. Leigh. Look it up.

Jim Wyatt LOL no. The World Wide Web is an application that runs on top of the internet. TCP/IP is the foundation. Look it up. LOL.

Ummmmm Al Gore invented the internet. 🤪😜🤣

@@andrewstoll4548 does anyone know what Al Gore did do ? If I understand it correctly he was on the most active member of the committee that opened up the Internet from government only project to allowing the commercial Internet to develop.

Didn't you mean the 'architect'? (By the way, thanks for relating this topic to the novelist William Gibson. The 'inspirator' for manny people who are in to this kind of science).

@@pietervandermeulen9718 ah yes i did

Well, he is the father of the internet, so...

I came here just to say that and I'm relieved someone else did. Even his voice a little??

The architect was modelled directly after him. Funny that he'd be talking about this kind of thing.

Yeah but I think he's confused about what sports are all about

@@shainemaine1268 if you can specify to the appropriate time frame of the video would be helpful?

Resembles Darwin

is amazing this man, is hard hearing and is an father's of internet inventing protocol tcp/ip is the internet of now. Believe that he is working with Google like vice for evangelice the internet now via interplanetary protocol, the problem send and receive data is lost data and encriptacion is a big challenge :) using quantic computation :). How i know about it?, im too a person hard hearing..

"10% is directly related to the title" I'd say 10% was exploring the question in the title, 90% was examining the evidence for why it was answered as it was.

@@Blackmark52 He never related any of it back to human intelligence vs. computer intelligence as far as I could tell... Rather I think Cerf was giving a general talk, part of which included a bit specifically on human intelligence vs. A.I. This video could have been given many titles as there were quite a few subjects talked about, the uploader has chosen the one they hope to get the most views with.

@@JP-jg4ne "chosen the one they hope to get the most views with" That may be true. But most of the talk was on the inherent limits of computer systems premised on their difference to human thought. And the end introduced foibles of human brains because of their inherent dislike of uncertainty. Something that you would never want to program into a computer. Everything did relate to the idea of computers and human brains being fundamentally different.

@@Blackmark52 He did say he's not an expert on the brain so guess that's why the talk was focused more on the A.I side. I didn't really think the 'will computers ever think like human beings?' question was considered as the title would suggest, which I thought was funny as he actually talked about social media, likes and attention in the video.

@@JP-jg4ne " question (wasn't) considered as the title would suggest," That may depend upon how you think of the question. I think of a conscious brain as fundamentally different from any binary system no matter how complex. Cerf explains what he can about the fundamental unit in the brain and notes that we don't know entirely how neurons work and know less regarding the implications to human perception and thought. He then explains how computers learn differently from human brains. And finishes with human-computer interaction.

That's just proof the internet isn't as old as we feel it is. It's barely in its 30s

the decepticons gave us internet.

@@KuraSourTakanHour My thoughts too. It's so young but has so radically changed the way we operate.

So it ISNT Al Gore? lol

@@KuraSourTakanHour 30s ? I think you are confusing the WWW (World Wide Web) with the Internet. The WWW is just one application on top of 'a system to transport information' between computers. Email would be an other application (al though email is actually older than the Internet) that uses the underlying infrastructure that we all Internet. The Internet came from what used to be ARPANET which was first started in late 1960s or early 1970s. The first implementation of what we today would recognize and call Internet was in 1975. Email is from 1971 it was used to send messages of people working on the same computer (people had terminals connected to the same computer, thus sharing computers). The @-sign pronounced 'at' was later added to be able to send email to people on other systems. That was possible because computers were connected to the Internet thus able to exchange information. Anyway, Vint Cerf worked on the Internet, not WWW.

indeed so; in this difficult times, its excellent absorption qualities make it a practicable substitute, although it does make it delicately tricky to explain to the missus where that big red crimson mark on your bum came from and why you chose to not use Page Three instead

@William White. How about any newspaper that that tells the truth . One that doesn't accuse Liverpool football fans of stealing wallets at Hillsborough. Or a newspaper that didn't have a pro independence stance in it's Scottish edition and a pro Unionist stance in it's English edition, just to get more readers .How about the Sun's headline 1 in 5 muslims support Jihadists (23rs November 2015),total lies.

@William White there is a wide selection of entertaining fiction available, some even better than The Sun, by such obscure English authors as J Austen, C Dickens, & W Shakespeare.

@@martink6092 well played sir.

@@martink6092 Well played

I agree.

l

Somehow being a computer expert makes him competent to discern the validity of literally any source of information on the internet. He can tell the 'quality level' of a newspaper, no doubt by how well it confirms his preconceived notions. What a disappointment.

Will you have a good comment about thinking critically but not deep enough. Information quality is an ethical issue based on values. How are these values created? Well they are based on a system or network. Just like the shared connection of neurons and the assumed protocol of the internet, there is an assumption that Google's information quality algorithm has a correct answer. Regardless of what the answer, is you don't get one without the assumption, hypothesis, input. I'm not saying this is good or bad/correct or incorrect that Google does this. Doing so would be taking my value system and comparing that to Google's which is the whole point of this lecture. AI doesn't have a one size fit all.

Google's own behavior proves the point, "algorithmic fairness" produces things like an image search for a "american inventors" coming up with a page full of African Americans. This isn't elevation, its deliberate ideological bias. They have proven themselves not credible in matters of objectivity. Mentioning snopes was the cherry on top, sites like that just cherry pick in one direction nitpicks as a method of propaganda. Hoaxes like clockboy are conveniently not "fact checked" as they don't benefit their narrative, a few copied newspaper articles so they can pretend they handled the subject is all they will bother with, and its like this consistently. I mean seriously, feminism alone doesn't survive a "fact check", and places like google will bend every rule to ignore the data points on that one.

Good point. Ironically, a large portion of the talk was about the pitfalls of human bias, yet Google is somehow immune to it. It doesn't add up.

I also noticed that it's interesting that he did mention TCP... but didn't mention that maybe his most known merit is that he wrote the first implementation of it. I'm not really certain if he would have been essential it getting done, but sure he implicitly downplayed his part quite massively...

@morthim : Hmm. Are you the jackass that "invented" reaction-shots?

While I agree with what you're saying about reinforcement and reward mechanisms, I definitely don't agree that "trolling" broadly applies to anybody who's getting a "reward for their behavior". Teachers are most definitely not "trolling" by teaching, nor are people getting paid by an advertiser to say something (perhaps such as an athlete endorsing a product) trolling. Teachers ARE getting paid to say things, yes, but they aren't looking for reactions as their form of payment. For the teacher, deep down they don't really care if a student passes or fails, as long as they've done their job they get their monetary reward. The athlete endorsing a product doesn't really care if people actually buy and use that product, they are getting their monetary reward regardless. For a troll, the reaction itself IS the reward. It's just very strange to hear somebody essentially saying teachers are trolls.... And not only that but using the term "troll" so broadly that it encompasses nearly all of humanity and that anybody getting any type of reward for any type of behavior is a troll. It's not a correct use of the term whatsoever.

@@wtfbbq I'd add that literally every living being is a troll if we adopt that definition

That's not what I learned when I played with myself for a few days. I learned how important lubrication is.

See, that's actually been encountered a bunch of times. Someone used NEAT (NeuroEvolution of Augmenting Toplogies, a form of neural network) to play Tetris, and the moment before it ran out of room and would have lost, it paused the game and refused to play any further. The only winning move... was not to play.

@@noellelavenza494 that's pretty cool

The answer is: not any time soon. The computer systems don't have nearly enough complexity yet. Maybe some advances could change that but greatly accelerating the development, but predicting the future is hard.

i think that's unfair - he presents the facts and lets you draw your own conclusions. But if you are in desperate need of a binary answer, the answer is "Yes" - in fact, some of them already do (a bit) and some of them - the most famous ones right now, don't.

But maybe there's a third option ... both will think like something else.

Yep! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fd2RZpul39WWfpc.html

Odd - it doesn't show in your list of uploaded videos... (Could explain why it has so few views, too...)

@@ZeHoSmusician It's kinda normal lately, in the past they had Q&A videos in the main feed but now it's always linked to at the end of a talk and in the description. Usually up same day or a bit later in my experience. I guess it's a deliberate choice to keep the feed less cluttered? But for full lectures they are consistently there.

And leave out all the bugs nature made.

@@tabularasa0606 true

interesting, gets the noggin joggin

With a hint of George carlin.