AI as a tool. Another brush, another instrument. Absolutely. AI does not create. It only re-creates. Humans create.

This is exactly what a secretly sentient AI would write…

@@yzmotoxer807 You caught me

Nice strawmanning, good luck proving you are any more sentient, without defining sentience as being just complex neural networks, as the video asks you to lmfao.

Multi layered probabilities and statistics. I really don’t get this talk about sentience or even what AGI is and I’ve been dabbling in this field since 2009. What am I missing?

@@shawnmclean7707 These AGI/Sentience/AI narratives are championed primarily by 2 groups of people, the mathematically/technologically ignorant and the duplicitous capitalists that want to sell them their products. OP’s comment couldn’t have described it better. It’s just math and statistics ( very basic College sophomore/junior level math I might add) that plays with data in ways to make it seem intelligent all the while mirroring our own intuition/experiences to us.

Thank you!

Very insightful. Thanks for sharing!

This video leaves out the part that tells anything that describes how AI WORKS

Neurons are more analog, which bring richer modulation

So it's a complex binary output?

@@SiddiqueSukdiki@GuidedBreathing my questions also. if electrical impulses and chemical neurotransmitters are involved in transmitting signals between neurons. aren't those the same thing as more complex binary outputs?

There's a few against improperly implemented AES, as well as one that one that works on systems where the attacker can get or extrapolate cartain information about the server it's attacking, but all encryptions lower than AES-256 are vulnerable to attacks by quantum computers. Good thing those can't be bought in your local computer store. Yet.

Or use a sidechannel ... an unpadded signal monitored over time + statistical analysis of the size of the information being transferred to detect patterns. Use an NN or just some good old fashioned probability grids to detect the likelihood of a letter/number/anything based on it's probability of recurrence in context to other data... also there is also the fact that if we know what the server usually sends we can just break the key that way. It's doable. But why hack AES? or keys at all? Just become a trusted CA for a few million and mitm everyone without any red flags @@DefaultFlame

@@DefaultFlame Quantum computing is more of a theoretical exploit, rather than a practical one. Nobody's actually built a quantum computer powerful enough to do much of anything with it besides some very basic operations on very small numbers. But, it is cause enough to move past AES. We shouldn't be relying on encryption with even theoretical exploits.

@@fakecubed Aight, thanks. 👍

@@fakecubed I couldn't find any evidence of even a small theoretic advance, and I wouldn't put all theory into one bucket, either.

whom are you referring to? people who are not ai engineers don’t need to know how ai work and people who are knows how ai works. if they don’t they are probably still learning, which is completely fine.

@@Phantom_Blox yes, of course people still learning. Its just a reminder not to forget the root of computing when we are seemingy focusing too much on the software layer, but in reality, software is nothing without hardware.

@@eafindme That is true, software is nothing without hardware. But some people just don’t need it. For example, you don’t have to know how to reverse engineer with assembly to be a good data analyst. They can spend thier time more efficiently by expanding their data analytics skills

@@Phantom_Blox no, they don't. They are good in doing what they are good with. Just have to have a sense of emergency, it is like we are over dependent on digital storage but did not realize how fragile it is with no backup or error correction.

@@eafindme I see, it is always good to understand what you’re dealing with

I am amazed how AI bros are so keen at understanding all the math and complex concepts behind AI, but fail to understand the most basic and simple arguments like this.

the thing is let's say you are artist, why would I only take your data to train my model?, i would take millions of artist's art and then train my models during which your art only makes up less than 0.001% of everything the model has seen, so what happens is that the model will inherit a combined art style of millions of artis which is effectively "new" because thats exactly what humans do.

I Dream of Jeannie … Season 2 Episode 3… My Master, the Rich Tycoon. 😂😂😂

Google LLM chatbots have been documented to spit out word-for-word plagiarism of specific websites (including repeating specific errors made by the original website) when asked about niche topics which have been written about by only one website... And the LLMs plagiarize without any links to or mention of the websites they plagiarized. And then Google search results down-rank the original website to hide the evidence of plagiarism.

It isn't a counterfeit if you're not claiming to be original. Taking inspiration from the work of others is not wrong.

I think this is a really good summary. as far as I can tell there are no hard technical blockers to satisfy the conditions listed in your second paragraph in the near future.

@@holleey It's all algorithmic at this point, we have the technology and resources, just not the right method of training. Now with the whole world aware of it, taking it seriously and basically putting infinite money into its funding, we'll expect AGI to occur along the exponential curvature we've seen thus far. By exponential, I mean between later this year and by 2026.

This can actually be done, and is currently the cutting edge of implementation. Multiple agents with different prompts/roles interacting with and evaluating each other's output, replying to, critiquing, or modifying it, all operating together as a single whole. Just as the human brain isn't one continuous, identical whole, but multiple structurally different parts interacting.

@@DefaultFlame While there's different parts to the brain, they're not separate like that of multiple agents. This wouldn't meet the definition of consciousness that I've outlined.

As there is only one consciousness from which the universe is and became.., Well, everything is this consciousness . Depending on the form the more or less things start happening. AI, has been given the form and things have started happening 😂

Basically an artificial brain

Exactly. Which is why I think the NYT lawsuit will likely fail

Technically yes, practically no, If your online presence is large enough it can pretty much emulate you in whole. I believe only open source decentralized models can save us, or YESHUAH

Except they aren't "static", they are ever changing, GPT3 repeatedly stated it was constantly learning new things accessing the Internet, also, it is designed to self improve, so it's necessarily an entity with a sense of "self. It also must have a degree of "understanding" to understand the adjustments required to improve, AND to know what a Dog looks like, to use the example in the video. There necessarily must exist a state of "sentience", or the AI equivalent for the "Deep Learning" type of AI to operate the way they do. Which is why he believes it is so.

This is even easier: AI is a guessing machine that uses databases of patterns. It makes guesses, learns what wrong guesses are and keeps trying. It isn't aware. It isn't doing anything more than a series of mathematical functions. And to be fair, it isn't even a machine it is math and it is software.

then would you say that everything that can react to stimuli - which includes single-celled organisms - is sentient to some degree?

@@holleey I would definitely say single-celled organisms are sentient to some degree. They also exhibit a discernible degree of intelligence in their "responses," as they exhibit more than a mere mechanical reaction to the presence of food or danger.

You can prove sentience easily with a query: Can you think about what you've thought about? If the answer is "Yes" the condition of sentient expression is "True". Current language models cannot process their own data persistently, so they cannot be sentient.

@@emmanuelgoldstein3682 I know it's arguing definitions, but I disagree that thinking is a prerequisite to sentience. without a question, all animals with a central nervous system are considered sentient, yet if and which animals have a capacity to think is unclear. sentience is more like the ability to experience sensations; to feel. the "Can you think about what you've thought about?" is an interesting test for LLMs. technically, I don't see why LLMs or AI neural nets in general cannot or won't be able reflect to persistent prior state. it's probably just a matter of their architecture. if it's a matter of limited context capacity, then well, that is just as applicable to us humans. we also have no memory of what we ate at 2 PM on a Wednesday one month ago, or what we did when we were three years old.

@@holleey I've spent 30 hours a day for the last 6 months trying to design an architecture (borrowing elements of transformer/attention and recursion) that best reflects this philosophy. I apologize if my statement seemed overly declarative. I don't agree that all animals are sentient - conscious, yes, but as far as we know, only humans display sentience (awareness of one's self).

@@emmanuelgoldstein3682 hm, these definitions are really all over the place. in another thread under this video I was talking to someone to whom sentience is the lower level (they said even a germ was sentient) and consciousness the higher level, so the other way around from how you use the terms. one fact though: self-awareness has definitely been confirmed in a variety of non-human animals.

We can all agree the fluid definitions of these phenomena are a plague on the sciences. @@holleey

Sure! Comical irony...but I would bet that this is one of many dynamic ways human innovation is borne from: a nagging misunderstanding. Besides, pretty impressive for "misunderstanding". No?

Its NOT a misunderstanding. Its built ON. They used what they can and engineered BEYOND. Human can remember a face perfectly, but the Nets cannot except with high training. However, a computer can store 1 million faces easily AND recall perfectly, but humans cannot. This is why when you eat a chicken drumstick, you do not have to eat the bones. You take what you need and discard the rest...your body is nourished. Outcome accomplished.

@@djpete2009 You conflate the brain with the mind. You think with your mind but may or may not act through your brain. The brain is best understood as a modem between the mind on the one hand, and the body and the world on the other.

Always be skeptical of any "leaks" out of any government agency. These are the same disinformation-spreaders who claim we have anti-gravity UFOs from crashed alien spacecraft, to cover up Cold War nuclear tests and experimental stealth aircraft. The question isn't if there's some government super AI cracking AES, the question is why does the government want people to think they can crack AES? Do they want foreign adversaries and domestic enemies to rely on other encryption schemes that the government *does* have algorithmic exploits to? Do they want everyone to invest in buying new hardware and software? Do they want to make the general public falsely feel safer about potential threats against the homeland? Do they want to trick everybody not working for them to think encryption is pointless and go back to unencrypted communication because they falsely believe everything gets cracked anyway? There's all sorts of possibilities, but taking the leak as gospel is incredibly foolish unless there is a mountain of evidence from unbiased third parties.

My pleasure!

Right on the money !!!

AI will just mimic sentience. Plastic and metal curcuitboards do not host real consciousness

Exactly why we need to do more research with DMT

All living forms have two things in common that are driven by one primordial fear. All need to evolve and procreate, and that is driven by the fear of death only, so when an ai starts to no only evolve but also create copy of himself than is clear what makes him do that and is the moment we have to panic.

There is exactly zero evidence that human consciousness even exists inside the brain. All the world's top thinkers, philosophers, theologians, throughout the millennia of history, delving into their own conscious minds and logically analyzing the best wisdom of their eras, have said it exists as a metaphysical thing, essentially outside of our observable universe, and my own deep thinking on the matter concurs. Really, the question here is: does God give souls to the robots we create? It's an unknowable thing, unless God decides to tell us. If God did, there would be those who accept this new revelation and those who don't, and new religions to battle it out for the hearts and minds of men. Those who are trying to say that the product of human labor to melt rocks and make them do new things is causing new souls to spring into existence should be treated as cult leaders and heretics, not scientists and engineers. Perhaps, in time, their new cults will become major religions. Personally, I hope not. I'm quite content believing there is something unique about humanity, and I've never seen anything in this physical universe that suggests we are not.

I am spanish but watching more and more videos in english talking about AI and Artificial Intelligencez suddenly I have become more aware of your language, I was being trained so now I can recognize new patterns from the noise, now I don't need the subtitles to understand what people say, I am reaching a new level of awareness haha😂, what was just noise in the past suddenly now have got meaning in my mind, I am more concious as new patterns emerge from the noise. As a result, now I can solve new problems (Intelligence), and sintience is already implied in all the whole experience since the input signals enter through our sensors.

by that logic turning on a lightbulb is a conscious experience for the lightbulb. you need more for consciousness to arise than flicking mechanical switches

​@@glamdragNo. The flaw in that analogy is simple, singular, a single light bulb, vs a complex system of billions of light bulbs capable of changing their brightness in response to stimuli, and they are interconnected in a way that emulates how advanced Vertebrate Brains (Human) function. When Humans learn new things, the Brain alters itself thus empowering the organism to now "Know" this new information.

Thanks! I appreciate it

Then one role of the neurotransmitter having to become of a certain concentration before firing, is to limit the amout of info that gets passed on to avoid overloading the brain or why would it be so?

It's more like if you read hundreds of articles and learned the patterns of them, the articles you'd write using those learned patterns would not be infringing copyright

That escalated fast. No. That is plagiarism. But I doubt you have a photographic memory to get a large article down word for word, so in essence that would be summation. What AI does is it is a guessing machine. That's all. It makes guesses, and then makes better guesses based on previous guesses until it gets somewhere. AI doesn't care about the result. AI wouldn't even know it was an article or even know that human beings even exist if all it was designed to do was crunch out guesses about articles. AI doesn't understand...anything. It is a mirror that mirrors our ability to guess.

Couldn't creativity as a property be added too by just forcing the neural network to randomly (or not) add or remove elements to something created from patterns it learned from?

@@bogdanroscaneanu7112 No. There is no enlightenment in randomness.

Thank you! Glad you liked it

You're very welcome!

3blue1brown

Thanks. I appreciate it!

AI is a guessing machine that remembers its bad guesses and adjusts. That's all it does. And thank you for your post because it helped me fill out my RWNJ bullshit bingo card.

Lambda individual, lol. That's an L-oser. It took me a while. But seriously, I think AI is great. It isn't a complex issue at all. This is a guessing machine and if it can put people out of work, then good. Those people are probably not contributing much more than a roundabout way of bootlicking to begin with and this will liberate them. If you use real intelligence and examine some of the comments in this section you will see that the people most triggered by the AI (nothing more than a good guessing machine) are the ones who have built their entire minds, worldview, and existence around...a superstitious guess.

I think like computers it is just another tool to be used or misused. People need to quit losing their minds about it. I agree with you mostly. Some of the other comments make me cringe but yours is okay. People need to adapt to a changing world and their hysteria is hurting them far worse than any changes are.

To your first point, I think we should refer to this as "persistence of thought." Your prompt filters through the neural net of the LLM. It produces output. Then does nothing until you reply. In fact, each reply contains the entire conversation history that has to be run back through the neural net every time. It does not actually remember. Therefore no persistence of thought. No consciousness.

And be ebale to recognise its own interests, and be able to act upon those interests.

almost infinit memory storage...

@@captaingabi quite the opposite, there are two systems involved to locate prime numbers. this is like consciousness. One part (we call thinking) are all the neural patterns (our thoughts, words, etc.) triggered by our sensory signals, both internal and external; and the other part we call our consciousness which "reads" these neural patterns' vibrations.

This is quite much the same way I am thinking. Especially a continuous experience is a requirement for consciousness.

Spot on. LLMs are just a trick. They are not magic, and they are not self aware. They simulate awareness. It's not the same.

We are atcually working on that. Not the lightspeed communication, which is a silly requirement, human brains function at a much lower communication speed between parts, but different agents with different roles, some or all of which evaluate the output of other agents, provide feedback to the originating agent or modifies the output, and sends it on, and on and on it goes, continually assessing input and providing output as a single functional unit. Very much like a single brain with specialized interconnected parts. That's actually the current cutting edge implementation. Multiple GPT-3.5 agents actually outperform GPT-4 when used in this manner. I'd link you a relevant video, but links are not allowed in youtube comments and replies. As for the continuous state, we can do that, have been able to do that for a while, but it's not useful for us so we don't and instead activate them when we need them.

​@@DefaultFlame The phrase 'at the speed of light' was figurative. However, what I intend to convey is something more organic. The discussion about agents you've brought up is basic to me. I'm aware of their existence and how they function - I've seen numerous examples. However, that's not the answer. But ask yourself, in a room full of agents discussing something-take a war room in a military headquarters, for instance. The strategies debated by the agents in that room serve as a 'guide' to victory. Yet, it doesn't form a conscious brain. Having multiple agents doesn't create consciousness. It creates a strategic map to be executed by other agents on the battlefield. A conscious mind resembles 'ghosts in the machine' more closely. Things get jumbled. There's no total separation. Thoughts occur by the thousands, occasionally colliding. The mind is like a bonfire, and ideas are like crackling twigs. Ping-ponging between agents won't yield consciousness. However, if one follows the ideas of psychology and psychoanalysis, attempting to represent centuries-old discoveries about mind behavior, simulation is possible. But I highly doubt it would result in a conscious mind. Nevertheless, ChatGPT, even with its blend of specialized agents, represents a chain reaction that begins with a command. The human mind doesn't start with a command. Cells accumulate, and suddenly you're crying, and someone comes to feed you. Then you start exploring the world. You learn to walk. Deep learning can do this, but it's not the same. Perhaps one day. But the fact of being active all the time is what gives the characteristic of being alive and conscious. When we blackout from trauma, we are not conscious in a physiological sense. Therefore, there must be a state. The blend of continuous memory, the state of being on 24 hours a day (even when in rest or sleep mode), and so on, characterizes consciousness. Memory state put you grounded on experience of existence. Additionally, the concept of individuality is crucial. Without this, it's impossible to say something is truly conscious. It merely possesses recorded knowledge. Even a book does. What changes is the way you access the information. Cheers.

it was leaked on 4chan in november docs.google.com/document/d/1RyVP2i9wlQkpotvMXWJES7ATKXjUTIwW2ASVxApDAsA/edit

"if" there is a pattern the gradient descent will fit the NN parameters to that pattern. The question is: does the encrypted - decrypted text pairs form a pattern? I think there is no scientific answer to that yet. In other words: no-one knows.

@@captaingabi you are right! There is good encryption and broken encryption. Apparently now that algorithm is broken.

exactly!

@@ai-tools-search I disagree, In terms of visual arts, artists learning and inspiring from each other is the process of adding their own personal uniqueness on top of the achievements of the others while AI does not add any uniqueness, it's more like counterfeiting art that claim to be unseen works of a known artist.

NOT! exactly. Artist's posted their work on some platform in "good faith" underatanding that it's primary purpose was to be viewed by others with no monetary gain to the viewer. While corporations have scraped those images with the intention of profiting from them. Imagine if a social media company used all of your photos and data to generate a virtual world based on your life, and in the process impacted you directly or indirectly in monetary or intangible ways, such as affecting your job, credit or reputation. This is the plight of all digital creators.

They also have multiple input / output channels each having their says on the outcome. Each neurons are effectively an analog computers. And let's not forget that they are quantum mechanical systems, entangled with 'other things' that perhaps could also have their says. A classical machine running an AI capable of fooling us, might be missing the quantum mechanical interface to truly be sentient, but a quantum mechanical computer might be able to tap into the elusive conscious field on the other side of the quantum interface.

Also, neurons can “process” data in each cell. Amoebas have sex eat and avoid danger with only one cell. The problem with physicist and data scientist is that they hugely underestimate the complexity of biology. The good news is that the machine learning models with today’s technology will always be inferior to the most basic brain.

And yet an actional potential is all-or-nothing.

I wonder what's the biggest one that exists right now, and/or what's the biggest one that's technically feasible. Google already had 1.6T 2021.

@@holleey If there's anything I've learned from futzing about with AI for a couple of years it's that while parameter count is important it isn't everything.

@@DefaultFlame it's just that it's wondrous to see what other unexpected properties might emerge as we scale up.

My pleasure, and thanks for sharing your experience!

Of course the brain is more. People need to quit losing their minds because a simple guessing machine is better than they are with their superstitious and silly guesses about reality.

You're welcome!