Nirvanic CEO responds to Sabine Hossenfelder | Suzanne Gildert
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- 1/5 - Our CEO Dr. Suzanne Gildert has made this video in response to Sabine Hossenfelder’s recent UA-cam episode about Nirvanic. While we welcome open discussion on AI and consciousness, we wish Sabine had contacted us before publishing. We would have loved to have a conversation with her.
2/5 - We hopefully addressed some of Sabine's comments and gave her audience a little more information about what we are doing. 😀
3/5 - We believe the field of consciousness science and conscious AI needs scrutiny, different opinions and open discussion. We welcome this. Consciousness conversations are both incredibly nuanced and extremely profound.
4/5 - We’ll be inviting Sabine to a two-way podcast discussion with Dr. Gildert in the future. For now, we’re focused on advancing our quantum-conscious AI research. We invite people to follow Nirvanic’s social media and Substack to stay informed.
5/5 - We respect Sabine for her contribution to science communication. In the spirit of fair discussion, we invite Sabine to share this full response video on her channel, so her audience gets the full picture.
www.nirvanic.ai
nirvanicai.sub...
x.com/NirvanicAI
/ nirvanic-ai
We've created a new FAQ page on our Nirvanic website. Have a peek. www.nirvanic.ai/faqs
You seem to have misunderstood, that while the individual atoms in a human's consciousness may be quantum, that those quantum effects of the substrate are secondary to the mathematical operation that the substrate is being used to model, such that a analog neural network that the human mind operates with cannot be modeled discretely, not even with the aid of a quantum computer to quickly discretize the part of the problem that can be diffused in a parallel but still discrete computation, because the analog neurons that encode the features will have an infinite precision in relation to a discrete neural network, and thus potentially more "hyper space" to potentially encode those features.
Our conjecture is that there may be a quantum basis for conscious agency. Our tests, using a quantum computer connected to a robot, will advance the understanding of this.
How can AI be proved as conscious when it is theoretically impossible to prove that even other people are conscious.
Are you not conscious?
We all believe we are conscious, and neuroscience has standards for judging the consciousness of people, for use in anaesthetics and determining the loss of life. Even there, though, it is not easily defined. Christopher Koch, a leading consciousness researcher, is developing new protocols, for testing consciousness. With respect to AI, we are not making scientific claims at the moment. But it does not follow, that a quantum conscious agent cannot be created because its theorised inner experience cannot be accessed directly by us. We are developing our experimental testing now for examining if improved decision making and learning can be discovered in embodied AI, versus this activity in classical computers running a comparable control algorithm. We believe this will introduce new understandings important to the science of consciousness, writ large. But stay with us. It is in early days, and we are getting lots of great questions, like yours, about this. We'll have more to say in the coming days, and a new FAQ. We believe our work should be done in the open. Thanks for the great comment! 😀
@@Paulus_Brent Yes, but you can't prove it as any "proof" for you must consist of your own consciousness.
@@NirvanicAI "We all believe we are conscious" is question-begging. Any standard for judging consciousness in others is going to be inferential at best. That's a condition that consciousness imposes not itself.
@@charlesvandenburgh5295 agreed. Go to any science of consciousness conference you want, as we have. No one has an agreed upon definition. I think the sentiment there was not to deflect your good point, but to level with you - not even experts in the field of neuroscience, anaesthesiology, any my area of AI-robotics, will agree on technical definition of consciousness. There are still open green fields of scientific knowledge to explore, and we get that. Yet you know you are conscious, I bet. You can't prove it to me. And I can't prove my consciousness to you. I appreciate your pov.
Honestly I thought Sabine's video was pretty fair on your company, she could have said much worse. After listening to your response, I think I have to still agree with posing the general question of *why* you believe that consciousness *requires* some quantum process? I'm not aware of any strong evidence for that and as Sabine notes, we only have some vague ideas like "the brain contains nanotubes, which may exhibit quantum effects" but there's no smoking gun here that suggests it to be the case.
I would argue that recent advances in AI/neural nets over the last 10 years or so are increasingly suggesting that there is nothing more required beyond a NN type structure, and very soon we will have the robots you describe. We don't know that for certain yet, but that's where the evidence seems to be taking us for now.
Ofcourse.. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing research into quantum effects on consciousness, and I wish you luck in your experiments!
Serious question if you actually read these Suzanne - what do you think of wolframs multi-computational model of physics ? I know that can still be a bit controversial and I'm not asking what you think of wolfram himself.. but I think his views on 'multi-computation' and the idea of us being made of matter that exists in such a system may be familiar and intersect with the work of Hartmut Neven, and directly to what you're trying to do here.
Commenting this comment for visibility!
We don't agree that it's fair to publish one-side conversations. We'll have more to say about our upcoming research testing our theory of quantum conscious agency. To pre-judge it, before the research is started or even understood, seems unfortunate.
What makes you think that quantum processes have anything to do with consciousness? Penrose is a dualist and he's hoping that quantum woo will prove that souls exist. But if you want to imbue robots with personhood, you shouldn't care whether that requires quantum woo or not.
In a 2020 study, researchers tested different isotopes of xenon gas to see how they affected anesthesia in fruit flies, showing that the anesthetic effect -- turning off consciousness -- depends on quantum nuclear spin interactions rather than classical chemistry. The VP of Google Quantum, who is also keen on quantum conscious theories, also talks about his own investigations here: ua-cam.com/video/SiuqsrezVf0/v-deo.html
@@NirvanicAI Near the end of his video, he clearly says "This is nitrous oxide, no isotopes involved". I presume that he later claimed to show that isotopes matter, but let's assume that he's right. Such a finding does not suggest nuclear spin is the key factor, it only acknowledges that it could be. Alternative explanations such as minor differences in Van der Waals interactions, vibrational coupling, or diffusion effects cannot be ruled out without further experimentation. Until alternative factors are controlled for and direct spin effects are measured, there is no reason to suspect nuclear spin is a key factor at all.
I hope you and Sabine can have a good conversation on the subject.
Sometimes productive interactions starts with a misunderstanding :-)
That's our wish! We love open two-way conversation. Our invitation to her to do a podcast discussion together, still stands. 😀
@@NirvanicAI If you happen to swing back around... Hi, Dr. Gildert! Excellent comeback to Sabine, one of my favorite science popularizers. I'm looking forward to following your research; however, I don't see quantum computers as being the necessary computing entity require to achieve "consciousness". (all that follows is of course speculative wild contemplation) ...
(I use the quoted "consciousness" to mean the "illusion of consciousness", keeping in mind that if we all have the illusion, it is perceived real by all of us.)
"Consciousness" is none of the following, but emerges from the interplay of self-awareness, environmental awareness, and intentional focus.
"Consciousness" is a process - if we freeze the passage of time - there can be no "consciousness". Therefore, this sensation and phenomenon indeed relies on quantum interaction over time, even in a "block time" universe - everything everywhere happening all at once.
IF we are in a deterministic universe, this "conscious" experience is an illusion arising from complex quantum interactions (deterministic from the universe's perspective) cascading like dominoes through time. Any sufficiently complex system can serve as a passively animated (but perceiving internally self-animated) conduit of these interactions, passively processing them through passively accumulated experience and environmental context, creating the sensed phenomenon we call active "consciousness", again from an internal perspective.
This paradigm suggests "consciousness" isn't exclusive to biological systems, nor dependent on processing speed or implementation method. Any information processing system - biological or artificial - that achieves sufficient network complexity, contextual awareness, and ability to direct focus could manifest "consciousness". Like a newborn's developing awareness, consciousness exists on a spectrum, emerging gradually as contextual understanding, processing, and intentional focus capability increase. This paradigm also suggests that "consciousness" can exist virtually in simulations and games infinite layers deep.
If you care to, when you have good free quiet time, reread each small segment, close your eyes, contemplate what each deeply means, and why someone would say such nonsense in public.
Remembering that we all emanate from the same basic consciousness 💫 (if one os open to that perspective) - can help a bit to loosen positions (both one's own and others).
A hand that holds too rigidly around 'something' cannot pick up something else 😅.
Balancing firmness, flexibility and relaxation... Oh, a life challenge 💪😀 !
There is no better way to trigger Sabine than to say "consciousness is the key to quantum measurement". Sabine has been repeatedly saying that measurement can't possibly have anything to do with consciousness because you can build unconscious machines that perform a measurement.
*"Sabine Hossenfelder, a youtube science communicator."*
You mean Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist, with published work relevant to things like the observer effect.
*"A builder, like myself, not just a talker."*
Yeah, to hell with all those _talkers,_ like Einstein, Hawking, Penrose, Feynman, Everett, Bohr, etc. Right?
Much of the foundation of your work was created "just talkers". You'd be better off ignoring Sabine rather than posting defensive ad hominems.
*"Erwin Schrödinger questions how the mere act of observational measurement affects reality."*
So you're a foo merchant.
Sabine has commented upon our work before it has even begun, and we have made no scientific claims. We wish she had reached us before publishing, because we would love to work with her. We are in touch with many top quantum physicists and AI researchers as we speak. We don't mean any disrespect. I too am a quantum physicist, with a PhD in experimental physics, and dozens of US patents in quantum computing and humanoid robotics. On the contrary, we appreciate her whimsical approach to brining public attention to matters of physics that are challenging and nuanced. Perhaps she will accept our open invitation to do a podcast together. 👍
Let's give her 36 months to see what her team can do. While I'm skeptical... science does require us to be open if the researchers can show experimental evidence. Best wishes and best of luck 🙏
How does one detect "agency"? How is that even a measurable quality?
We have an experiment in the works to measure this. It's a technical description of non-random decision making informed by quantum computation. We'll have more details in the weeks ahead, and a white paper outlining our approach. Stay tuned! 😀
While i personaly don't find Orchestrated objective reduction to be convincing theory, i would like to non ironicaly wish good luck proveing or disproveing it along research.
P.s. a viewer hobbysticaly interested in discussed matter little suggestion: having a philosopher as colaborator who could make certain ideas about agency (in particular), with relation to your research clearer for audience, and (no offence) maybe for you may help deliver a point and prevent from "ruffling some feathers" when there is no need to fo so.
Agreed. This project is a wide tent. We will soon have a white paper regarding our model of quantum conscious agency, and how we are testing it experimentally. A strong grounding in mind philosophy is necessary for the peer review of our work.
@NirvanicAI Truly looking forward to see it!
Keep going !!! Don’t let other opinions affect your progress
If the other company is anything to go by, I definitely trust Nirvonic's judgement. There is still a lot of uncertainties I have, given that we know quantum computers exist, and I've compared quantum bits to being like "Hyper-Bits", and we know there is theoretically dimensions beyond 4. To me almost seems like there could be no limit to what is possible with quantum and beyond quantum systems.
Hello and thanks for your thoughts. I dabble in quantum from time to time and would like to share mine. I would like to interject that classical and quantum computers are inherently, physically, the same. The major difference between a classical and quantum computer at the scientific level is the QC's ability to prevent decoherence better, which would be a function of memory imo, not consciousness necessarily.
So, if you don't think consciousness is computable on a classical computer, then it's probably not computable on a quantum computer. And even then, that would be computed consciousness and not actual consciousness. Where I think your thesis is possibly construed is at the 5:00 mark when you state that possibilities can be explored at once. You cannot explore the possibilities without it "collapsing" so to speak. This is because the "possibilities" do not physically exist. They are a mere mathematical artifact of the wave function. Which describes the possible state of the object, not the actual state. However, the actual state of the object only exists in classical form, and you will always find it as such.
I dont think consciousness is a superposition, which is a mathematical artifact, though I've been wrong before. I think consciousness is much more complicated and it will be found deep within atomic structures, like the strong force.
Another “Quantum bla bla bla…”that seams more to feed the ego of the TED like person. Quantum today is the magical black-box word (after AI) to attract Capitals…Ask if Agency or Consciousness require “Quantum-ness” is random as ask if agency requires SantaClaus or popsicles . Why not start from a well thought mathematical description of agency and consciousness and show the theoretical mechanism of interaction instead to play at “Gen-Z do science” ?
Thanks of the comment. We're not doing our venture to attract fast investment. We are doing this project out of a profound fascination in consciousness. We also believe new forms of quantum conscious agency could have a profound effect on AI. Our own natural intelligence, our brain, exhibits phenomenal bio-computation of our local reality, enabling everything you are now experiencing, on trillions of synapses, and all on 20 watts, the same as what a light bulb uses. Clearly, life has a bio-hack for spectacular computation using very little power - and that is worth investigating. It's also profoundly personal and spiritual, and worthy of our collective respect.
Saying humans don't need a lot of training to learn things doesn't seem reasonable, because over the millions of years our brains have evolved to have a bias towards reality (things like object permanence, for example), which essentially acts as pretraining. We might be better at picking up patterns that we're fine-tuned to pick up on, but AI doesn't have the same biases and constraints, it can make sense of barely ordered noise that a human would find meaningless, at least without the use of a computer for applying complex mathematical analysis tools. Attributing our speed of learning to agency seems like a logical leap, it's unclear whether there even is a fundamental difference between humans adapting to situations and a neural network training to do the same. We have a Sense of agency, because it's important and useful for cognition, the same way the "self" is, but that doesn't mean there's anything esoteric happening in our brains, in fact some research suggests that our sense of agency is only an illusion, at least in certain cases, it might very well be just a retroactive attempt at rationalization.
Our brains take like 16 years of full-time, non-stop training to fully develop. Whoever says we don't need much training is an idiot.
@@lpanzieri That is true but I think that's not the point of this comment entirely. We do need training (obviously) but, we have a different way of approaching the input. 1. We need less quantity for the same level of performance but, conversely, we do not have the capacity to be trained on every subject to the degree a computer is trained. but 2. We come not only pre-trained with our animal brains but are embodied, which makes a big difference. The pre-training I assume OP meant is the fact that, while we might marvel at the fact that even infants show a preference for agentive participants in a scene, human infants share this ability with like chickens and a host of other animals. A machine does not come pre-trained with paying attention to the animal/person who is acting on a thing/person. Another similar feature is our demonstrated innate preference for whole objects over parts or random noise, our ability to exclude some options if we already have a label for the thing, etc. All of these are mechanisms that a human learner can use from infancy when they do not even understand that they have a self and there are others.
and 3. As we are learning these associations etc., we are realizing something about our function as an embodied entity and as an interactional social being. and THAT is my main problem with this whole consciousness story. We are not born with but develop an understanding of ourselves as separate from our surroundings, this development is interlinked with so many things, like perception, interaction, emotions, attention, motion, etc. Those are parts that are very hard to take away from a conscious human experience and we know a lot but still not enough to clearly describe consciousness in ourselves, so where do we get a benchmark for a computational "mind"?
I like Sabine because nobody can fool her...
Sabine is a smart UA-camr physicist. But I'm not sure she understands our project well enough to give it a fair comment. But if she accept my invitation to do a podcast together, maybe we'll get somewhere. Thanks.
I also think, Sabine took it too far with her criticism. After all, nobody knows, how consciousness works. Even though I would not bet on quantum mechanics either, it's an open arena. I don't find it particularly helpful to criticize others just because it sells better on social media. In fact, Sabine slowly turns from a "science communicator" to a "science judge", a position that is poised to become preposterous, sooner or later.
Thanks for this. We agree consciousness is not understood. It's amazing to us still, that science still has not identified the verifiable underlying physics or biology for the experience of everything we are. Our own consciousness research is based on our quantum conscious agent theory that we have just drafted, and are now testing. We make no scientific claims. Exploring new scientific directions requires new ideas, new approaches. It seems we got "science judged" before we have even left the gate. We are not attention seekers. We wish Sabine had contacted us before publishing. But we respect her as a physicist and science communicator. She's also quite funny in her self-effacing humour.
I found out about you from Sabines video and I’m really glad I did, I’m excited to see where your research leads in the future, because ever since I started reading up about quantum computing my first thoughts were that we really need to excel in this field first, to make way for artificial neurologic connections for generative AI to work. I’m curious, are you applying neuroscientific biomimicry to your research of artificial consciousness?
Can you link the original video?
@ ua-cam.com/video/G90M5O7Lnsg/v-deo.htmlsi=jy9ks-8XRFcg9Sx7
We think the growing field of Organoid Intelligence is fascinating, which involves the use of living neocortical cells, grown on a multi-electrode arrays among others (MEA). A firm in Australia, Neocortical Labs, is a pioneer. We also follow the work of Neurolink, and others, working on brain-machine interfaces (BMIs). But at the moment, biological-linked, or bio-computer-hybrid tech, are not areas of focus for Nirvanic. We are presently developing our scientific framework for testing quantum systems connected to embodied AI, looking for differences in decision making, versus classical computers running equivalent algorithms, that might improve learning and performance. We'll have more to say about this soon. Thanks for your comment!
@NirvanicAI It's only because of Sabine's video that I knew Nirvanic existed, and I'm really glad I do, I think what you're doing is fantastic, Dr. Suzanne, and something I've long wanted to see as I followed the work on Orch OR theory and the quantum functions in birds and photosynthesis for years and conversed about it with Bing two years ago. (in answer to my question, Bing didn't know if it had microtubules) But I'm so glad you made this video too, because I'm fascinated by what you're doing and it's great to get more clarification on it. I love Sabine and know all about her skepticism, so I didn't think of her questioning as criticism, just, the areas she doesn't understand. But then I'm already a Penrose aficionado.
Suzanne, you are confusing *the feeling of exerting your will* with *the feeling of having a will which is free from determinism*.
You are experiencing the former, not the latter. It seems you made an entire company based on this cognitive error.
I don't follow.
@@NirvanicAI To clarify: you've made an unjustified leap from "I have an experience of what it feels like to make a choice" to "I have an experience of free will, as in free from determinism".
Do you see the distinction?
You seem to have started with the belief that we have free will (in this sense) and then constructed a pseudoscientific rationalisation around it.
I believe AI is an extension of anything with sufficient reason. Therefore it would be better to look at what binds us, as there is sufficient reason behind each of those. This is the principle of entitation, which would place artificiality at the edge of natural generation. In this worldview, I hold thoughts comparable to robots. Your work inspires me!
Quantum process should be applied on the result of regular binary AI to enhance it's results, quantum thoughts on top of regular thoughts. That's called personal opinion.
Congratulations on your Nature paper! I bet being contributed for writing and plotting will show Sabine who's boss. I mean, it is even published in Nature "Letter".
You can read more about my scientific papers and patents here: www.suzannegildert.com/patents-publications
6:12 ... and don't forget: no Isaac from the Orville... I just hope you guys take care that AI robots won't face the same "problems" with their creators as the Kaylon did because that may turn out not so good (insiders will know what I mean by that 🤖)
Thank you, I'll make a note of this show. I think a lot of our fears are indeed informed by fictional programs, designed to provoke our emotions and wonder for the sake of entertainment. We think conscious capability will be important for AI systems to empathise with us, and to factor the consequences of their actions to ensure our safety. Continuing to develop "unconscious AI" with super intelligence, may not be the way to go.
@@NirvanicAI although I think that current AI is more like in a "dreaming" phase rather than "awake" I have no doubt that this could change very soon. My point wasn't just the fears people may have but also the likelihood that AI robots may become as conscious as we are with the same kind of thoughts and fears, i.e. they may sooner or later "want" some of the same kind of rights that we have. The problem is that a lot of people tend to exploit or even prey on weaknesses of their fellows. Creating conscious entities with lesser or no rights may therefore produce conflicts (taken to the extreme in said show (episodes Identity I + II)). Mankind has shown what it is cabable of (e.g. slavery). So I guess that before you or whoever wants to develop such entities (perhaps entities that are meant to "serve" us humans) you / they should take care that they have certain rights before they are "handed over" to us, rights that prevent severe conflicts, meaning that they won't resort to violence to solve those conflicts but rather to the law.
of course, you may have already thought of that, I'm just mentioning it - just to make sure🙂
So, with a few dozens of qbits you want to replicate the behaviour of millions of neurons? Your insights might as well be correct but we don't have the tech. It is true that a computer less than a C64 brought us to the moon and a few qbits are better than no qbits at all but in 1969 we wouldn't imagine what classical computer would become in half a century. So maybe quantum computing might help us recreating consciousness but not now.
Consciousness technology is at its infancy and quantum computers are just starting to be mature enough, to make some fundamental investigations about the role quantum systems can play in the control and decision making of embodied AI systems. We will not build C-3PO or Data androids over night. I say, please stay with us. We're just getting started.
Great, getting my popcorn ready to watch another episode of GLOW, this time its a match between Britannica and... Britannica? Ok, I'll roll with that.
That's funny! Glow is a quirky show 😀.
Have you come across Hubert Dreyfus? He suggests something along the line of what you are in emphasizing the importance of embodiment in consciousness.
Will take a look! Thank you
Fully support exploring this but please keep in mind AI safety risks. If we do find a "quantum" magic ingredient then we will just add it into our AIs (or Robots) and still have all the risks. But if we don't find that it's needed (my most likely bet) we many still build super powerful AI given the path we are currently on.
We agree. Our aim is improve AI safety and to contend with the alignment problem. That is, how to ensure AI is aligned with human values and goals. We are exploring the adoption of principles of responsible AI development around this. Most importantly, we're not doing this science in secret. We are advancing in the open, and sharing what we find.
Very interesting work. Once we can start having a non material view of conciousness I think we’ll be heading in the right direction. Want to study your own conciousness, get in an isolation tank. Vancouver has lots of them.
We will have Data, K.I.T.T., C-3PO and R2-D2 but, I guess, all of them without microtubules or any quantum gadgets.
Just as humans and other animals do not need to use quantum mechanics to process information. Consciousness, whatever it is, comes from information processing (not processing in general, but in a specific way that involves creating predictive models about "the outside world and oneself") and is therefore independent of matter in the sense that it has more to do with computing than with physics. For matter here only intervenes in the implementation of the machine that processes the information and maintains these models.
Consciousness happens within a virtual machine (this allows to undo the so-called "problem" of mind-body interaction) that is implemented as a dynamic model "of the world and oneself" in the nervous system of humans and other animals.
Artificial consciousness is possible but it doesn't require any quantum phenomena (or any other physical phenomena). What it requires is a machine that processes information in such a way that it creates dynamic models of "the world and oneself." Could that be done with quantum mechanics? I don't know but it would probably be easier to achieve with a normal computer.
It's interesting research but it's highly unlikely that it will ever achieve consciousness unless a theory of consciousness is first developed from a purely computational point of view which would make it unnecessary to use quantum phenomena in the first place.
But, as I said, it will be interesting to test in the future (when there is already a C3PO without microtubules) whether or not it's possible to speed up the thinking of a conscious being using some quantum processor. Maybe then we could have the equivalent of a human brain but with something the size of an ant's brain!
At the moment, it seems that nature shows us that it has needed a lot of "hardware" (neocortex, etc.) to gradually increase intelligence in so-called "living" beings and also to allow us to have the "experience" of being a vertebrate, a mammal, a primate.
I am sure that the robots of the future will manage to achieve the same (and surpass us) faster than the slow evolution by natural selection, but I suspect that if natural selection has not needed to use quantum mechanics to produce "minds" then neither will future conscious robots need it. Because physical processes at the atomic level remain at the level of basic chemistry within these extremely complex machines called "cells" and are not fundamental beyond understanding mechanisms such as osmosis or energy storage. To understand a living being, a new science is needed: biology. In the same way, to understand consciousness, physics is not enough.
Physics is too simple a science.
If you have read this far, I thank you.
Thanks. I appreciated reading your post. We're not advancing microtubule tech. But we are investigating, at a higher level of abstraction, the effect of quantum systems on the decision-making of embodied AI. We'll be open with our research, not secret.
@@NirvanicAI Hey, thanks for replying. As I said, I have serious doubts that consciousness (or even simple decision-making) has any bearing on quantum mechanics. However, I would be delighted if I could be proven wrong. Scientific progress often proceeds in strange and unexpected ways. Good luck!
@@CodexPermutatio Thank you for your well wishes.
One should not forget that criticism-having something negative to say-always sells better than praise. And Sabine wants to make money with her videos.
She's a great communicator with a sense of humour. We take no offence! We just wish she'd talk to us.
building a house of cards..
Sabines core argument on "computability" vs. "quantumness" is in deed a blunder, so obviously wrong, that it seems to be intentionally misleading.
But besides all the other aspects of consciousness that need to be tackled on the way to truely conscious AI, there is a big big question: If AI becomes conscious, who has the right to tell them "work 24/7" or to pull the plug when they don't want to?
That's a fair comment and you're right, there are big questions - profound, ethical and societal ones about conscious AI. I don't want anyone other than anything to suffer. It comes down to the question of reward system and goals. Machine Learning systems, including LLMs, and others, are based on humans giving it a reward to optimise to. We're taking a different approach, seeing if quantum systems themselves can act as a reward system. Stay with us. We'll have more to share.
Sabina, what is your opinion on enlightenment?
Sabine Hossenfelder is an interesting one. Half polemicist, three-eighths scientist, and one-eighth kook. She often loses credibility quickly when she strays outside her core field of expertise-although, as a supporter of generalism myself, I find it hard to fault her for that, since I think her heart is in the right place. But, anyway, thanks for posting your side of the story. You do so with a professional tone that I appreciate. I am not knowledgeable enough about this stuff to have an opinion of my own, but it's certainly interesting.
Do you have the link to the original video?
@@MrGonzonator ua-cam.com/video/G90M5O7Lnsg/v-deo.html&ab_channel=SabineHossenfelder
Just a reminder to everyone: Copernicus was somewhat of a kook.
Would
Good explanation of quantum computing, thank you!
We know biology builds it from a single cell with just matter around us.
We know it is some form of observer .
We know matter has such properties.
We know as a fact that Current AI and von Neumann computers has issues with observing its own computation state reliability globally.
Why wouldn't someone research consciousness made from matter .
Sabine and Geoffrey Hinton may be working off of the memory from the 1960's
Why Sabine and Jeffrey? Jeffrey claims that AI have conciousness already.
@leszczuk2047 Geoffrey Hinton denies the existence of consciousness, which is a clear inaccuracy. There is a process distinct from analysis, memory and identity in the mind. It's characteristics are very distinct .
In his line of thinking consciousness simply emerges . In reality what he has built is an advanced communication technology , not even analytical intelligence layer .
@leszczuk2047 Geoffrey Hinton denied the existence of consciousness. Recently he makes attempts to claim that consciousness can arise while replacing neurons . There is clearly a process which is distinct from memory, analytical intelligence and identity in the human mind.
There are two issues with Geoffrey Hinton's way of thinking .
1. If one don't consider the nature of the problem before finding the solution , one will end up not addressing the problem.
2. The machine (von Neumann ) he has built the current codes on top of may not support requirements of solving the problem , at least efficiently.
But still he continues insisting that the problem has already been solved , when in reality he has not even solved the challenge of intelligence . What he has built is a very good communication technology, which is mixing memory and analytical dissection.
But intelligence and consciousness are not addressed in anyway
Why doesn't your video mention the ethics of your work even once? Sus
Thanks. Ethics are at the core of our work. We believe only conscious beings can care about other conscious beings. Building conscious AI is akin to making AI systems that are more human-like and more considerate of the consequences of their actions, which is profoundly ethical.
she is talking
you are doing
keep doing
Agency, self-awareness, human-like intelligence, etc, when you talk about all this stuff it sounds very interesting, but the moment you use "consciousness," it's just a nonsense buzzword that lowers the quality of the whole discussion, equivalent to the theological notion of the soul in meaning. You say consciousness is "non-computable" yet give no argument for it, and everything that can be computed on a quantum computer can be computed on a classical computer, just slower. You use a lazy appeal to authority to say that because a guy was great at developing Intel processors we should trust him in his pet woo beliefs about the "soul" --- sorry, I mean "consciousness" (whatever that means). The point about Schrodinger, like, seriously, what even is that? Observation requires physically interacting with something, it is not some grand mystery as to why it affects reality. I don't even like Sabine and came here expected a genuine defense, but it only made it clear to me that you are steeped in quantum woo and mysticism. You know, a lot of deeply religious researchers believed they were studying "God's creation" yet still end up making useful discoveries, so I'm not even here to claim you will never make any breakthroughs, but if you do, you will be remembered for breakthroughs in things like intelligence or robotics or something, not "consciousness," which will be forgotten in the sea of all other woo on the subject.
What I find interesting is that in your response, you first indicate your disdain for the word consciousness with "whatever that means" attitude, and when Suzanne gives a hunch as to where it can arise, you mock her for not having a definition, though you don't have one yourself. I get the feeling that you are absolutely offended with the thought that there are people who are starting to experiment with the idea that human consciousness may arise from a phenomena that we have as yet been able to reduce down to its axiomatic bits. I can't even imagine how beside yourself would end up being, if an artificial intelligence with a subjective conscious experience does arise, and acts independently and we still cannot define it down axiomatically - that we end up replicating the mystery without reductively defining it. Computational irreducibility is a subject actively being discussed in mathematical circles and examples have been shown. Maybe, your distaste really stems from the fact that we live in a non rational universe all along - one where there cannot be a theory of everything, and one where everything cannot be reduced to a series of axioms. Dismiss all of this as "woo", but if human like intelligence and consciousness can be replicated without a full axiomatic framework due to computational irreducibility, then what does that say about your religious and dogmatic beliefs in your Church of Scientism? After all, Suzanne is the one running the experiment, following up and testing ideas, adapting, and testing again, while you are the one railing that someone with a PhD is committing "woo". Save your sermons. This young lady has actual experiments to run.
@quantummotion You have not defined consciousness so the majority of your response has no semantic meaning, and the fact you use terms like "Church of Scientism," the same kind of language thrown about by young earth creationists, really confirms my suspicions about the kinds of people backing this.
Cat fight 😂 PhD level
It's not how I would prefer a conversation to start -- to wake up to a UA-cam about our new company without a chance to answer her questions in her report. But here we are. We're working on an FAQ and other material to help communicate our project and scientific experiments to test for conscious agency.
ua-cam.com/users/shortsZ8eCDzP0qrQ?feature=shared
Even this little blob of matter , which is entangled with just magnetic attraction can sense vibrations around it and form consistent patterns of computation ..
I fail to get , Why wouldn't some one research properties of such systems .
We need intelligence. Not a creature trapped in a hard drive.
Do we not need moral systems? Or systems that can empathise? Would you leave the care of your loved one in the hands of an unconscious machine?
I don’t know if this research will lead to any concrete results, but I have to salute the courage to at least try, Penrose likewise. Too many scientists are scared away (including dear Sabine that I appreciate very much) at the sight of the word « consciousness ». We don’t even have a sound definition of life, let alone consciousness. Maybe it’s because we always try to reduce it to some magical emerging property of matter and energy, which says absolutely nothing useful. Let’s get out of the box a bit, keep an open mind and explore new ideas, this is how groundbreaking science happens!
Thanks Richard! This voyage of discovery begins with humble roots. We are not seeking all this public attention, but it is upon us just the same. That's ok! We want the feedback. You might check out our latest Substack newsletter and consider subscribing to stay informed: nirvanicai.substack.com/p/nirvanics-brand-is-resonating-globally