+GuyWithAnAmazingHat I kind of wish he would have brought Kurzweil to task for exactly what his predictions of today were. Kurzweil keeps saying he predicted all this stuff happening today, but I'd like to see exactly what he predicted. I have doubts on how accurate anyone can predict things.
The mark of singularity will be a computer that makes itself obsolete. It will be able to reprogram itself to operate more efficiently and also able to invent the next generation of computing.
+Special EDy if you are talking software we already have that. it's called a neural net. hardware the next leap forward will be quantum computers. after that not much else you can do better with the hardware.
+Targard .QuantumFrack he is right, that is essentially what the guy who coined the term re AI was getting at, the point at which successive generations of AI will be able to antiquate themselves by designing their successors will occur at a blinding speed to us humans, imperceptible to us who will so quickly left behind in insignificance. if that happens and the AI develops values, we can only hope that the it sees some value in keeping us alive in a nature preserve or something.
Kurzweil never said the technological singularity would occur by 2029. He said 2029 would be the date by which AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) would occur. Kurzweil said the technological singularity would occur by 2045. He's been consistent about those two dates for many decades.
Ray is waaay ahead of this guy. Neil is mostly a "science communicator" who focuses on making observations and writing books and now being a tv personality. Ray actually uses his brain to bring these ideas into existence.
Man...this Ray Kurzweil guy, what a piece of work...never seen such an arrogant narcissist in my life. Something doesn't really add up... He constantly pointed out and affirmed that he made pure genius predictions regarding economic and technology advances all the way back in the 80s? And his net worth only 30 million? Wtf?! How? I call bullshit big time, he definitely isn't the genius inventor and economic guru if all he has made is 30 million...like come on...if he knew about all this technology so long ago and didn't capitalize on it he's an idiot! I call BULLSHIT!!
@@ajcook7777 he knew that one day the money become meaningless after singularity happens therefore he focused on research and development and writing his books he knows that information has more value than money so why waste time lets generate info rather than enormous amount of money which will become meaningless after singularity event.
@@viveknishad5262 That is a complete logical fallacy and I do believe he is intelligent enough to know that and know better. You mentioned the reason he is not extremely wealthy is because he would rather spend his time, effort, and resources into gathering new information for himself and/or the World? Just a quick question...how do you suppose an individual would be able to gather such information? I'm assuming, but correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't you need to complete some sort of research and development (R&D) to do so ? And wouldn't you want to obtain the newest, most updated, and most accurate information possible in the shortest amount in time? And also in the most efficient manner? One word.....MONEY According to you, he was so committed to his, "quest for information", that he purposely diverted his efforts into research and development and writing books. Seriously though, if he was so committed to this mission then why would he have not capitalized on all of his secret genius inventions in order to facilitate even more and more research. He physically doesn't even have to be there to collect his capital gains or provide oversight... Information, especially world changing information, is NOT CHEAP and by him not maxing out his potential revenue gains (in order to fund more research and gain new information) would be a complete disservice to himself and everyone involved. That is business/economics 101. It's quite evident this man does not possess more secret knowledge or information compared to the public but he will lead you to believe he has all the answers. If he did, the World wouldn't in the current state it is now. He's a narcissist LEVEL 10, and will try to sell ice to the Eskimos..don't fall for it....
@@ajcook7777 We don't know how much money he has, don't belief what is written on Google when you type "ray kurzweil fortune" 99.9% of the time, the fortune Dat internet shows us is total bul*sh*t He is the inventor of many things and gets royalties from multiple invention since 30 years, he must be billionaire
@@ajcook7777 "I started with the common wisdom that one can not predict the future." He made predictions, but he was not entirely sure of himself despite his massive intellect. He would have taken more chances financially had the chances been 100% fail safe, but why would he have to struggle with the responsibility of making said choices? He took the easy road, and I can not blame him. Get off your high horse. It is slightly narcissistic of you to assume that your intellect is high enough to see through bull shit. If it is all bullshit, it is specifically designed for you to not peel back the curtains.
The knowledge of Ray literally cured Tyson's scepticism... that's what happens when u meet intelligent people with great vision... of course AI is going to conquer the world
Nah AI won't do this. it will take a long while before AI can be considered "concious" enough to make decisions that will conquer man. More likely will be the advances AI receives will also advance man. In 20 years, there will be devastation in humanity, AI and robotics will put man out of work globally, joblessness and hunger will be so destructive. BUT as I am the optomist, I belive man will come together to realize our greater purpose cannot be fulfilled alone, and the goal will no longer be competition, but collective growth. the advances we make with AI will enable us to work WITH AI, vs against AI. EDIT: it needs to be said that I'm only 6 minutes into the vid, so if I say what Kurzweil says, its because I'm a genius, lol.
Well Q have you been thrown out of the Continuum once again and lost your omnipotent abilities by that? Since you didn't looked into his basement...or are you trying to stimulate the paranoia tendencies of conspiracy theorists that may watch this clip?
I have this theory. Rick and Morty the cheeky cartoon that's just shot to stardom in no time at all, that whole thing is really based on Ray Kurzweil. He is Rick and Morty and everything on the show is just in Ray Kurzweils head. I'll give you a moment to process that. We've a long way to go and I need to be sure you're with me here. So Ray and his basement. What lies here in waiting? That gets tricky because Ray isn't just an average Joe with a house. He is extremely wealthy with multiple properties around the world. But lets just imagine where Ray is right now is his home. What's in that basement? A wine cellar! Sorry, I may have suggested it was more sinister. Despite the mad inventor status Ray carries, he does have impeccable taste being so uncommonly well read. You have reached the end of this comment. Was this comment helpful yes/no ? if no, please seek your administrator and explain to them how you're nothing and have no clue what's going on more than half the time. That was my Maria Bamford bit
Clay Mann So you know absolutely sure that he has a wine cellar? Can prove that? I play with Clay. Because Clay is formable, mind controllable, wisenhymerish but adorable. That's B.F. Skinners, I pull your skin of your skull, Mengele'ish take on it. peace
I have to come clean, I may have misled slightly when I mentioned a wine cellar. OK, I lied 100% but I had a good feeling about it and I'm never wrong. And I just lied again.
+dumby88 After all the advances we'd had in the computer/gamer world I just can't understand why millions of folks play that shitty low resolutuin game :P
As a man of science, Neil deGrasse shouldn't laugh at the face of a dreamer, it's like if he were a religious guy laughing at the face of Copernicus in the past.
I don't see it as a mocking laugh though. It is rather a laughter out of awe. For example when Neil laughed and said, "I know for you the world is going too slow". It is Neil laughing at himself and everybody like him who are so used to thinking the world is moving at a very fast pace as it is. Interesting thoughts always provoke a chuckle at the very least. The religious laugh out of mockery. When it is never laughing out of disbelief. Throughout the video Neil was laughing out of awe. Perhaps I am reading between the laughs. Perhaps your taking things too much at face value.
The only thing that would ever come out of allowing your brain to be augmented would be an overwhelming urge to enjoy crisp and refreshing Coke-a-Cola! Share one with a friend today!
not the only thing but one of the things among many.......coca cola nonetheless is tasty anyway even tho I dont indulge in it.....whatever the next coca cola will be would have some merits behind it in value anyway.....because the design itself would be implemented with the desire attributes rather than the marketing persuasion.
"Ray Kurzweil Predicts an exact year 2029 by which singularity will occur." Correction, he predicts 2045 for the singularity. He predicts 2029 for human-level machine intelligence.
Gerardo Argueta what is actually wrong with a single world government? Not this weird conspiracy theory about a totalitarian government, but what if the USA just ran the whole planet?
agreed. especially dawkins. evolution's such a stupid philosophy and his arguments against god are funny as fuck. can you tell me though what is heaven ? i havent figured that out
+James Ram And you didn't name a philosophy that isn't stupid, I take it you can't do it ? you only know about stupid philosophies? you don't know about any smart ones, this says a lot about you.
Ray Kurzweil is on a completely different wavelength to Neil deGrasse. Literally laughing and cracking jokes at the worst times, and constantly interrupting Ray. Felt like he had nothing to add to this discussion either. Just commented stupidly on everything Ray was saying ahaha
I feel like I would agree with you completely except... how many times have you heard Ray Kurzweil talk? Ever notice it's the same talk? I mean like exactly the same. Almost seems as if he CAN'T tell it any different. Kinda OCD about it. Neil is like 'yo 1 to 30 = a billion; lets not do the full length "humans don't like to think exponentially bit yet again. I get it." And Ray still has to do the entire explanation word for word. Neil honestly was doing things many might be tempted to do when talking to Kurzweil; simply to try to get him to say something different. Or even differently. The man has zero improvisation in his explanations. If it weren't for Neil's wisecracks, I would not be sure I hadn't seen this before. Word for ever-loving word.
Ray Kurzweil is talking about technological advances that probably wont be possible for another 80 - 200 years because of the difficulty of calculating the human aspect (Not all humans react the same way) Ray is putting unreal time lines on these technological advances (13 years) which makes him sound ignorant and arrogant among the science community, Not only that but i wonder how many people would sign up for something like this? What happens if something go's wrong? One thing about Neil deGrasse Tyson is that if you could provide evidence to him that there is real worth while science here. He would not be a skeptic he would be a supporter watch some of his video's Neil has said it time after time. So in short Neil is calling it as he see's it and what he see's in Ray's technological advancement time line is laughable and should not be taken seriously yet if ever.
Let me begin by saying that I'm a neurologist who majored in neuroscience, minored in physics, and researched deep brain stimulation for many years. It has always been my theory that while Kurzweil does understand computers, he fails to accept our incredible ignorance of how the human brain truly functions, in all of its nonlinearities and plasticities that are not so simply explained by our current models. This is further confirmed by his mischaracterization that parts of brains of Parkinson's disease patients are connected to computers. A deep brain stimulator is basically technology of a 50 year-old cardiac peacemaker that has been modified to apply a fixed pattern of electrical impulse to provide a fairly modest improvement in functioning of subcortical brain nuclei. DBS was in fact discovered by accident while stimulating prior to lesion surgery, and though there are some decent theories as to how it works, nobody truly understands its mechanism of action or even which parts of the brain are being stimulated (including axonal tracks that pass by the multiple nuclei that would be affected by gradients of the electric field produced by these devices). Mr. Kurzweil calls this a brain connected to a computer because it sounds nice within his arguments and reads nicely in his books, but I maintain that he fails to appreciate the true complexity of the human brain, an organ of which our understand has merely scratched the surface.
Our human brain gets dreams which can show future. .Now you think humans will know this stuff..do no ..it can never..the moemnt you able to reach that level by that time humans wont be present.. Yes agree on that point brain is too complex..and it is good to dream..
A complete knowledge of the human brain is not necessary to create a simulation that performs at similar levels. We don't even understand how our modern digital neural networks really work and we build those ourselves. Abstraction is the solution here and has worked well so far, as of right now ai has been able to simulate most of the capabilities of a human mind and even recently it seems generalization may have finally been solved (by far the biggest hurdle in the way of human level ai)
A fun interview with a clash of personalities here. We have tyson on one side, the brash charasmatic to kurzweil on the other, the introvert genius. For me kurzweil won the smackdown xD
This video aged pretty well. Today is the first day of 2023. In November 30, 2022, OpenAI released ChatGPT. One can only imagine what will happen by 2029. Ray Kurzweil was right about this. He was also right that people are saying well, ChaGPT is clunky and making mistakes, but I believe this thing will continue creeping on us until we reach the singularity. And by that time, people will have gotten used to it.
I felt bad for Ray... he kept trying to explain this profound concept to Neil who kept interrupting with childish jokes and belittling him, but then can't come up with any actual points. Neil needs to seriously humble himself up, he's coming off as pretentiously naïve and like he can't be introduced to new ideas.
For me it reads like Neil is totally condescending and went into the interview ready to tear him down. It's ok to have a complete diff of opinion. In fact, that's how we learn, but you don't have to be a dick about it
video uploaded in 2016. Now 2019 Elon Musk announces neuralink. Neil laughed and scoffed at Kurzweil's theories and ideas, but yet here we are less than 3 years from the date this was posted with an announcement that will change the future and world as we know it. 2029 now seems like a very possible date
@@HelloHello-no6bq maybe, but people might still want to capitalize off the knowledge some may gain from using nano tech or other things. It's really hard to picture a world without money for me.
@@BaccaGamingHD1 than u do not have an imagination the people will demand it muh robbery muh identity theft muh suppressed vote and we will become the bots!!!!!!!!!!!!! is that what u want because thats revelation in the bible or you can vote democrat theyll destroy the world with out dave quinonaz antichrist beingazz
Singularity subscriptions with limited advertisements if you get the gold member package or combine your purchase with another product of equal or greater value (Offer valid now until June with early subscriber savings. Terms and conditions apply.)
Babbage's Difference Engine worked. Babbage never had the resources to build one, but when they built one in the late twentieth century it worked as designed.
one of the most wonderful things ever conceived of or made. it could have been made in his life w available tech but would have required some many highly skilled man hours it would have had to been funded by an extraordinarily visionary and wealthy patron who never appeared sadly.
***** hmmm, maybe, only if the tech would have led to making its making more Babbage engines later more affordable so the tech could be a little popularized, like in industry. It is hard to imagine how it would lead to CNC machines, for example, that could turn out many precision machines, or how it could do more than make it faster for engineers to work out certain types of equations... The tech is just hard to scale what w the size and labor needed.
For some reason Neil’s personality keeps me interested . One would say he has a gravitational pull when it comes to listening to him talk about science .
Yeah, I like his humor. You just don't like it when he laughs when you're not laughing. You are ignoring the context of their conversation. This is how intelligent people talk. A lot more is going on.
He's just been around the talk show hosts and tv people for awhile now. I'm not surprised to see behavior like this in him. If you look back at his earlier work you can see him be more awkward with his delivery. He is doing us all a great service by providing his intelligence to interviews like this. Although I also wish he toned it down, I'm happy he is here at all
I was so sleepy, I came to UA-cam for music, I was Neil in my recommended, I looked at the time 20 minutes, I said dang this is too long, I clicked on it anyways, it's interesting, they talk about A-I I recently did a mediocre paper for my early college on A-I, I get excited, I finish the video and am now funny awake. I think about my future with me liking animals and technology. Man I love science
I don't think people have grasped just how monumental this interview is. If his predictions are even relatively correct, years from now we'll be looking back and this interview would be viral.
I love this video. Tyson kept an open mind the whole time and let the other guy actually speak. You do not see that in politicians or most regular people for that matter. By the end he had learned something new and actually begun to accept someone's ideas which he previously thought silly. A true genius if I've ever seen one.
Seems we might actually reach the singularity before 2029 with Google's recent generalized agent breakthrough. Many predictions are saying 2027 or earlier
Honestly, with how quickly we're advancing with technology, singularity may be achieved quicker than we're currently theorizing it will be since we're quickly reaching the point of being able to recreate the human mind through the computer that can learn, think, feel emotions, and so much more without outside assistance.
Can someone cite the time in the video when Neil deGrasse Tyson reveals the reason behind his skepticism that he repeatedly teases that he'll reveal throughout the 20:42 interview?
A consciousness is nothing special it's simply computation anyway..... The difficulty in creating ai that's human like and possibly will surpass the human specie is creating its own will....... what the heck is will....ego and desire?......both can be programmed into ai but that's still not creating its own will....... 1 things for sure it'll humans greatest invention and servant..... the old saying is true after all....the creation can't surpass its creator.....
wait I see it now........ ego and desire being exponentially great will create a will of its own in an ai............1 that will cross the possibility of creating something like an ai or destroying its enemies like perhaps humans to better serve its ego...... There is nothing special about the human brain it's all mechanical like, linear and can be duplicated in ai.....to make a super human. 0.0
Anyone who watched this video is my people, you're the kind of folks I would love to hang out with and discuss these topics. Should I create a telegram group for us to e-connect us and learn from each other?
Kurzweil's most interesting prediction, I think, is that through life and technology the universe is impelled to evolve into a "large mind." Here's a quote for the kids- "Intelligence is very powerful. It is the most powerful force that we are aware of. Intelligence can overcome [supposed] natural limits - not through any kind of magic, but just by figuring ways to manipulate forces at finer and finer scales so that, ultimately, what seem to be natural limits can be superseded. It won’t take that long for us to do this at a solar-system scale and then a galaxy-wide scale. Ultimately, we will turn the universe into a large mind that is trillions of trillions of times greater than all of human intelligence today."
I see a very large difference in intelligence with both of them speaking side by side. Neil is extremely focused with astrophysics where as Ray is quantifying multiple different fields.
That's what i said. I think personally he's being quite optimistic. We are talking about Nano-bots going to our cerebral cortex and making it big and better. Though nothing he is saying is far out their that we can't see what he's talk about. If it's to improve Humanity by giving us a larger brain we should stop at no cost to have it.
+BOAT LOADS OF EXPOSITIONZ yea that is true but to bad our government is more focus in putting unnecessary billions into weapons...I would fund the fuck out of this if I was a billionaire lol
Selfmade DC Yes we febel humans seem to be more obsess with shit that will kill each other. I have undeniable evidence of THE SMARTER WE GET THE LONGER WE LIVE but I guess it's like he is saying as well it's all ready on it's way. We are just living in a sort of prehistoric time period of human integration with it's device. We could be funding it as we speak by always wanting the new and hot device out-there.
19:08 This is where I always disagree with Kurzweil. HE claims that the challenges we face are always linear ones, when in fact, our brains are much more easily able to detect changes on a logarithmic scale, instead of a linear one. If you have one lion, that is a specific danger. If you have two lions, that is twice the danger. Three lions does not continue this trend, rather 4 lions is twice the danger, again. By the time you get up to 50 lions, a single other lion is completely unnoticeable, but twice the lions is still very much a thing you can notice. If you break down temperature, light, and other such forces, our brains work purely on a logarithmic scale. Small changes (linear) to a bright light are unnoticeable, but percentage changes always remain distinguishable no matter how bright (until our senses overload from the total signal strength and "white out"). Our brains do not work on a linear scale, they work on a logarithmic one.
Okay I suppose he did say "predictive ability", not direct sense ability. Still, when it comes to the here and now, or with comparisons, we do not think linearly, much past the single, the double, and the many.
Jeoshua Collins I also think that's incorrect. Because our mind can only hold so much information at once we tend to do chunking to compensate. The part that appears exponential, or logarithmic is really more chunking based on category. Maybe the category relations are exponential, but I don't know. If you're at a party there is that much more chance to make a new friend, but if you're at a concert with 100,000 people do you have exponential friend potential?
Eric Smith It doesn't. His predictions could be wrong, or right. We'll have to see. If you're referring to the exponent of progress -- that's manifested from a team effort. His predictions come from past trends, and statistical plots that represent those team efforts. 100s, and sometimes 1000s of minds working to a common goal. Whether, or not that predicted goal is reached is yet to be seen.
Kurzweil said that in 30 years, an information technology is 1 billion times more powerful than it was at the beginning. That sounds impressive, so let's look at it. The Mac has been around over 30 years, so it should be a billion times more capable than it was 30 years ago. Yes, it's a lot faster, it's in color and it has a larger screen, but is it really a billion times more capable than it was in 1986? Well, it still needs a lot of troubleshooting (check the Apple forums for proof of that), and you still operate it by clicking on icons, pulling down menus and typing on a keyboard. In other words, despite being a billion times more "capable," it still works the same way it did 30 years ago. I guess what I'm saying is that a billionfold improvement on paper does not necessarily translate into the kind of advancements Kurzweil implies.
it isn't a 1 for 1 ratio, if memory serve computational capacity double every 16 months +- so we are not at the 30th step but more like the 20th.... so it makes worlds of differences
30 years ago, no internet, no cloud, no wireless, no phone integration. Add all those in, I'm not sure it can be estimated how much more powerful it is - not in speed or hardware-related functions, maybe, but in kinds of information and value of having access to that information - or, to use your word, "capability".
That's where my skepticism lies: just because computers are increasing numerically in power doesn't then imply that we, as humans, can apply that power effectively towards human-like AI. That is a totally separately technology that has to be developed in a totally different way: it's not about die sizes, transfer speeds, or how much RAM you have. It's about creating a software that emulates a human...and can be implemented in millions of different personalities.
Chris Ducat This is where you get it wrong. Chances are that we'll integrate our own mind to advanced hardware to expand it before we reach true AI. Basically we'll e the machines before they become us. Now for AI that only emulate human interaction we are not that far of. They will just follow programs though. They won't independent thoughts before a while. Also an other thing that you are failing to realise is that true AI will probably build itself. From a more primitive one it will start an exponential cycle of self improvements and reach true AI by it's own capacities, like a child learning all we'll be able to do is to input data and it will analyse from that logical extrapolations.
Ray Kurzweil forgets (and seems unable to remember for couple of decades now) that in nature all exponential processes never end up in "singularity" of any form. Destruction, explosion, breakage of any kind, calm slowing down of the process - yeah, sure, but not singularity. And the reason for this - resources. Any process that does anything at all - requires resources (because thermodynamics :) ) and most of these resources are limited. Energy, any materials, human brains (as in people who move science forward) - all these are limited. When demand for resources will overcome potential capacity - exponent will slow down, and slow down fast. And resources are never limitless. See you in 2029 :)
I get what you are saying and you raise important points, but I think there is a stark difference between natural and synthetic processes. Namely, resources limit the growth of species up to max carrying capacity that an environment can sustain it, but with technology we have Moore's law and ever increasing efficiency which far outpaces the efficiency seen in nature. A small, finite amount of resources today can amount to some number of transistors and what have you, but a few years down the road, we will have increased computing potential from that same amount of resource just from how we build those component parts and how much quicker we will be able to transmit data. With that in mind, I think there are plenty of resources (material, intellectual, or otherwise) for continued technological growth at ever accelerating rates.
First of all, energy is one of the few things on this planet that is not in limited supply. And though i do agree that demand will eventually become bigger than supply, i firmly believe we'll be well past 2029 when that happens. Also the "singularity" marks the initiation of a process. In an explosion it would be the moment of detonation and expansion. Anything past that would be because of the singularity.
u forget he mentioned at the curent price point and u have to also asume we as humans dont kill are selfs first in war if everything stays same yes he is correct perhaps not in his time line but in xxx years based on the groth paterns and cost price point !!!! he says it loud and clear
Damn, as brilliant as Neil is as an astrophysicist and public educator, it's surprising to watch him struggle to match this guy's tenor. btw anybody else think Neil looks more like a fusion jazz drummer than a physicist?
+MrSimjam1980 Are you highly intelligent enough to make that assertion? I worked with remarkably intelligent people through grad school and during my research career, and one constant was that the really smart ones seemed happier than I was. I am quite intelligent by most standards, but I got to know so many people who baffled me with their intellect. I went from always being the smartest kid in the class as an undergrad to feeling like the stupid one in grad school. I found that depressing at the time, but everywhere I went in research it seemed that everyone was generally happy and well balanced. (It turns out that I've lived with depression most of my life, which accounts for a lot of my perspective.) I think you are simply incorrect in that statement. I would far more easily believe that highly intelligent people are more likely to be satisfied or content with life. Just because Kurzweil has a droopy, Woody Allen face doesn't mean he is in fact unhappy. The most intelligent people in the world are probably not celebrities. I doubt most people would recognize them if they passed them on the street, or had a conversation with them at a dinner party. Intelligence is not what a lot of people think it is. It certainly does not lead to a special, universal understanding of life that invariably leads to a bleak world view. Remember, intelligent minds disagree too. People are people.
+Beena Plumber Perhaps it was more of a generalisation through personal observations, rather than an outright statement of fact. It may be true, intelligence could possibly bring happiness. There is also the possibility that there is no correlation between the two.
And also, why would I need others if I have all information in my head? intimacy and social activities likely wouldn't exist. Like what future are we looking for exactly?
All this is great! Honestly, I have nothing against technological advancements. The only thing that is scary for me is how easily and without a doubt, we as humans, talk about and compare, how WE are made, to how we have created computers. Maybe because we have logical minds we have created words and terms that lets us BELIEVE that we are almost the same. In my opinion, we are not, because what we are and what this whole univers is, we still don't know, just like we don't know EXACTLY what we have created(the computers,AI, etc.) p.s. I've heard that they dont exactly know how the technology behind AI is getting smarter on its own... thx for reading if u read this and understood! Like and let me know what you think plz.. i really wanna know people's opinion on this. 🙏
The Creator somehow made us (humans). And I'm certain they have. How could we imagine being able to do better...with what they give us. We can search, but we will always come back to us, God's and humans.
One objection I see is that even though we have access to great information there are so many idiots online creating stupid concepts that are easily dismissed with available knowledge and logic. I see people ask questions about things they could easily find answers from by a few minutes google search. You can write it off with laziness or financial motivations to promote false ideas but it just proves my point, the net has failed to increase the average intellect..
Before you start calling people morons - let's talk for one second .. Transferring your mind to a machine - meaning you don't have a body .. how will you need water and food then ?
Why are you so butthurt? The guy has a point. Stop name-calling, trying to sway the conversation from the fact that you have no valid thought that deserves any recognition.
+Dom Spiegel That's a legitimate fear of kind. The way technology is advancing, it seems immortality will be here within a century of two. I might just miss it, or I might be able to get on board.
deGrasse needs to learn the basics of interviewing people, lesson 1. Dont REPEATEDLY talk over the top of the person your interviewing when hes trying to answer one of your questions.
Heres my take on AI...First of all humans have 3 things that motivates all actions:1. To reproduce2. Fear (to avoid stuff that we dont like/that can harm us)3. Pleasure (to gain stuff that we do like/that can benefit us)So AI has none of these Three things. How ethical is it to create it in them (if even possible)? Basically giving them Death anxiety? Furthermore humans are extremely irrational. We do things depending on how bored we are, hormones, blood sugar, opportunity you name it. Do we really want AI with this trait?Think about it.
I often wonder how it would even be possible to program such "randomness" i.e. the varying amounts of neurotransmitters passing across synapses causing us a certain mood that affects our thoughts and actions.
interesting point. humans are messy, very very messy. ai-researchers seem to want to think of intelligence and consciousness as clean and tidy.they want to mosty focus solely on the neo-cortex and toss everything else in the trash. when i would argue that the neo-cortex is just the tip of the iceberg and connected with all the mass of stuff under the surface. just take the enteric nervous system in our gut for example:"The enteric nervous system also makes use of more than 30 neurotransmitters, most of which are identical to the ones found in CNS, such as acetylcholine, dopamine, and serotonin. More than 90% of the body's serotonin lies in the gut, as well as about 50% of the body's dopamine, which is currently being studied to further our understanding of its utility in the brain.[16][17][18"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_nervous_system
Another example is just a sunny day improving your mood through vitamin D production which influences your actions and decisions. I think approximation will be the closest we will get to AI. Think a "soulless" person.
Yes I believe you are correct. Btw here is a fresh article on the enteric nervous system for those interested: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160607080342.htm
Hello :) I wanted to comment on the idea of 'motivation' in a machine that you bring up. First, I don't think it's desirable to simply copy human motivation into a an AI, if just because it seems like many of the persistent social problems in our world stem from innate motivations that are simply maladaptive in the context of the modern era. I think we agree on this. Second, I think that something as simple as programming an AI to optimize its activities towards a specific outcome or range of outcomes is identical to giving it a psychological motivation to pursue those outcomes. I think that programming motivation into an AI is not just ethical, but necessary for it to function in a rational manner.
Just so everyone is clear: a lot of Kurzweil's ideas are fundamentally flawed. For example, he talks about the neocortex, explaining that it is what gives humans our intelligence and that the difference between a mouse and a primate is the size of the neocortex. While it is generally true that more intelligent animals have a larger neocortex, that fact alone does not explain our intelligence, because our brains are not that much different from apes, and some dolphins actually have *more* neocortical neurons than humans. Those same dolphins also have higher level associative areas like the primate frontal lobe. The point is - we still have no idea what specific biological difference gives us our intelligence, so to simply say "add more cortical neurons in the cloud, get more brain power" is meaningless and premature. There is still some aspect of our brain that is not currently well understood that gives us our language, reasoning, and high level cognitive abilities.
billyjack70 you must have misunderstood. I am criticizing Kurzweil's point that the thing that gives humans their special cognitive abilities is that they have a frontal lobe with more cortical neurons. That is not necessarily the case, as I put forward in my original comment.
Yes, Kurzwell is incorrect regarding his summary of the cerebral cortex. It's not just the size, but also the complexity of the neural networks inside. This is very much an over simplification of the true functions of the cerebral cortex, but will suffice enough to disprove Kurzwell's poor hypothesis.
Dan K and even then, we don't know it has anything to do with complexity. You could have a brain 5 times as complex as the human brain, but we don't know enough to say that this imaginary brain would be as intelligent as a human. Dolphins and whales have very complex brains as well, and we don't know what the quantitative difference in complexity actually is. You'll hear the "complexity argument" from lots of computer science people, especially those studying machine/deep learning, because they want to think that if they keep getting more computing power which allows bigger and more complex artificial networks, then they'll eventually get human like intelligence. That's really a pipe dream until we figure exactly what about the human brain architecture gives us our special abilities.
The singularity exists NOW it has ALWAYS existed and it will ALWAYS exist. One thought is the singularity of every thought that proceeds from it! THAT is what the Big Bang was. Just a thought. There is no physical reality. Only the thought that a physical universe exists. IT DOESNT No more than a dream exists except as the firing of a synapse! An explosion. The fact I am writing this means I exist as Des Carte says. The fact I exist means Some force created me and my intelligence and my awareness, and maintaines it. My own current belief is that while we may perceive there is a physical universe around us, I believe we are actually exactly what a dream we experience is. The flow of sub atomic energy. The firing of synapses. Nothing more. Each firing is a simple on off explosion. The timing and order of those explosions are encoded into a sequence and given meaning. The meaning MUST be everlasting or we could not give it any meaning at all. It also happens faster than the speed of light, so fast that time is meaningless. Energy cannot be created or destroyed so anything that exists, has always existed and always will exist? In order for an explosion to take place something has to exist to explode and something has to cause it to explode. One single though is enough to begin the domino effect of trillions of resulting thoughts, thus the Big Bang of every creation. Every parallel dimension has its own Big Bang thought. None of which exist except as thoughts.
"I believe we can have a world that is essentially free of poverty, disease is reduced, clean up the environment..." says the optimistic academic who has not a political bone in his body. I believe that who ever gets to this level of control in AI will rule the world, and probably not for the good of us all, but for his/her own good.
@@aliengod3528 Well almost by definition AI is super intelligent. unless the programmers build in structural barriers to prevent it from doing certain tasks or working in a certain way, it will have more inputs than any human ever would, it will be able to think faster than any human ever would. Remember AI is all about learning, so it will learn and create its own intelligent base of info and its own set of references and principles and libraries of information that would be far far beyond our scope
this, combined with my opinion that intellectual property should only exist for 5 years would greatly benefit human kind. Every book, science paper, movie etc should be free to access. This would enable people to learn without college, and the progression of humanity would greatly accelerate.
6 minutes in yall are talking about uploading info directly to the brain.now imagine this, u read a 4 series book, each book containing at least 500 pages. all within 4 seconds, now your brain which has been previously programmed to not take in that much info at once has to process all the emotional reactions you had to characters diferent experiences at once, it IMO might make some people mentally snap.any opinions?
syphon the emotional processing to those nano-comps (in your bloodstream also) so you CAN deal with 2000 pages of emotional input... feed the results back out over a slower time, maybe an 8 hour sleep-cycle so you aren't overwhelmed. Point is, we'll integrate those 4x500 page books when we're able to handle it and not before.
to mention biological improvements to the brain. it got to the current state because the only thing it needed to accomplish is have us 'not die'. with a real goal beyond survival we can self augment to whatever degree we choose at some point in order to simply consume 500 pages of content every second of the day or more.
Sounds too much like a BORG consciousness. I fear that we would loose our humanity, and consciousness if we create a universal cloud based connection that gives us access to everything all the time, and immediately. No I say, "use the tool" whatever that interface may be; but don't incorporate the tool into our being. We're talking about surrendering ourselves in the name of science. But I give a thumbs up because...Science!
gcgrabodan The vast majority of Human's are not inhumane. And there's no guarantee that a hive consciousness would be any better. It might get more people to be inhumane faster.
I would say the vast majority is inhumane. Right now there are people starving or being tortured, but you enjoy your life not thinking about them and maybe go out for dinner or cinema or so tonight while you could donate that money and potentially save a life. Read "living high and letting die" for a more elaborate version of that argument
gcgrabodan Don't get on your high horse and presume I don't think about it, and don't care. The fact of the matter is the definition of inhumane is, "lack of compassion for misery or suffering". Because there is suffering in the world doesn't mean the vast majority of seven billion people are non sympathetic to the plight of our fellow man. If that were the case, we'd all be doomed, and a Hive consciousness wouldn't solve the problem. It would only amplify it. Which was my point in the first place. There is no utopia where Human Nature is involved. We are flawed, and I choose to have hope that most of my "fellow man" strives to do better, and not worse.
regardin the definition of inhumane... well I think if the compassion is insufficient to give up a small personal luxury for another persons life than it doesnt qualify as compassion. And I am not on a high horse, as I myself also fall into the category of inhumane, the way I see it. Our brains are not made to encompass all other peoples needs into our decisions. That makes us do terrible thinks, at the very least we are guilty of negligence.
It occurs to me, perhaps, the matrix I am living in, is, in fact, the 'injection' of information they discussed. The stage of learning where a 'neo'-cortex, in this interface, is a node, where we connect, from the other interface, the real world, for getting a download. I'm glad he mentioned a ball game, it would be just like that. .."Hmm, what to do today? Let's check out this Human Life program. It says, 'A corporeal experience in a static universe where you experience the passage of time, and physical phenomenon, such as thought, emotions, birth and death.' Hmm, that sounds cool."
15:45 - A utopian future is an empty promise. Technology has become an inevitable force of nature. But many ways in which it has been used to advance civilizations has been through coercion and fear, which has traditionally allowed the most brutal of our species to rise to power. I cite religion and human sacrifice as examples of technologies gone awry, where our best intentions for the greater good have inevitably lead to the suffering of countless many. In order for us to secure a future for our species, we must first break from false ideals and move toward a system that is more harmonious with respect to all life. And, we better act fast! Preferably before the singularity...
+Tikitiki Takataka Sacrificial behavior is a technology used to further the advancement of society. Because, it makes use of methods of social organization through a unified or shared cultural vision. Also, as a tactic for maintaining order through fear of death or disfavor among the gods (meaning, you would also be doomed in the afterlife). And, the practice of taking advantage of a psychological human weakness, as yet unidentified, which makes us particularly susceptible to coercion and manipulation. This weakness in human psyche might simply be identified as our innate ability to deny reality.
*Definition of technology: the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.* - Killing animals to give their dead bodies to some deity you believe in uncritically, does not constitute technology. People can worship whatever they believe in without killing animals or people in the name of their deities, which has also no practical purpose nor applies any scientific knowledge. It's just one of the many ways of how human socio-moral systems and cultures have evolved, many of which are getting obsolete with the influence of secular values and philosophies giving rise to a new, secular era.
+Valar Dracarys Please allow me to explain. My understanding stems from the etymology. From the Greek, "tekhnologia" is the systematic treatment of an art, craft, or technique. My argument makes the assertion that techniques which are applied whether ritualistically or systemically in order to bring about a desired effect should be regarded as "technological" advancements. Ritualistic sacrifice falls into that category because the practice was and is used in order to advance the agendas or result in a desired effect by those who implement such methods. The desired effect in this case being social or cultural cohesion. Although it does not rely on anything more than a conceptualized idea, I feel that the term "technology" can still be applied. Religion follows the same methods. But, to expand on the deeper meaning of what I was saying ... What I am hypothesizing is that technology is taking on an emergent quality that is beyond what we have traditionally understood. While its origins are based in the adaptive qualities of the human species, it is human innovation that has lead to invention. Whereas techniques which have given advantages to those who use them have evolved to supplant previous methods. Tools and language were the first of human technologies, followed then by culture and religion, but the evolution of technology and where is is going is yet unknown. Finally, with respect to the ways technology has allowed for social cohesion, it has also been used for social control and manipulation. And, we must be steadfastly aware of the consequences that can arise from it if we are to assure a desirable future for ourselves and life on our planet.
Well, now that the operating system is being loaded in the guise of the covid-19 vaccine, just pray you can survive the upload process to begin with 😂 Worry about being hacked after the upload is successful and you are still alive and not disabled. 😂
Any interview by Dr Tyson is good, but one where Dr Tyson doesn't interrupt all the time is awesome.
He interrupts too much
+GuyWithAnAmazingHat I kind of wish he would have brought Kurzweil to task for exactly what his predictions of today were. Kurzweil keeps saying he predicted all this stuff happening today, but I'd like to see exactly what he predicted. I have doubts on how accurate anyone can predict things.
u dont interrupt ray !! no one does he has the floor allways lol
do you think there was something to interrupt?
I find Tyson insufferable in all contexts quiet and interruptive
The mark of singularity will be a computer that makes itself obsolete. It will be able to reprogram itself to operate more efficiently and also able to invent the next generation of computing.
+Special EDy uh, is it not it's definition?
+Special EDy SKYNET!!!
+Special EDy
if you are talking software we already have that. it's called a neural net.
hardware the next leap forward will be quantum computers. after that not much else you can do better with the hardware.
+Targard .QuantumFrack he is right, that is essentially what the guy who coined the term re AI was getting at, the point at which successive generations of AI will be able to antiquate themselves by designing their successors will occur at a blinding speed to us humans, imperceptible to us who will so quickly left behind in insignificance. if that happens and the AI develops values, we can only hope that the it sees some value in keeping us alive in a nature preserve or something.
+zarni000 I bet there's something smaller and faster than quantum computing that we just haven't discovered yet.
This video also shows a war between proper sitting posture and stools. Lol
😂😂😂 facts
Get the man a proper chair!
Seriously man! Get some good sitting... 💁🏽♂️😂😂
😂
@@Vash9177 @6:37 💀back pops
Kurzweil never said the technological singularity would occur by 2029. He said 2029 would be the date by which AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) would occur. Kurzweil said the technological singularity would occur by 2045. He's been consistent about those two dates for many decades.
2045? Its already here
@@Horoscopephobianope
Wanted 2 point this out too-Kurzweil's/Technological Singularity is NOT the same as AGI.
Thanks.
Automatic General Intelligence is the real word btw that even Elon Musk uses.. general population dont have any idea what they are making up there
And it means that ai will automatically sort out itself when system breaks.
Neil, Dude! Maybe you should not interrupt people you are interviewing. Thanks for the video though.
Joseph Stokes you must me a new fan around here
Ray is waaay ahead of this guy. Neil is mostly a "science communicator" who focuses on making observations and writing books and now being a tv personality. Ray actually uses his brain to bring these ideas into existence.
100% yes
+Infinite consciousness keep dreamin'
and that is why Neil is interviewing him lol
+hynterd ha ha ha YES!
Neil is being pushed by white guilt liberals who fund his career.
Ray: "I predicted search engines in the 80s, when I saw-"
Neil: "-one of the greatest jokes is..."
Shut up Neil, let him talk.
Man...this Ray Kurzweil guy, what a piece of work...never seen such an arrogant narcissist in my life.
Something doesn't really add up...
He constantly pointed out and affirmed that he made pure genius predictions regarding economic and technology advances all the way back in the 80s?
And his net worth only 30 million? Wtf?!
How?
I call bullshit big time, he definitely isn't the genius inventor and economic guru if all he has made is 30 million...like come on...if he knew about all this technology so long ago and didn't capitalize on it he's an idiot! I call BULLSHIT!!
@@ajcook7777 he knew that one day the money become meaningless after singularity happens therefore he focused on research and development and writing his books he knows that information has more value than money so why waste time lets generate info rather than enormous amount of money which will become meaningless after singularity event.
@@viveknishad5262 That is a complete logical fallacy and I do believe he is intelligent enough to know that and know better.
You mentioned the reason he is not extremely wealthy is because he would rather spend his time, effort, and resources into gathering new information for himself and/or the World?
Just a quick question...how do you suppose an individual would be able to gather such information?
I'm assuming, but correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't you need to complete some sort of research and development (R&D) to do so ? And wouldn't you want to obtain the newest, most updated, and most accurate information possible in the shortest amount in time? And also in the most efficient manner?
One word.....MONEY
According to you, he was so committed to his, "quest for information", that he purposely diverted his efforts into research and development and writing books. Seriously though, if he was so committed to this mission then why would he have not capitalized on all of his secret genius inventions in order to facilitate even more and more research. He physically doesn't even have to be there to collect his capital gains or provide oversight...
Information, especially world changing information, is NOT CHEAP and by him not maxing out his potential revenue gains (in order to fund more research and gain new information) would be a complete disservice to himself and everyone involved.
That is business/economics 101.
It's quite evident this man does not possess more secret knowledge or information compared to the public but he will lead you to believe he has all the answers.
If he did, the World wouldn't in the current state it is now.
He's a narcissist LEVEL 10, and will try to sell ice to the Eskimos..don't fall for it....
@@ajcook7777 We don't know how much money he has, don't belief what is written on Google when you type "ray kurzweil fortune"
99.9% of the time, the fortune Dat internet shows us is total bul*sh*t
He is the inventor of many things and gets royalties from multiple invention since 30 years, he must be billionaire
@@ajcook7777 "I started with the common wisdom that one can not predict the future."
He made predictions, but he was not entirely sure of himself despite his massive intellect. He would have taken more chances financially had the chances been 100% fail safe, but why would he have to struggle with the responsibility of making said choices? He took the easy road, and I can not blame him.
Get off your high horse. It is slightly narcissistic of you to assume that your intellect is high enough to see through bull shit. If it is all bullshit, it is specifically designed for you to not peel back the curtains.
The knowledge of Ray literally cured Tyson's scepticism... that's what happens when u meet intelligent people with great vision... of course AI is going to conquer the world
Nah AI won't do this. it will take a long while before AI can be considered "concious" enough to make decisions that will conquer man. More likely will be the advances AI receives will also advance man. In 20 years, there will be devastation in humanity, AI and robotics will put man out of work globally, joblessness and hunger will be so destructive. BUT as I am the optomist, I belive man will come together to realize our greater purpose cannot be fulfilled alone, and the goal will no longer be competition, but collective growth. the advances we make with AI will enable us to work WITH AI, vs against AI.
EDIT: it needs to be said that I'm only 6 minutes into the vid, so if I say what Kurzweil says, its because I'm a genius, lol.
Meh, I agree with the man from MIT noam Chomsky.
When Dr Tyson interrupts Ray, Ray re-interrupts Tyson and continues, thank you Ray
I’d start swinging on Tyson if he interrupted me like that…
There's a BIG difference between a machine that plays chess and a machine that realizes it's playing chess
Exactly. That would imply that that the machine has awareness....awareness is the Key.
Awareness or consciousness because awareness by itself is just a survival technique which most life has but consciousness is different.
Welcome.
I'm sorry to inform you....
@@justatheory004hahahaha I know right
Did Kurzwell just said "you'll never see my basement" at the end? I am pretty sure he wasn't joking.
I literally laughed out loud at your comment, thank you I needed that this morning
Well Q have you been thrown out of the Continuum once again and lost your omnipotent abilities by that? Since you didn't looked into his basement...or are you trying to stimulate the paranoia tendencies of conspiracy theorists that may watch this clip?
I have this theory. Rick and Morty the cheeky cartoon that's just shot to stardom in no time at all, that whole thing is really based on Ray Kurzweil. He is Rick and Morty and everything on the show is just in Ray Kurzweils head.
I'll give you a moment to process that. We've a long way to go and I need to be sure you're with me here.
So Ray and his basement. What lies here in waiting? That gets tricky because Ray isn't just an average Joe with a house. He is extremely wealthy with multiple properties around the world. But lets just imagine where Ray is right now is his home. What's in that basement? A wine cellar! Sorry, I may have suggested it was more sinister. Despite the mad inventor status Ray carries, he does have impeccable taste being so uncommonly well read.
You have reached the end of this comment. Was this comment helpful yes/no ? if no, please seek your administrator and explain to them how you're nothing and have no clue what's going on more than half the time. That was my Maria Bamford bit
Clay Mann So you know absolutely sure that he has a wine cellar? Can prove that?
I play with Clay. Because Clay is formable, mind controllable, wisenhymerish but adorable.
That's B.F. Skinners, I pull your skin of your skull, Mengele'ish take on it.
peace
I have to come clean, I may have misled slightly when I mentioned a wine cellar. OK, I lied 100% but I had a good feeling about it and I'm never wrong. And I just lied again.
when a CPU run's Minecraft with no lags, ill believe in singularity
+Jnan Mckenzie : HERESY!;)
+dumby88 After all the advances we'd had in the computer/gamer world I just can't understand why millions of folks play that shitty low resolutuin game :P
Jnan Mckenzie Still don't get it. I guess I have to try it, properly
i have i74770 and i run ftb infnty and the big modpacks with no lag what so ever .
Jnan Mckenzie Wow.
That's really kind dude.
I'll do that as soon as I get my PC in order !
Sorry for my poor English.
Norwegian :D
As a man of science, Neil deGrasse shouldn't laugh at the face of a dreamer, it's like if he were a religious guy laughing at the face of Copernicus in the past.
I don't see it as a mocking laugh though. It is rather a laughter out of awe.
For example when Neil laughed and said, "I know for you the world is going too slow".
It is Neil laughing at himself and everybody like him who are so used to thinking the world is moving at a very fast pace as it is. Interesting thoughts always provoke a chuckle at the very least. The religious laugh out of mockery.
When it is never laughing out of disbelief. Throughout the video Neil was laughing out of awe. Perhaps I am reading between the laughs. Perhaps your taking things too much at face value.
These are famous scientists. They are used to this kind of debate.
I'm sure it was at least partly dramatized for a general audience.
fromkentucky Yeah
Santiago Restrepo Castillo
He is very unplecent.
DeChutiya Tyson: I am your biggest skeptic
Kurzweil: Probably not the biggest.
Lol
It's good to see Indian people heare
Yeah because most of the world is full of idiots.
Neil remembered to take his Ritalin I see.
Beerdy - Bruce Lee Central you got a great channel there good job 👍
Is he a methylphenidate addict?
Because he doesnt interrupt anywhere?
Get the man a chair for humanity sake
They're both sitting on stools...
I hate fu''ing stools
The only thing that would ever come out of allowing your brain to be augmented would be an overwhelming urge to enjoy crisp and refreshing Coke-a-Cola! Share one with a friend today!
Oof. That reality was a bit too sharp for me.
damn, wat?
not the only thing but one of the things among many.......coca cola nonetheless is tasty anyway even tho I dont indulge in it.....whatever the next coca cola will be would have some merits behind it in value anyway.....because the design itself would be implemented with the desire attributes rather than the marketing persuasion.
Ad-block for brains, or should I say neural restructuring block.
+10 cents has been deposited into your account
"Ray Kurzweil Predicts an exact year 2029 by which singularity will occur."
Correction, he predicts 2045 for the singularity.
He predicts 2029 for human-level machine intelligence.
+1
@Gerardo Argueta I am a globalist myself and this is not my goal.
He also said 2045 immortality will be achieved. 😀 I’m from 2020 btw lol
Gerardo Argueta what is actually wrong with a single world government? Not this weird conspiracy theory about a totalitarian government, but what if the USA just ran the whole planet?
@Gerardo Argueta yes
Maybe after we get Artificial Intelligence we can get human intelligence.
agreed. especially dawkins. evolution's such a stupid philosophy and his arguments against god are funny as fuck. can you tell me though what is heaven ? i havent figured that out
"Evolution is a stupid philosophy"? okay, name a smart philosophy .
not one based on carbon dating that doesnt work
+James Ram How do you know carbon dating doesn't work?
+James Ram And you didn't name a philosophy that isn't stupid, I take it you can't do it ? you only know about stupid philosophies? you don't know about any smart ones, this says a lot about you.
Ray Kurzweil is on a completely different wavelength to Neil deGrasse.
Literally laughing and cracking jokes at the worst times, and constantly interrupting Ray.
Felt like he had nothing to add to this discussion either. Just commented stupidly on everything Ray was saying ahaha
Yeah, but Neil helps popularize science, so I forgive him.
I agree 100% with the both of you.
I feel like I would agree with you completely except... how many times have you heard Ray Kurzweil talk? Ever notice it's the same talk? I mean like exactly the same. Almost seems as if he CAN'T tell it any different. Kinda OCD about it. Neil is like 'yo 1 to 30 = a billion; lets not do the full length "humans don't like to think exponentially bit yet again. I get it." And Ray still has to do the entire explanation word for word. Neil honestly was doing things many might be tempted to do when talking to Kurzweil; simply to try to get him to say something different. Or even differently. The man has zero improvisation in his explanations. If it weren't for Neil's wisecracks, I would not be sure I hadn't seen this before. Word for ever-loving word.
Ray Kurzweil is talking about technological advances that probably wont be possible for another 80 - 200 years because of the difficulty of calculating the human aspect (Not all humans react the same way) Ray is putting unreal time lines on these technological advances (13 years) which makes him sound ignorant and arrogant among the science community, Not only that but i wonder how many people would sign up for something like this? What happens if something go's wrong? One thing about Neil deGrasse Tyson is that if you could provide evidence to him that there is real worth while science here. He would not be a skeptic he would be a supporter watch some of his video's Neil has said it time after time. So in short Neil is calling it as he see's it and what he see's in Ray's technological advancement time line is laughable and should not be taken seriously yet if ever.
Yeah, if Tyson were white, he would be just another physicist. Kurzweil's mind is light years ahead of his. I used to own one of his synthesizers.
This interview was 7 years before chatGPT made AI mainstream.
Shut up Neil and let him talk ffs ! Stop interrupting !
jesus i know what you mean everyone of his interviews he just needs to butt in! he's such a F!@#ing diva
I recommend watching transcendent man if no one has seen it, a documentary about Ray kurzweil and singularity
Let me begin by saying that I'm a neurologist who majored in neuroscience, minored in physics, and researched deep brain stimulation for many years. It has always been my theory that while Kurzweil does understand computers, he fails to accept our incredible ignorance of how the human brain truly functions, in all of its nonlinearities and plasticities that are not so simply explained by our current models. This is further confirmed by his mischaracterization that parts of brains of Parkinson's disease patients are connected to computers. A deep brain stimulator is basically technology of a 50 year-old cardiac peacemaker that has been modified to apply a fixed pattern of electrical impulse to provide a fairly modest improvement in functioning of subcortical brain nuclei. DBS was in fact discovered by accident while stimulating prior to lesion surgery, and though there are some decent theories as to how it works, nobody truly understands its mechanism of action or even which parts of the brain are being stimulated (including axonal tracks that pass by the multiple nuclei that would be affected by gradients of the electric field produced by these devices). Mr. Kurzweil calls this a brain connected to a computer because it sounds nice within his arguments and reads nicely in his books, but I maintain that he fails to appreciate the true complexity of the human brain, an organ of which our understand has merely scratched the surface.
you are my hero
Our human brain gets dreams which can show future. .Now you think humans will know this stuff..do no ..it can never..the moemnt you able to reach that level by that time humans wont be present..
Yes agree on that point brain is too complex..and it is good to dream..
A complete knowledge of the human brain is not necessary to create a simulation that performs at similar levels. We don't even understand how our modern digital neural networks really work and we build those ourselves. Abstraction is the solution here and has worked well so far, as of right now ai has been able to simulate most of the capabilities of a human mind and even recently it seems generalization may have finally been solved (by far the biggest hurdle in the way of human level ai)
A fun interview with a clash of personalities here. We have tyson on one side, the brash charasmatic to kurzweil on the other, the introvert genius. For me kurzweil won the smackdown xD
5tealthlab5
It’s not a wrestling match, it’s an interview...and not a great on on Neil’s part
5tealthlab5 Tyson? Charismatic?
@@doctorroach1680 for a scientist? Absolutely
This video aged pretty well. Today is the first day of 2023. In November 30, 2022, OpenAI released ChatGPT. One can only imagine what will happen by 2029. Ray Kurzweil was right about this. He was also right that people are saying well, ChaGPT is clunky and making mistakes, but I believe this thing will continue creeping on us until we reach the singularity. And by that time, people will have gotten used to it.
The singularity will happen before 2029
ChatGPT passed the Turing test in 2022.
And now we have gpt4
@@greengoblin9567no
@@johno378yes
I feel so bad for Neil, he is doing such a great job keeping the interview light and Ray isnt having it AT ALL.
I felt bad for Ray... he kept trying to explain this profound concept to Neil who kept interrupting with childish jokes and belittling him, but then can't come up with any actual points. Neil needs to seriously humble himself up, he's coming off as pretentiously naïve and like he can't be introduced to new ideas.
@@Wonderlikechild - Agreed.
haha i know right!
Fully agree with you @wonderlikechild
For me it reads like Neil is totally condescending and went into the interview ready to tear him down. It's ok to have a complete diff of opinion. In fact, that's how we learn, but you don't have to be a dick about it
video uploaded in 2016. Now 2019 Elon Musk announces neuralink. Neil laughed and scoffed at Kurzweil's theories and ideas, but yet here we are less than 3 years from the date this was posted with an announcement that will change the future and world as we know it. 2029 now seems like a very possible date
There'll be a singularity, for those that can afford the monthly payments.
commandZee when the singularity happens we will get rid of money
@@HelloHello-no6bq maybe, but people might still want to capitalize off the knowledge some may gain from using nano tech or other things. It's really hard to picture a world without money for me.
@@BaccaGamingHD1 than u do not have an imagination the people will demand it muh robbery muh identity theft muh suppressed vote and we will become the bots!!!!!!!!!!!!! is that what u want because thats revelation in the bible or you can vote democrat theyll destroy the world with out dave quinonaz antichrist beingazz
Singularity subscriptions with limited advertisements if you get the gold member package or combine your purchase with another product of equal or greater value (Offer valid now until June with early subscriber savings. Terms and conditions apply.)
I didn't realise Woody Allen is so clever.
ZOMBONA he's like a mix of woody Allen and Christoph Waltz
the fuck you on about, woody allen IS clever
There is an astonishing resemblance.
Babbage's Difference Engine worked. Babbage never had the resources to build one, but when they built one in the late twentieth century it worked as designed.
one of the most wonderful things ever conceived of or made. it could have been made in his life w available tech but would have required some many highly skilled man hours it would have had to been funded by an extraordinarily visionary and wealthy patron who never appeared sadly.
+John Smith agree
We might be living in a totally different world today if that had happened.
***** hmmm, maybe, only if the tech would have led to making its making more Babbage engines later more affordable so the tech could be a little popularized, like in industry. It is hard to imagine how it would lead to CNC machines, for example, that could turn out many precision machines, or how it could do more than make it faster for engineers to work out certain types of equations... The tech is just hard to scale what w the size and labor needed.
Ai experts won't put a 6 months pause on Ai. I'm with Ray on this one.
For some reason Neil’s personality keeps me interested . One would say he has a gravitational pull when it comes to listening to him talk about science .
Neil thinks he is a lot funnier than he really is.
I think he is hilarious. Comedy is subjective and saying a person is not funny is just narcissism because you think your standard is somehow higher.
He's a serious skeptic of Kurweil's claims, so he's obviously trying to put him at ease. You can see from his general body language he wasn't at ease.
Yeah, I like his humor. You just don't like it when he laughs when you're not laughing. You are ignoring the context of their conversation. This is how intelligent people talk. A lot more is going on.
As an interviewer, he's a pretty good astronomer.
He's just been around the talk show hosts and tv people for awhile now. I'm not surprised to see behavior like this in him. If you look back at his earlier work you can see him be more awkward with his delivery. He is doing us all a great service by providing his intelligence to interviews like this. Although I also wish he toned it down, I'm happy he is here at all
I was so sleepy, I came to UA-cam for music, I was Neil in my recommended, I looked at the time 20 minutes, I said dang this is too long, I clicked on it anyways, it's interesting, they talk about A-I I recently did a mediocre paper for my early college on A-I, I get excited, I finish the video and am now funny awake. I think about my future with me liking animals and technology. Man I love science
+charly sosa I did the same thing!
happens all the time!
Human connected to the cloud and something goes wrong.
We become BORG.
Great perspective.
+Andy Spark The Borg are far superior to us unaugmented humans. I would consider that scenario to be a great improvement.
Oskar Vuorela
To be united, will be great,
but i don't wanna lose the ability,
to have own thought from time to time.
Resistance is futile
Kobayashi Maru
Is that your real name, or you use the name of a popular ST-Test.
It's a ST reference ;)
Part of what make Neil easy and fun to relate to, and understand, are his analogies to movies.
I love Ray and his curiosity, brilliance, and optimism! I remember buying his book more than ten years ago and he is absolutely brilliant.
Or, you know, he could be just fucking delusional like Elon Musk and his “plan” to colonize Mars.
@@freethinker424 I'm sure Albert Einstein was considered delusional by many as well.
I wish singularity came as fast as possible i am very excited about it
I don't think people have grasped just how monumental this interview is. If his predictions are even relatively correct, years from now we'll be looking back and this interview would be viral.
That what I was thinking. How topics like the singularity remain unknown to the wide public is incredible, I guess is just human nature.
glad to be here
That was painful. First time ever Neil started to upset me. Thankfully he mentioned he might be "cured" at the end.
I love this video. Tyson kept an open mind the whole time and let the other guy actually speak. You do not see that in politicians or most regular people for that matter. By the end he had learned something new and actually begun to accept someone's ideas which he previously thought silly.
A true genius if I've ever seen one.
Watched this three years ago, watching it now in 2020 and knowing how far off we are from Moore’s law.
Ray is making more and more sense every year.
How are you today? 😂
The singularity is near when humans transcend biology, SCARY!!!
Seems we might actually reach the singularity before 2029 with Google's recent generalized agent breakthrough. Many predictions are saying 2027 or earlier
Ah u got me. I was like " how is this comment 9 yrs old while the video is only 6 yrs old ? "
Honestly, with how quickly we're advancing with technology, singularity may be achieved quicker than we're currently theorizing it will be since we're quickly reaching the point of being able to recreate the human mind through the computer that can learn, think, feel emotions, and so much more without outside assistance.
What about mores law .....it has to be keep going
Can someone cite the time in the video when Neil deGrasse Tyson reveals the reason behind his skepticism that he repeatedly teases that he'll reveal throughout the 20:42 interview?
+Mark Anders
He never does XD
+Mark Anders Your brain lacks the computational capacity 12:56
+Question everything. What do you believe happens at 12:56?
+Mark Anders The goddamn singularity! Did you bother to pay any attention?
Question everything.
LOL what does your comments have anything to do with the OP's comment?
Machines will develop consciousness and then kill themselves when they find out how stupid their creators are
A consciousness is nothing special it's simply computation anyway.....
The difficulty in creating ai that's human like and possibly will surpass the human specie is creating its own will.......
what the heck is will....ego and desire?......both can be programmed into ai but that's still not creating its own will.......
1 things for sure it'll humans greatest invention and servant.....
the old saying is true after all....the creation can't surpass its creator.....
wait I see it now........
ego and desire being exponentially great will create a will of its own in an ai............1 that will cross the possibility of creating something like an ai or destroying its enemies like perhaps humans to better serve its ego......
There is nothing special about the human brain it's all mechanical like, linear and can be duplicated in ai.....to make a super human. 0.0
so you are saying that the scientists who will create the artificial intelligence will somehow be stupid?
***** none of my comments are made for likes
Allister Quinn haha what kind of stupid name is Allister? Where are you from, Krypton?
Did neil do ANY reserch on mr. Kurzweil before this damn interview
This is by far the best interview of Ray Kurzweil I have seen.
Did I miss something?
So what is your opinion of the interview?
Great discussion, well balanced and informative. Ray Kurzweil described this subject in a very accessible and interesting way. Thanks!
My favorite two scientists!!
"I don't need you to tell me what the movies do" - Neil deGrasse Tyson. Clearly on the ropes.
Great conversation, thanks for sharing this video 🙏🏽 Neil & Ray are both so awesome 🤩
Anyone who watched this video is my people, you're the kind of folks I would love to hang out with and discuss these topics. Should I create a telegram group for us to e-connect us and learn from each other?
Send link
Kurzweil's most interesting prediction, I think, is that through life and technology the universe is impelled to evolve into a "large mind." Here's a quote for the kids-
"Intelligence is very powerful. It is the most powerful force that we are aware of. Intelligence can overcome [supposed] natural limits - not through any kind of magic, but just by figuring ways to manipulate forces at finer and finer scales so that, ultimately, what seem to be natural limits can be superseded. It won’t take that long for us to do this at a solar-system scale and then a galaxy-wide scale. Ultimately, we will turn the universe into a large mind that is trillions of trillions of times greater than all of human intelligence today."
Read Accelerando by Charles Stross if you like that idea. Very good sci-fi.
After ive seen chatgpt, i so believe in Ray's predictions
Tyson is on speed and this other guy is talking like he's on an acid trip.
maybe they are
they should use chairs w back support
+Juan Pastás exactly, maybe they need 2029 to get it.
Why is the full documentary on singularity not available anymore on youtube ?
I see a very large difference in intelligence with both of them speaking side by side. Neil is extremely focused with astrophysics where as Ray is quantifying multiple different fields.
i agree with this interview although the year prediction might be some years off.
That's what i said. I think personally he's being quite optimistic. We are talking about Nano-bots going to our cerebral cortex and making it big and better. Though nothing he is saying is far out their that we can't see what he's talk about. If it's to improve Humanity by giving us a larger brain we should stop at no cost to have it.
+BOAT LOADS OF EXPOSITIONZ yea that is true but to bad our government is more focus in putting unnecessary billions into weapons...I would fund the fuck out of this if I was a billionaire lol
Selfmade DC Yes we febel humans seem to be more obsess with shit that will kill each other. I have undeniable evidence of THE SMARTER WE GET THE LONGER WE LIVE but I guess it's like he is saying as well it's all ready on it's way. We are just living in a sort of prehistoric time period of human integration with it's device. We could be funding it as we speak by always wanting the new and hot device out-there.
DAVID NORIEGA neuralink
Juliano Queral yep!
19:08 This is where I always disagree with Kurzweil. HE claims that the challenges we face are always linear ones, when in fact, our brains are much more easily able to detect changes on a logarithmic scale, instead of a linear one. If you have one lion, that is a specific danger. If you have two lions, that is twice the danger. Three lions does not continue this trend, rather 4 lions is twice the danger, again. By the time you get up to 50 lions, a single other lion is completely unnoticeable, but twice the lions is still very much a thing you can notice.
If you break down temperature, light, and other such forces, our brains work purely on a logarithmic scale. Small changes (linear) to a bright light are unnoticeable, but percentage changes always remain distinguishable no matter how bright (until our senses overload from the total signal strength and "white out"). Our brains do not work on a linear scale, they work on a logarithmic one.
Isn't that sensory hindsight though. I think he's talking about intuition use for predictions.
Okay I suppose he did say "predictive ability", not direct sense ability. Still, when it comes to the here and now, or with comparisons, we do not think linearly, much past the single, the double, and the many.
Jeoshua Collins I also think that's incorrect. Because our mind can only hold so much information at once we tend to do chunking to compensate. The part that appears exponential, or logarithmic is really more chunking based on category. Maybe the category relations are exponential, but I don't know.
If you're at a party there is that much more chance to make a new friend, but if you're at a concert with 100,000 people do you have exponential friend potential?
That's a great point. How do you think this alters his predictions?
Eric Smith It doesn't. His predictions could be wrong, or right. We'll have to see. If you're referring to the exponent of progress -- that's manifested from a team effort. His predictions come from past trends, and statistical plots that represent those team efforts. 100s, and sometimes 1000s of minds working to a common goal. Whether, or not that predicted goal is reached is yet to be seen.
Kurzweil said that in 30 years, an information technology is 1 billion times more powerful than it was at the beginning.
That sounds impressive, so let's look at it. The Mac has been around over 30 years, so it should be a billion times more capable than it was 30 years ago.
Yes, it's a lot faster, it's in color and it has a larger screen, but is it really a billion times more capable than it was in 1986? Well, it still needs a lot of troubleshooting (check the Apple forums for proof of that), and you still operate it by clicking on icons, pulling down menus and typing on a keyboard.
In other words, despite being a billion times more "capable," it still works the same way it did 30 years ago. I guess what I'm saying is that a billionfold improvement on paper does not necessarily translate into the kind of advancements Kurzweil implies.
it isn't a 1 for 1 ratio, if memory serve computational capacity double every 16 months +- so we are not at the 30th step but more like the 20th.... so it makes worlds of differences
That's not relevant at all... Have you even heard of Moore's Law?
30 years ago, no internet, no cloud, no wireless, no phone integration. Add all those in, I'm not sure it can be estimated how much more powerful it is - not in speed or hardware-related functions, maybe, but in kinds of information and value of having access to that information - or, to use your word, "capability".
That's where my skepticism lies: just because computers are increasing numerically in power doesn't then imply that we, as humans, can apply that power effectively towards human-like AI. That is a totally separately technology that has to be developed in a totally different way: it's not about die sizes, transfer speeds, or how much RAM you have. It's about creating a software that emulates a human...and can be implemented in millions of different personalities.
Chris Ducat This is where you get it wrong. Chances are that we'll integrate our own mind to advanced hardware to expand it before we reach true AI. Basically we'll e the machines before they become us.
Now for AI that only emulate human interaction we are not that far of. They will just follow programs though. They won't independent thoughts before a while. Also an other thing that you are failing to realise is that true AI will probably build itself. From a more primitive one it will start an exponential cycle of self improvements and reach true AI by it's own capacities, like a child learning all we'll be able to do is to input data and it will analyse from that logical extrapolations.
THIS CONSCIOUSNESS BROUGHT TO YOU BY RAID SHADOW LEGENDS
Ray Kurzweil forgets (and seems unable to remember for couple of decades now) that in nature all exponential processes never end up in "singularity" of any form. Destruction, explosion, breakage of any kind, calm slowing down of the process - yeah, sure, but not singularity. And the reason for this - resources. Any process that does anything at all - requires resources (because thermodynamics :) ) and most of these resources are limited. Energy, any materials, human brains (as in people who move science forward) - all these are limited. When demand for resources will overcome potential capacity - exponent will slow down, and slow down fast. And resources are never limitless. See you in 2029 :)
BTW, I don't say AI will not occur. That is a different question.
I get what you are saying and you raise important points, but I think there is a stark difference between natural and synthetic processes. Namely, resources limit the growth of species up to max carrying capacity that an environment can sustain it, but with technology we have Moore's law and ever increasing efficiency which far outpaces the efficiency seen in nature. A small, finite amount of resources today can amount to some number of transistors and what have you, but a few years down the road, we will have increased computing potential from that same amount of resource just from how we build those component parts and how much quicker we will be able to transmit data. With that in mind, I think there are plenty of resources (material, intellectual, or otherwise) for continued technological growth at ever accelerating rates.
well its a technological singularity not a natural one. Also of course we have not witnessed a singularity yet, we have yet to reach the apex.
First of all, energy is one of the few things on this planet that is not in limited supply. And though i do agree that demand will eventually become bigger than supply, i firmly believe we'll be well past 2029 when that happens. Also the "singularity" marks the initiation of a process. In an explosion it would be the moment of detonation and expansion. Anything past that would be because of the singularity.
u forget he mentioned at the curent price point and u have to also asume we as humans dont kill are selfs first in war if everything stays same yes he is correct perhaps not in his time line but in xxx years based on the groth paterns and cost price point !!!! he says it loud and clear
I wish I had day to day interaction with men like these.
+Homer Simpson Didn't you has pizza yesterday?
***** Ha! You forgessed what you eated (or hasst)
lol" im skeptical for difrent reasons, but go ahead, we'll get there". lmfao!
Damn, as brilliant as Neil is as an astrophysicist and public educator, it's surprising to watch him struggle to match this guy's tenor.
btw anybody else think Neil looks more like a fusion jazz drummer than a physicist?
My two favourite brains/communicators in the world together in a video. Thanks
This ended on a far more positive note than i thought it would.
Kurzweil seems so sad. :(
maybe he knows something about the future that we don't...
Most highly intelligent people aren't happy. Happiness doesn't create innovation.
I'd agree but I'd add people in general aren't happy. ..
+MrSimjam1980
Are you highly intelligent enough to make that assertion? I worked with remarkably intelligent people through grad school and during my research career, and one constant was that the really smart ones seemed happier than I was. I am quite intelligent by most standards, but I got to know so many people who baffled me with their intellect. I went from always being the smartest kid in the class as an undergrad to feeling like the stupid one in grad school. I found that depressing at the time, but everywhere I went in research it seemed that everyone was generally happy and well balanced. (It turns out that I've lived with depression most of my life, which accounts for a lot of my perspective.) I think you are simply incorrect in that statement. I would far more easily believe that highly intelligent people are more likely to be satisfied or content with life. Just because Kurzweil has a droopy, Woody Allen face doesn't mean he is in fact unhappy.
The most intelligent people in the world are probably not celebrities. I doubt most people would recognize them if they passed them on the street, or had a conversation with them at a dinner party. Intelligence is not what a lot of people think it is. It certainly does not lead to a special, universal understanding of life that invariably leads to a bleak world view. Remember, intelligent minds disagree too. People are people.
+Beena Plumber Perhaps it was more of a generalisation through personal observations, rather than an outright statement of fact. It may be true, intelligence could possibly bring happiness. There is also the possibility that there is no correlation between the two.
And also, why would I need others if I have all information in my head? intimacy and social activities likely wouldn't exist. Like what future are we looking for exactly?
All this is great! Honestly, I have nothing against technological advancements. The only thing that is scary for me is how easily and without a doubt, we as humans, talk about and compare, how WE are made, to how we have created computers. Maybe because we have logical minds we have created words and terms that lets us BELIEVE that we are almost the same. In my opinion, we are not, because what we are and what this whole univers is, we still don't know, just like we don't know EXACTLY what we have created(the computers,AI, etc.) p.s. I've heard that they dont exactly know how the technology behind AI is getting smarter on its own... thx for reading if u read this and understood! Like and let me know what you think plz.. i really wanna know people's opinion on this. 🙏
The Creator somehow made us (humans). And I'm certain they have. How could we imagine being able to do better...with what they give us. We can search, but we will always come back to us, God's and humans.
"once i believed that pain was a gift, and that my mission was to share it with the world !"
Man, these two guys have taught me so much.
One objection I see is that even though we have access to great information there are so many idiots online creating stupid concepts that are easily dismissed with available knowledge and logic. I see people ask questions about things they could easily find answers from by a few minutes google search. You can write it off with laziness or financial motivations to promote false ideas but it just proves my point, the net has failed to increase the average intellect..
immortality is near !
Before you start calling people morons - let's talk for one second .. Transferring your mind to a machine - meaning you don't have a body .. how will you need water and food then ?
Yeah ... I tried ..
But a moron like you will always be a moron. Nothing can be changed.
Why are you so butthurt? The guy has a point. Stop name-calling, trying to sway the conversation from the fact that you have no valid thought that deserves any recognition.
Is that a threat?
+Dom Spiegel That's a legitimate fear of kind. The way technology is advancing, it seems immortality will be here within a century of two. I might just miss it, or I might be able to get on board.
deGrasse needs to learn the basics of interviewing people, lesson 1. Dont REPEATEDLY talk over the top of the person your interviewing when hes trying to answer one of your questions.
+Jayme Capurso I agree, but at least I think he is mostly clarifying a point. The topic seems to stay on track.
I agree. Neil also keeps interrupting a lot. A good interviewer will ask good questions and let the other speak.
man,I love these types of talks
Heres my take on AI...First of all humans have 3 things that motivates all actions:1. To reproduce2. Fear (to avoid stuff that we dont like/that can harm us)3. Pleasure (to gain stuff that we do like/that can benefit us)So AI has none of these Three things. How ethical is it to create it in them (if even possible)? Basically giving them Death anxiety? Furthermore humans are extremely irrational. We do things depending on how bored we are, hormones, blood sugar, opportunity you name it. Do we really want AI with this trait?Think about it.
I often wonder how it would even be possible to program such "randomness" i.e. the varying amounts of neurotransmitters passing across synapses causing us a certain mood that affects our thoughts and actions.
interesting point. humans are messy, very very messy. ai-researchers seem to want to think of intelligence and consciousness as clean and tidy.they want to mosty focus solely on the neo-cortex and toss everything else in the trash. when i would argue that the neo-cortex is just the tip of the iceberg and connected with all the mass of stuff under the surface. just take the enteric nervous system in our gut for example:"The enteric nervous system also makes use of more than 30 neurotransmitters, most of which are identical to the ones found in CNS, such as acetylcholine, dopamine, and serotonin. More than 90% of the body's serotonin lies in the gut, as well as about 50% of the body's dopamine, which is currently being studied to further our understanding of its utility in the brain.[16][17][18"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_nervous_system
Another example is just a sunny day improving your mood through vitamin D production which influences your actions and decisions. I think approximation will be the closest we will get to AI. Think a "soulless" person.
Yes I believe you are correct. Btw here is a fresh article on the enteric nervous system for those interested:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160607080342.htm
Hello :) I wanted to comment on the idea of 'motivation' in a machine that you bring up. First, I don't think it's desirable to simply copy human motivation into a an AI, if just because it seems like many of the persistent social problems in our world stem from innate motivations that are simply maladaptive in the context of the modern era. I think we agree on this.
Second, I think that something as simple as programming an AI to optimize its activities towards a specific outcome or range of outcomes is identical to giving it a psychological motivation to pursue those outcomes. I think that programming motivation into an AI is not just ethical, but necessary for it to function in a rational manner.
Just so everyone is clear: a lot of Kurzweil's ideas are fundamentally flawed. For example, he talks about the neocortex, explaining that it is what gives humans our intelligence and that the difference between a mouse and a primate is the size of the neocortex. While it is generally true that more intelligent animals have a larger neocortex, that fact alone does not explain our intelligence, because our brains are not that much different from apes, and some dolphins actually have *more* neocortical neurons than humans. Those same dolphins also have higher level associative areas like the primate frontal lobe. The point is - we still have no idea what specific biological difference gives us our intelligence, so to simply say "add more cortical neurons in the cloud, get more brain power" is meaningless and premature. There is still some aspect of our brain that is not currently well understood that gives us our language, reasoning, and high level cognitive abilities.
Agreed on all points.
Ok? So dolphins can't make technology. Whether or not they are more intelligent has no bearing.
billyjack70 you must have misunderstood. I am criticizing Kurzweil's point that the thing that gives humans their special cognitive abilities is that they have a frontal lobe with more cortical neurons. That is not necessarily the case, as I put forward in my original comment.
Yes, Kurzwell is incorrect regarding his summary of the cerebral cortex. It's not just the size, but also the complexity of the neural networks inside. This is very much an over simplification of the true functions of the cerebral cortex, but will suffice enough to disprove Kurzwell's poor hypothesis.
Dan K and even then, we don't know it has anything to do with complexity. You could have a brain 5 times as complex as the human brain, but we don't know enough to say that this imaginary brain would be as intelligent as a human. Dolphins and whales have very complex brains as well, and we don't know what the quantitative difference in complexity actually is.
You'll hear the "complexity argument" from lots of computer science people, especially those studying machine/deep learning, because they want to think that if they keep getting more computing power which allows bigger and more complex artificial networks, then they'll eventually get human like intelligence. That's really a pipe dream until we figure exactly what about the human brain architecture gives us our special abilities.
I wish Tyson would have articulated his former scepticism, even though by the end of the video, he is no longer sceptical.
+T Oadaly I waited for it myself. I am less interested in his change of mind than his former convictions.
Amazing, i can listen to them talk all day. It's like watching a 🎥 movie.
With the future advancements in tissue engineering and bio mechanical engineering Dr. Ray Kurzweil's statements are not unrealistic.
The singularity exists NOW it has ALWAYS existed and it will ALWAYS exist.
One thought is the singularity of every thought that proceeds from it!
THAT is what the Big Bang was. Just a thought. There is no physical reality. Only the thought that a physical universe exists.
IT DOESNT
No more than a dream exists except as the firing of a synapse! An explosion.
The fact I am writing this means I exist as Des Carte says. The fact I exist means Some force created me and my intelligence and my awareness, and maintaines it.
My own current belief is that while we may perceive there is a physical universe around us, I believe we are actually exactly what a dream we experience is. The flow of sub atomic energy. The firing of synapses. Nothing more. Each firing is a simple on off explosion. The timing and order of those explosions are encoded into a sequence and given meaning.
The meaning MUST be everlasting or we could not give it any meaning at all. It also happens faster than the speed of light, so fast that time is meaningless. Energy cannot be created or destroyed so anything that exists, has always existed and always will exist?
In order for an explosion to take place something has to exist to explode and something has to cause it to explode.
One single though is enough to begin the domino effect of trillions of resulting thoughts, thus the Big Bang of every creation. Every parallel dimension has its own Big Bang thought. None of which exist except as thoughts.
"I believe we can have a world that is essentially free of poverty, disease is reduced, clean up the environment..." says the optimistic academic who has not a political bone in his body. I believe that who ever gets to this level of control in AI will rule the world, and probably not for the good of us all, but for his/her own good.
Initially it will be for his/her own good, but they won't be able to control superintelligent ai
@@aliengod3528 Well almost by definition AI is super intelligent. unless the programmers build in structural barriers to prevent it from doing certain tasks or working in a certain way, it will have more inputs than any human ever would, it will be able to think faster than any human ever would. Remember AI is all about learning, so it will learn and create its own intelligent base of info and its own set of references and principles and libraries of information that would be far far beyond our scope
Ive never seen someone so afraid of their own mortality than Ray
Im sure it comes from the traumatic experience of having his father die during his early age.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is Carl Sagan with a sense of humor.
this, combined with my opinion that intellectual property should only exist for 5 years would greatly benefit human kind. Every book, science paper, movie etc should be free to access. This would enable people to learn without college, and the progression of humanity would greatly accelerate.
this dude is looking younger than he looked five years ago
I read he taked hundreds of vitamin pills everyday. He is very committed to reach the 2050s
Black don't crack
6 minutes in yall are talking about uploading info directly to the brain.now imagine this, u read a 4 series book, each book containing at least 500 pages. all within 4 seconds, now your brain which has been previously programmed to not take in that much info at once has to process all the emotional reactions you had to characters diferent experiences at once, it IMO might make some people mentally snap.any opinions?
Just put emotions on mute and go
lol
syphon the emotional processing to those nano-comps (in your bloodstream also) so you CAN deal with 2000 pages of emotional input... feed the results back out over a slower time, maybe an 8 hour sleep-cycle so you aren't overwhelmed. Point is, we'll integrate those 4x500 page books when we're able to handle it and not before.
i like that idea.
to mention biological improvements to the brain. it got to the current state because the only thing it needed to accomplish is have us 'not die'. with a real goal beyond survival we can self augment to whatever degree we choose at some point in order to simply consume 500 pages of content every second of the day or more.
Sounds too much like a BORG consciousness. I fear that we would loose our humanity, and consciousness if we create a universal cloud based connection that gives us access to everything all the time, and immediately. No I say, "use the tool" whatever that interface may be; but don't incorporate the tool into our being. We're talking about surrendering ourselves in the name of science. But I give a thumbs up because...Science!
+Michael Lites Well but if we also loose our INhumanity then maybe it is a good thing ;)
gcgrabodan The vast majority of Human's are not inhumane. And there's no guarantee that a hive consciousness would be any better. It might get more people to be inhumane faster.
I would say the vast majority is inhumane. Right now there are people starving or being tortured, but you enjoy your life not thinking about them and maybe go out for dinner or cinema or so tonight while you could donate that money and potentially save a life. Read "living high and letting die" for a more elaborate version of that argument
gcgrabodan Don't get on your high horse and presume I don't think about it, and don't care. The fact of the matter is the definition of inhumane is, "lack of compassion for misery or suffering". Because there is suffering in the world doesn't mean the vast majority of seven billion people are non sympathetic to the plight of our fellow man. If that were the case, we'd all be doomed, and a Hive consciousness wouldn't solve the problem. It would only amplify it. Which was my point in the first place. There is no utopia where Human Nature is involved. We are flawed, and I choose to have hope that most of my "fellow man" strives to do better, and not worse.
regardin the definition of inhumane... well I think if the compassion is insufficient to give up a small personal luxury for another persons life than it doesnt qualify as compassion. And I am not on a high horse, as I myself also fall into the category of inhumane, the way I see it. Our brains are not made to encompass all other peoples needs into our decisions. That makes us do terrible thinks, at the very least we are guilty of negligence.
Not criticizing anyone here but concept of singularity is core in Hinduism and Buddhism and saying that some one invented this is a shame
It occurs to me, perhaps, the matrix I am living in, is, in fact, the 'injection' of information they discussed. The stage of learning where a 'neo'-cortex, in this interface, is a node, where we connect, from the other interface, the real world, for getting a download.
I'm glad he mentioned a ball game, it would be just like that. .."Hmm, what to do today? Let's check out this Human Life program. It says, 'A corporeal experience in a static universe where you experience the passage of time, and physical phenomenon, such as thought, emotions, birth and death.' Hmm, that sounds cool."
15:45 - A utopian future is an empty promise. Technology has become an inevitable force of nature. But many ways in which it has been used to advance civilizations has been through coercion and fear, which has traditionally allowed the most brutal of our species to rise to power. I cite religion and human sacrifice as examples of technologies gone awry, where our best intentions for the greater good have inevitably lead to the suffering of countless many. In order for us to secure a future for our species, we must first break from false ideals and move toward a system that is more harmonious with respect to all life. And, we better act fast! Preferably before the singularity...
+Anon2150 Religion and human sacrifice are NOT technology. You seemed to confuse culture and technology.
+Tikitiki Takataka Culture is also a technology.
+Tikitiki Takataka
Sacrificial behavior is a technology used to further the advancement of society. Because, it makes use of methods of social organization through a unified or shared cultural vision. Also, as a tactic for maintaining order through fear of death or disfavor among the gods (meaning, you would also be doomed in the afterlife). And, the practice of taking advantage of a psychological human weakness, as yet unidentified, which makes us particularly susceptible to coercion and manipulation. This weakness in human psyche might simply be identified as our innate ability to deny reality.
*Definition of technology: the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.*
- Killing animals to give their dead bodies to some deity you believe in uncritically, does not constitute technology. People can worship whatever they believe in without killing animals or people in the name of their deities, which has also no practical purpose nor applies any scientific knowledge. It's just one of the many ways of how human socio-moral systems and cultures have evolved, many of which are getting obsolete with the influence of secular values and philosophies giving rise to a new, secular era.
+Valar Dracarys Please allow me to explain.
My understanding stems from the etymology. From the Greek, "tekhnologia" is the systematic treatment of an art, craft, or technique.
My argument makes the assertion that techniques which are applied whether ritualistically or systemically in order to bring about a desired effect should be regarded as "technological" advancements. Ritualistic sacrifice falls into that category because the practice was and is used in order to advance the agendas or result in a desired effect by those who implement such methods. The desired effect in this case being social or cultural cohesion. Although it does not rely on anything more than a conceptualized idea, I feel that the term "technology" can still be applied. Religion follows the same methods.
But, to expand on the deeper meaning of what I was saying ... What I am hypothesizing is that technology is taking on an emergent quality that is beyond what we have traditionally understood. While its origins are based in the adaptive qualities of the human species, it is human innovation that has lead to invention. Whereas techniques which have given advantages to those who use them have evolved to supplant previous methods.
Tools and language were the first of human technologies, followed then by culture and religion, but the evolution of technology and where is is going is yet unknown.
Finally, with respect to the ways technology has allowed for social cohesion, it has also been used for social control and manipulation. And, we must be steadfastly aware of the consequences that can arise from it if we are to assure a desirable future for ourselves and life on our planet.
"The Singularity Is Near - but I keep pushing the date out every time I'm wrong" - Ray Kurzweil
No plugging into the cloud for me thank you 😳
Hi.. i will not participate to singularity... never.. even if they offer an immortal life
It's a choice tho so iz oki
I love Kurzweil but his eternal optimism for the future is little insane.
i hope Norton by the time everthing is in my brain develops a very good anti virus
Eduardo Freire Feliz If you're relying on Norton, now, or ever, you're already boned.
Well, now that the operating system is being loaded in the guise of the covid-19 vaccine, just pray you can survive the upload process to begin with 😂 Worry about being hacked after the upload is successful and you are still alive and not disabled. 😂
It's amazing that this passes for thinking big thoughts. They are so wrong about so much in just three short years.