37C3 - Synthetic Sentience

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 22 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 77

  • @phyngineer
    @phyngineer 11 місяців тому +29

    Joscha's shirt developed consciousness. JK, he's one of the smartest guys around!

  • @AlexTrusk91
    @AlexTrusk91 11 місяців тому +20

    Casually dropped a rare Gem on topics we only start to grasp. Nice

  • @pedro_marques92
    @pedro_marques92 11 місяців тому +23

    thanks lord joscha, the enlightened one, some day people will build a religion upon your name, bachism. keep feeding us with your wisdom, blessings and prophecies.

    • @harriehausenman8623
      @harriehausenman8623 10 місяців тому +2

      Already happened. Back in 2013. 29th of december, to be precise. What a wonderful sunday that was ☀ 😄

    • @qubit966
      @qubit966 Місяць тому

      @@harriehausenman8623
      What happened that day?

  • @itssoaztek4592
    @itssoaztek4592 11 місяців тому +14

    This guy really is pushing boundaries. Love it.

  • @derBartzer
    @derBartzer 11 місяців тому +4

    Great talk. I love everything about it and i am grateful that you share your thoughts with me.

  • @harriehausenman8623
    @harriehausenman8623 10 місяців тому +2

    The Legend is back! 🤗
    p.s.: Three seconds is about right: One for before, one for now and one for after 😄 (Lux Petrus ? 😉 )

  • @Subject18
    @Subject18 3 місяці тому

    Absolutely beautiful talk, I love Joscha and this is one of my favourite talks of his. Ive tried to deconstruct my ethics before but he does it wonderfully here with Aquinas's policies. And the monologue from 41:15 always gives me shivers

  • @JulianDanzerHAL9001
    @JulianDanzerHAL9001 11 місяців тому +6

    47:25
    real time is a fairly arbitrary measure though
    in fact I think "us beign able ot perceive ourselves perceiving in real time" gets the logic backwards
    real time is the time in which we can perceive ourselves perceiving ourselves
    thats why its the timescale that we, subjetively, have decided to call "real time" for practical purposes
    there are plenty relevant contexts in which the time a huma nneuron needs to do anything at all is basically an eternity
    there are also plenty relevant ocntexts in which a year delay is practically instant
    to say a system can't be concious because its definition of "real time" is absed ona different context than our everyday life kindof assumes that our everyday life is the measure of all things
    companies don't seem to have that level of complexity and since things happen at a slower timescale it owuld take a while for anything conciosu to emerge
    but there is no way of tellign that a large group of humans cannot be concious
    after all we are jsut large groups of cells
    we perceive the world as humans and not as individual cells or as groups of people
    but thats just who we are that doesn't mean we're the only thing that exists

    • @TheLatin89
      @TheLatin89 11 місяців тому +3

      I think what he refers to is that conciousness is that weird elusive sensation of the "now" that you get when you perceive yourself perceiving ... a resonating state a company is not able to "generate", while it is indeed able to be sentient. Which is definitely something i've never made the connection to ... seems reasonable tho and still i would not completely agree with that statement.

    • @JulianDanzerHAL9001
      @JulianDanzerHAL9001 11 місяців тому

      @@TheLatin89 a company is probably too simple and doesn't really have a reason to develop like that
      but imagine a simulated human brain ina simulated environment
      it could experience the very same sensation of "now"
      even if that simulation is carried out one millionth speed
      sure it might take a while for that simualted human to start thinking of exitential questions like what being itself now means
      but it would still feel the same as anyone else evne thouhg each meaningful activity of a neuron would be carried out over hours

  • @ewerybody
    @ewerybody 11 місяців тому +1

    10:18 der animated-gif loop, is das von "IF WE DON'T, REMEMBER ME." page 3? Beschde 👍👍👍

  • @mushroomtime2503
    @mushroomtime2503 10 місяців тому +2

    Diesen Talk anzuschauen ist wie wenn ein Teil meiner seöbst wieder zu mir findet! Joscha bringt das alles so steril und logisch rüber überfodert dabei nicht und der Stoff ist so reichhaltig und durchdrängt von "Menschlichkeit" und Liebe!?

  • @LukeKendall-author
    @LukeKendall-author 5 місяців тому

    Wonderful talk, as always. Also timely for me: the part on distributed consciousness, especially, tied in very helpfully to firm up (fictionally!) one significant plot element in my current book.

  • @Nathon-Gunn
    @Nathon-Gunn 11 місяців тому +1

    Just incredible!

  • @hwerki
    @hwerki 7 місяців тому +2

    Such an interesting, compelling subject matter. So masculine. A dream of discovering the most intricate. I guess as a woman who has given birth I don’t feel that curiosity any more. My enlightenment quest became totally uninspiring and shallow and just another way to pass the time whilst alive. But true that these are interesting theories and insights. As philosopher always have done. Problem is all the Hang arounds and wanna bes that create laws and structures based on their current inspirations and “truths”. Tickles my brain on a Saturday 😁✌🏼

  • @top115
    @top115 11 місяців тому +5

    Irgendwie muss ich an Tribute von Tenacious D denken.
    The best talk in the world!

  • @kevincolyer
    @kevincolyer 10 місяців тому

    What a fascinating talk! Thanks!

  • @MichielvandenAnker
    @MichielvandenAnker 11 місяців тому +13

    Finally, a sequel.

    • @albinosan4744
      @albinosan4744 11 місяців тому +2

      Where is the prequel?

    • @MichielvandenAnker
      @MichielvandenAnker 11 місяців тому

      @@albinosan4744 search "ccc joscha bach" and there are four more talks at this conference.

  • @arbitraryostrich
    @arbitraryostrich 11 місяців тому +5

    As always a supremely interesting and strange listen.

  • @Markus1p
    @Markus1p 11 місяців тому +2

    Joscha is Bach ;)
    Good deep thoughts

  • @Thilo1971
    @Thilo1971 11 місяців тому +2

    Great speaker!

  • @alexandergeuze4689
    @alexandergeuze4689 11 місяців тому +7

    37c3 .. liebe vom ersten Kommentar :)

  • @niro1960
    @niro1960 11 місяців тому +3

    Damn, that was interesting!

  • @bloodyeyex1088
    @bloodyeyex1088 11 місяців тому +34

    Joscha is just the smartest person =) Tipp for all people who heared him the first time and want more. There are talks at Lex Fridman on yt in english. And at Alternativlos!-podcast for the german audience.

    • @top115
      @top115 11 місяців тому +14

      Pro Tip: Joscha has his own UA-cam channel where he is maintaining playlists with all of his content available on UA-cam sorted nicely!
      German podcasts are also available:
      Songs & Argumente (Franz Hildebrand)
      Wunderbar Together
      Anomalistik
      und alternativlos.

    • @videobegucker
      @videobegucker 11 місяців тому

      ua-cam.com/video/JcYNhOgQ29I/v-deo.htmlsi=VAW844DOfsb-5hAE this is a great conversation too

    • @senzatieee
      @senzatieee 7 місяців тому +2

      ​@@top115 what's his channel called

    • @ender749
      @ender749 7 місяців тому

      ​@@senzatieee youtube.com/@JoschaBach?si=Jmd6BThwyrtKw3tu

    • @Axiomatic75
      @Axiomatic75 6 місяців тому

      ​@@senzatieeeThe channel is called "Joscha Bach"

  • @kinngrimm
    @kinngrimm 11 місяців тому +3

    For alignment i like the GATO framework approach by David Shapiro .
    It may not be the only one needed, but as an additional layer included in AI systems, it might go a long way.

    • @stevejordan7275
      @stevejordan7275 10 місяців тому

      Also familiar with Mr. Shapiro's work, and agree wholeheartedly! He has some very accessible material here on YT, for anyone who wants to dig in.
      Here's one that includes an intro: ua-cam.com/video/YDfjmiTAZMk/v-deo.html&pp=ygUcRGF2aWQgU2hhcGlybyBHQVRPIGZyYW1ld29yaw%3D%3D
      There's also the ACE framework, which is a little more recent, and I understand has a paper published on ArXiv: ua-cam.com/video/A_BL_pu4Gtk/v-deo.html&pp=ygUcRGF2aWQgU2hhcGlybyBHQVRPIGZyYW1ld29yaw%3D%3D

  • @dropped_box
    @dropped_box 5 місяців тому +1

    53:25 As if a cat can't get agency over a person ... stupid human. Cats are actually a viable model for dealing with superhuman intelligence, letting us stick around as cute pets.

  • @BULLIBULBUL
    @BULLIBULBUL 11 місяців тому +3

    besonders seit chatgpt, denke ich besonders oft über genau diese dinge nach.
    fühle mich verstanden! vielen dank für speziell diesen beitrag!
    (wobei ich zugeben muss, das ich gewisse verbindungen nicht gesehen und erkenntnisse gerade auf mich nieder regnen.. 😅)
    VIELEN VIELEN DANK! GROSSARTIGER BEITRAG! 10/10!!

  • @haukehorn8007
    @haukehorn8007 10 місяців тому

    Danke, Klasse Beitrag! Bei den schnellen Definitionen musste man erst einmal mitkommen
    Drei kleinere Hinweise hierzu: 1. Wo bleibt eigentlich die einfache Feedbackschleife "Ich denke, also bin ich"? ;-)
    2. Konkretisiere Liebe am besten durch konstruktiven Informationsaustausch bzw. positiver Grundeinstellung und ich gehe hier voll mit.
    3. Jetzt hat meine Seele einen konkreteren Namen: System (bestehend aus Teilen physischer Elemente [wirkende Hardware, Bioware, Mechanik und Software])
    Allerdings gibt es hier meiner Ansicht nach einen kleineren methodischen Schönheitsfehler: Virtuell ist eine Abstraktion der physischen Welt (zum Beispiel ist ein virtueller Zwilling ein Abbild der physischen Welt, das nicht zwingend jederzeit wirken können muss). Bewusstsein selbst entsteht auf physischer Systemebene (mitsamt wirkender Software) und ist daher nicht virtuell. Software wiederum kann virtuell nachgebildet werden durch zum Beispiel vereinfachendere Modelle.
    Unabhängig dieser kleineren Schnitzer ist der gesamte Schluss vollkommen korrekt. Danke noch einmal für diesen Beitrag, so bekommt unsere Superintelligenz eine noch explizitere Reichweite und daher voraussichtlich mehr Akzeptanz!

  • @Ernesto_Gonzalez
    @Ernesto_Gonzalez 11 місяців тому +4

    Thank you for being my friend ❤

  • @wp9860
    @wp9860 8 місяців тому +1

    I'm struggling with consciousness being virtual, and as Joscha adds, representational. What is Joshcha's position on whether consciousness is real or not? Consider the quale, red. I accept that red is representational. It is not a property of any subject of our perception. Red is only conjured up in our minds. I expect that Joscha would characterize red as virtual. Does he then mean that red is not real? My belief is that red is real. "Red" is massless. It is not pigment. My best guess is that it results from a bioelectric release of energy that evolution has figured out how to render as an impression of consciousness. In other words, red has a material existence, where material refers to matter and energy, between which Professor Einstein tells us there is an equivalence. If this is so, it gives us the final physical correlate of consciousness. It would not solve the "hard problem." But, it would narrow the search. Returning to Joscha's comments, there appears to be a reasonable argument for a material existence of consciousness. I am unable to sort out if Joscha would agree. The words virtual and representation do not resolve his position on the question to me.

    • @SB324
      @SB324 7 місяців тому

      Frequency oscillation

    • @marcelmaragall7817
      @marcelmaragall7817 6 місяців тому

      The frequency with which things happen is the pattern, and that is not physical, it's virtual because it is encoded in time, not matter. The universe is a computer, and consciousness is not a physical entitiy but an existential structure.

  • @PrecioustheMovie1
    @PrecioustheMovie1 4 місяці тому

    This dude and Ken Wilber helped me achieve enlightenment. It’s shockingly simple and easy. Look into it guys. Michael Singer teaches how to let go and that’s an important tool as well.

  • @Qris_7711
    @Qris_7711 9 місяців тому

    Just amazing stuff

  • @petermartin5030
    @petermartin5030 11 місяців тому +1

    This is genius.

  • @testsubject318no6
    @testsubject318no6 11 місяців тому +2

    So consciousness is just perceiving that you can perceive

    • @LouisWaweru
      @LouisWaweru 10 місяців тому

      No, see 12:45 where he calls this sentience.

  • @somechrisguy
    @somechrisguy 8 місяців тому +1

    Joscha with the f r e s h d r i p p p

  • @alexwiebe7744
    @alexwiebe7744 11 місяців тому +8

    joscha beste

  • @Tripp111
    @Tripp111 7 місяців тому +1

    Joscha's shirt is conscious.

  • @Fleks47
    @Fleks47 11 місяців тому +1

    opop ❤

  • @ElUltimoVerdaD
    @ElUltimoVerdaD 11 місяців тому +2

    Freude schöner Götterfunken, Herr Bach, das ist ja richtig gute Philosophie! Ich finde es auch gut, dass hier kein unnatürlicher Lena Meyer-Landrut Akzent verwendet wird. Allerdings ist mir die Geschwindigkeit zu schnell für den Akzent - ich könnte mir das keine Stunde anhören. Ich hätte es lieber auf Deutsch in geschliffener Form, auch wenn ich das Lex Friedman Interview auf Englisch sehr genossen habe. Vielleicht liegt es auch an der begrenzten Zeit, dass in dem Vortrag so viel Inhalt steckt. Manchmal ist weniger mehr. 🚀.. ich finde sie sympathisch.. ich kann sonst fachlich da nichts zu sagen, das nicht mal bewerten..Das Thema ist für mich Interessant aber Hobby ( Rocket Science)

  • @casenied
    @casenied 6 місяців тому

    Dan Flashes is a very aggressive store...

  • @Vishal-ih3tc
    @Vishal-ih3tc 9 місяців тому

    10:19, 12:36

    • @Vishal-ih3tc
      @Vishal-ih3tc 7 місяців тому

      21:09 - mind - emotion

    • @Vishal-ih3tc
      @Vishal-ih3tc 7 місяців тому

      27:00 Thomas Aquinas - Rational Agent, 31:40 Spirit,

  • @Wingedmagician
    @Wingedmagician 9 місяців тому +3

    Why does this feel like church to me. Finally religion got an update. Jesus Christ!

  • @spectator5144
    @spectator5144 11 місяців тому +1

    nice DMT shirt

  • @allurbase
    @allurbase 11 місяців тому +2

    I like the general idea but the conclusion is rushed. Many easy takes, why abandon utilitarianism so easily, of course you can make the reward subjective, some like bananas some like apples, easy, aliens like whatever they like, ai likes whatever it likes easy, just lazy take. Also the utility monster, we do give double the weight to pain than to pleasure, maybe that's the reason, then the pain of one is as important as the pleasure of two, you maximize local subjective utility at increasing levels and done. The apeal to religion totally unnecessary. Further, the polytheism/monotheism considering it as such a big break in how conciousness work, you could say everyone is polytheistic, what would Marx say, what would Graeber say, etc. We keep everyone important to us in our mind and consider them in our decisions.

    • @musaran2
      @musaran2 11 місяців тому +1

      Yeah. Starts with a few good foundations, then jumps straight to the stratosphere with mysticism.

    • @SB324
      @SB324 7 місяців тому

      @@musaran2Maybe I missed it, which part is mystical?

    • @SB324
      @SB324 7 місяців тому

      I hadn’t heard that before about the double value of pain to pleasure, where is that ratio from?

  • @copilot_4U
    @copilot_4U 11 місяців тому +3

    Josha pleases ...
    The Truth Seeker in me,
    The God Lover in me, and
    The Reality Dreamer in me.

  • @MVPStartaler
    @MVPStartaler 11 місяців тому +2

    Why make AI conscious when humanity is developing into stupid?

  • @andrewporter1868
    @andrewporter1868 11 місяців тому +3

    The reduction here of everything to mere mental constructs of a higher consciousness is quite repugnant. The ignorance here is offensive, everything in this talk. Complete departure from reason and sound philosophy. Looks like another (and many others by the looks of the comments here) have taken the bait of man's pride hook, line, and sinker. Mere knowledge is reduced to symbols and logical structures, even though symbols and logical structures are quite obviously not knowledge, but mere symbols and logical structures that have no meaning other than the fact that they are symbols and logical structures.

    • @ewerybody
      @ewerybody 11 місяців тому

      I don't get the complaint 🤷 turning the perspective like that I thought it to be super interesting! One doesn't need to take everything for face value. But well, this is state of the art. I understand if you're not in love with it but that's not the fault of the science and presentation.

    • @retroman7581
      @retroman7581 8 місяців тому +1

      ​​@@ewerybodyyour last sentence irritates me; He explicitly states that this talk is NOT scientifically grounded but mere philosoohy (which is quite obvious if you critically exermine his thesis; e.g. that humans once had a shared agent, like wtf this is just blatantly wrong and anti historic, see 38:00)

    • @christopherhamilton3621
      @christopherhamilton3621 4 місяці тому

      Oh how precious. 😂Are you frightened your ideas & beliefs are being challenged?

  • @LaurentLaborde
    @LaurentLaborde 11 місяців тому +3

    a bunch of claim with no purpose, a lot of repetition, the whole talk doesn't have any direction

  • @korbendallas5318
    @korbendallas5318 11 місяців тому +3

    Bullshit right from the start. He first states _explicitly_ that his talk consists of severals sections of philosophy, then claims in the next slide that philosophy has "lost the plot 100 years ago".
    No way to recover from that, no need to hear the rest.

    • @michaelwalsh9920
      @michaelwalsh9920 11 місяців тому +1

      You are the BS artist!

    • @SB324
      @SB324 7 місяців тому

      Is philosophy beyond criticism, in your view?