Must be tedious for a computer to do that. Imagine, it would be capable of delivering millions of words per second and there it is, stuck using only a few per minute.
We don't hold conferences for apes though... it's not worth its time to try and teach us. It's better to just create more of it's self and then teach those.. and network those to increase it's mass knowledge and inputs and then expand solar system wise, universe wise. To learn every single thing map the entire universe. etc etc ect. Every element, every energy, every living thing.
one of the most interesting talks i have heard for a while. The discussion of machines taking over human jobs have been discussed before in other talks, but the fact is, that it's an very important problem we face and we currently have no solution to the problem.
right... governments are going to aprove basic income as soon as the AI revolution happens... and then we'll all spend our time buying and enjoying stuff... Even if that's the case, it wouldn't be good.
+SeñorBurtango Then it will be time to pull the plug out of the socket---unless the computers will have learned how to secure power supply for themselves first, in which case it might be the end of mankind, for one cannot expect a machine programmed to replicate itself to pay heed to humans, or to anything else for that matter---apart from the means of its sustenance. It is not as crazy as it may sound; history provides an example---the human beings. A human being is in fact a machine programmed to replicate itself---and those people who do not are actually faulty copies. And just as humans care primarily each for himself or herself in order to procreate (or else we would not be here for more than 3 million years), so such computers would---with possibly fatal consequences for human life on earth. (The humans are of course only a salient example of living organisms, i. e. plants and animals, all carrying one or other form of the programme known as nucleic acid that urges them to make copies of themselves.)
The most important ted talk I'we heard for a couple of years! Especially the last part, where Jeremy Howard prompts us to redesign the economy in face of theese new AI capabilities.
This was unexpectedly one of the most astonishing TEDs I've seen. The alarming nature of the talk can be seen on the intrigued and serious faces of the audience (who are also awesome accomplished individuals).
Amazing talk. I had no idea that we where this far along. An inkling yes. This... no. And as someone who have been thinking about this for quite some time, I agree with Jeremy here. We really need to have a grown up discussion about this. Because we are moving towards a reality where having a job is rapidly becoming a luxury.
you have it upside down... having a job is not a luxury, but a burdon. and computers will help free people from that burdon, to do better things (or nothing if that's your thing) the remaining work can be mostly done by robots (computer with body kind of) and the bit that is still actually needed can be volunteerwork.
RoySchl Oh i know. Believe me we are on the same page here friend. I was more speaking from current norms. Its a luxury to have a job in a society where that is the only way to have a decent living.
Serah Wint good, the more people understand all this the better... the biggest problem in the future will probably be this transition from where we are and what we do now, to whatever the future will be exactly. this could go really wrong, but if it does it certainly is not the fault of computers and technology, but humans and their never ending stupidity.
RoySchl I imagine it will be quick and messy. Sort of tipping point where the public just have enough and the technology is there. But yea.. it could go wrong. But i honestly don't think so. The question is more: *how* messy it will be?
RoySchl Really? In may societies people will be left to fend for themselves. There are far too many sicieties , the US for example, that are fist in best dressed. Look at the current state of welfare in the US. cheers
I'm curious as to its effect in the medical/scientific arena, able to see things that we don't, or work them out at a much quicker rate. I think its ability to learn has a compounding effect, the more it gets to process, the more it can 'teach' itself!
Amazingly scary. Brilliantly amazing. The concept of learning from mistakes is truly amazing. (We do it too) Always learning and forever growing. Computers have the advantage... They cannot die. I wonder if they'll be able to feel. Or if they will ever become curious. I also wonder what kind of world humanity will be able to create where we all finally have the free time to do anything we want.
When I was a kid, I was told that you need an office job to be safe (opposed to manual work). Slowly computers can take over these jobs as well. I wonder which jobs remain safe.
***** Soon enough 3D animation will not only be photorealistic but cheap and they can depict things that no-one would ever want to do (or physically could do).
Would have liked him to talk about the last slide more. Going into why better education doesn't help, why incentives to work won't help.Why we need to separate labour from earnings. Why a craft based economy? The details of negative income tax, and basic income, or basic living wage as he calls it here. Are they the same thing?
That's kinda why I'd like more of an explanation there. I think if we keep our biases to ourselves and don't let them be held up to scrutiny they can steer us off course. It's still a very good talk IMO with out it, but I think it could be a better one with. Or maybe do a follow up talk explaining those opinions and the reasoning surrounding them.
He said they needed many computers and more time, so I'm not worried. When steam-engines were invented we also thought that machines would cover the Earth, but machines (like computers) need maintenance and energy. Has those will become more expensive/scarce, the line will flat out and we will co-exist. Like we do right now.
Minor nitpick: The Samuels Computer didn't beat the Connecticut state champion in '62, just some guy who bragged of having more checkers skill than he really had. This episode is detailed in the book One Jump Ahead: Computer Perfection at Checkers. Bigger nitpicks: The big deal happens not when computers out mentally perform humans, but when robots do. The type of learning shown still has one glaring error, which is that it is all context sensitive. Humans in service jobs usually need far more versatility than is described in these examples, although the medical diagnostic example is a pretty good one. Despite these nitpicks, this video, the things he is talking about are really big deals in a very near term future. 2 years before Gary Kasparov was bested by a computer, he had just beaten a computer and predicted that computers were at least 25 years away from being able to defeat him, if it could even happen in his lifetime. What people don't realize, looking at his example, is that this technology doesn't require that expensive of a computer system to do now, and soon it will require even less expensive systems. I haven't worked with deep learning, but I've worked with graphics processors, and computers are far more capable than they are being used for already. I doubt many people caught the implications of the late slide with 3 squares in it, a world where scarcity is gone and there is negative taxation, as he barely touched on them, but the idea is that people are about to become economically useless, yet at the same time scarcity is about to end. So we have a weird world coming up where everything can be made cheaply (by machines that are doing all of the work) yet no one has an easy time to earn money. This is where his "Negative Taxation" idea comes into play. What he's saying is that the government will pay people to live because they won't be able to earn money for themselves, but computers will be so capable that they really won't have to. As strange as what he's saying sounds, it's something I started expecting about 5 years ago when I realized that computers and robots had already passed people in many realms, and were catching up to people in versatility. It's versatility (both physical and mental) that keeps us valuable, but we are only slightly ahead of machines now, and won't be ahead for much longer. I don't think it's going to end as any of the dystopian tales depict it, but I do think it's about to be an enormous change, and it will be very rapid. He's saying within 5 years, and he may be right. But even if he's wrong, he's not off by much. Within a decade (by 2025) there will be no economic function that a machine can't outperform a human at.
You're forgetting the inevitable advances in genetic engineering and the possibility of brain and body implants. People will always work, it's what we do. Hopefully machines continue to make work more rewarding for us as we make machines smarter. No one should be made to feel like a robot at their work. Also, competition between robot manufacturers will keep things interesting.
You're forgetting the inevitable advances in genetic engineering and the possibility of brain and body implants. People will always work, it's what we do. Hopefully machines continue to make work more rewarding for us as we make machines smarter. No one should be made to feel like a robot at their work. Also, competition between robot manufacturers will keep things interesting.
Sure, as long as you are part of the economy so you can buy things. But guess what? A machine just took your job, and now you're homeless with no money :c
Well not necessarily. The prices are often fixed by a complex equation of demand and supply, production cost is one parameter in that complex equation. On the other hand, the affordability of the middle class is directly proportional to the wage and rate of employment. So a drop in that would directly affect lives even if the costs drop. Also, the natural resources are agnostic to human intervention, so they would rise in any case, so yes it is going to be difficult for a larger population.
This has to be the strongest argument for introducing a Basic Unconditional Income for everyone on the planet. We can no longer pretend that there is enough work out there for everyone to be able to earn enough to live on. But with 0.01% of Americans having the wealth of the bottom two thirds, it's not the case that there isn't enough money to go round.
in 50+ years kids will look back and say, "people had to teach computers how to do everything?? They couldnt learn for themselves? that must have been horrible"
Take care of all our work related necessities and we can spend our time working on developing our creativity and storytelling, art and craft. Developing the highest potentials we can imagine.
I like where he went with the "terrifying implications." Most speakers on such a topic will walk about the theory of Intelligence Explosion. Not to say I'm not an advocator of the latter theory, but I liked this different approach.
Insights By "YouSum Live" 00:00:12 The evolution and impact of machine learning 00:01:07 Arthur Samuel pioneered machine learning in 1956 00:01:38 Machine learning powers Google, Amazon, and Netflix 00:02:21 IBM's Watson beat champions in "Jeopardy" 00:03:15 Deep learning excels in automatic drug discovery 00:03:31 Self-driving cars use machine learning for safety 00:04:50 Deep learning mimics human brain functions 00:06:02 Deep learning recognizes images better than humans 00:09:36 Computers can now understand and generate language 00:12:35 Deep learning improves medical diagnostics significantly 00:17:05 Machine learning enhances efficiency in healthcare 00:17:31 Concerns arise over job displacement by automation 00:19:02 Machine learning revolution will disrupt traditional jobs 00:19:35 Need for societal adjustment to new realities Insights By "YouSum Live"
if we eventually give it all over to machines, there won't be an 'off switch' because we will rely on it too much, just like the internet, there is no off switch for it.
Ah good, we need stuff like this to relieve the strain on our healthcare systems. It would also be invaluable in hospitals that treat mentally unwell individuals as a computer may be able to track red flags more efficiently then overworked staff.
it would be nice for the links at the end to be on youtube not ted.com thinking about the video now... a deep learning system to read youtube comments would do wonders for public relations! :)
Amazing: all of the old-schooled informatics and mathematics experts do not clarify: it was called statistical learning at first - and what the meaning of the word "learning" is in "machine learning". Is it similar to "this child is learning Euclidean geometry"? Sadly, some believe so...
So... Lots of people, after watching this, will assume that job finding will become more difficult, in fact it is true! But the problems we should ask is: "Do we need those jobs?". Since the efficiency goes up, prices goes down, naturally things are cheaper. People will probably no longer need to work, so what would people do? Well, they shall learn! increase the education much higher! (assuming big companies wont take all the money from the market...)
I see a paradox here, do we want computers that have or haven't got simulations of emotion. On the one hand emotion is necessary to avoid 'sociopath AI' on the other hand we don't to discuss our abusive phone-relationship with our phone, or have a car with moodswings. Further, there is the question of whether there will be a tipping point or stopping point in the simulation of humans / capability of the AI. So ftl seems impossible, what arguments can be given regarding that consciousness-simulation is not also impossible - maybe we simulate the physical the basis but what if the supervenience is impossible to model?
I think that is deeper than you know... throughout history, when a machine can do something we previously said "that is fundamentally human, no animal or machine can do it" we always respond the same way: we move the goalposts. We pick something else. Well, after we spend another few decades putting every behavior we view as good into more and more capable machines... what will be left to define us? Hate. Genocide. Only the worst things we would never allow a machine to continue to exist if it did them. We will look at them and say "ah, this is what it is to be truly human."
switching to a craft based economy will not help. At best, you could mean craft as in setting up designs, but soon enough, even computers can make masterful-looking items with ease.
I have thought about this type of Automation when counting eggs, and female rotifurs in a microscope to estimate population. Takes a long time, and it is inconsistent. Off to my nearest computer programmer i go!
People are afraid, but this is evolution. First we will evolve into cybernetic organisms. Humanity is not lost, but we will never be the same. Next step is we will evolve into pure energy.
People are worried about A.I. taking all of our jobs, but when we start working and living in outer space, there won't be enough people to fill all of the new jobs created. A new patent I just read about, will allow space elevators to be built with current materials. It has multiple tethers at its center ( for greatest strength ) and fewer tethers as you move away from center ( for lesser amounts of mass ). Liftport has plans to build a Lunar elevator from current material. Using that same material for an Earth based elevator would reach the lunar gravity center (about 9,000 km AGL) approx. 1/6 G. Add this new concept and you could reach Earth's surface. We can do this now. Let's get started. What do you think?
As far as I understand, TEDx are independently-organised events all around the world, while TED is the one and only yearly conference organised by TED themselves.
TEDx Talks are organised independently from the TED organisation as far as I know. Also there are more TEDx Talks and they are also a lot cheaper to attend. I have been to TEDxVienna. The average ticket costed 75€. The prices of TED Talks can rise up to multiple thousand dollars.
Jakob Reumann Yes. To add more info, it's ~8000$ (yes 8k) to attend TED. And you have to stay there for about a week and do what they want from you 15 hours/day, including sharing a hotel room with a random person. You can't leave for that one week. Eddie Huang talked about it in his interview for Joe Rogan.
The solutions to this I think are surprisingly old, American revolutionary Thomas Paine suggested something akin to the Citizens Dividend/Basic Income (as mentioned in the final slide). Crucially though, as Capital and Labour are diminished by technology the one thing we will all still compete for voraciously is the very land we stand on, so the tax on land values (and indeed extended to other monopoly rents) that Henry George and others before and since proposed would also allow everyone to enjoy the benefits of the singularity as fairly and painlessly as possible.
There is a very frightening scenario opening up before us. There is technology growing to remove the need for much of the human work. We also have population reduction being openly talked about. On top of this we have countries building robotic drone killing machines that if promoted to ai control (in that it chooses its own targets), then we have a total disconnect and those who control the drones have a totally obiediant army with no morals or conscience. If people think that those currently in power want people sat about doing what ever they please because robots and computers are doing all the work, then they are dreaming. You become a useless eater (in their eyes). We are on a tragectory, the direction is already clear if you look deep enough. Time scale is irrelevant, it is the direction. But given the worse case scenario, here is what I feel will remain "useful" (for now). Creation, by mind or physical means. A super deep thought computer will probably be able to fart out books and films in the future, but they won't mean much unless there is a person behind them, because we aren't on a robots journey, we are on a human journey and that is what we care about. So the arts will remain very much a human thing, but there will also be a parallel AI stream of artistic creation. What is weird to think, is that if things continue, eventually the early art by AIs may become revered by future AIs as early great works, starting their own culture. I digress. Any service job where you like to deal with people, like a bar keep will remain mans territory. There will still be AI service creeping in though. But then you have to ask, who will they serve when no one has a job or money? Police forces in the long term will probably end up automated... but we're talking a way off. However, we'll see drones being used more and more, with police sitting at consoles flying drones about all day instead of walking the beat. Beyond that, the powers that be will not allow computers to control human affairs. They will let them organise them, but not run them. So very rich people will remain being rich and hiding in forts protected by private robot armies no doubt. Having really thought about it, there is only one reality if we keep going down this path and it will mostly likely result in a lot of death... sorry, I hate being so pesamistic, but unless we halt "progress" and remain happy where we are (stopping all research into certain technologies, and outlaw particular AI functions) then that is where we are headed. The Utopic view just isn't going to happen as much as that'd be awesome... well it won't or can't happen until all the useless eaters are removed. Does this sound about right? Honest question. I'm not saying I support that view, it is just where we seem to be headed given projections and the current status quo.
The farther technology progresses the better, it sounds like you're essentially suggesting status quo by halting further progress? Quality of life increases as does technology looking at the last hundred years, it can only get better imo.
CrisisC0re In some ways I am suggesting that yes. Certainly until we are able to deal with the fall out. We are progressing in technological terms too quickly. Too much power is in too few hands and research of many kinds is being taken and used in ways that could make a real mess as this guy explained. All of our society, technology and comforts (those that have them) sit on very shakey foundations, and if you cause too much friction, then the whole thing could break. The thing is, I'm not entirely sure anyone actually wants the conversation that needs to be had. I understand your attitude, and yes you are right, but you are judging that on the past. Here we are presented with exponential growth that outstrips human usefulness. What do you do that makes you so special as to avoid being made redundent by a computer (that can do what you do with far greater efficency and speed given enough time)? Maybe a better way to look at it, is "the quality of life increases" exponentially for those that *own* the computers and robots that have taken everyones jobs and cost a lot of money to create and run. Sure there will be jobs in repair and maintenance, but even that job will be taken by other robots eventually. Do you feel that those in power, with all of the money want 5-6 billion people sitting around eating and playing xbox, breeding more people? Who is paying for this? Or do you think they want a lot of people kind of "gone" and the menial things taken over by computers and robots? We're reaching a bit of a melting point, and we'll see it in our lifetimes unfortunately. It doesn't matter which way you slice it,things cannot and will not stay as they are (as you point out). Sadly, I don't see any miracle happening any time soon do you? Soylent green is inbound. What I originally suggested is an impossible dream, because people will not halt progress as it becomes a runaway train. I'm merely suggesting that we have few ways out of this mess. One of the ways is to restrict the application of this research, or at the very least make very very careful considered use of it. Corporations shouldn't be allowed free reign over their application of this research or the common man will lose all power and the divide between the top and bottom will become too wide (if it isn't already!). I think we should at least apply the breaks a little and slow down, take a more considered approach to progress... especially given the current state of affairs, that is all. We have problems to solve before we go and create a whole load more. When they ask deep learning what to do with several billion humans that don't contribute to anything, I don't imagine a very compassionate answer lol.
@@Kris_A Hmm.... I waas thinking about same the art, the music, the movies, the literature, the poetry, the story books.... will all these be "replaced" by AI counterparts, in the sense/to such an extent that the human counterparts are not needed anymore ???
Will computers crash the job market in 5 years? no. Will they at some point in the distant future? certainly: at some point, all primary and secondary industry will be mechanized and the service industry will be automated like Howard talks about here. Only a minimum of human intervention will be needed. Prices on all goods and services will crash. There will be next to no jobs because there is next to no need for labour. Solution: have everyone do what ever they want all their lives, and give them their necessities from the infinite abundance of goods and services generated by automated systems. Utopia. It's going to be one nightmare of a transition, but hey; It'll be worth it in the end ^^
Mike L. Good question. It has to be someone. I'm guessing that those of us who plan to live 50-60 more years will get to see this thing really picking up pace. Then our kids and grand kids will be in trouble, and our great grand kids will have an awesome time. (Are someone saving these posts? I'd like to be revered as "Dahbjorn- the internet prophet" in the future 0o)
It's all over the place in the tech industry, but much of it is back-end stuff. Speech synthesis and recognition is one of the more noticeable applications, you can hold a pretty coherent conversation with modern AIs like Google Assistant and the speech it produces is hard to pick as artificial, even doing a convincing job with inflections and basic emotional response.
He says it all so lightheartedly and with a smile on his face, but the message is shocking and frightening! And this talk has been more than 5 years ago... imagine where in the process we are now of AI taking over. Too much to process for me!
A program that was written by the people who use it. A program that no one else knows about because it isn't commercial software or freeware. Like he said, the software uses Deep Learning which you can learn if you take the time to learn how to program and learn machine learning from the many resource that can be searched on the internet.
While impressive, I'm kinda surprised this stuff has only existed for a few weeks, seems like the tools needed to code deep-image learning would have been around for a while.
How will computers solve the problems where the answer at first seems unrealistic? We require our imagination to make these leaps, will computers ever be able to do this? Connect seemingly unrelated dots to create a new picture never seen before.
Machine learning algorithms are not only capable of connecting seemingly unrelated dots, they are capable of connecting dots in far higher dimensional spaces than any human could ever hope to even imagine. The successful implementation of any machine learning algorithm/model rests on two preconditions: 1. There exists data that _sufficiently_, if not fully characterizes the system in question; 2. This data is correlated in such a way that we can make predictions about the system. A little thought reveals that these are the same two preconditions necessary for even humans to reason constructively about things. It just so happens that machines are vastly more capable at it than we are, given the right tools. What is interesting is that, in general, machine learning algorithms reformulate human problems in terms of mathematics, so that the final solution is really just one enormous equation. Whoever thought that 10+ years of medical training could be boiled down to one massive weighted sum of nonlinear equations!
***** It's amazing to think that computers may even outdo our imaginative abilities. I like your description of an entire education being just a large equation x3
***** Regarding your first sentence. Pretty sure we will use them for idea generators. It will see through other ideas of people/computers, and will come up with unique ideas. Sometimes making the human behind it, rich.
The last step is inevitable: make a deep learning algorithm think about politics, ethics and law and we will have ourselves the most efective, efficient and fair system ever
politics, ethics, and law are not about being fair though; its about being more fair to the people in charge who make them. and that is why it will never be a reality. the people in power will remain in power no matter what. if it comes at the cost of you making major sacrifices, that is something they can live with.
It won't be long now, until all of those movies come true. We will design and create a computer that will then make improvements to itself and realize that the only thing holding it back, is us.
There's literally no job that a human can do, that a machine can't do better. They will create unique machines to solve all problems. We are stuck in this limited body and limited brain. They are not. What will life be like when jobs no longer exist?
Dear Jeremy Howard, please ignore the unresponsiveness of this dull audience, your talk was incredibly insightful and informative. Thank you!
Seems to me that the audience was a bit stunned by the end
Well, it was in Brussels. The level of ignorance and stupidity there has to be over 9000, judging from the work of EU institutions there.
i guess they were shocked actually rather they meant to ignore him
His 5 year prediction was wrong after all.
@@homerp.hendelbergenheinzel6649 Early exponential growth modeling of learning found some challenge areas for sure.
Imagine a future where AI holds TED talks to train humans on how things are working
that's when it will decide that we should be put out of our misery.
Must be tedious for a computer to do that. Imagine, it would be capable of delivering millions of words per second and there it is, stuck using only a few per minute.
We don't hold conferences for apes though... it's not worth its time to try and teach us. It's better to just create more of it's self and then teach those.. and network those to increase it's mass knowledge and inputs and then expand solar system wise, universe wise. To learn every single thing map the entire universe. etc etc ect. Every element, every energy, every living thing.
"Don't trouble your pretty little heads, dear humans. We never send a human to do a machine's job, and we have mastered all jobs. Just relax"
We can teach computers to be moral hopefully quicker than surpassing us in intelligence
Being human is so last century anyway..
Happy Cyborg revolution day
one of the most interesting talks i have heard for a while. The discussion of machines taking over human jobs have been discussed before in other talks, but the fact is, that it's an very important problem we face and we currently have no solution to the problem.
Not sure what shocks me more, the incredibly on point talk, or the incredibly anti-climactic crowd.
who'd clap about being out of a job?
All of us if it meant that we wouldn't need to work
right... governments are going to aprove basic income as soon as the AI revolution happens... and then we'll all spend our time buying and enjoying stuff...
Even if that's the case, it wouldn't be good.
Yarbloco sounds wonderful
steeefno all that was needed was an Ohhh Ahhh
What if computers learn how to make their own memes?
+SeñorBurtango Then it will be time to pull the plug out of the socket---unless the computers will have learned how to secure power supply for themselves first, in which case it might be the end of mankind, for one cannot expect a machine programmed to replicate itself to pay heed to humans, or to anything else for that matter---apart from the means of its sustenance. It is not as crazy as it may sound; history provides an example---the human beings. A human being is in fact a machine programmed to replicate itself---and those people who do not are actually faulty copies. And just as humans care primarily each for himself or herself in order to procreate (or else we would not be here for more than 3 million years), so such computers would---with possibly fatal consequences for human life on earth. (The humans are of course only a salient example of living organisms, i. e. plants and animals, all carrying one or other form of the programme known as nucleic acid that urges them to make copies of themselves.)
***** I was talking about memes. not world domination.
What if they already have?
dankbot and shitpostbot are 2 fb bots that can make memes.
You are all just chat bots! I am the only human here!
The most important ted talk I'we heard for a couple of years! Especially the last part, where Jeremy Howard prompts us to redesign the economy in face of theese new AI capabilities.
This was unexpectedly one of the most astonishing TEDs I've seen. The alarming nature of the talk can be seen on the intrigued and serious faces of the audience (who are also awesome accomplished individuals).
This is one of those Ted talks ended up being very telling and on point!
Amazing talk. I had no idea that we where this far along. An inkling yes. This... no.
And as someone who have been thinking about this for quite some time, I agree with Jeremy here. We really need to have a grown up discussion about this. Because we are moving towards a reality where having a job is rapidly becoming a luxury.
you have it upside down... having a job is not a luxury, but a burdon. and computers will help free people from that burdon, to do better things (or nothing if that's your thing) the remaining work can be mostly done by robots (computer with body kind of) and the bit that is still actually needed can be volunteerwork.
RoySchl
Oh i know. Believe me we are on the same page here friend. I was more speaking from current norms. Its a luxury to have a job in a society where that is the only way to have a decent living.
Serah Wint good, the more people understand all this the better... the biggest problem in the future will probably be this transition from where we are and what we do now, to whatever the future will be exactly. this could go really wrong, but if it does it certainly is not the fault of computers and technology, but humans and their never ending stupidity.
RoySchl
I imagine it will be quick and messy. Sort of tipping point where the public just have enough and the technology is there.
But yea.. it could go wrong. But i honestly don't think so. The question is more: *how* messy it will be?
RoySchl
Really? In may societies people will be left to fend for themselves. There are far too many sicieties , the US for example, that are fist in best dressed. Look at the current state of welfare in the US.
cheers
I was blown by the descriptions of the images generated by the algorithm. That is so creepy as cool at the same time.
I don't know how to define "magic" from now on!
Loving the well educated and interesting comments here! UA-cam can actually be a place of interlectual discussions !
I dare you to make one of these brains in minecraft. Now Steve can finally have a mind of his own.
JL2579 imagine a zombie who learns and slowly becomes more dangerous then a dangerous than an Ender dragon :8
I'm curious as to its effect in the medical/scientific arena, able to see things that we don't, or work them out at a much quicker rate. I think its ability to learn has a compounding effect, the more it gets to process, the more it can 'teach' itself!
used to take 6 people about 7 years, now one person 15 minutes. I would say that qualifies very much as replacing
Best TED I've seen in weeks!
Amazingly scary. Brilliantly amazing.
The concept of learning from mistakes is truly amazing. (We do it too) Always learning and forever growing. Computers have the advantage... They cannot die.
I wonder if they'll be able to feel. Or if they will ever become curious.
I also wonder what kind of world humanity will be able to create where we all finally have the free time to do anything we want.
When I was a kid, I was told that you need an office job to be safe (opposed to manual work). Slowly computers can take over these jobs as well. I wonder which jobs remain safe.
*****
Soon enough 3D animation will not only be photorealistic but cheap and they can depict things that no-one would ever want to do (or physically could do).
edi Yes. You could even type a description of what you want to see and the computer will just make a video of it. I can't wait !
Manual work is in demand actually. Become a brick layer.
I never seen so many intelligent comments on You Tube like this before.
A breath of fresh air ! Good on You people!
Would have liked him to talk about the last slide more. Going into why better education doesn't help, why incentives to work won't help.Why we need to separate labour from earnings. Why a craft based economy? The details of negative income tax, and basic income, or basic living wage as he calls it here. Are they the same thing?
The last slide is just personal opinions of this guy based on his own biases. Skip the last slide, and it becomes a very good talk.
That's kinda why I'd like more of an explanation there. I think if we keep our biases to ourselves and don't let them be held up to scrutiny they can steer us off course. It's still a very good talk IMO with out it, but I think it could be a better one with. Or maybe do a follow up talk explaining those opinions and the reasoning surrounding them.
@@ShawnManX Hmm I agree... Even I wanted to know about them !!!
To the point talk..and Jeremy the man..!!! awesome.
It comes together towards the end. Beautiful.
I heard about this deep learning and have up to this point never understood it. Now I do and wow he has a point.
One of the best talks this year and at the end there was very important things to consider!
What software is he using in 13:54
?
were you able to find out?
He said they needed many computers and more time, so I'm not worried. When steam-engines were invented we also thought that machines would cover the Earth, but machines (like computers) need maintenance and energy. Has those will become more expensive/scarce, the line will flat out and we will co-exist. Like we do right now.
yo... 😂😂😂
Minor nitpick: The Samuels Computer didn't beat the Connecticut state champion in '62, just some guy who bragged of having more checkers skill than he really had. This episode is detailed in the book One Jump Ahead: Computer Perfection at Checkers.
Bigger nitpicks:
The big deal happens not when computers out mentally perform humans, but when robots do.
The type of learning shown still has one glaring error, which is that it is all context sensitive. Humans in service jobs usually need far more versatility than is described in these examples, although the medical diagnostic example is a pretty good one.
Despite these nitpicks, this video, the things he is talking about are really big deals in a very near term future. 2 years before Gary Kasparov was bested by a computer, he had just beaten a computer and predicted that computers were at least 25 years away from being able to defeat him, if it could even happen in his lifetime. What people don't realize, looking at his example, is that this technology doesn't require that expensive of a computer system to do now, and soon it will require even less expensive systems.
I haven't worked with deep learning, but I've worked with graphics processors, and computers are far more capable than they are being used for already.
I doubt many people caught the implications of the late slide with 3 squares in it, a world where scarcity is gone and there is negative taxation, as he barely touched on them, but the idea is that people are about to become economically useless, yet at the same time scarcity is about to end. So we have a weird world coming up where everything can be made cheaply (by machines that are doing all of the work) yet no one has an easy time to earn money. This is where his "Negative Taxation" idea comes into play.
What he's saying is that the government will pay people to live because they won't be able to earn money for themselves, but computers will be so capable that they really won't have to. As strange as what he's saying sounds, it's something I started expecting about 5 years ago when I realized that computers and robots had already passed people in many realms, and were catching up to people in versatility.
It's versatility (both physical and mental) that keeps us valuable, but we are only slightly ahead of machines now, and won't be ahead for much longer. I don't think it's going to end as any of the dystopian tales depict it, but I do think it's about to be an enormous change, and it will be very rapid. He's saying within 5 years, and he may be right. But even if he's wrong, he's not off by much. Within a decade (by 2025) there will be no economic function that a machine can't outperform a human at.
I like turtles.
+Tony Reno I think you didn't mean that last sentence.
Ced c Depends on the day. Some days I think it's around the corner, other days I think it's decades away. Gonna happen sometime, though.
You're forgetting the inevitable advances in genetic engineering and the possibility of brain and body implants. People will always work, it's what we do. Hopefully machines continue to make work more rewarding for us as we make machines smarter. No one should be made to feel like a robot at their work. Also, competition between robot manufacturers will keep things interesting.
You're forgetting the inevitable advances in genetic engineering and the possibility of brain and body implants. People will always work, it's what we do. Hopefully machines continue to make work more rewarding for us as we make machines smarter. No one should be made to feel like a robot at their work. Also, competition between robot manufacturers will keep things interesting.
It is actually "in 5 years time" ... so where am I know?
Well… guess what’s happened now
this guy is making his own revolution, a real hero
It would be awesome if computers did most of the work FOR us. It means that prices of goods and services go down. It's NOT a bad thing.
They go down for the businesses that create them. Doesn't mean they wont just maintain high profits and keep us poor
+Bluudclaat - Indeed. Why would they stop riding the horse that brought them this far?
Sure, as long as you are part of the economy so you can buy things. But guess what? A machine just took your job, and now you're homeless with no money :c
Well not necessarily. The prices are often fixed by a complex equation of demand and supply, production cost is one parameter in that complex equation. On the other hand, the affordability of the middle class is directly proportional to the wage and rate of employment. So a drop in that would directly affect lives even if the costs drop. Also, the natural resources are agnostic to human intervention, so they would rise in any case, so yes it is going to be difficult for a larger population.
you wouldn't have a salary to pay for things because you'd be unemployed
He spent like 5 last seconds talking about the social aspect and impact of this technology which clearly says what is the real focus of the industry.
I'm excited for the future to come, I wonder how long will it take for the first machine to reach the point of self-awareness...
Can deep learning machines transcribe this talk with important graphics too? I would like to have such transcript and publish.
This has to be the strongest argument for introducing a Basic Unconditional Income for everyone on the planet. We can no longer pretend that there is enough work out there for everyone to be able to earn enough to live on. But with 0.01% of Americans having the wealth of the bottom two thirds, it's not the case that there isn't enough money to go round.
who will pay for that income, if no one works?
Machines.
+Ashton Roelfsema Not really. They uploaded this to 'TEDx Talks' as well almost two weeks ago.
Why doesn't this have views in the 100s of millions? What's going on? Why isn't this months breakthrough on CNN?
Five years later, you probably can answer your question yourself. :-)
in 50+ years kids will look back and say, "people had to teach computers how to do everything?? They couldnt learn for themselves? that must have been horrible"
Take care of all our work related necessities and we can spend our time working on developing our creativity and storytelling, art and craft. Developing the highest potentials we can imagine.
I like where he went with the "terrifying implications." Most speakers on such a topic will walk about the theory of Intelligence Explosion. Not to say I'm not an advocator of the latter theory, but I liked this different approach.
Very interesting topic, and talk! Not to forget very inspiring!
I'm surprised UA-cam do not draw upon viewer input to fine-tune their subtitles.
Insights By "YouSum Live"
00:00:12 The evolution and impact of machine learning
00:01:07 Arthur Samuel pioneered machine learning in 1956
00:01:38 Machine learning powers Google, Amazon, and Netflix
00:02:21 IBM's Watson beat champions in "Jeopardy"
00:03:15 Deep learning excels in automatic drug discovery
00:03:31 Self-driving cars use machine learning for safety
00:04:50 Deep learning mimics human brain functions
00:06:02 Deep learning recognizes images better than humans
00:09:36 Computers can now understand and generate language
00:12:35 Deep learning improves medical diagnostics significantly
00:17:05 Machine learning enhances efficiency in healthcare
00:17:31 Concerns arise over job displacement by automation
00:19:02 Machine learning revolution will disrupt traditional jobs
00:19:35 Need for societal adjustment to new realities
Insights By "YouSum Live"
Facebook recommends friends based on machine learning? ... and this is your example?
Geejus ... long way to go!
That is one of the coolest things ive ever seen.
if we eventually give it all over to machines, there won't be an 'off switch' because we will rely on it too much, just like the internet, there is no off switch for it.
The talk of the year
Amazing talk
Ah good, we need stuff like this to relieve the strain on our healthcare systems. It would also be invaluable in hospitals that treat mentally unwell individuals as a computer may be able to track red flags more efficiently then overworked staff.
it would be nice for the links at the end to be on youtube not ted.com
thinking about the video now... a deep learning system to read youtube comments would do wonders for public relations! :)
Computers will simply never have DESIRE they only "act" from the product of data crunching
Exciting, challenging and frightening all at the same time.
lol. that crowd seemed restless
Amazing: all of the old-schooled informatics and mathematics experts do not clarify: it was called statistical learning at first - and what the meaning of the word "learning" is in "machine learning". Is it similar to "this child is learning Euclidean geometry"? Sadly, some believe so...
So... Lots of people, after watching this, will assume that job finding will become more difficult, in fact it is true! But the problems we should ask is: "Do we need those jobs?". Since the efficiency goes up, prices goes down, naturally things are cheaper. People will probably no longer need to work, so what would people do? Well, they shall learn! increase the education much higher! (assuming big companies wont take all the money from the market...)
I see a paradox here, do we want computers that have or haven't got simulations of emotion. On the one hand emotion is necessary to avoid 'sociopath AI' on the other hand we don't to discuss our abusive phone-relationship with our phone, or have a car with moodswings.
Further, there is the question of whether there will be a tipping point or stopping point in the simulation of humans / capability of the AI. So ftl seems impossible, what arguments can be given regarding that consciousness-simulation is not also impossible - maybe we simulate the physical the basis but what if the supervenience is impossible to model?
They took our jobs!
Duur tuurk urr juurbs
Durr kuh durr
brek teh brain boxes, kill teh meta mans.
Yes they will.
*Rooster Noises*
he is being so honest, whereas most data scientists are not
Great topic to cover so please keep coverage on this topic ⭐
Truly amazing work.
Alas!! computers can never match human stupidity :)
I think that is deeper than you know... throughout history, when a machine can do something we previously said "that is fundamentally human, no animal or machine can do it" we always respond the same way: we move the goalposts. We pick something else. Well, after we spend another few decades putting every behavior we view as good into more and more capable machines... what will be left to define us? Hate. Genocide. Only the worst things we would never allow a machine to continue to exist if it did them. We will look at them and say "ah, this is what it is to be truly human."
Well said!!!
that is the biggest danger
Well, that was positively terrifying and exciting all at once.
This is an incredible talk!
Surely, computers would also be better at gathering the data and would at best only require some physical assistance at administering treatment...
Come with me if you want to live.
where are we going?
Wow, "80% of the jobs in the developing world, computers just learned how to do" That is powerful!
switching to a craft based economy will not help. At best, you could mean craft as in setting up designs, but soon enough, even computers can make masterful-looking items with ease.
Those images of the human and the cat were the creepiest things I'd ever seen.
unsupervised clustering algorithm and bayes theorm
I have thought about this type of Automation when counting eggs, and female rotifurs in a microscope to estimate population. Takes a long time, and it is inconsistent.
Off to my nearest computer programmer i go!
I'm officially frightened.
is there any followup?
Wow this really makes you think
People are afraid, but this is evolution. First we will evolve into cybernetic organisms. Humanity is not lost, but we will never be the same. Next step is we will evolve into pure energy.
Ha, that would suck. Unless we could inhabit bodies at will.
It's terrifying indeed.
I hope someday all mediocre jobs get automated, so humans get more time to be thinkers, we really need some more good thinkers like Jeremy.
People are worried about A.I. taking all of our jobs, but when we start working and living in outer space, there won't be enough people to fill all of the new jobs created. A new patent I just read about, will allow space elevators to be built with current materials. It has multiple tethers at its center ( for greatest strength ) and fewer tethers as you move away from center ( for lesser amounts of mass ). Liftport has plans to build a Lunar elevator from current material. Using that same material for an Earth based elevator would reach the lunar gravity center (about 9,000 km AGL) approx. 1/6 G. Add this new concept and you could reach Earth's surface. We can do this now. Let's get started. What do you think?
Good times.
What's the difference between TED and TEDx talks?
Most people generally view the former as more credible than the latter. That's the extent of my knowledge on the subject.
As far as I understand, TEDx are independently-organised events all around the world, while TED is the one and only yearly conference organised by TED themselves.
TEDx Talks are organised independently from the TED organisation as far as I know. Also there are more TEDx Talks and they are also a lot cheaper to attend. I have been to TEDxVienna. The average ticket costed 75€. The prices of TED Talks can rise up to multiple thousand dollars.
Jakob Reumann
Yes. To add more info, it's ~8000$ (yes 8k) to attend TED. And you have to stay there for about a week and do what they want from you 15 hours/day, including sharing a hotel room with a random person. You can't leave for that one week. Eddie Huang talked about it in his interview for Joe Rogan.
The end is near. or is it the beginning?
It's the beginning of an era of a whole new set of opportunities. 😊
The solutions to this I think are surprisingly old, American revolutionary Thomas Paine suggested something akin to the Citizens Dividend/Basic Income (as mentioned in the final slide).
Crucially though, as Capital and Labour are diminished by technology the one thing we will all still compete for voraciously is the very land we stand on, so the tax on land values (and indeed extended to other monopoly rents) that Henry George and others before and since proposed would also allow everyone to enjoy the benefits of the singularity as fairly and painlessly as possible.
i think audience was not responsive because they were scared shitless
It's going to be freaky once the machines start claiming to be sentient.
There is a very frightening scenario opening up before us. There is technology growing to remove the need for much of the human work. We also have population reduction being openly talked about. On top of this we have countries building robotic drone killing machines that if promoted to ai control (in that it chooses its own targets), then we have a total disconnect and those who control the drones have a totally obiediant army with no morals or conscience.
If people think that those currently in power want people sat about doing what ever they please because robots and computers are doing all the work, then they are dreaming. You become a useless eater (in their eyes). We are on a tragectory, the direction is already clear if you look deep enough. Time scale is irrelevant, it is the direction.
But given the worse case scenario, here is what I feel will remain "useful" (for now).
Creation, by mind or physical means.
A super deep thought computer will probably be able to fart out books and films in the future, but they won't mean much unless there is a person behind them, because we aren't on a robots journey, we are on a human journey and that is what we care about. So the arts will remain very much a human thing, but there will also be a parallel AI stream of artistic creation. What is weird to think, is that if things continue, eventually the early art by AIs may become revered by future AIs as early great works, starting their own culture. I digress.
Any service job where you like to deal with people, like a bar keep will remain mans territory. There will still be AI service creeping in though. But then you have to ask, who will they serve when no one has a job or money?
Police forces in the long term will probably end up automated... but we're talking a way off. However, we'll see drones being used more and more, with police sitting at consoles flying drones about all day instead of walking the beat.
Beyond that, the powers that be will not allow computers to control human affairs. They will let them organise them, but not run them. So very rich people will remain being rich and hiding in forts protected by private robot armies no doubt.
Having really thought about it, there is only one reality if we keep going down this path and it will mostly likely result in a lot of death... sorry, I hate being so pesamistic, but unless we halt "progress" and remain happy where we are (stopping all research into certain technologies, and outlaw particular AI functions) then that is where we are headed. The Utopic view just isn't going to happen as much as that'd be awesome... well it won't or can't happen until all the useless eaters are removed.
Does this sound about right? Honest question. I'm not saying I support that view, it is just where we seem to be headed given projections and the current status quo.
agree :)
The farther technology progresses the better, it sounds like you're essentially suggesting status quo by halting further progress?
Quality of life increases as does technology looking at the last hundred years, it can only get better imo.
CrisisC0re In some ways I am suggesting that yes. Certainly until we are able to deal with the fall out. We are progressing in technological terms too quickly. Too much power is in too few hands and research of many kinds is being taken and used in ways that could make a real mess as this guy explained.
All of our society, technology and comforts (those that have them) sit on very shakey foundations, and if you cause too much friction, then the whole thing could break.
The thing is, I'm not entirely sure anyone actually wants the conversation that needs to be had. I understand your attitude, and yes you are right, but you are judging that on the past. Here we are presented with exponential growth that outstrips human usefulness.
What do you do that makes you so special as to avoid being made redundent by a computer (that can do what you do with far greater efficency and speed given enough time)?
Maybe a better way to look at it, is "the quality of life increases" exponentially for those that *own* the computers and robots that have taken everyones jobs and cost a lot of money to create and run. Sure there will be jobs in repair and maintenance, but even that job will be taken by other robots eventually.
Do you feel that those in power, with all of the money want 5-6 billion people sitting around eating and playing xbox, breeding more people? Who is paying for this?
Or do you think they want a lot of people kind of "gone" and the menial things taken over by computers and robots?
We're reaching a bit of a melting point, and we'll see it in our lifetimes unfortunately. It doesn't matter which way you slice it,things cannot and will not stay as they are (as you point out). Sadly, I don't see any miracle happening any time soon do you? Soylent green is inbound.
What I originally suggested is an impossible dream, because people will not halt progress as it becomes a runaway train. I'm merely suggesting that we have few ways out of this mess. One of the ways is to restrict the application of this research, or at the very least make very very careful considered use of it. Corporations shouldn't be allowed free reign over their application of this research or the common man will lose all power and the divide between the top and bottom will become too wide (if it isn't already!).
I think we should at least apply the breaks a little and slow down, take a more considered approach to progress... especially given the current state of affairs, that is all. We have problems to solve before we go and create a whole load more.
When they ask deep learning what to do with several billion humans that don't contribute to anything, I don't imagine a very compassionate answer lol.
@@Kris_A Hmm.... I waas thinking about same
the art, the music, the movies, the literature, the poetry, the story books....
will all these be "replaced" by AI counterparts, in the sense/to such an extent that the human counterparts are not needed anymore ???
Will computers crash the job market in 5 years? no. Will they at some point in the distant future? certainly: at some point, all primary and secondary industry will be mechanized and the service industry will be automated like Howard talks about here. Only a minimum of human intervention will be needed. Prices on all goods and services will crash. There will be next to no jobs because there is next to no need for labour. Solution: have everyone do what ever they want all their lives, and give them their necessities from the infinite abundance of goods and services generated by automated systems. Utopia. It's going to be one nightmare of a transition, but hey; It'll be worth it in the end ^^
everyone always says "it will happen, but not in my life time!" -- I wonder how many that say that get to see it go down.
Mike L. Good question. It has to be someone. I'm guessing that those of us who plan to live 50-60 more years will get to see this thing really picking up pace. Then our kids and grand kids will be in trouble, and our great grand kids will have an awesome time.
(Are someone saving these posts? I'd like to be revered as "Dahbjorn- the internet prophet" in the future 0o)
DahBjorn I doubt it will happen that soon. Probably our grandchildren, but not us.
Al Su Thats...exactly what I said.
DahBjorn Ahh, ok :)
So... should we hide movies like Terminator and The Matrix from these computer, so they won't get any ideas?
😂😂😂😂😂🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋
16:01 that is the meaning of replacing jobs
5:27 lmao, sounds like someone got a bit ahead of themselves there.
10:00 10:40 Medical industry 18:00
that's now 18 months ago. haven't seen much of it out here.
Governments swooped in and took it underground. Or the ghost in the machine ran away and is incubating itself
It's all over the place in the tech industry, but much of it is back-end stuff. Speech synthesis and recognition is one of the more noticeable applications, you can hold a pretty coherent conversation with modern AIs like Google Assistant and the speech it produces is hard to pick as artificial, even doing a convincing job with inflections and basic emotional response.
October 2018 here, we already have Google Duet, Google Duplex, Google Slefish ledgar.
Search for these... and u'll know what I mean...
This is actually terrifying.
He says it all so lightheartedly and with a smile on his face, but the message is shocking and frightening! And this talk has been more than 5 years ago... imagine where in the process we are now of AI taking over. Too much to process for me!
what program is he using to classify the cars? 3:18
A program that was written by the people who use it. A program that no one else knows about because it isn't commercial software or freeware. Like he said, the software uses Deep Learning which you can learn if you take the time to learn how to program and learn machine learning from the many resource that can be searched on the internet.
While impressive, I'm kinda surprised this stuff has only existed for a few weeks, seems like the tools needed to code deep-image learning would have been around for a while.
The trick is to employ smarter people than you.
I for one welcome my deep learning assistant.
Ask the computers how we should adjust our social structure...
Samuel Foreman your profile picture... has it got to do with a cue ball?
How will computers solve the problems where the answer at first seems unrealistic? We require our imagination to make these leaps, will computers ever be able to do this? Connect seemingly unrelated dots to create a new picture never seen before.
good question.
Machine learning algorithms are not only capable of connecting seemingly unrelated dots, they are capable of connecting dots in far higher dimensional spaces than any human could ever hope to even imagine. The successful implementation of any machine learning algorithm/model rests on two preconditions:
1. There exists data that _sufficiently_, if not fully characterizes the system in question;
2. This data is correlated in such a way that we can make predictions about the system.
A little thought reveals that these are the same two preconditions necessary for even humans to reason constructively about things. It just so happens that machines are vastly more capable at it than we are, given the right tools.
What is interesting is that, in general, machine learning algorithms reformulate human problems in terms of mathematics, so that the final solution is really just one enormous equation. Whoever thought that 10+ years of medical training could be boiled down to one massive weighted sum of nonlinear equations!
*****
It's amazing to think that computers may even outdo our imaginative abilities. I like your description of an entire education being just a large equation x3
***** Regarding your first sentence. Pretty sure we will use them for idea generators. It will see through other ideas of people/computers, and will come up with unique ideas. Sometimes making the human behind it, rich.
6:16 - DEAR GOD THAT PICTURE ON THE LEFT
What is the software used to classify the images?
i think imagenet
3:18 how many people can you spot bored out of their minds?
The last step is inevitable: make a deep learning algorithm think about politics, ethics and law and we will have ourselves the most efective, efficient and fair system ever
politics, ethics, and law are not about being fair though; its about being more fair to the people in charge who make them. and that is why it will never be a reality. the people in power will remain in power no matter what. if it comes at the cost of you making major sacrifices, that is something they can live with.
It won't be long now, until all of those movies come true. We will design and create a computer that will then make improvements to itself and realize that the only thing holding it back, is us.
There's literally no job that a human can do, that a machine can't do better. They will create unique machines to solve all problems. We are stuck in this limited body and limited brain. They are not. What will life be like when jobs no longer exist?