Jordan Peterson DEBUNKS Jordan Peterson with Matt Dillahunty
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2024
- Jordan Peterson DEBUNKS Jordan Peterson??? with Matt Dillahunty
#jordanpeterson #mattdillahunty #12rulesforlife #12morerulesforlife
Watch full discussion here: • Does God Exist? Jordan...
The Warrior For Reason - Matt Dillahunty goes head to head with Dr. Jordan Peterson on God, Religion, Morality & more!
Watch full discussion here: ua-cam.com/video/FmH7JUeVQb8/v-deo.html
Two minutes of Jordan Petersen is above and beyond my endurance sorry Matt
Peterson is a master at creating word salads. Another way of saying this is that the metaphysical substrate of his axiomatic theorem conflates the emotional variables in a theological framework because it contains a number of important properties that can’t be articulated without jeopardizing the aforementioned mathematical paradox creating a paradigm shift that can’t simply be quantified beforehand.
Sounds about right 😂
Man you hit the nail on the head. I'm with ya.
Makes sense to me. If anyone doesn't understand your comment it must simply be that they're not intelligent enough.
That depends on what you mean with salad and words. And what even is a salad? This is a very difficult problem that I am not sure of if it can even be solved. And, can you even stop eating salads if you do not have some kind of mystical experience? Is salad, in fact, proof of some kind of divine rule. We don't know how to talk about this problem even and it will likely take decades, at least, to answer this question.
Is that you, Jordan?
JP has not the slightest clue what machine learning is or anything about computation. but he talks about it confidently.
and you do?
@@neotokyo385 i somewhat so, as i actually read shit about it and i know the absolute basics of machine learning and coding. JP couldn't even tell you what a matrix is.
@@opensocietyenjoyer u don't need to know about matrices to get the basics of ML though
@@neotokyo385 JP doesn't have the basics of ML either. that's the problem. he doesn't even have the basics of computation.
@@opensocietyenjoyer from the clip it sounds like he does, and he used it in an appropriate example too
12 Rules for Life:
“Rule based systems don’t work.” 😂
😂😂😂😂😂
It’s the first rule lol
@@cameranishere Second rule: We dont talk about the first rule.
Rules based systems dont work if they are restrictive. 12 rules for life is not 12 rules to obey its 12 rules to aplly. Nothing was debunked here really.
@@Eekolooginen And what do you mean by "obey" and what do you mean by "apply", you can't just assume those definitions to be self-evident. You have just been Petersoned!
i used to love peterson back when i was stupid 😂
How? How or why did you ever like him or even think that anything he said was intelligent or profound? People who like or have ever liked Jordan Peterson are confusing to me.
@@lemmyhead8578 oh believe me i’m just as baffled with my behavior;
probably has something to do with me being born and raised in a cult
i’m more susceptible to believing nonsense i suppose
@@lemmyhead8578it's an easy notion. I fell prey for it, too. Was vulnerable at that time. Just broken up with my girlfriend. He kinda filled the void that I'd guess many of his followers have. He helped me regain perspective with his motivational content. And then pulled me down into the rabbit hole of conservative nonsense and fear-mongering. It took me years to get out of that and develop a more differentiated view. I guess that joke is on many people, also intelligent ones that do not have people in their lives they can talk about their believes and are brought back.
The internet algorithms just trap you in bubbles it's very hard to get out of. Jordan offers the illusion that he already has all the answers, so you don't look for more and can feel superior. It's a shame. And I feel it, too
@@lemmyhead8578 I would say, he is charismatic, talk with sophisticated langauge and has a PhD (it doesnt matter in what, just that he has one). Those seem to be the main reasons why people whom had not learn (or are just learning) how the world works pick which authorities to trust.
I USED TO read the hell out of Peterson when I was a raging alcoholic
It didnt help me to NOT drink, but I would confidently say things that made LITTLE SENSE with a LOT OF POMPOSITY
Do you know how you know Matt is actually smart? He doesn't try to act like it.
Do you know how you know Jordan isn't? Because he tries to act like he is.
.If someone was trying to act like being smart their arguments wouldn't hold up, I don't see that here. We haven't created artificial general intelligence yet, jp believes we can never achieve it, md believes we can, it's an open debate, there is no conclusive answer yet.
Poo poo@@teoval1827
@@teoval1827 but that's not the debate that's being offered. JP uses "machine learning" as a response to aa claim that rules-based approaches do not work. Except machine learning is implemented with "machines" which are entirely rules-based. Also, medical diagnosis does, in fact, work well using software approaches. JP is entirely wrong and ignorant, as usual.
But sure, you "don't see that here". Wonder why?
Now JP is an expert on machine learning. There is no subject in the history of the universe where he doesn't consider himself an expert.
@@junetaylor8396 I saw him on some right wing news show giving his opinion on the Ukraine/Russia war as if he was an expert on international affairs and I couldn’t believe it. He’s a psychologist
If you move your hands a lot when you talk, it tricks people into thinking you are smarter than you are?
“Spin hands, waffle aimless verbiage, deliberately avoid being concise when you know you’re backed into a corner or aren’t honest enough to admit you don’t know enough, attempt audience approval through comic* jabs.” - Dictionary definition of Jordan Peterson.
* loose to obtuse definition of ‘comic’.
Because he thought about it, really thought about it. Hard.
He went to Trump University 😃
Peterson is pure comedy now.
He should get into acting.
What do you think he does for a living?
@@Mark73Japping
@@Mark73 lol. Touché
I've often said that Dr. P is what you get when an overly emotional theater kid is forced to take up something more "practical." Like psychology. 😅
This debate is 7 or 8 years old already. Its always been bullshit and contradictory
Peterson always sounds like he’s talking in circles to me
Someone said Peterson’s modus operandi is a dialectic. This video strangely supports that considering his book
His two areas of expertise are wearing suits and talking in circles.
That or spiraling into nonsense.
Matt too civil to simply say to JP , "checkmate".
These keep on being posted. This same old debate.
And it’s probably good to do so. I want more JBP fans to see what happens when Peterson bounces his bullshit off of someone who sees through it.
Im thinking jorden doesn't want to risk debating Matt again
I'm glad it is. And you're right. I've been seeing snippets popping up lately. And glad it is too.
Love to see it.
Wow, I just had a revelation about why JP moves his hands so much.
He tossing his word salad.
oh, that's a pity, i thought it was just the drugs kicking....
One of the things that will certainly not happen again in the universe is the second debate between Jordan and Matt. Lol
So...Peterson thinks that computers run on rule-based systems, but then if you say "AI" or "Machine Learning", all of a sudden they run on, what, vibes? How does that work? Like it's not still a computer? How does this guy keep thinking he understands all these topics in fields he hasn't studied?
Jordan rails against totalitarianism and group think and is called out here for supporting that very thing via religion. Perfect.
Yes ideologies often support group think. If they didn't then they wouldn't be ideologies.
@@cheyennealvis8284
Not necessarily, like if the ideology is based in relativism or actual individuality, the "group think" wouldn't be based on the group having to actually think exactly alike or believe the exact same things.
Stfu.
You embody every stereotype applied to your group and it’s absolutely pathetic to believe that you think you are special because you say GoD iS bAd
@@cheyennealvis8284also theirs a difference between a set of principles that tend to lead in a certain direction. As opposed to theocratic dogma…
Why does Peterson always sound like he's on the cusp of breaking into tears?
Because he is, he cries all the time
May have something to do with his history of depression and the related medical treatment. He and his family have suffered terribly over the years, especially his daughter who had a terrible bone disease. Plus, Peterson himself nearly died a couple years or so ago.
@@kofidan9128sure makes a good sob story. It doesn’t excuse them being awful people, however.
Because he is, Rogan explained it very well, the doctor who is a doctor didn't know what all doctor know, that benzos are... addictive? whaaaa? and his weak weak weak baby-bitch brain never healed
@@kofidan9128lots of people suffer, they don't all break into tears any time they think about young men, aka boys, he's a doctor who apparently was unaware of the addictive properties of benzos, that's the guy lots of people are looking to for guidance
First of all, great find.
Second, JP really is just the sloppiest thinker. He's talking about rules with high degrees of specificity as though a rule must have a high degree of specificity. "Be kind" is a rule that I try and follow. It's incredibly flexible.
And finally, I wish Matt had thought to point out that a rule doesn't have to be made explicit to be operating as a rule. Most people couldn't teach a class on grammar, but still follow those rules well enough to communicate in a language.
The grammar example is perfect. In English there is a specific sequence in which adjectives are placed in front of the noun they modify. It has to do with how they modify the noun. Like the phrase "my big old fast dog" sounds right, but the phrase "old fast big dog" doesn't. We do this instinctually with no ability to articulate what we're doing or why we're doing it, but the rule for the proper sequence is there.
The strict order is: opinion- size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose
@@Dionysus3883however, if you heard someone say it out of order, you'd still be able to understand
It should also be understood that a computer is nothing other than a device that follows very explicit rules and that the claim that"machine learning" is used because a "rules-based" approach doesn't work is laughably ignorant. This claim shows how JP's entire argument, as it always is, is inherently predicated on misunderstanding, usually deliberate, and that JP is not a serious person. Machines follow rules, machine learning is rules-based, these are obvious truisms.
Umm, yes, computers run on nothing but a sequence of rules. Those rules may be very, very complicated. But they run on nothing but rules.
so does everything
They need a power source as well. Or they ain't running anything.
Don't forget training data. People are constantly applying rules of grammar, of logic, etc. That feels like a pretty important oversight...
“AI doesn’t run on rules, the universe just doesn’t seem to work that way”
This is the kind of BS assertion Peterson can get away with on the Joe Rogan show or at a lecture in front of his fan boys. Matt, on the other hand, immediately pushes back because AI works on a set of algorithms that are absolutely rule based. The fact that AI can change the assumptions it makes based on experience doesn’t at all mean that it’s basic functions aren’t rule based
@@Charon58 Seems like he's basically trying to make the distinction between expert systems and neural networks. The former's certainly "running on rules" in a sense that isn't true of the latter and it is interesting.
2:54 has to be the most nervous sip of water I've ever seen
AI systems don't run on rules. They run on a lot of rules.
And also they are never conscious. They imitate consciousness.
Damn. Pangburn and Jordan Peterson seem to have had some major fight /fallout. I wonder what this is all about?
* aboot
* babut
I dont know, and i get the impression that a lot of Jordan’s public persona used to be focused on societal problems like the suppression of free speech and the denial of evolutionary biology/psychology along with having a tangible positive impact on people’s lives in the form of self-help. A lot of these things are in alignment with western liberalism/enlightenment/renaissance thinking (even if i personally find his obsession with cognitive behavioral therapy beyond foolish) but the past few years more and more he has been focused on his belief in religion’s inherent benefit and the assumption that scripture is essential to the moral underpinnings of society. In my opinion, he says these types of things in the least direct and most convoluted way possible without offering any real evidence, all the while interrupting his counter part frequently, and it comes across as either confused or obtuse, none of which is a good look for someone who is purported to be a thoughtful individual. If you watch his conversations with a more socially conservative person like Ben Shapiro versus someone who is more in favor of western liberalism and is of greater challenge to his intellect he comes across as two different people. And i think people are catching on to this perception that perhaps hes not arguing in good faith.
@@tl7988 I used to watch this youtube channel called "Academy of Ideas". It explores modern societal problems and provides some sort of self-help in the lens of Jungian psychology. At first, it thought think it made sense and fill me with a sense of clarity. But the more I watch its videos, the more I feel like something is wrong. It states a lot of assumptions that if you think about it, isn't really universally true. And then I learned how Jungian psychology isn't really a reliable science.
And I feel the same about this on the way JP talks. He puts forward a lot of rocky assumptions. That if you think about it, doesn't really hold much water. And his mind is a little too perceptive when it comes to patterns (human brains are pattern seekers, but JP thinks a lot more like our ancient ancestors on how they see the world). Which is the main reason I believe he draws a lot of bad conclusions. And he doesn't have the awareness to even realize it. He "wants to seek the truth" but thinks and acts like he already found it.
@@tl7988
I'm sad to inform you but... he's actually working for Ben Shapiro. You can safely assume whatever he's espousing at any particular moment is the Daily Wire's position, aka his primary income source aka Ben Shapiro's brainchild.
As a machine learning scientist, I would conclude that Dr. Peterson's understanding of ML is equivalent to that of a 1st grader's understanding of a rabbit being pulled out of a hat at a magic show.
Those are really nice chairs they're siting on and that's how tired I am of hearing the same arguments between Peterson and Dillahunty.
Probably affordable chairs, I don't think they'd use expensive design chairs for such events
@@westerling8436 They look so dignified in those chairs. LOL
This guy doesn't get logic. Computers are nothing but rules, how do you explain errors??? It's called an illegal operation; it broke the rules LOL.
JP's opinion was that rules can't create consciousness, he didn't say that computers don't run on rules.
@@teoval1827 He absolutely said that AI doesn't operate on rules, and that's horsesh*t.
@@donnievance1942 "quit remembering what he said and think about what he MEANT to say"
@@teoval1827 He said machine learning "doesn't run on rules", so yes he did. And he is wrong.
They mistake their belief in god as an exercise of free will.
It's clear Peterson has never held a keyboard long enough to program. He just talked to his smart friend and thought he found new ammunition in his culture war. Any AI attempting to solve a problem is working on rules. The goal in chess is to win and of course there are rules. How else are you supposed to play the game? There are no rules to chess beyond the rules that exist in the rule book.
Take it from someone who was there at the start of the wilderness years of AI - 1987 to be precise. Making knowledge based computerized systems display intelligence through the use of rules does not work. Does. Not. Work. You can program all you like but it's futile. I was fortunate to get out before the 15 years of futility which effectively ended when the AI community went and talked to the psychologists and worked out why there were getting nowhere.
And the whole Deep Blue bit is a smoke screen. The issue there is not intelligence as such, but rather a program doing precisely what our brains are very bad at doing - creating a structure of future complex game states blindingly quickly. That's not a complete model of how good chess players tackle the game. More modern chess solutions rely on a combination of neural nets and vast stores of all - or at least the most likely - possible reasonable combinations, hacked around a bit (read: a lot) to make it efficient. It is still playing at mimicking intelligence by reading from a script sheet showing approximations to the current position. It's nowhere near real intelligence, and certainly light years away from conciousness. Interestingly, it would be difficult to determine whether widespread knowledge of the existence of computer chess programs affects the Turing test. Because then the question is not whether Deep Blue and its like can make sure it always wins the game, but whether it is capable of working out that it should at least lose some of the time so it can keep up the pretense.
The question then is whether you can write a program which runs through something other than purely running on set rules. And the answer is that you can. This was the missing link. You allow the introduction of external stimuli to change the parameters of how the program works. It discovers information external to the computer itself, and incidentally external to the initial ruleset it was given, which can then be used to change its own rules, and possibly even what the final objective should be. The point is that you open the interfaces to allow the capture of external information, but don't put limits on what the program will do to itself as a result. What happens as a result is that the program/system manages to outgrow its initial rules through autonomous discovery. Which is what children do, at least according to the psychologists. Which is what the AI engineers went and talked to them in order to find a way past the impasse presented by the limitations of purely rule-based programming.
So in fact Matt was technically wrong. But if you don't know your way around the field it's easy to speak in ignorance. As JBP loves to say, it's complicated. The difference is that JBP spoke to someone who does know, and got told pretty much what I outlined above.
As for the culture war, it's not JBP who started the war. The idea of naturalism and rationalism producing anything other than arbitary - and thereby unreliable - moral structures has long known to be folly. JBP is just pointing this out. The analogy is that scientific naturalism means you keep everything rule-based, stuck in your computer system and being blissfully ignorant of anything outside it. You get determinism, and likely the concomitant nihilism and fultilty/vanity. Break out of naturalism and suddenly you're free of the prison it so carefully constructs. You also get free of purely rule-based derivations of morals, and you can then argue that your systems can rise above the purely utilitarian and arbitary.
Personally, I would argue they are both correct and arguing the same thing without realizing it, I don’t know what the larger context is though.
@@mikehutton3937 OK ChatGPT
@@mikehutton3937 For a system to be able to change its own rules in an open-ended way is not equivalent to running without rules. At the very least, the system has to have a set of goals, and it has to have criteria to determine the validity of what it learns and whether the learned items contribute to achieving those goals. All those criteria and goals are rules. The "AI doesn't operate on rules" trope is just utter horsesh*t.
@@donnievance1942 By the same dint humans operate on rules. AI merely has to reduce its dependence on rules to a similar extent. The key is for the system to be able to change the rules and goals themselves, which is the next big hurdle.
Try reading with some nuance. Modern AI programs don't run like 99.9999% of other programs, which are entirely dependent on rules and thereby are purely deterministic, even with the admission of random number generators. In contrast modern AI systems differ in their ability to change the rules and objectives, and even goals. The criteria for validity of the results it determines change too. Even then it would stull be purely determininstic, but it's the addition of the ability for the program to gather information independently, and then use that information to transform itself, which changes the landscape. If you want to call that still operating purely from rules then that's up to you. But that's not really what is going on, and it certainly isn't relevant to the discussion. The actual discussion is the nature of consciousness and autonomy, which is why JP brought the subject up in the first place.
READY
10 Jordan Peterson
20 Fluff speak
30 GOTO 10
RUN
Petersen got owned in this debate.
This man Peterson is both ignorant and extremely nervous. His problem is dishonesty in not accepting that he doesn't know everything. The idea that AI is not rule-based or even intelligent is just pathetically wrong.
He's an admitted drug addict. Ironically, he loves to speak about how addiction is treated.
@@FentonMulley-cz8pvseems like a clinical psychologist who has themselves experienced addiction would have something to say on how to treat addiction.
@@Dionysus3883 unfortunately he is still using the drug as he gives the advice. Also his methodology is based in alcoholics anonymous. That system is from 1936 and shown to be 8% successful at best. He is not using his experience, he is trying to put Jung and woo woo nonsense because Joe Rogan fans eat it up. If you look at what he does and the actual structure of his statements, it's obvious that he's just chasing fame and money.
@@FentonMulley-cz8pvI mean.. is he a recovered drug addict? Because if that's the case then he would probably be a good pick to talk about the dangers of addiction and how to treat it.
Not to say that I agree with what he says here, as a software developer nothing he said about AI makes any sense.
@@NA-nz9lv recovered drug addict is not a real thing. That term is from alcoholics anonymous. Like I said before, the program is 8% successful. He has no methodology or wisdom on the subject to share. And he is currently using the drug still.
Addiction isn't about advice and willpower. It's about what chemicals you put in your body at what rate for how long. Most "alcoholics" just process sugars in an abnormal way to most people. Jordan would suggest a spiritual solution which will fail 92% of the time.
I’m so glad that I stopped reading that trash after 5 pages 😂
What the fuck is he talking about? What kind of machine learning isn't based on rules of variation in strategy?
ML engineer here. JP is talking BS as always.
Jordan Peterson does NOT establish convincingly that „rule based systems don’t work“ or are in any way inferior. Also his examples seem „fetched“. Of cause AI is „rule based“ Ai gets jobs and have basic rule sets and limitations - and if is only a set of „rules“ that define the way their output is displayed (else they could decide, „not to talk to us“.
So - as it is too often - it’s a waste of time discussing anything with hin.
I remember reading 12 Rules then seeing "God" and Bible verses pop up, then I knew.
I'm an IT engineer, and literally everthing about computers functions because of a ruled based system, including AI. The rules are very difficult, come with their own languages and sometimes hard to comprehend, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. JP is absolutely full of it and just makes up information as a basis for a flawed argument.
Any coder or engineer knows that if you forget a } somewhere, you're effed.
Computers can't run on chaos, belief and mythical experiences, Jordan, ya grifting knowitall.
I feel JP is getting at something here, even if he communicates it poorly. The distinction he’s making isn’t that AI doesn’t operate under any rules. The distinction he is making is that AI doesn’t operate under a concrete set of rules designed to specific situations. Take chess; the reason AI has been impressive at chess is because it can adapt based on the data it is trained on.
I haven’t watched the whole discussion, so I’m unsure what exactly they are disagreeing about. In fact, I feel they are in agreement here given Matt’s comments on how top-down command is, in practice, less effective in operating a functional society than individual agents on the groin level making decisions.
I think I may listen to there discussion for further context. Let me know what you think.
I never knew kermit the frogs brother wasn't green , unless its with envy
Peterson is talking about rule-based intelligent systems. (ClIPS). Obviously, the computer is governed by some "rule". But he is arguing that simple rules don't actually achieve something.
There is confusion between the two. One should ask the definition of rule for each of them. They cleary are talking about two different concepts. Peterson seems to be taking rules as something that could be a reasonably input into a system like CLIPS, while the other one has rule as a synonym for any algorithm.
Yeah, that was my first thought when Peterson started talking. Inst "rule" simply the same as "pattern" looked at from the other side? Of course AI (even "higher" AIs like neural networks) run on rules. Of there was no rule at all, nothing would happen. I totally agree that we can get a lot farhter with flexible/more complex rule systems but rules would still be the foundation.
"But he is arguing that simple rules don't actually achieve something. "
No, that's just you making an excuse. JP doesn't say that. Also, that is wrong. Computers operate on only a few "simple rules" yet they implement the "machine learning" that is sufficiently complex that JP doesn't think there are rules to it at all.
"One should ask the definition of rule for each of them."
As with everything JP, it all boils down to the definitions of words, and how JP deliberately uses words improperly to avoid communicating ideas. The polar opposite of speaking clearly. The term "rule" does not need situational definition, it needs a good faith effort to communicate, something JP never offers.
Jps hand gestures are hypnotic lol
The more I hear Peterson, the more rage, repression, and narcissism I hear out of his mouth.
“I was talking to a friend of mine…he’s a really smart guy.” So, he wasn’t talking to a friend because no smart guy would be friends with him.
Since you present no arguments I assume you are prejudiced against him, and that means that you are not a smart guy. Please respect other people's opinions more.
@@teoval1827 No, it just means that I’m aware of the message that Peterson spews and I have zero respect for it. FYI, just because someone has an opinion does not mean that it has to be respected. So, NO, I don’t have to respect other’s opinions. You can have all the opinions you want, no one has to respect those opinions. I guess since you didn’t know that, that means that YOU are not a smart guy.
@xwarped83 ok I'm not trying to attack you it was just a play of words, since you believe you have the right to make fun of someone without justification, it would seem fair for others to have the right to make fun of you. I think this person has gone through a lot and doesn't deserve to be ridiculed, at least without some reason. I am not aware of the message you are talking about, but one person should at least listen first to what the other has to say before mocking him, thats what I mean by respect, I didn't mean you ought to blindly follow his ideas. I believe he's trying for the best for us and even if he makes some mistakes he deserves to be treated kindly.
@@teoval1827 except that Peterson is not some random guy on the street that I’m ridiculing. What he says is out in the open for everyone to hear, so I have listen to what he says.
“Play on words” I don’t think you understand what that means, try again.
“I believe he’s trying…”. Nah, he’s just in it for himself, “smart guy”.
“I’m not trying to attack you.” Yes, you pretty much did. I have a feeling that you don’t understand the words that you’re using.
The "rules" are what's built into the CPU. But that's like saying morality comes from your neurons. It doesn't run on the kinds of rules like JP is describing.
The argument JP is making is that nobody told the AI what the best way to win chess. JP thinks evolution doesn't run on "rules" as he's describing it, and MD is saying that the sorts of things evolution runs on is called "rules."
Oddly enough, JP's religion is based in part on "these are the rules for morality."
The rules would be the rules of the game like the axioms we live by, the neurons would be like the coding language the program runs on. Instead of teaching the program our made up strategies we use to win, we let it play out billions of scenarios to figure out its own way to win, it would be like telling a program about the bible and the Bhagavad Gita and the 7 rules of self help bs but instead just telling it the axioms and the goal and letting it figuire out its own way to get there
Peterson and I played basketball once. Before he bounced the ball, he told me that he couldn't manifest the cognitive resonance in his sub-conscience required to forestall the metaphysical awakening that his soul was keeping in motion, such that it would be an impossibility to engage the ball and net in the platform of unity required....I left. He's still out there talking about the lines on the court.
Peterson is funnier than Rogan. Great comedian 😂
Saying the foundation of cognition or consciousness isn’t based on rules isn’t the same thing as saying try following these steps to get yr head out of yr own asshole.
Bruh, Machine Learning doesn't work with rules? What is he yapping about.
I imagine Jordan Peterson’s friends are like the passengers on Airplane when Striker is telling his life story…
Jordarn peterson is missunderstanding machine learning, rules are always present, in ml its the data, the weights and bias, its all statistics , they are the ultimate rule.
Deep learning and especially machine learning are rules-based. It’s just with deep learning models the causes of predictions can be ambiguous to us; however, that’s only because the process can become so convoluted it’s difficult to do so.
Every anecdote is an unnamed friend of a friend to lend it credibility from an imaginary source
My favorite current thinker would be some combination of these two men, Sam Harris, and Andrew Wilson. All smart as shit, great at spotting flaws in reasoning, completely different worldviews, and all interested in finding the truth. You would be hard pressed to find a weakness in one that is not covered by another. Too bad 2-3 of them hate each other and we’ll never see them in a room together. I don’t understand why people have to like one or the other and can’t see the benefits in both.
It's fun how the author of "12 rules" and an adherent of 10 commandments confidently says "Rule based system don't work" while living in a secular society that has a developed legal system.
the "ai engjneer" is probably lex fridman lol
Dude your video titles make no sense
12 Rules don't run on rules
12 rules are not expected to grand you consciousness they are expected to help you better manage your life.
@@teoval1827 Did he say that they are supposed to grant you consciousness?
Didn't a program become world champion at Jeopardy, Chess, Checkers, Go???
Not running on the kinds of rules that JP is talking about. "Machine learning" isn't "a set of rules of what to do." The computer doesn't identify what's in a photo by someone providing a set of rules, but by looking at a bunch of labeled photos.
@@darrennew8211Machine learning is based on “rules”, or weights or parameters or whatever system you want to involve into the conversation. Chess computers use rules because of course they do. First of all, they need the rules of chess to function properly. They also need to have a clear goal to work towards, which can be seen as a rule too. The software running in the background is, partially, rule based. Depending on the A.I. it will just regurgitate training data in a new way or, in the case of chess computers, run millions of calculations per seconds and decide what move is best to play using so called weights
@@sudowtf I understand. If you listen to the discussion and pay attention to what JP is saying, those aren't the kinds of rules he's talking about. And, honestly, they can learn the rules of chess as easily as learning to get good at it, but that's irrelevant.
The point is, saying you can create morality with the kinds of rules JP is talking about is as silly as saying that since humans understand morality and humans are made out of fundamental particles that obey the rules of physics thus you can create morality out of rules.
Nobody is specifying what rules the computer should use to play chess. They're specifying what rules the computer should use to learn to play chess. You can't take the chess-playing software, examine the weights, and learn from that the best chess playing strategies, any more than you can look at the human connectome and figure out the best rules of morality.
Weights and parameters aren't rules of the form that JP is talking about.
@@darrennew8211 You raise a good point, but I would also argue that just because we can't easily interrogate the rules, that does not mean that the rules don't exist. By definition, anything that runs on a computing system must be governed by rules. The difference with machine learning systems (and I don't consider myself an expert here so please step in to correct me) is that these systems learn the rules themselves. There might for example be a rule like 'if its round, it is 5% more likely to be a cookie' that the model learns after being trained to identify chocolate chip cookies, but we don't know that because that rule is encoded in thousands of weights and biases, but the rule still exists.
Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here and missing the point, but I did find the claim that these systems are not based on rules to be pretty tough to swallow and at the very least I think it would require a more detailed explanation of what exactly Peterson means by that statement and why he considers it important. Unfortunately we seemed to move on fairly quickly without diving much into why this is important or what exactly is meant.
EDIT: It's also worth noting that progress is being made in understanding the inner workings/rules that these models come up with as well and it's really interesting. I don't know if I can link articles here but if you look up "anthropic Mapping the Mind of a Large Language Model" there's a pretty interesting article on some of the cutting edge progress so far.
@@jful The kind of rules JP is talking about aren't the rules of physics. And no, machine learning doesn't work by the sort of rules you gave an example of. We know how machine learning works, and it's almost impossible to get any sort of "rule" out of it. You can't look at the weights and deduce how to play chess more effectively, any more than you can look at someone's neurons and come up with rules for leadership. Compare expert systems with machine learning, like JP does, to see what he means by rules.
I think JP makes it clear what he means by rules, and MD just didn't want to accept that meaning of the word "rules."
Since they're talking about morality, he's saying you can't make a "list of commandments" and expect that to give you the answer to how to have moral behavior. People here are so focussed on the precise meaning of individual words they completely ignore the entire context of the discussion.
well that was a disaster. the thing is that his advice for young men to straighten themselves out isn't generally bad advice. I do think JP has a level of delivery with ethically sound principles. He isn't trying to hoodwink people. He also isn't the intellectual heavyweight a lot of people want him to be. He just isn't... I also don't believe he is the far right maniac people want him to be.
This is the Internet man, you have to decide that he's right or wrong about everything and attach a lot of emotion to it either way.
He's a psychologist. The closer he is to psychology, the more astute he is. I'm more sympathetic to his metaphysics than Matt's, but Matt has spent far more time talking about this topic.
Why are people acting like Matt is dunking on JP here. Matt's argument falls apart in so many ways. JP is merely stating that when you take away the rules from within a framework, there is no intrinsic value on good or bad. Matt is essentially saying that the framework itself is a set a rules. An analogy to use is Jordan Peterson is saying that if you live in a house, you use rules of the house to determine what is good or bad in the house. Matt is saying that the house itself has rules built in. It just doesn't make sense.
The biggest lie he said is that humans have, throughout history, acted in ways that are optimal for human survival. This is fundamentally false, and it, ironically, circles to religion for most examples. How are human sacrifices optimal for survival? How is ceremony to pray to rain or food optimal for survival? Humans CONSTANTLY act in ways that aren't good for the survival of humanity. Keeping people with genetic diseases alive and allowing them to have kids is objectively bad for human survival. It essentially weakens the genetics of humanity, and the rate of genetic diseases reflects this. BUT, humans have kindness that goes beyond simple rules of a universe. We determine that there is intrinsic value for that human, regardless of their state. JP hits the nail on the head here by asking this question. Matt just doesn't seem to understand that all the angles you can take.
1:25 you can theoretically understand how ML systems work.
Just because we can't understand the rules, doesn't mean there are no rules.
Religious beliefs did not devolve into a totalitarian rigidity. They are rigidity.
13th rule: F*ck the rules?
You guys should come up with something new instead of posting nearly decade old content over and over.
What are JP’s thoughts on the rules of the Ten Commandments?
“AI systems don’t run on rules” so immediately off the bat he is wrong
I'm not big on body language but Peterson's whole posture during this thing is so leaning forward and hunched over and frustrated :D
Matt is right. AI is built on computers which are strictly rules based.
Bro said AI doesn't operate on rules. Bro doesn't know wtf an algorithm is.
"We'd been talking about the foundations of cognition." Sure you were.
It's the way he says AI systems don't run on rules, "right"........its like internally he's going I haven't fricking clue where I am going with this, I just hope Matt knows as little as me on this and cannot challenge.
Jordan skirted passed the responsibility of religion. He got Matt to say that he faulted human, not religion. I fault religion as an attitude created by humans: unquestioning belief. That's what religion is.
In the chess discussion, the AI did have a rule outside of the chess rules, it was "do not cheat." That's a rule it was following. But i also disagree that the rules of chess don't count as rules.
First of all, the moral system of the Bible is a rules-based system which Jordan seems to argue against.
And when it comes to computer systems and AI, Jordan doesn't know enough about it to talk intelligently about it. I used to work as a Team Lead of a machine learning team, so I have some experience in this field. He's correct that we used to try to make strictly rules-based expert systems (if this then that, else this) but we no longer do that. Modern machine learning is based on statistics rather than rules *alone*, but the thing that Jordan is missing is that there are rules in modern machine learning too - the rules that instructs the computer on how to understand the statistics to produce a result. So, just because modern systems aren't called "rules-based," that doesn't mean that it doesn't involve rules - because they do.
Me as an atheist feels like people's brain in the comments sections were melted because firstly it doesn't match with what 12 rules for life say because looks like those people didn't read the book. And the rule they're talking about is completely different.
It's hilarious how Peterson blurts out that "AI systems do not run on rules" thinking there is no way Matt has the knowledge to challenge, then tries to quickly change the subject when Matt points out
why this is not true, 😂😂😂.
JP is now on his 7th roomba spouse. The rest have killed themselves driving off the staircase, breaking all the rules.
Excellent job of debunking JP...JP
Jordan's fundamental rule is that children's feelings should be negated by their father's persistent projection of his feelings. (Rule 5)
The fundamental purpose of feelings is to prompt the mind to investigate and respond to the matter of homeostasis.
Jordan's rules about feelings almost entirely killed Mikhaila with severe internal discrepancies and caused Julian to become infuriated and secretive.
Rule based programs don't work? What?
All programs before machine learning were rules based programs. ALL of them.
AI is 100% rules. It is a deterministic mesh of neural network. Same input, same output.
The issue with aetheists is that the god they don't believe in is generally the same god that serious and critical Christians don't believe in either.
That's a very interesting take. Would you mind elaborating on that? Just for the sake of curiosity
Objection. As an atheist, Yahweh is just one of thousands of gods I don’t believe in. Many of which I have no idea about
@@jasondavidvalenciamarin4415 Christians who refuse to take aethiests seriously and respect their logic and points of criticism will never get past level one plastic Jesus, which in itself makes a mockery of God.
Huh. Turns out there is a single person on Earth who should listen to Jordan Peterson. That's one more than I thought.
word salad, yummy yummy,🎶 word salad, yummy yummy,🎶 YUMMY YUMMY YUMMY YUMMY WORD SALAAAAAAAD🎶🎶
The sharp silences when they stop speaking are awful.
When Peterson talks about a “set of rules” he”s probably thinking about “traditional programming” which means the rules are the input of the algorithm. In ML the rules are not the input but rather the output. They both operate under rules. The difference is the approach and the complexity of those rules. In other words, JP is making a meaningless argument.
I think this (vague) discussion ultimately is about forms of intelligence based on algorithms, and forms based on heuristics.
Algorithms are powerful, but ultimately limited. If we want to understand our cognition and the possibility of developing artificial general intelligence, we should probably look deeper into heuristic models.
JP’s mask is falling off and people are seeing him for who he is!
when did this happen. did jp start morphing into a batman villian before or after this
Nice to see Peterson SHUT THE HELL UP for more than 3 seconds! 😂
Running late one day, forgot to make his bed and BAM, comatose on a plane to Russia for rapid onset hardcore benzo withdrawal. Coincidence? I think NOT
AI stands for "artificial intelligence", and "itelligence" here means that this informational system can infer rules from training data to "learn" that rules and apply them to novel data, thats the whole idea. So AI is a rule based system. The fact that rules are not put into it in processed form doesn't change it's essence. AI doesn't contain magic, please stop this cringy mysticism, we're in rational age. Also R in AI stands for reliability.
I think JP wanted to say. ohh self learning systems are mysterious, their for god.
if a metaphysic could possibly be under anything wouldn't every metaphysic be under everything all the time?
I can't believe a grown man that still believes in fantasy
Let's not focus on JP, because what Matt did there at the end actually destroyed JPs claim that you can't have a rule based system of morality. He explained it so succinctly even the lowest of the low could understand it, and so completely that even JP can't rebut it.
Are the Ten Commandments moral or just ethical?
I just completed a professional certification in machine learning. There are. So. Many. Rules.
1:30 "the world doesn't seem to work that way" seems JP has never heard of science as a whole despite him being an academic... The level of BS that he spews is mind boggling
even the least rule-based AIs have what are essentially rules behind them, like neural networks. The "neurons" are given mathematical functions that decide how they operate, without those you wouldn't have anything to work with.
I'm not sure what JP meant here but he's either completely wrong or not informed enough on the subject to express himself clearly.
When was the last time Peterson was in a mental institution?
Good point, & whenever it was , probably won't be the last.
Pangburn has been milking the shit out of this debate for 6 years now
Matt y shine when your debating people in your league 😂😂😂
JP where’s the biggest clown shoes.