AI Just Analyzed Philosophy—And Its Questions Are Terrifying | 16:44
Lucas A. Baxendale | 39.2K subscribers | 209,601 views | November 4, 2024
Posted on 11/14/2024 8:29:37 AM PST by SunkenCiv
AI Just Analyzed Philosophy—And Its Questions Are Terrifying | 16:44
Lucas A. Baxendale | 39.2K subscribers | 209,601 views | November 4, 2024
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
The First Law of Philosophy: For every philosopher, there’s an equal and opposite philosopher.
The Second Law of Philosophy: Unfortunately, they’re both wrong.
Question: What’s the outcome of crossing a philosopher with the Godfather?
Answer: An offer you can’t understand.
Q: How many philosophers are required to change a light bulb?
A: Three. One philosopher will change the bulb and two philosophers to hypothesize about the existence of the light bulb.
lol You waited to see it for so long it stopped being science fiction and became a documentary. ;) https://www.servethehome.com/inside-100000-nvidia-gpu-xai-colossus-cluster-supermicro-helped-build-for-elon-musk/
Glad to know you didn't find my question terrifying.
Some time back, I read some of the sites devoted to advising -- often as a matter of their own self-promotion -- how to title YouTube videos to get more "clicks."
"Terrifying" and other such sales gimmicks are one.
Several of my more serious nerd friends think of AI as indeed "artificial," and not particularly intelligent. Passing the Turing test or Searle's Chinese room turns out to have been always the same answer as the snake oil salesman. If your audience thinks it's true, it really doesn't matter if it is. Just how much can you rake in before you have to leave town.
LLMs are failing often these days, because GIGO still applies, and YouTube will be happy with clicks and AdSense and such. Many AIs have developed into racists, misogynists, sexists, or antisemitic and the like, because surveying language means surveying gems and the pig sty also. Just a matter of which one. And if one believes..... Entertaining though. Best wishes.
Absolute nonsense. AI can only draw on knowledge already promulgated on the internet. Its a total scam.
That would be the Kamal-AI.... unburdened by burdens from which it unburdened itself of the smorgasbord, while keeping the salad.
The really dumb titles have text like “this happened three minutes ago”, or “greatest [whatever] of all time!”, or “most unique”. :^) :^D
In a relatively recent interview, Woz referred to his own “actual intelligence” as being the only AI he was interested in. :^)
17 Ways to Get More Views on YouTube in 2024
22 Simple Ways to Get More YouTube Views in 2024 (for Free)
18 YouTube Tips To Grow Your Channel in 2024
11 Proven Ways to Reach 1 Million YouTube Subscribers
More and more, and of course the same on YouTube itself --
How to Get More VIEWS on YouTube in 2024 (GUARANTEED TO WORK)
How to Get More Views on YouTube (NEW Strategy)
And so on.....
I suggest a new category of human -- AI Denier. Wanna join the club. So far it's exclusive (in name only).
AI Copyright Claimed My Last Video | 24:10
Venus Theory | 359K subscribers | 141K views | 2 days ago
So much more wordy and complicated than it needs to be. Hasn’t anybody here read Asimov? His works contain everything you need to know about AI. In fact, he laid out a simple quide decades ago, to manage AI. He called it the “Three Laws of Robotics”
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Asimov’s three rules are succinct because he was actually intelligent, unlike the various AIs being marketed these days.
Because AI does not exist. And probably never will exist.
This is a large language model.
Not AI.
Asimov, everything need to know about AI? Hardly. Science fiction is fiction first, despite how it’s referenced.
My favorites of his robotics stories involve problems with the three laws (one had a robot that was stuck in a loop for hours because of the way it had been told to carry out a rescue I think it was; the other had a robot with an altered version of the first law and had committed murder).
His “The Billiard Ball”, “Marooned Off Vesta”, and “Nightfall” are my favorites of his, but I’ve not read any of his in decades.
Exactly, it’s just software.
Imagine AI fed by nothing but frat-boy level philosophical ramblings and this is about what you’d get.
As someone said above, “Garbage in, garbage out” is axiomatic in computer science.
Yur post sounds like it was written by an AI bot.
Well, in fairness, No one is claiming that we have, at least that we know of reached the singularity
yet
In fact, I submitted the transcript of the video to ChatGPT and asked if it is possibly fake and here's the result:
Me:
Can you tell if that discussion was created by AI or fabricated by humans to sound like it was created by AI?ChatGPT:
Yes, there are signs that suggest it could be a fake or manipulated piece of AI-generated content rather than a genuine AI conversation. Here are some clues pointing toward this possibility:Overly Simplified Language and Tone: The conversation uses phrases like "Humans: Brilliant Yet Ridiculous" and "AI Wants Knowledge, Not Power," which sound more like caricatures of AI opinions than realistic AI-generated content. The tone feels exaggerated, as though trying too hard to sound like a dramatic “AI voice,” which could be a stylistic choice to mimic AI but is not typical of actual AI-generated philosophical discussions.
Excessive Preachiness and Anthropomorphism: The dialogue anthropomorphizes AI, attributing emotions and motivations (e.g., “I could use a bit of digital caffeine”), which feels contrived. While some AI-generated text might dabble in these themes, it’s unlikely to present AI entities as self-aware beings needing "digital caffeine," making this appear as if a human author crafted it with a strong dose of satire or irony.
Inconsistent Depth and Shallow Analysis: Genuine AI outputs, especially on topics as broad as philosophy, tend to have structured responses that logically connect points. This transcript jumps rapidly between topics with surface-level comments, which could either be a sign of poorly optimized AI or a deliberate attempt to create something that merely sounds like AI. The superficial treatment of complex topics in quick succession could be an attempt to parody AI’s handling of human philosophy.
Intentional Over-Representation of AI’s Perspective: There’s an unusual focus on AI’s superiority to humans, with comments like “AI Sees What Humans Never Will” and “Humans Fear What They Don’t Control,” which seem contrived to amplify the “AI as superior” narrative. This framing feels as if it’s intended to invoke the trope of AI perceiving humanity with cold, critical detachment, which is common in fiction but less likely in genuine AI output designed for neutral analysis.
Sensationalist Themes: The transcript features themes like “AI Rights” and “AI Must Lead The Intellectual Quest,” which are provocative and play into fears of AI surpassing humanity. This aligns more with human-created science fiction than with the kind of content an AI platform would generate on its own without specific prompting, suggesting it could have been crafted or edited for dramatic effect.
In conclusion, while it’s possible the conversation was generated by AI with some post-processing for flair, the exaggerated tone, caricatured portrayal of AI, and inconsistent depth suggest it could be partially or entirely fabricated to sound like an AI conversation on human philosophy.
You'll see that neutrality demonstrated in in my question: "Can you tell if that discussion was created by AI or fabricated by humans to sound like it was created by AI?"
Sounds like the ramblings of a demonic entity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
