Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Joscha Bach: Artificial Consciousness and the Nature of Reality [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: Joscha Bach: Artificial Consciousness and the Nature of Reality [video]

#61

Post by longtom »

masterproc wrote: post #48
longtom wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In one tweet he suggested the rise of social justice was in part fabricated to demolish the political left in light of Occupy Wall Street,[0] and that much of U.S. politics is about hiding who is actually in control. Funnily, he was indirectly funded by Harvey Weinstein.[1] Overall I think, he is extremely courageous and has perfected the virtue of telling the truth, like telling entire established buildings of philo…

Given my comment above, I would completely disagree in this point. I agreed however, it seemed similar to me before the funding stories were published.

Oops, I meant Jeffrey Epstein. I wrote "funny" because of the ties to that U.S. elite and because he actually dares to indirectly question them all the time (but not via the fabricated social justice angle, of course). Also, the entire Weinstein/Epstein drama is an instance of sexuality having become absurdly politicized to the degree that mainstream knowledge on it is outright false.

Re: Joscha Bach: Artificial Consciousness and the Nature of Reality [video]

#62

Post by jagrsw »

dan00 wrote: post #28
jagrsw wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In one of his appearances (maybe on the Fridman's show) he gave an example of being overly attached to outcomes of elections wrt to success of your favorite political party (being frustrated and sad when the party/president is not in power). His idea was that such feeling are not conductive to your wellbeing, and you should maybe do something about them, (just guessing: rationalizing it, meditating it out or somesuch…

> I don't think being sad about reproduction choices of your children is beneficial, therefore I'd also suggest dealing with it. Feeling sad about something, doesn't mean you're sad about it all the time, that's suffering. You just can't control every emotion in you and there's also no need for it, it's just part of being human. Trying to control every emotion is certainly more harmful than accepting them. > In the e…

I have a favor to ask for participants of this thread. I'm genuinely curious, and I don't care my about my karma points.

What would be the primary reason for the proponents of the POV 'being sad about your grandchildren being gay b/c cessation of own genetic lineage isn't the best of approaches' being downvoted (like my every entry, and most others)?

I believe it's an interesting conversation, and both side of it exchanged some interesting ideas debating in good faith, being reasonably calm and avoiding common fallacies, so I suspect some factors that are not obvious to me, like maybe the interlocutors are worrying that even discussing such topic might be a danger to their future rights of having offspring it all, or somesuch similar (just a guess, probably not even close to the real reason)?

I'm trying to figure out what I'm being told, since downvotes don't come with comments/reasoning.

Re: Joscha Bach: Artificial Consciousness and the Nature of Reality [video]

#63

Post by yboris »

antepodius wrote: post #55
yboris wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand what AI ethics is. Do you want facial recognition cameras on every street? That's what no ethics oversight gets you.

Ethics oversight won't stop there, though. The managerial class will seek to keep expanding it more and more, with increasingly arcane and insulting restrictions. And is the research level the right place to stop that? I don't think so. That's a policy question.

There's a lovely analogy I like: driving fast.

New technology is like putting more weight on the gas pedal. Until we learn to handle the current problems, accelerating isn't a guaranteed solution. We may be able to swerve out of the oncoming problem, but now we're going event faster.

We now have technology that can end human civilization (aka "existential risk"). What is the harm in going slower? Especially compared to the harm of going faster.

Re: Joscha Bach: Artificial Consciousness and the Nature of Reality [video]

#64

Post by jagrsw »

antepodius wrote: post #54
jagrsw wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I replied on this in another subthread, a minute ago or so. But as for the 'mainstream', Joscha exactly doesn't want to be mainstream - see his TT stream: :) "In a playground where most people can neither come up with ideas of their own.." and various other tweets and presos related to the harm of conforming to societal norms of thinking.

If your views happen to align with the mainstream, that still isn't a reason to change them in and of itself. Being ruled and controlled by the mainstream is bad, because the mainstream makes mistakes; but that doesn't mean that the right path is just to try and be as much the opposite of the mainstream as possible.

There's no disagreement in here.

Re: Joscha Bach: Artificial Consciousness and the Nature of Reality [video]

#65

Post by keeganpoppen »

ilaksh wrote: post #60
motohagiography wrote: post #33

I'm such a fan after the 33C3 Machine Dreams talk. The podcast host, either he has a way of speaking that seems affectedly slow, or maybe he has a speech impediment or neurological issue? Ordinarily I would just set the speed of the video up, but Bach's normal speed of speech becomes too fast. A few minutes in, the host seems to adapt to his guests speed a bit, but is there some kind of trend among millennials to do…

Bach is rapidly firing out intriguing statements. Lex is just trying to come up with worthy follow-up questions that also sometimes align with his plan for the podcast. And his default is to speak carefully because he knows that the topics are complex and algorithms are transcribing them etc. So he is starting at a fairly slow normal just for clarity and the high level of Bach's comments requires him to think more. I…

why does OP's interviewing skill have to do with anything? i actually agree that stilted non-conversational speech like that in interviews and speeches sounds bad (talking in particular about the beginning). no need to say all that live if it's not contingent on the interviewee in any way. just watch the video: he is sitting there staring at a piece of paper reading, and then the first question the interviewer asks is essentially "what are some of the foundational inspirational ideas of your work?", which for anyone who isn't brilliant and hyperrational like the interviewee would be difficult to answer after being warmed up for an hour, much less before even seeing the eyes of the interlocutor. yes, interviews are not the same thing as normal conversation, but i don't think it's that crazy to suggest (like OP) that priming people in a more conversational way can be a nice way to smooth the edges around a conversation that will already be difficult for everyone to grasp (including Bach, who has to articulate all these things).

all of this is independent of how good of work lex does as an interviewer, which seems like it's pretty good given his ability to engage with the ideas presented (in this context idea empathy (ie understanding what Bach's saying) > interpersonal/conversational empathy).

Re: Joscha Bach: Artificial Consciousness and the Nature of Reality [video]

#66

Post by motohagiography »

ilaksh wrote: post #60
motohagiography wrote: post #33

I'm such a fan after the 33C3 Machine Dreams talk. The podcast host, either he has a way of speaking that seems affectedly slow, or maybe he has a speech impediment or neurological issue? Ordinarily I would just set the speed of the video up, but Bach's normal speed of speech becomes too fast. A few minutes in, the host seems to adapt to his guests speed a bit, but is there some kind of trend among millennials to do…

Bach is rapidly firing out intriguing statements. Lex is just trying to come up with worthy follow-up questions that also sometimes align with his plan for the podcast. And his default is to speak carefully because he knows that the topics are complex and algorithms are transcribing them etc. So he is starting at a fairly slow normal just for clarity and the high level of Bach's comments requires him to think more. I…

Sounds like I should do a podcast, thank you, I will seriously consider it. I think Bach is one of the funniest and most entertaining people I can remember listening to, as he's one of the few examples I know of who could meet the definition of a stand-up philosopher.

My ideal first episode would have Bach and Daniel Dennett together talking about whether or not they have dogs, and what they might perceive that relationship to be like, given their respective views of consciousness and language, and what their dogs might think of them.

Re: Joscha Bach: Artificial Consciousness and the Nature of Reality [video]

#67

Post by 08-15 »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #3

What a coincidence - I was just watching this month old interview a few hours before it was posted here. Maybe Youtube's algo is pushing it... Anyway, the way Joscha explained various concepts was very interesting - the phrases he used kept me hooked. At the very least it's entertaining. For example: "Social media is the world's brain hooked on dopamine - creating a permanent seizure" "Entropic Abyss" "Closed Cooling…

I noticed the same thing and had the opposite reaction.

"Social media is the world's brain hooked on dopamine - creating a permanent seizure"

Wow, what an insightful statement! Except it isn't. It's not even a statement. It's just different metaphors piled on top of each other until they nothing at all anymore.

"Entropic Abyss"

Lex Fridman actually asked for clarification here, but none came. Joscha fixed the mispronunciation, that's all. The phrase is completely meaningless.

"Closed Cooling Chain"

And that one is a bad translation from German "geschlossene Kuehlkette", meaning that your convenience food is frozen once at the factory and never warms up until it's in your microwave oven. It translates to "uninterrupted", not "closed".

I'm pretty disappointed by the onslaught of empty phrases and the dearth of insight or arguments.

Re: Joscha Bach: Artificial Consciousness and the Nature of Reality [video]

#68

Post by pantalaimon »

andybak wrote: post #40
moobsen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd recommending digging through his website: http://bach.ai/ Depending on what interests you, maybe also look at the abstracts of his research papers? http://bach.ai/publications/

Thanks. His tweeter feed is quite interesting also (which gives you some indication of my attention span at the moment)

His talks don’t have that level of snark he exhibits on Twitter, I guess that comes with the platform.

Re: Joscha Bach: Artificial Consciousness and the Nature of Reality [video]

#69

Post by antepodius »

yboris wrote: post #63
antepodius wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethics oversight won't stop there, though. The managerial class will seek to keep expanding it more and more, with increasingly arcane and insulting restrictions. And is the research level the right place to stop that? I don't think so. That's a policy question.

There's a lovely analogy I like: driving fast. New technology is like putting more weight on the gas pedal. Until we learn to handle the current problems, accelerating isn't a guaranteed solution. We may be able to swerve out of the oncoming problem, but now we're going event faster. We now have technology that can end human civilization (aka "existential risk"). What is the harm in going slower? Especially compared…

It's a coordination problem. Sure, you could slow down, and then the chinese will just outcompete you/spawn a paperclip maximiser- or, in general, a less scrupulous competitor will.

You'd have to get all sides to agree on an actually effective treaty.

Re: Joscha Bach: Artificial Consciousness and the Nature of Reality [video]

#70

Post by antepodius »

jagrsw wrote: post #59
antepodius wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they're almost identical to everyone else's Do you really believe this argument? It seems like a strange one to make. Our genes are almost entirely identical, so why worry about diversity, then? Besides, people like you will, all else being equal, surely get outbred by people who do care about their progeny. So why worry? The tendency to hold your point of view will wipe itself out...

> people like you will, all else being equal, surely get outbred by people who do care about their progeny. So why worry? The tendency to hold your point of view will wipe itself out... That could be true (though, atheism is on the rise, despite religious people having more children than non-believers on avg). But it's also orthogonal to the question at hand. Existence or non-existence of proponents of a given POV at…

The POV's perfectly valid, because it's a set of values, which can't really be invalid per se.

But if I had the chance to pick my own values, I wouldn't want to have ones that were antimemetic.

Post reply on HN