Tim Tyler: How long before superintelligence?

[midu914]

How are you defining "Human Level Intelligence" in this video? Are you simply referring to a range of tasks and tests (ie. math, chess, go...)? Or do you have some other definition to describe "Human Level Intelligence"? And would you consider a machine to be "Super Intelligent" only if it self aware?

[tmtyler]

@midu914 "Human Level" is only used loosely. Machines already have super-human capabilities in many domains. Self awareness is a red herring.

[midu914]

@tmtyler I agree. Intelligent systems will continue outperform individual capabilities without the requirement of self awareness. I think that is a common misconception with machine intelligence. Debates concerning the "requirement" of understanding the human brain do not hold water when considering super intelligent machines. Indeed, neuroscience & machine self awareness are entirely different debates.

[sladesyd]

Scary

[Chiller121]

well. this ladies and gentlemen....

IS A NERD!!!!

[jmAkaMcBam]

HOLY SHIT! JESUS!

[kenorb2]

Now I know where all super-brains went to. To the basement! ;)

[particleion]

While I complete agree the problem is multi facet, there will always exist a wild card. This wild card can come in the form of a new intelligence theory, or a paradigm shift in computing.

[supermanic09]

propagators pots beard long hair leary eyes

[livenowdoing]

Super intelligence and the take over by machines is the direct and inevitable result of the THINKING that has taken over humanity. Our brains are wonderful organs. They are designed to be OUR internal personal computers. The problem is that the computers (our brains) learned to think. Then they thought they were us. Then we accepted this abomination because we didn't know any better. We've lost contact with our true nature and accept the thinking that THINKS it is us as reality.

[eydos]

Which is much better than reverting to instincts, does it not?

[livenowdoing]

@eydos Human intuition, when unhampered by thinking, is universal knowing - all that was, is and will be - it is the spirit that gives us life. Thinking is what separates us from this true nature. Thinking is what makes us into machines and will create the machines that will take over the world.

[eydos]

I severely doubt that what you say has any useful meaning.

If thinking separates me from your conception of"nature" all the better, I am glad for it. Nature spent millions of years to evolve something like consciousness, due to what we actually know that we are. Without this self-reflecting ability we would not even be aware that we exist, we would be in a mentally "vegetative" state. We have to leave nature behind, and move forward. Thinking do separate us, and I am glad for it.

[eydos]

Plus, the concept of "intuition" its a shady concept, it is not a public thing like thinking which can be openly verified by others. Therefore it has little scientific or philosophical value. I do not even fathom, how did you reached the conclusion, that intuition is "universal knowing". In my view intuition is something akin to a "hunch", or at best a very subjective, very exclusive kind of artistic mental experience. You speak about "spirits":)) Come on, you choose a wrong person to preach.

[livenowdoing]

@eydos The consciousness you speak of is the spirit that gives life to each of us. You can call it intuition or order or knowing or god or awareness or universe or life or any other name. When it leaves the body we die. This consciousness is different from the thinking. The thinking prevents the true experience of consciousness. There are spiritual practices (like Zen, Yoga meditation, Tibetan Buddhism and others) that encourage the experience of consciousness.

[eydos]

OK, lets end this discussion. I believe in nothing supernatural. Obviously you do. Reality means totally different things to us. There is absolutely no reason to continue this discussion, it goes parallel, and I know better than to expect any change in your opinion. Let's just leave it at that. Have a good life, peace.

[KoanPhilosopher]

Very good video for a home planned one. How did you manage to upload a 10:08 long video?

[tmtyler]

The usual limit is actually 10:59, I think.

[Truckguy74391]

cool but kinda hairy you are smart though

5/5!!!

[chocolatemilk247]

what the fuck

[BeautifulTrain]

more!

[rbarooah]

Very nice. I would suggest talking a little slower next time, but otherwise it's a very nice argument. Also, whilst I personally agree with your use of the anthropic principle here, it requires a significant jump to understand how you're applying it.

[tmtyler]

Hi, RB! I will work on the stylistic issues. Regarding the the anthropic principle, I think the main thing was to raise the issue, and then point out that Hofstadter may have a point - but only if you think anthropically.

[hord]

well im guessing if he talked slower then he wouldnt of got it all in 10 mins :)

[rbarooah]

You're right. I was forgetting that part.

[xXAkridXx]

If we're going to make that 2025 date we all better start communicating faster.

[hord]

did you write this or just read it? : >

[tmtyler]

It's all my own effort.

[hord]

nice job then, lots of work put into this!

[Tomsolomon111]

Not any time tonight M8...... :P