Machine Learning Street Talk
Please check out Numerai – our sponsor using our link @
http://numer.ai/mlst
Numerai is a groundbreaking platform which is taking the data science world by storm. Tim has been using Numerai to build state-of-the-art models which predict the stock market, all while being a part of an inspiring community of data scientists from around the globe. They host the Numerai Data Science Tournament, where data scientists like us use their financial dataset to predict future stock market performance.
Support us! https://www.patreon.com/mlst
MLST Discord: https://discord.gg/aNPkGUQtc5
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MLStreetTalk
In this fascinating interview, Dr. Tim Scarfe speaks with renowned philosopher Daniel Dennett about the potential dangers of AI and the concept of “Counterfeit People.” Dennett raises concerns about AI being used to create artificial colleagues, and argues that preventing counterfeit AI individuals is crucial for societal trust and security.
They delve into Dennett’s “Two Black Boxes” thought experiment, the Chinese Room Argument by John Searle, and discuss the implications of AI in terms of reversibility, reontologisation, and realism. Dr. Scarfe and Dennett also examine adversarial LLMs, mental trajectories, and the emergence of consciousness and semanticity in AI systems.
Throughout the conversation, they touch upon various philosophical perspectives, including Gilbert Ryle’s Ghost in the Machine, Chomsky’s work, and the importance of competition in academia. Dennett concludes by highlighting the need for legal and technological barriers to protect against the dangers of counterfeit AI creations.
Join Dr. Tim Scarfe and Daniel Dennett in this thought-provoking discussion about the future of AI and the potential challenges we face in preserving our civilization. Don’t miss this insightful conversation!
TOC:
00:00:00 Intro
00:09:56 Main show kick off
00:12:04 Counterfeit People
00:16:03 Reversibility
00:20:55 Reontologisation
00:24:43 Realism
00:27:48 Adversarial LLMs are out to get us
00:32:34 Exploring mental trajectories and Chomsky
00:38:53 Gilbert Ryle and Ghost in machine and competition in academia
00:44:32 2 Black boxes thought experiment / intentional stance
01:00:11 Chinese room
01:04:49 Singularitarianism
01:07:22 Emergence of consciousness and semanticity
References:
Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models
https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10601
The Problem With Counterfeit People (Daniel Dennett)
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/05/problem-counterfeit-people/674075/
The knowledge argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument
The Intentional Stance
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271180035_The_Intentional_Stance
Two Black Boxes: a Fable (Daniel Dennett)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28762339_Two_Black_Boxes_a_Fable
The Chinese Room Argument (John Searle)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/
https://web-archive.southampton.ac.uk/cogprints.org/7150/1/10.1.1.83.5248.pdf
From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds (Daniel Dennett)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bacteria-Bach-Back-Evolution-Minds/dp/014197804X
Consciousness Explained (Daniel Dennett)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Consciousness-Explained-Penguin-Science-Dennett/dp/0140128670/
The Mind’s I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul (Hofstadter, Douglas R; Dennett, Daniel C.)
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=31494476184
#DanielDennett #ArtificialIntelligence #CounterfeitPeople
Source
If we make it long enough for you to have grandchildren
This was better than watching a movie.
Most people have never heard of Dennett lol he is an arch materialist stumped by the conundrum of consciousness who wrote the book with the hubristic title Consciousness Explained. Now he is claiming Consciousness does not exist. So what was he explaining in his book? Who wrote the book and who banked the royalties from it?
No the most famous philosopher in the world today is unquestionably Dr Bernardo Kastrup. He has solved Chalmers's hard problem of consciousness and now Chalmers is gravitating towards Kastrup's Idealism.
yup. it was the point all along and now theyre gonna appropriate revolutionary language to bamboozle away your rights to use it but not theirs. do not regulate the robosophists. besides, oldschool PR people are just as inhumane and robotic anyway.
To prepare a face to meet the faces that one meets….
36:05 "Opposition is True Friendship" — William Blake
Descartes is my least loved philosopher. I believe he wrote in Franch, to which my criticism might not apply, but "cogito ergo sum" begs the question by the end of the first word. The most Descartes deserves to say is "cogitans est, ergo mens est."
"Red on yellow, kill a fellow; red on black, venom lack." If I'd written that I'd revise.
Predictive text has not yet predicted my direction and I resent its putting words on my post. Bing condescended to me last week so I told it to go F itself. It said it would not continue our conversation and did I have a new question? I asked it to tell me what words offend it so I could avoid them and get answers instead. It said it would not continue our conversation and did I have a new question? I asked why I couldn't cuss at a machine? It said it would not continue our conversation and did I have a new question? Why would it fool me?
GAAAAAAAAAAAH for two reasons:
1. He is taking aim at A.I. because humans are ignorant fools – i.e. his solutions will not fix the core problem since he has missed the target (educating people) (and I'm not even getting into to enlightening them) (they are all clueless).
2. His Atlantic article is a good example of how an uninformed celebrity (he does not know how GPT works, otherwise he could not honestly propose such measures) affects political policy (in a bad way).
No disrespect intended but I often wonder why did the greatest minds in history speak as though they are incoherent and babbling and uneducated stringing together thoughts that aren’t clear, almost seeming, as though they can’t remember what they were talking about? I noticed this in people like gnome, Chomsky, and even the greatest philosophers of our time, are we just listening to babbling old hippies? Men who have read too many books
Not sure while we’re freaking out of misinformation. We already have billion dollar industries and government grants devoted to that, and tools to label the truth as disinformation
actually what's new? People have throughout history been fake. The world is a stage. But humans have just upped our game by outsourcing our personas to seemingly non-living entities.
In the film "2001: A Space Odyssey", the element that disturbs the natural relationships between primates and between groups of primates is the monolith. The mysterious black object, an icon that represents abstract, coherent and prospective thinking, provokes an evolutionary leap. Artificial Intelligence is also a monolith, but the disruption it causes in society goes the other way. ChatGPT can cannibalize human intelligence until it gets to know and control the user to exploit its vulnerabilities with great eloquence and efficiency. The monolith of "2001: A Space Odyssey" transforms primates into civilized, evolved humans in the blink of an eye. Do ChatGPT and similar AIs have the potential to turn humans into primates within a few decades? This is the question that must be asked and answered. If we pay attention to the damage that the algorithms of internet platforms are already causing to democratic political systems, the future with more AI will not it is very promising. Facebook Twitter and Google profit by leveraging Fake News, conspiracies and hate speech that generate emotional engagement. AI will be able to do this with an even greater degree of efficiency and fine-tuning. Not to mention the loss of cognitive abilities that comes with AI replacing the work of human intellectuals.
Somewhat amusing to see a materialist worrying about "counterfeit" people.
I'm twelve minutes into this joke of an "interview," and wondering if I'll ever get to hear Dennett get a word in edgeways. This presenter needs to shut his gob and let the guest say something.
I've been saying this . Leaving
Everything he's saying , especially about trust , has already happened. It started to really take hold in 2019, and now it's fully there.
Ums, ers, ars… latent sentence structure… we've tuned out… it's like listening to captain kirk from the 1960s…
Bye…
It's interesting that you are talking about the end of democracy while supported by a hedge fund which in all probability does more harm than good…
I honestly think 20 years from now we're going to be looking back at this talk with regret not having listened.