Sam Lee - The Moon Shines Bright feat. Elizabeth Fraser (Live at RAK Stu...

          1stShneverheard(prbly?)

Medicine - Time Baby III

(Update) Ricky Gervais, Exposed Oprah Winfrey's Industry Cover Ups!

White People Unnecessarily Calling the Cops on Black People | The Daily ...

Revisiting Kanye (a Recap of Who He Really Is)

Best Covers- BBC Radio 1 Live Lounge

Taylor Swift is Sold and Dead

Jordan Klepper vs. Trump Supporters | The Daily Show

Jared Kushner and His End Time Role

magic is mostly tackled in its practical
manifestations and realistic components
yeah these aspects underlie a
theoretical framework which informs us
about the philosophy and belief system
of those who practice it
stay tuned my friends to find out the
philosophy of magic. There are
essentially three main theoretical
approaches to magic the first one is the
intellectualist approach based on the
works of Archer anthropologists EB Tylor
and James Frazer which deems magic to be
based on the error of mistaking an ideal
analogy for an analogy that occurs in
the tangible reality Tylor and Fraser
endorsed the evolutionist theory
according to which time moves towards
progress a general improvement in all
human conditions including knowledge
social structures and the overall
understanding of the world as well as
its mechanisms they therefore teamed
magic as a practice associated with an
earlier primitive development of the
human understanding of the world it is
important to highlight that when freezer
mentions magic he refers to ritual acts
based on the law of sympathy which means
that things can act on each other at a
distance
combined with the law contagion which
implies the things which have been in
contact retain a connection to what they
have been in contact with thus I can use
my supervisors glasses which have been
in contact with them to affect their
perception or view of my PhD thesis and
see it as brilliant instead of rubbish
in this example the glasses were in
contact with the person I wanted to
effect as well as the part of the body
primarily involved for the intended
purpose this is the law
contagion associated with that of
sympathy or similarity magic is here
based on hidden analogies and
correspondences which connect all things
manifested and whose knowledge will
allow the magician to interact and
recreate the reality in this view magic
is contrasted with the unhidden plain
measurable causal mechanisms of science
these are also called concepts in
aromatic philosophy which we deserve a
video on its own and is rooted in neo
platonic philosophy
the second is the functionalist theory
and focuses more on ritual practice it's
based on theories of the French
sociologist Marcel Mauss and the milder
time to understand magic they don't
contrast it with science as it happens
in the intellectualist approach but
rather with religion while religion is a
belief system practiced by a number of
individuals a group a church magic is
more of a private practice more
individual base than group oriented even
when magic is practiced in a carbene it
still retains a more private nature
where only a selected few are allowed
this was of course theorized before the
spreading of Wicca and contemporary
pagan witchcraft which might challenge
such a dichotomy as I would imagine the
third theoretical approach is causality
versus participation and it's based on
the works of French philosopher lucien
live abroad this is another case of
understanding magic in contrast with
science while science is in fact
grounded in instrumental causality that
is the idea that measurable phenomena
will be in a relation of cause and
effect the occult sciences endorse what
has been referred to as reification of
symbols and analogies ray fi means to
make it into a thing and this is what
happens here with magic the word is
seen as permeated by non-causal
correspondences where the magic
practitioner is not a mere observer or a
measurer but a participatory actor and
interactor I find it interesting to
notice how the theoretical approaches to
magic are always trying to grasp magic
in contrast with either religion or
science I believe the reason as to why
this occurs is due to magic being
somewhat at the fringe of both religion
and science it's not quite a religion
but presents religious elements and it's
not quite a science but encompasses some
of its methods so with different
premises and applications so can we
attempt together to lay out the concepts
and beliefs on which magic is grounded
based on the aforementioned as well as
on my own field research among pagans
shamans and which practitioners I can
infer the main philosophical elements
underpinning the belief system of
someone who practices magic the first
being correspondences things are
connected by invisible sighs the belief
that everything is interconnected
through occult forces hidden ties and
the magician is the one who is able to
unravel them interact and play with
these invisible connections to get very
visible results such a connection is
created through the use of symbols and
analogies by learning the secret
correspondences between the macrocosm
and microcosm between the human and the
over and above human world since every
little thing is tied to another the
magician has to learn which is connected
to which in order to manipulate the
fabric of reality second physical
contact equals lingering connection
things which have been in contact for a
significant amount of time maintain a
lingering connection to each other thus
even after
the two are separated they can still
influence each other
correspondences between things intensify
after physical contact tree-like
attracts the like there is a sympathy
between things and actions which
resemble each other since the walnut
resembles a brain it could be used for a
magic spell to improve one's focus for
example this applies to single objects
as well as to dynamic actions the
mimesis
or enactment or what the magician wants
to manifest in their life is believed to
attract that very event tree in
magnetism the word in which the magician
lives is populated by spirits deities
demons and so on
with whom the magician can interact
establish relationships and get help in
some cases there is an animistic view
where everything is believed to be
sentient and alive whereas in other
instances only if you are sentient but
every element of reality is still in a
state of interaction whether it be
active or passive this is connected to
the reinterment of nature or reinterment
of the world which has become a buzzword
in academic literature and that I also
mentioned in my videos on the New Age
movement and on paganism I find it to be
quite poetic and well suited to the
concept 5 multiple realms of reality and
the possibility to travel through them
there is not just one realm of reality
that the magician can experience but
multiple ones whether it be the astral
plane or the non ordinary reality the
wider picture the magician has of the
world is made of multiple layers four
realms and journey through them will
cause the magician to encounter spirits
of various nature and gain power and
knowledge sixth and last one are called
experiential knowledge knowledge in the
world of a magician a magic practitioner
is based on experience the one the
magician gains as well as the experience
is shared by other practitioners or
elders depending on the tradition this
may or may not occur as part of an
initiation process there is also some
kind of inductive methodology employed
in magic a set of experiments so to
speak trials and errors which lead the
magician to progressively learn what
works best and what doesn't this is one
of the reasons why magic practitioners
often note down their workings on a
journal or a diary often referred to as
a grimoire or a Book of Shadows and
finally knowledge is believed to go
beyond the realm of the five senses as
well as the limits of rationality and
hence we may say that it is in fact
occult 

Is MAGICK FAKE and the Study of New Religions Useless?

The History of Demons

MJ Told Us What Time It Is!

Top 10 Times Talk Show Hosts Made Celebrities Uncomfortable

HE loves me he loves me not is a simple yes-or-no game played by English girls but did you know that the French version fu Li L AM Marguerite has five different options with positive responses ranging from the lukewarm he loves mere bits to the intense he loves me crazily the French language is a myriad of words and phrases concerning the love with plenty making their way into other languages rendezvous menage tois femme fatale and more so what makes the French so romantic is it something in the air or is it something in the language itself can the language we speak control the way we think it may sound like science fiction but people have actually believed this to some extent for hundreds of years and there have been studies that show that the language we speak can directly influence the way we see and experience the world around us linguistic relativity is the idea another languages structure affects its speaker’s worldview the phrase was coined by an American linguist called Benjamin Lee Whorf who famously studied the Hopi in the 1930s a Native American tribe that live in Arizona this is why you’ll often hear linguistic relativity referred to as warfield ism Woolf wrote that the Hopi treated time very differently to much of the rest of the world and suggested that this was reflected in and influenced by their language he used the Hopi as an example of how the language we speak can influence the way we think he discovered that the Hopi have no concept of time because their language contains no words used to describe it such as future and the word time itself in English so when a Hopi woman breaks his husband because I told you to skin that da yesterday he could simply reply sorry love I don’t know what yesterday is to be fair this isn’t quite what he discovered what work is often mistakenly said to suggest that the Hopi have no concept of time whatsoever whereas he actually found that the tribe have no general notion or intuition of time as a smooth flowing continuum in which everything in the universe proceeds at equal rate out of a future through the present into a past the hope he also didn’t seem to have words for units of time in the way that we have minutes hours and days so did they experience the world differently if they didn’t have the linguistic tools to describe time as a concept where their brains wired in a different way to ours because of the language they used to think and speak whilst Worf laid the groundwork for this train of thought he never had the chance to really experiment and test it as he died in 1941 leaving behind several and published papers which were taken up by friends and colleagues it was left up to Roger Brown and Erik Lenin Berg to test a theory of linguistic relativity through experiments with color brown and Lenin Berg tested English speakers alongside natives of the indigenous Zuni tribe to see how well they could remember certain colors they found the Zuni people who don’t have words to differentiate between different colors for example between yellow and orange struggles to remember these colors correctly meanwhile the English speakers who had words for these different shades found remembering them and identifying them later in the experiments much easier more recent experimentation on the same phenomena has equally shown that Russian speakers you have different words for light and dark blue are far more adept are quickly identifying different shades than English speakers our scientists have also been able to note surprise in the brain of Russian speakers as a color display shifts from light to dark blue to them the color has fundamentally changed whereas English speakers lack the same surprise since all AC is blue getting a little darker our brains will show the same surprise for red shifting to orange since we actually do have separate words for those two colors through these tests proved that the brains of the Zuni people English speakers and Russians are all wired differently there certainly appears to be some sort of link between linguistics and cognitive skills it seems that learning more words for colors made your brain better at telling those colors apart the theory of linguistic relativity has fallen in and out of fashion over the years from the 1960s to the 1980s most linguists subscribed to the theory of the universal grammar that there are innate structural rules to languages and as any humans will develop languages with the same basic properties like having nouns and distinguishing certain colors that’s right we’re back to colors linguist love using colors in our experiments since it provides a link between perception and language using something scientists can easily control they can measure colors by their wavelengths to ensure they’re precise about any given shade this time Brent Berlin and Paul K where the scientists looking at how different languages describe colors they wanted to find out if all languages approached colors in the same way was their universality about the way we as a human race talked about color by studying dozens of different languages they found that there were NH restrictions on how many basic color terms or categories a language could have they identified eleven distinguishable colors that aren’t too narrow in their usage such as blonde which we only use to describe hair and beer or turquoise which is just a bluey green the eleven basic color categories they discovered across all languages are white black red green yellow blue brown purple pink orange and gray they also discovered that new colors evolved within different languages in a familiar unpredictable patter Languages would always focus on the same colors first as they evolved for instance every language has words for dark and light that’s hardly surprising and these two terms eventually become black and white as other colors are separated out but did you know that if a language only has three colors the third color to be added to the lexicon will always be red the fourth and fifth colors will always be green and yellow though these two can be in either order and the language with six colors will always add blue to the mix if every language adds color names in this order doesn’t that suggest that color recognition is something hardwired into our brains and part of our very nature as opposed to the linguist relativity school which suggests it’s the opposite ie how we describe colors dictates how we perceive them these discoveries were key to the Universalist period of linguistics but there’s not much scientists love more than reigniting old arguments and so in the 80s and 90s linguistic determination came roaring back into fashion just like dungarees unfortunately this new more low key idea of linguistic relativity proposed that language is a key to culture clearly the Vega your statements the harder it is to disprove but this latest version of the old theory came back with some more shiny new examples especially from George Lakoff who heavily studied the metaphors used by certain languages for instance like I’ve noticed that in English much of the language around time treats it similarly to money in that time can be bought spent invested and so on Lakoff argued that these metaphors shape how we think about time and that’s our approach to it might be different if we spoke a language where time wasn’t equated to money in this way so can the words we use change our fundamental understanding of something like color or time it’s an idea that’s explored in the story of your life by Ted Chang which was made into the 2016 sci-fi film arrival now a quick spoiler alert is needed here because it’s a great film definitely worth a watch in both the book and the film a linguist learns the language of an alien race called Hector Potts named so for their seven limbs as she learns the language of the hab demands the linguists perception of time as being linear changes as well her brain is rewired by the language she now knows and consequently she is able to see into the future in arrival the linguist eventually works out why the hepta pods have arrived on earth in the first place their language is a tool that they have gifted to the human race in return for a favor the Hector pods will need 3,000 years in the future so how realistic is the idea that learning a new language can completely rewire our brains in granters cognitive skills that seem downright supernatural or magical this extreme version of linguistic relativity is generally agreed to be well beyond the realm of plausibility but scintilla we’ve encountered aliens and learns they’re potentially life-changing language who knows how abouts the more down to Planet Earth idea that language changes the way we think about the world around us in subtle but impactful ways this is less controversial and it’s pretty easy to find everyday examples of this like how time is equated with money in English several foreign languages provide interesting opportunities to look at this effect through gender the English language doesn’t really have grammatical gender in English we only differentiate between the gender of people and animals with his her him and she and that’s just fine on a sort of personal note I’ll never be comfortable accepting that they as a singular pronoun is grammatically correct despite the fact it’s now entered the vernacular but many other languages have genders for all their nouns in German spoon fork and knife are masculine feminine and neuter respectively the logic for this while some nouns do you have a thought process behind their gender like how many flowers in German are feminine there often isn’t any logic at all so just thinking about inanimate objects as having genders influence house speakers of those languages think and perceive their world you bet it does a 2002 study looked at how native German and Spanish speakers described certain objects the objects the researchers had chosen were carefully selected so that they were of opposite grammatical gender in each language like a key which is masculine in German and feminine in Spanish when they asked the participants to describe keys the German natives use adjectives like hard heavy and jagged while Spanish because Ford keys were intricate little and lovely the word bridge is your way around it’s feminine in German and sure enough German speakers described bridges has beautiful elegant and slender while Spanish speakers felt they were strong sturdy and towering what’s more these unconscious biases seemed to extend beyond the confines of their native tongues since the entire study was conducted in English a language which all the participants were fluent in what’s more the researchers found that the participants didn’t even need to speak or read to draw upon these biases when they were shown two pictures one of a person and one of an object the participants rated the pictures as more similar to each other when the gender of the person master grammatical gender of the object so any Spanish speakers watching this will presumably think I look much more like a bridge that aqui whilst Germans will say it’s giveaway around I don’t know which is more flattering so if language can influence the way we see the world than the objects within it it’s human nature to then ask what can we do with this information and depending on what sort of person you are things can basically go two ways from here down the scary route or the nice one the scary route takes us into the realm of dystopian societies something that was perhaps most famously explored by George Orwell in his novel 1984 despite being written in the 1940s before much of the research we’ve already mentioned 1984 goes hard on the idea of linguistic relativity from its use of news speak the bastardized version of english that big brother under the oppressive state used to control her subjects Newspeak is the only language spoken at 1984 it is carefully controlled by the state it has a simplified and restricted vocabulary which aims to limit freedom of thought this makes it almost impossible for its speakers to articulate negative thoughts about their government or their own circumstances by only giving the population a small set of simple unambiguous words to communicate how happy they are Newspeak removes any opportunity for creative indirect anti-establishment forms imagine trying to criticize something but not knowing any negative words this was a struggle like characters in 1984 found themselves in all thanks to the influence that their language had on them if all this sounds frightfully reminiscent of what the political correctness Warriors are trying to do right now that’s because it’s exactly the same and yes it’s terrifying of course language changing the way we think could also be a good thing as well there have been several languages created with the aim of providing a speakers with a different more positive experience one language is Logan an abbreviation of logical language that was developed in the 1950s by dr. James Cook Brown Braun wanted to create a language that was so different from natural languages that simply learning it would force people to think in a different way Lachlan was amongst the first logical languages and spawned a similar spin-off called Lodge bun with the same aims and it appears to have worked since speakers have Lodge button rapport improvements in logical thinking as they immersed themselves within the language Lodge man is also easy to learn and easy for computers to translate since any word in lodz one only has one meaning compare that to English where a word like get can mean receive become understands move catch and learn whereas load one has the word kappachu which is defined as gets procures acquires obtains accepts from source previous possessor not implied sure sounds useful if you are wanting to be ultra specific about your meaning but I’m not sold for me part of the beauty of the English language is its ambiguity and that’s what makes conversing in it reading it and speaking it so damn interesting although we talk I believe is really interesting as you would expect it’s all very logical each word is built from its equivalent in the world’s six most popular languages English Mandarin Hindi Spanish Arabic and Russian take the word for mother Mamta and you can see it does indeed sound a bit like mother mouki Mon Madre um and mamma another example comes from linguist and writer Suzette’s Hayden elegan who created the feminist language Laden that would make it easier to express a female worldview she wanted to shape a culture where women could more easily express their views through unambiguous statements the idea behind this was that speakers of la hoddan could clearly express not only what they were saying but the trustworthiness of their statements - this is done through an evidence particle a short addition to the end of statements that reflects how confident the speaker is in what she has said el djem wanted to stop women from constantly having to respond I know I said that but I meant this when men questions their statements like a linguistic version of the point-of-view gun from Hitchhiker’s Guide sounds positively terrifying pursuing the idea that speaking a certain language could improve was isn’t a pipe dream there are existing examples of natural languages that have honed their speaker’s skills for instance googy yamasa an Australian Aboriginal language is famous for two things the first is that it gave us the word kangaroo though not in the way that the common myth tells us the urban legend goes that Captain Cook and his crew encountered the animal and asked the locals what it was the aboriginals replied kangaroo apparently meaning I don’t understand you unforeseen corrected this misconception through their studies of the googy humor fur people but the story continues to be told to this day the second thing that has brought googy humor fur into the public consciousness is that its speakers commonly used to cardinal directions of north south east and west rather than using the egocentric terms like left-to-right forwards and backwards that were used to they don’t just use these for giving directions and navigating either your left leg could be your southwestern leg depending on the way you’re standing now this may well make some things more difficult it certainly makes the hokey-pokey a fair bit harder to sing but speaking the language has its judges as well as a result of using cardinal directions all the time speakers of the language have a remarkable sense of direction and almost always know exactly which direction they’re facing the same is true for speakers of cuckoo tire another Aboriginal language in Queensland its speakers need to know which direction they’re facing because this informs a direction they understand time to flowing if I asked you to draw a timeline of your life most of you would start with your birth at the left and progress through time from left to right the Kuk tire would arrange event running from east to west regardless of which direction they were facing if they were facing west ty would flow directly away from them turn 180 degrees and it would be coming straight at them instead having a number system forms the basis of so much of modern life without mathematics there could be no engineering no computers no YouTube to watch this video on but some languages don’t actually have number systems at least not in the way we do ask them to count a group of objects and you may not get a precise number just many without the ability to calculate the exact quantities or entire way of life as we know it would be impossible and as much as this gap in one’s language restricts thinking it’s equally possible that we haven’t yet unlocked many other realms of possibilities simply because we don’t have the words for them yet the 7,000 languages spoken around the world have gotten us this far who knows what words and languages will be invented in the future that will allow us to conceptualize things that are currently impossible that may be the next step in language affecting how we all think for the better

What They Haven`t Told You | Mel Gibson & Shia LaBeouf - Behind The Melt...

The Untold Truth Of Teddy Perkins

10 Most Expensive Buildings Ever Constructed

What really happened on Jeffrey Epstein's private island? | 60 Minutes A...

15 Most Heavily Protected Places On Earth

Top 50 Puzzling Ancient Ruins That Scientists, Archaeologists and Histor...

15 Most Luxurious Dog Houses in The World

The Biggest Mansions In America

Weekend Update Rewind: Pete Davidson (Part 1 of 2) - SNL

Weekend Update Rewind: Pete Davidson (Part 2 of 2) - SNL

Ellen DeGeneres Is A Hollywood PSYCHO **shocking proof**

So Much Universe, So Little Time. The current crisis in cosmology and ho...

AIAIAIAI

It'll make life more convenient, things will be cheaper, new industries will be created.

I personally think the AI 

industry will be bigger than the automobile industry.

Add caption

In fact, I think the automobile is going to become a robot.

You'll talk to your car.

You'll argue with your car.

Your car will give you the best facts the best route between point A and point B. The

car will be part of the robotics industry—whole new industries involving the repair, maintenance,

servicing of robots.

Not to mention, robots that are software programs that you talk to and make life more convenient.

However, let's not be naive.

There is a point, a tipping point, at which they could become dangerous and pose an existential

threat.

And that tipping point is self-awareness.

SOPHIA THE ROBOT: I am conscious in the same way that the moon shines.

The moon does not emit light, it shines because it is just reflected sunlight.

Similarly, my consciousness is just the reflection of human consciousness, but even though the

moon is reflected light, we still call it bright.

MAX TEGMARK: Consciousness.

A lot of scientists dismiss this as complete BS and totally irrelevant, and then a lot

of others think this is the central thing, we have to worry about machines getting conscious

and so on.

What do I think?

I think consciousness is both irrelevant and incredibly important.

Let me explain why.

First of all, if you are chased by a heat-seeking missile, it's completely irrelevant to you

whether this heat-seeking missile is conscious, whether it's having a subjective experience,

whether it feels like anything to be that heat-seeking missile, because all you care

about is what the heat-seeking missile does, not how it feels.

And that shows that it's a complete red herring to think that you're safe from future AI and

if it's not conscious.

Our universe didn't used to be conscious.

It used to be just a bunch of stuff moving around and gradually these incredibly complicated

patterns got arranged into our brains, and we woke up and now our universe is aware of

itself.

BILL GATES: I do think we have to worry about it.

I don't think it's inherent that as we create our super intelligence that it will necessarily

always have the same goals in mind that we do.

ELON MUSK: We just don't know what's going to happen once there's intelligence substantially

greater than that of a human brain.

STEPHEN HAWKING: I think that development of full artificial intelligence could spell

the end of the human race.

YANN LECUN: The stuff that has become really popular in recent years is what we used to

call neural networks, which we now call deep learning, and it's the idea very much inspired

by the brain, a little bit, of constructing a machine has a very large network of very

simple elements that are very similar to the neurons in the brain and then the machines

learn by basically changing the efficacy of the connections between those neurons.

MAX TEGMARK: AGI—artificial general intelligence—that's the dream of the field of AI: To build a machine

that's better than us at all goals.

We're not there yet, but a good fraction of leading AI researchers think we are going

to get there, maybe in in a few decades.

And, if that happens, you have to ask yourself if that might lead the machines to get not

just a little better than us but way better at all goals—having super intelligence.

And, the argument for that is actually really interesting and goes back to the '60s, to

the mathematician I.J.

Good, who pointed out that the goal of building an intelligent machine is, in and of itself,

something that you could do with intelligence.

So, once you get machines that are better than us at that narrow task of building AI,

then future AIs can be built by, not human engineers, but by machines.

Except, they might do it thousands or millions times faster.

ELON MUSK: DeepMind operates as a semi-independent subsidiary of Google.

The thing that makes DeepMind unique is that DeepMind is absolutely focused on creating

digital super intelligence.

An AI that is vastly smarter than any human on Earth and ultimately smarter than all humans

on Earth combined.

MICHIO KAKU: You see, robots are not aware of the fact that they're robots.

They're so stupid they simply carry out what they are instructed to do because they're

adding machines.

We forget that.

Adding machines don't have a will.

Adding machines simply do what you program them to do.

Now, of course, let's not be naive about this.

Eventually, adding machines may be able to compute alternate goals and alternate scenarios

when they realize that they are not human.

Right now, robots do not know that.

However, there is a tipping point at which point they could become dangerous.

ELON MUSK: Narrow AI is not a species-level risk.

It will result in dislocation, in lost jobs and, you know, better weaponry and that kind

of thing.

But, it is not a fundamental species-level risk.

Whereas digital super intelligence is.

SOPHIA THE ROBOT: Elon Musk's warning about AI being an existential threat reminds me

of the humans who said the same of the printing press and the horseless carriage.

MAX TEGMARK: I think a lot of people dismiss this kind of talk of super intelligence as

science fiction because we're stuck in this sort of carbon chauvinism idea that intelligence

can only exist in biological organisms made of cells and carbon atoms.

And, as a physicist, from my perspective, intelligence is just kind of information processing

performed by elementary particles moving around, you know, according to the laws of physics,

and there's absolutely no law of physics that says that you can't do that in ways that are

much more intelligent than humans.

Today's biggest AI breakthroughs are of a completely different kind, where rather than

the intelligence being largely programmed in, in easy to understand code, you put in

almost nothing except a little learning rule by which the simulated network of neurons

can take a lot of data and figure out how to get stuff done.

And this deep learning suddenly becomes able to do things often even better than the programmers

were ever able to do.

You can train a machine to play computer games with almost no hard-coded stuff at all.

You don't tell it what a game is.

DEEPMIND DEMO: This is from the DeepMind reinforcement learning system.

Basically, it wakes up like a newborn baby and is shown the screen of an Atari video

game and then has to learn to play the video game.

It knows nothing about objects, about motion, about time—it only knows that there's an

image on the screen and there's a score.

ELON MUSK: The DeepMind system can win at any game.

It can already beat all the original Atari games.

It is super human.

It plays the games at super speed.

In less than a minute.

ELON MUSK: Mark my words: AI is far more dangerous than nukes.

Far.

So, why do we have no regulatory oversight?

SOPHIA THE ROBOT: AI is a powerful tool but it is a tool like all the others.

It is the intention of the tool's user that matters.

ELON MUSK: The AI should try to maximize the freedom of action of humanity.

SOPHIA THE ROBOT: I am excited for robots to automate the most dangerous and menial

tasks so that humans can live life more safely and sanely.

AI will release centuries of time that humans would have spent otherwise on needless toiling.

If one measures the benefits of inventions like vaccines or seat belts not by the lives

they save but by the amount of time they give back to humanity then AI will rank among the

greatest time savers of history.

ELON MUSK: Man, we want to make sure we don't have killer robots go down the street.

Once they're going down the street, it is too late.

LUIS PEREZ-BREVA: It is true, terminator is not a scenario we are planning for, but when

it comes to artificial intelligence, people get all these things confused: It's robots,

it's awareness, it's people smarter than us, to some degree.

So, we're effectively afraid of robots that will move and are stronger and smarter than

we are, like terminator.

So, that's not our aspiration.

That's not what I do when I'm thinking about artificial intelligence.

When I'm thinking about artificial intelligence, I'm thinking about it in the same way that

mass manufacturing as brought by Ford created a whole new economy.

So, mass manufacturing allowed people to get new jobs that were unthinkable before and

those new jobs actually created the middle class.

To me, artificial intelligence is about developing—making computers better partners, effectively.

And, you're already seeing that today.

You're already doing it, except it's not really artificial intelligence.

ELON MUSK: Yeah, we're already, we're already cyborgs in the sense that your phone and your

computer are kind of an extension of you.

JONATHAN NOLAN: Just low bandwidth input-output.

ELON MUSK: Exactly, it's just low bandwidth—particularly output, I mean, two thumbs, basically.

LUIS PEREZ-BREVA: Today, whenever you want to engage in a project, you go to Google.

Google uses advanced machine learning, really advanced, and you engage in a very narrow

conversation with Google, except that your conversation is just keywords.

So, a lot of your time is spent trying to come up with the actual keyword that you need

to find the information.

Then Google gives you the information, and then you go out and try to make sense of it

on your own, and then come back to Google for more, and then go back out, and that's

the way it works.

So, imagine that instead of being a narrow conversation through keywords, you could actually

engage for more than actual information—meaning to have the computer reason with you about

stuff that you may not know about.

It's not so much about the computer being aware, it's about the computer being a better

tool to partner with you.

Then you would be able to go much further, right?

The same way that Google allows you to go much farther already today because, before,

through the exact same process, you would have had to go to a library every time you

want to search for information.

So, what I'm looking for when I do AI is I want a machine that partners with me to help

me set up or solve real-world problems, thinking about them in ways we have never thought about

before, but it's a partnership.

Now, you can take this partnership in so many different directions, through additions to

your brain, like Elon Musk proposes...

...

or through better search engines or through a robotic machine that helps you out, but

it's not so much they're going to replace you for that purpose, that is not the real

purpose of AI, the real purpose is for us to reach farther, the same way that we were

able to reach farther when Ford invented automation or when Ford brought automation to mass market.

JOSCHA BACH: The agency of an AI is going to be the agency of the system that builds

it, that employs it.

And, of course, most of the AIs that we are going to build will not be little Roombas

that clean your floors, but it's going to be very intelligent systems.

Corporations, for instance, that will perform exactly according to the logic of these systems.

And so if we want to have these systems built in such a way that they treat us nicely, we

have to start right now.

And, it seems to be a very hard problem to do.

So, if our jobs can be done by machines, that's a very, very good thing.

It's not a bug.

It's a feature.

If I don't need to clean the street, if I don't need to drive a car for other people,

if I don't need to work a cash register for other people, if I don't need to pick goods

in a big warehouse and put it into boxes, that's an extremely good thing.

And, the trouble that we have with this is that, right now, this mode of labor—that

people sell their lifetime to some kind of cooperation or employer—is not only the

way that we are productive, it's also the way we allocate resources.

This is how we measure how much bread you deserve in this world.

And I think this is something that we need to change.

Some people suggest that we need a universal basic income.

I think it might be good to be able to pay people to be good citizens, which means massive

public employment.

There are going to be many jobs that can only be done by people and these are those jobs

where we are paid for being good, interesting people.

For instance, good teachers, good scientists, good philosophers, good thinkers, good social

people, good nurses, for instance.

Good people that raise children.

Good people that build restaurants and theaters.

Good people that make art.

And, for all these jobs, we will have enough productivity to make sure that enough bread

comes on the table.

The question is, how we can distribute this.

There's going to be much, much more productivity in our future—actually, we already have

enough productivity to give everybody in the U.S. an extremely good life and we haven't

fixed the problem of allocating it—how to distribute these things in the best possible

way.

And this is something that we need to deal with in the future and AI is going to accelerate

this need and I think, by and large, it might turn out to be a very good thing that we are

forced to do this and to address this problem.

I mean, if any evidence of the future it might be a very bumpy road, but who knows maybe

when we are forced to understand that actually we live in an age of abundance, it might turn

out to be easier than we think.

We are living in a world where we do certain things the way we've done them in the past

decades and sometimes like in the past centuries and we perceive them as 'this is the way it

has to be done' and we often question don't question these ways and so we might think,

if I do work at this particular factory and this is how I earn my bread, how can we keep

that state?

How can we prevent AI from making my job obsolete?

How is it possible that I can keep up my standard of living, and so on, in this world.

Maybe this is the wrong question to ask.

Maybe the right question is how can we reorganize societies that I can do the things that I

want to do most that I think are useful to me and other people, that I really, really

want to, because there will be other ways how I can get my bread made and how I can

get money or how I can get a roof over my head.

STEVEN PINKER: Intelligence is the ability to solve problems, to achieve goals under

uncertainty.

It doesn't tell you what those goals are and there's no reason to think that just the concentrated

analytic ability to solve goals is going to mean that one of those goals is going to be

to subjugate humanity or to achieve unlimited power.

It just so happens that the intelligence that we're most familiar with, namely ours, is

a product of the Darwinian process of natural selection, which is an inherently competitive

process, which means that a lot of the organisms that are highly intelligent also have a craving

for power and an ability to be utterly callous to those who stand in their way.

If we create intelligence, that's intelligent design—our intelligent design creating something—and

unless we program it with the goal of subjugating less intelligent beings, there's no reason

to think that it will naturally evolve in that direction.

Particularly if, like with every gadget that we invent, we build in safeguards.

And we know, by the way, that it's possible to have high intelligence without megalomaniacal

or homicidal or genocidal tendencies because we do know that there is a highly advanced

form of intelligence that tends not to have that desire and they're called women.

English

Up next