In its image thumb

In it's image

To be honest, I’m not really certain what to think of this. It is actually a promotional video about the advancements in AI and discovering how exactly human consciousness works, the exact model of consciousness is discussed and it definitely is an interesting and believable model. Problems arise when I hear completely unverifiable claims…claiming that this model of AI has already made giant practical advancements in human knowledge, but for some reason they are not allowed to reveal them. Towards the end of the movie it gets worse by trying to push the whole universe into those consciousness models. I’m generally skeptical of such things, however the ideas from this film are quite interesting so in the end I decided to post it anyway. If someone knows a bit more about these concepts please feel free to comment.

Tagged with:

6 Responses to In It’s Image

  1. Glenda Miller says:

    If you really start to drill down, you begin to discover the ubiquity of this technology. Just pick up books on robotics and legal articles on the implications of machine-based discovery wherein these ideas figure heavily. Naturally, a technology this advanced will be kept under cover since government agencies don’t want to broadcast its extremely powerful capabilities. Corporations licensing this intellectual property are reluctant to reveal their “secret sauce.” As far as the cosmological direction goes, it all makes perfect and brilliant sense to me. That it is not palatable to the masses also make sense because it is outside the comprehension window of most of humanity.

    This was only a half hour documentary!

  2. deus says:

    “…outside the comprehension window of most of humanity.”

    Pretentious statements by those who speak on behalf of the -cosmology and consciousness- trend are among numerous reasons people like myself remain skeptical. When you make sweeping dismissive statements about those who think differently than yourself you’re asking not to be taken seriously. Its also a red flag to the critical mind, that this particular position is defended with emotion rather than practical science.

  3. Gordon Steadman says:

    Just before the halfway point he makes a claim that matter can be converted to energy – and presumably vice versa. That should tell you right there he doesn’t have a background in physics. A common misconception of the equation E=mc2 is that matter can be converted to energy. What E=mc2 represents is the equivalence of matter and energy, the idea that both are different manifestations of the same phenomena. Matter is a “static” form of energy, and conversely, energy has mass, albeit extremely low mass (sometimes refered to as rest mass). In any system matter and energy are always conserved, but at no time does one change form from one to the other. If it were possible to gather up and weigh all the products of either a nuclear fusion or fission explosion, you would have exactly the same amount of mass afterwards as before. The “particles” of energy released during the explosion already existed prior to the explosion in the mass of the nuclei itself. If he can be so wrong about this fundamental principle of physics it should then be obvious he is just blowing smoke. I didn’t watch very far past that point of the video. Why people make these kinds of videos or write books on this topic (or buy books on the topic) are for much the same reasons people follow doctrines of organized religions. For some people it is to make a buck or feed their egos by appearing important, but I believe for the majority of people it is for no other reason than they just want something to be true. There is no need to take my word for what I’ve tried to express here, I am not a physicist. Just google E=mc2 for yourself, or watch the great video at this site with Richard Feynman.

  4. Kiret says:

    ^Gordon: If you research the mass-energy equivalence, you find that it is also a conversion factor (not between mass and energy, but between matter and energy). Your strongly emotionally charged comment is incorrect according to the 3 physicists I talked to (all 3 were quantum physicists, so relativity and mass-energy equivalence is obviously an important part of their work). It’s possible that there is some disagreement about the meaning of this, but I haven’t found anything to support your interpretation yet, not that I dug very deeply (my entire education also contradicts your claim though).

    Anyway. I’m not a physicist myself, but I am an AI researcher. When he talks about not being able to reveal which inventions were developed by the creativity machine, it’s most likely because he’s under contract with some corporation, not because of some government conspiracy theory (in reference to the first comment).

    I agree that his explanation of universal consciousness is pretty hokey. There’s no real explanation there. There are entities, and certain types of connections between them, but there is no illustration of anything analogue to a synapse, or synaptic plasticity (changes in the strengths of these connections). There’s a much stronger argument for the human species being a conscious entity, where humans are like neurons, and their relationships are like synapses. Still though, we’d need strong evidence to accept this on scientific grounds (if you ‘experience’ this kind of consciousness or whatever, that’s not enough for anyone else to accept the hypothesis on a logical basis really).

    I think the documentary makes it sound like we’ve come farther than we have. Yes AI is being used in a lot of places (anyone have a smartphone? send snail-mail, spam filters, facial recognition, detecting credit card fraud, etc etc), and has become extremely useful, but don’t go out looking for a human level AI quite yet.

  5. Sebbene plastica ha sostituito vetro in tutti gli indumenti, devono essere a prova di crack

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *