Joscha Bach

[Anonymous No.11801757]

This discussion between Lex Fridman and Joscha Bach is one of my favorite science-related podcast episodes I've heard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-2P3MSZrBM

Lex is kind of deadweight during most of the conversation (except in some of the AI-specific parts) but Joscha has a really interesting way of expressing concepts. He's not presenting anything groundbreaking (as he says himself), but I like his world view and way of wording things. Hadn't heard of him before this.

[Anonymous No.11802354]

Bach has good insight.

[Anonymous No.11802382]

>>11801757
I was impressed. I do not listen too much of theese talks but i saw 10 min clip and the way he spoke made me curious. Never listened to someone talking so fast while concise and coherent. I watched the whole 3h thing. I encourage you to do so. Based german nerd.

[Anonymous No.11802422]

>>11801757
Bring me the most interesting points he's making.
I have an idiosyncrasy to kike-circle-jerk.
I actually tried to watch it yeserday, but it was all so shallow that it seemed hollow.

[Anonymous No.11802590]

>>11802382
Yeah, he's extremely articulate and seems to almost never pause or say "um" or anything. His communication style is very dense and yet not super flowery and obfuscated (contrast with Eric Weinstein).

>>11802422
Well I'm a Jew too so maybe I'm conditioned to it. I'd say maybe just skip ahead a bit if the beginning bores you, but I really think the whole 3 hours is worth it, if you give it a chance. I think it gets better as it goes along.

[Anonymous No.11802718]

>>11802590
So no interesting points, just another kike promoting his tribesmen. Suck some gas.

[Anonymous No.11802792]

>>11802718
I don't think Joscha is Jewish, and he's the one I'm recommending here. (Also, you're the tribal one, here, not me. I don't view people more or less favorably for their ethnicity.)

He has dozens of interesting points. His idea of a closed cooling chain in a hypothetical future hostile climate, the superorganism we're part of as splits from our first common ancestor cell, the behavior of individual neurons as independent goal-oriented unicellular organisms, the similarities between neurons in the brain and civilizations, meta-learning principles for achieving AGI, plant and solar intelligence and intelligence across different time scales, alternative approaches to creating social networks to avoid the pitfalls of Twitter and Facebook, the relationship between self-attention and consciousness, and a lot more.

Just give it a shot.

[Anonymous No.11803889]

I liked the one with the computer chip designer, really an unusual perspective that you don't hear much (he said Moore's Law isn't dead yet btw)

[Anonymous No.11803898]

>>11801757
yooo i thought i was the only one - this is Fridman's best podcast so much fun to listen to

[Anonymous No.11804210]

>>11801757
This is a good brainlets-filtering episode. I literally gained zero new insights from this guy philosophy blabbery. It's the kind of stuff that passes through your mind while having a shower or commuting. Why are people reacting as pic related?

If you want some quality podcast from Fridman, listen to Hutter, Schmidhuber, Goodfellow, Chollet.

[Anonymous No.11804229]

>>11801757
Sounds like a psued

[Anonymous No.11805175]

>>11803889
for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb2tebYAaOA

[Anonymous No.11805195]

>>11805175
jim keller was so cool in this episode

[Anonymous No.11805198]

>>11805195
He's a smart guy but his thoughts on computers were far more informed and interesting, when it came to philosophy, meh.

[Anonymous No.11805243]

>>11801757
wow some sad ppl in the comments...

Joscha is able to see things in terms of a lattice-work of mental models.
The ideas are interesting, and It's simply exciting to listen to an accredited person who happens to use this type thinking.

[Anonymous No.11805249]

>>11805243
pls explain what lattice-work mental models are for brainlet sub 100iq reporting in

[Anonymous No.11805256]

>>11803889
this one was also amazing

[Anonymous No.11805269]

>>11805249
it's when you see things, not by their image or superficial exterior, but by how they work.
The significant things that drive their system.
Then you have major significant things(can call them 'things', or factors or "Models") that are not only huge in one discipline, but apply to many other types of things.

E.g. Using a Psychology model to start a new, triggering 4chan thread.

[Anonymous No.11805277]

>>11805269
Sounds like the scientific version of 'systems thinking'. Hopefully less fake-guru tier

[Anonymous No.11805282]

>>11805277
>'systems thinking'.
never studied, that but you gave me something interesting to Google. Thx.

[Anonymous No.11805286]

>>11801757

That podcast is so good. Extremely recommended.

[Anonymous No.11805295]

>>11805269
you sound smart anon :)

[Anonymous No.11805309]

>>11805243
>>11805269

>Dumbass rates dumbass

God, I hate retards like you.

[Anonymous No.11805323]

>>11805309
conversely, I love you, and others like yourself.

[Anonymous No.11805604]

This guy is not quite as irritating as the two minute papers dude but he's up there.

[Anonymous No.11806057]

>>11805604
He's a NERD!

*histerically laughs with a feminine voice*

[Anonymous No.11806531]

>>11805309
>>11805604
>>11806057
smoothbrains detected

[Anonymous No.11807885]

>>11806531
Don't you know you have to be 18 to post here?

[Anonymous No.11808697]

bump

[Anonymous No.11809029]

>>11805198
true but he never wanted to talk about it, he was made to.

both are great, keller great engineer, bach great philosopher

[Anonymous No.11809216]

>>11805256
i really really really like this gif

[Anonymous No.11810213]

>>11809029
>true but he never wanted to talk about it, he was made to.

good point

[Anonymous No.11810237]

>>11803889
Agreed, had the pleasure of working with him in a limited manner. Like Carmack, his range of knowledge is staggering.

[Anonymous No.11811002]

I'm probably the smartest person in this thread.

[Anonymous No.11812746]

>>11804210
part of what made it so interesting is how he related computer science models and math to core philosphical questions. How did you not get you "new insights" from it, what did you expect?

[Anonymous No.11813192]

>>11812746
They probably dismissed him early on in the conversation and didn't pay enough attention afterwards to appreciate the depth of his mental modeling. I've listened to fucktons of science/philosophy-related podcasts, including all of Fridman's episodes, and this is definitely not the standard philosophy/metaphysics wankery they're implying. He's a legit philosopher and definitely a lot smarter and wiser than 99% of people in this board.

[Anonymous No.11815127]

>>11813192
science is still stuck in the dark ages of materialism.

[Anonymous No.11815264]

>>11815127
No, it's overcome the dark ages of non-materialism that had held science back for millennia.

[Anonymous No.11815651]

>>11815127
You're kidding right? Materialism is now widely known to be a meme. It's woo-woo and materialists can't even define what "material" means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hempel%27s_dilemma

[Anonymous No.11815665]

>>11815651
Really solid and rigorous philosophical analysis, there, anon.

[Anonymous No.11816370]

>>11802422
>but it was all so shallow that it seemed hollow.

what? pretty sure this is an oxymoron

[Anonymous No.11816383]

>>11811002
You're definitely the only one that cares

[Anonymous No.11816394]

>>11801757
I dunno why this dweeb's podcast is so popular. He's incredibly awkward and all the questions he asks are stupid.
He is shockingly talented at getting interesting guests people to spend time on his show though, but he doesn't do much with them.

[Anonymous No.11816444]

Listened for a bit, is this guy supposed to be saying anything insightful? The idea that our mind creates a representation of reality that we perceive as reality isn't really that controversial nor new of an idea, but it seems like he wants to describe it with language that makes it sound more dramatic than it really is.

He comes across as a scientist who wants to dabble in philosophy without doing any of the groundwork in philosophy necessary not to sound like someone who just read a wikipedia page on consciousness.

[Anonymous No.11816452]

>>11816444
Consider giving it a chance. It starts off a bit introductory but IMO there are some interesting parts if you watch the whole thing.

[Anonymous No.11816472]

>>11816444
High IQ Anon here. I listened to a good chunk of that, and it is clear that he is a pseud.

Other guy is embarrassing himself.

[Anonymous No.11816479]

>>11802792
Chad ascended jew vs
>>11802718
Virgin /pol/tard

[Anonymous No.11817026]

>>11816472
Higher IQ anon, here. Listen to the whole thing and then give your critiques, please. Bach's not a pseud.

[Anonymous No.11817487]

>>11804210
>Goodfellow
God tier

[Anonymous No.11817491]

Question: How the fuck did Fridman get all those important people to come for an interview?
He can't even look their them in the eye when he talks to them.

[Anonymous No.11817501]

>>11816452
Can you stop this meme of "having to listen the whole thing"? I have listened to the whole thing and it's embarassingly devoid of any original idea
Also stop bumping the thread

[Anonymous No.11817802]

>>11816472
Things that he says make sense. He is spewing alot but is really coherent, unlike Weistein or whatever that dropout is called.
Unlike Weinstein (or w/e see above) he is holding a research position at top university and on his way to being a professor.
A good listener would infer that he is aware that the topics he likes to discuss are more on a speculative side and that he is on the fringe 10% of what actually AI research consists of. And he considers that his disability, such that he cannot pay attention to the work he does not consider meaningful to himself. From all the people that try to link theese various fields to present an image of what could we expect general AI to be, he is the most coherent.
I think you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.11818616]

>>11801757
thanks for making this thread and introducing me to this guy. I really enjoyed their conversation.

Fuck the people being unnecessarily dismissive. Just because you have trouble entertaining the ideas doesn't mean the guy is a pseud. And don't expect someone else to sum up the knowledge for you just because you don't have the attention span to be engaged by these types of thoughts. If you think these topics are trivial or "below you" then it's you who's the pseud.

>>11804210
>>11805175
>>11805198
>>11805309
>>11805604
>>11815127
>>11815651
>>11816472
>>11817501
Either say/ask something constructive or go take your cope somewhere else.

>>11802422
>>11802718
you will likely never be content in this world and are bound for eternal frustration. May all of your hopes and desires be met with crushing disappointment.

[Anonymous No.11818708]

>>11818616
Hi Joscha.

[Anonymous No.11818830]

>>11817802
The things he's saying do not pair with the reality he lives. They make semantical sense, yes- but they are devoid of much meaning.

[Anonymous No.11818918]

>>11801757
>AI channel
full of pseud garbage. AI has gone nowhere in the last 50 years and will continue to go nowhere.

[Anonymous No.11819931]

>>11816383
Thanks for the (You) ;-)

[Anonymous No.11821173]

>>11817491
he is able to follow most trains of thought and has the ability to ask great but uncomplicated questions

both are rare abilities for most interviewers