Stuart Russell: Long-Term Future of Artificial Intelligence

@robinampipparampil 5 years ago

46:51 – 48:09 - This is very relevant about social systems and vested interests. Thank you Stuart Russell for your wonderful comments. Thank you very much Lex Fridman for the pertinent questions.

@kwillo4 3 years ago

Imagine getting 25 interview requests a day. Damm. I love this man.

@pedrosmmc 5 years ago

Huge thanks Lex Fridman for this amazing interviews. Best regards.

@anshulrai7926 5 years ago

This was an absolutely amazing conversation. Thanks for sharing, Lex!

@sabofx 4 years ago

For sure, one of the best talks you've posted in this channel. Thank you Lex and and thank you Stuart 🖖👍

@RichardHopkins69 5 years ago

Superb and thoughtful - specifying the problem is always the hard bit :)

@JinalKothariS 5 years ago

Thank you for creating and sharing these videos :) . So many valuable videos on your channel!

@anamericanprofessor 3 years ago

Yes, thanks for having so many of the people who's work I'm reading on your show!

@jesussalgado1495 5 years ago

Thank you Lex, for this series. It is an amazing opportunity for us lot to listen to these interviews! In one of your last questions to Sruart Russell you ask if he feels the burden of making AI community aware of the safety problem. I think he should not be worried: there is less potential harm if he is wrong than potential benefit if he is right. And he is not alone, either.

@Aleamanic 4 years ago

Love these interviews, good work Mr Fridman! This one goes well with the one with Mr. Norvig of their joint AI text book fame. One comment on Mr. Fridman's comment at 56:24 into this interview here, he sounds in favor of oversight by the "free" market (essentially self-regulation), as in consumers can vote with their feet if they don't like the system. The trouble is, as Ms. Zuboff has been pointing out, the public has not always been fully aware to what deal they signed up to. So the informed consent that is necessary for participants in a free market to vote with their patronage (or lack thereof) isn't always a given, and therefore undermines the argument for a self-regulating market. Regarding Mr. Russell's argument about taking it slow on the governance side because we have to supposedly figure out first how to do it right, I don't understand why the government would not be empowered to apply the same mantra as silicon valley, "move fast, break things", or "disrupt" as a metaphor for innovation? For as long as we are not sure about the best form of governance, why don't we iterate and learn from rapid trial & error in governance experiments, just as the underlying businesses that profit from the innovation experiment without accountability? Why is governance held to a level of perfectionism that technology development isn't?

@goldfish8196 4 years ago

Lex, the questions you make are amazing.

@funkybear1806 4 years ago

Holy smoke.. This is the kind of talk I needed to hear.. thumbs up Stuart !

@DaveBerendhuysen 5 years ago

I love your interviews! Currently trying to build an AGI sytem. The thing I love most of your interviews is that you manage to make your guests smile. They know you grasp their answers and it really elevates the situation.