This Hasan Minhaj video features an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson, focusing on artificial intelligence (AI), particularly Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), and its potential impact on humanity. Minhaj challenges Tyson's seemingly optimistic view on AGI, exploring concerns about job displacement and the potential for misuse.
Neil deGrasse Tyson uses several examples to illustrate the transformative power of computers:
He points to the fact that computers surpassed humans in chess and Jeopardy!, demonstrating their growing intellectual capabilities.
He cites the pervasiveness of computers in modern life, highlighting that even seemingly simple actions like driving an electric car involve AI making decisions faster than humans can. Automatic braking systems in cars are given as another example of AI making decisions for the benefit of the driver, even if not explicitly termed as such.
He mentions that the computer is arguably the single most important invention of the 20th century, completely transforming how people work and live, despite its seamless integration into daily routines. He notes that this integration may make it harder for people to recognize how truly transformative this technology has been.
Neil deGrasse Tyson differentiates current AI from AGI by highlighting that current AI excels at specific tasks, performing them better, faster, and cheaper than humans. Examples include AI that summarizes documents or creates creative content. AGI, on the other hand, would possess general human-level intelligence, capable of learning and adapting to any task and being self-motivated in doing so. He uses the example of a human walking into a room and assessing the situation to determine what needs to be done, contrasting this with task-oriented AI like ChatGPT which cannot perform actions beyond its programmed capabilities. In short, current AI is task-specific, while AGI would be broadly intelligent and adaptable.
Neil deGrasse Tyson acknowledges that scientific progress doesn't always equal human progress, using nuclear weapons as an example. He clarifies that while science can be credited with the discovery of nuclear power, its application as weaponry is a consequence of human conflict and not inherent to the scientific discovery itself. He draws a distinction between the scientific breakthrough (E=mc²) and the subsequent weaponization of that knowledge, emphasizing that countries, not science itself, made the choice to create nuclear bombs. Essentially, he separates the scientific discovery from the ethical and political choices surrounding its implementation.
