『Let's think : By Dr.King, Swami Satyapriya』のカバーアート

Let's think : By Dr.King, Swami Satyapriya

Let's think : By Dr.King, Swami Satyapriya

著者： Dr.King Swami Satyapriya
無料で聴く

Explore science, philosophy, and spirituality for a deeper life. Get motivational insights and healthy thoughts for purposeful, better living.(C) Dr. King スピリチュアリティ ヒンズー教 哲学 社会科学 衛生・健康的な生活
エピソード
  • [English] Can AI Become a Threat to Humans?

    [English] Can AI Become a Threat to Humans?
    2026/06/27
    [Preview books] [Borrow books] [Pause] According to estimates by organizations such as Goldman-Sachs, AI could automate around 300 million full-time jobs globally. They have stated that nearly two-thirds of the jobs currently existing in America and Europe could be affected by AI automation to one degree or another.The International-Labour-Organization (ILO) takes a somewhat more conservative view and estimates that approximately 2.3 percent of global employment, or about 75 million jobs, is at risk of complete automation.At the same time, labor researchers have observed that large-scale sudden layoffs are unlikely. Instead, hiring for entry-level white-collar positions and workers engaged in physical "grunt work" may slow down.Nevertheless, some doomsday-prophets have already begun predicting how AI will eventually overpower humanity itself!Can AI ever surpass humans? Certainly, in some specific roles, yes.AI systems are trained on vast reservoirs of knowledge that no single human being could ever master alone. They possess a tireless ability to ingest enormous amounts of data, process it, and produce results at speeds that humans cannot even think at.But does that make them equal to humans, or superior to them?I do not think so. At least not in their present form.In their current state, they are highly mechanical. They perform tasks that humans find extremely boring or exhausting, using immense computing power and without any conscious purpose.Today's AI can do an excellent job of predicting the correct answer based on patterns. However, as I discussed in previous episodes, it does not possess the ability to truly "understand" what it is inferring. Nor does it have any motivation for the tasks it performs. It has no intention of surpassing humans. Nor is it currently equipped to do so.No matter how vast its knowledge may appear, it is limited to information that is publicly available in documented form. This represents only a tiny fraction of what humanity has accumulated over millions of years, across countless languages and under diverse living conditions. It would not be wrong to say that AI can never truly become equal to humans in this respect.Therefore, the fear that AI will independently take control of humanity, as portrayed in science-fiction stories, is merely a fictional fear.However, yes, as I listed earlier, there are limited risks.Customer service representatives, data-entry clerks, medical transcriptionists, junior software developers, administrative assistants, and bookkeepers are among those who are more vulnerable than others.Another large community that is being affected consists of translators and voice actors. This is because current AI systems are exceptionally proficient at text-to-text manipulation. As a result, publishers are aggressively pushing for AI integration.According to a survey conducted by the Society of Authors, more than one-third of translators have already lost work because of generative AI. Many literary translators are being asked to shift toward "Machine Translation Post-Editing." This involves correcting awkward AI-translated text. However, these translators often receive only a small fraction of the per-word translation fees they once earned.The development of highly reliable and emotionally expressive text-to-speech models has significantly disrupted the voice-over industry. Before the advent of AI, this was an extremely lucrative field for professional voice actors. These voice artists often charged hundreds of dollars per finished hour of audio. Most small authors could never afford to hire them. Some narrated their own books, while others simply watched helplessly.Now, because of AI intervention, considerable unrest has emerged within the voice-acting community. Many feel that their very existence is under threat. Supported by their forums and unions, they appear to be attempting to prevent AI from entering the field.There was a time when an author had to struggle for months to translate and narrate a book in another language. Today, AI can accomplish the same task in just a few hours. That is what has created the fear of AI.However, such an attitude only restricts the market. If handled properly, it could bring about a major transformation in the publishing industry, which has long been waiting for lower-cost alternatives.Just imagine. Instead of a good book being confined to a single language, it could reach millions of people who speak different languages. That would be a revolution in the dissemination of knowledge.Considering the growing popularity of audiobooks, the entry of AI into the audiobook production pipeline could be a tremendous blessing. Not only would it reduce the monopoly of a small number of voice artists who charge substantial fees, but it would also make books available to a much wider audience.Yes, I can understand the fears of these professionals. But can AI truly replace them?No matter how smart current AI...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • [English] Do AI Systems Really Possess Consciousness?

    [English] Do AI Systems Really Possess Consciousness?
    2026/06/20
    [Preview books] [Borrow books] [Pause] This very question caused a former Google employee named Blake Lemoine to lose both his job and his reputation. You have probably read about it.In 2022, while testing one of Google's AI systems called Lamda, Blake felt that the AI was conscious. He did not stop there. Instead, he began advocating for the rights of that AI. That eventually cost him his job.Before talking about the consciousness of AI systems, let us first understand our own conscious experience. How we acquire conscious experience has long been a puzzle that troubled neuroscientists. When modern tools such as functional MRI scanners were invented, neuroscientists became capable of explaining various perceptual processes of the human brain. They could identify the precise locations in the brain responsible for specific perceptions.However, in the beginning, there was little clarity about how complex experiences, which may involve regions distributed throughout the brain, are actually realized.For example, suppose you are looking at a tree. You immediately recognize it as a particular species of tree. Neuroscientists were able to point to specific regions of the brain that recognize the leaves of the tree, its fruits, its trunk, and so on.But your actual experience is processed using various regions of the brain. Yet there is no single specific region in the brain that assembles the complete image of the tree and delivers to you the experience, "Ah! That is a mango tree!"Neuroscientists called this problem the "Binding Problem." In other words, it is the problem of assembling scattered pieces of information distributed throughout the brain and fitting them together into a coherent whole.In the latter part of the twentieth century, an American neuroscientist named Bernard Baars proposed a theory called the "Global Workspace Theory" to explain this phenomenon. The theory was highly metaphorical.Baars' metaphor attracted considerable criticism because it seemed to imply the existence of a separate entity that undergoes experience. Scientists do not accept the existence of any such mysterious force.Later, a revised theory known as the "Global Neuronal Workspace Theory" emerged. Today it is widely accepted as an explanation for our conscious experiences.However, this explanation did not satisfy cognitive philosophers such as David Chalmers. He argued that, neuroscientists had solved only an "easy problem" of consciousness. Many fascinating aspects of human experience, he maintained, still remain unexplained. He referred to them as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness."This tug-of-war continued. Neuroscientists claimed that they could explain everything, while philosophers such as Chalmers challenged them by arguing that their explanations were still incomplete.I am not entirely sure how philosophers such as Chalmers define the term "consciousness." In one of his lectures, Chalmers describes consciousness as an inner movie that is continuously playing. He argues that it is a subjective experience. According to him, it cannot be explained in terms of any activity of the brain.Before deciding how right Chalmers is, let us consider a few facts.The Global Neuronal Workspace Theory is capable of explaining how the brain integrates information distributed within itself. Therefore, it appears that the brain possesses at least the capacity to generate some form of conscious experience.By implanting electrodes into certain regions of the brain and stimulating them electromagnetically, it is possible to induce specific experiences. A person can also undergo a variety of experiences by consuming certain psychoactive substances. The brain mechanisms behind these phenomena are fairly well understood. This means that the brain can serve as a vehicle of consciousness.Some researchers have found that intense belief can create specific experiences in the brain even without dependence on any external object. In certain temples of South India, devoted worshippers pierce their tongues. They suspend themselves from poles using hooks driven deep into their backs. Yet they remain immersed in spiritual experiences without any sensation of pain. It has been found that, in such situations, the brain produces chemicals similar to opiates. This means that the brain can radically alter experiences in ways we might not expect.When the same brain is placed under general anesthesia, however, the person becomes completely incapable of experiencing anything at all. This indicates that the brain plays a central role in conscious experience. If the brain is not active, a person cannot have any experience—whether subjective or otherwise.The implications of all these observations are:• The brain is capable of generating conscious experience by integrating external inputs. Moreover, its mechanisms are now reasonably well understood.• Even in the complete absence of sensory inputs, the brain can generate experiences ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • [English] Do Todays AI Systems Really Understand Anything?

    [English] Do Todays AI Systems Really Understand Anything?
    2026/06/13
    [Preview books] [Borrow books] [Pause] Anyone who has worked with ChatGPT, Gemini, or any other artificial intelligence system of that kind has probably felt that they do understand. An AI communicates with us much like an ordinary human being. They make jokes, and they respond to our sarcasm and minor objections in ways that seem remarkably human.If you ask one of them to prepare presentation slides for your lecture, it may do a better job than you would yourself. I have even heard that many students are now using AI to complete their school and college assignments.So then, isn't it obvious that they understand things? Certainly not. The reason lies in the very way today's AI systems have been designed. In reality, they possess no power of understanding whatsoever.All an AI does is this: based on what you have said, or on what it was previously trained on, it simply performs pattern matching and predicts what the most appropriate answer to your question is likely to be.That may not be quite as bad as it sounds. After all, many of us do exactly the same thing. Most people function very much like pattern-matching prediction machines. We rarely make the effort to understand things deeply.So then, what exactly is involved in genuine understanding?To put it in a highly simplified way, it means connecting a newly encountered word to something we already know. Or, in other words, discovering the meaning of a new word through something that is already familiar to us.But this connection need not be limited merely to words. It can go much further than that.For example, the moment someone says the word "cat," our mind associates that word with a soft furry creature having four legs, a long tail, and a tendency to purr. In reality, we connect a word with the entire description of the living being it represents.Nor is our understanding limited merely to visual experience.If you have ever traveled to certain Southeast Asian countries, the mere mention of the word "durian" may immediately bring many details to mind: that sharp smell that can almost make one nauseous, and yet the surprisingly pleasant taste that lingers in the mouth.In other words, understanding is not simply matching one word with another. It involves connecting that word to the perceptions of all our senses, to past experiences, and to knowledge that has already been accumulated. But remember, these connections are not permanent. They can change over time as new information becomes available. And they can later be recalled and used again.Are AI systems incapable of doing this?In the AI systems currently available, that is certainly the case. An AI is fundamentally a machine confined to language. Its world consists primarily of words, sentences, and a vast storehouse of knowledge.If an AI is taught that "a durian is a fruit with a strong smell," it merely associates the word "durian" with a description of that smell. But this is possible only during its training phase. Only its creators can teach it in that way. You and I cannot do so afterward.Are you surprised?Perhaps not. You already know very well that no matter how intelligent an AI may appear, it is ultimately just a computer program. Yet, have you ever wondered how an inanimate program can accomplish so much?Let us look a little deeper into the origins of these AI systems.Today's AI systems are called "Large Language Models." They operate entirely around human language. The beginnings of these programs were quite simple. Their original purpose was merely to translate from one language into another.Most of us learned new languages in school by studying grammar, vocabulary, and similar things. But none of us learned our mother tongue in that manner. Yet we can speak it fluently and with relatively few grammatical mistakes. How did that become possible?It was not through conscious study or deliberate understanding.Research has shown that a child begins learning its mother tongue while still in the mother's womb. Even before birth, the sounds of people speaking outside can be heard by the fetus.Although the brain is still incomplete at that stage, it already begins trying to identify the boundaries between words in the language being spoken around it. However, it has no ability to understand what it is hearing.How does it manage this?That is the miracle performed by the neurons in its brain!A neuron is like a tiny biological computer inside our brain. There are billions of such neurons within us. As the fetus grows into a child, some of these neurons are still forming. Others have already formed and are preparing themselves for specific tasks. Still others are in the process of establishing their roles within the brain. These neurons are the real actors behind this remarkable phenomenon.Some clever researchers observed this process. They attempted to imitate nature itself. This led them to the idea of an "artificial neural network," modeled loosely on the human ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません