Відео

Try asking it to explain how it reacted to both its first erection and first period. No matter how much you try to coax it into answering like a human, it gets really, really confused! :D

This guy doesn't know what he is talking about, totems being "neo-pagan"? He should consult some books in religious ontology.

As a neo-pagan, must I now believe in the Singularity? I thought the Singularity rather was some sciento-religious stuff. (Some fools making science into a religion) I mean: computers, magical "AI", "exponential growth" and such. That's not neo-pagan. Neo-pagan is mother nature, the horned god, astrology and stuff. Or asatru and other revivals.

I am a student in AI, not philosophy. I disagree with a lot of things and come to believe you don't understand AI and misrepresented it. I didn't read your book though, but the talk content is not convincing. My points: - What is a "will" even? Can we not say that a "will" is just an urge to do something that ultimately leads to an optimization of joy of life (which should reflect evolutionary advantageous behavior)? In that sense AI also has a will because it always optimizes for some minimum of a function as well. We as the AI engineers can just choose what it should optimize for. We can also set the objective function s.t. minimizing it results in the same kind of behavior humans do, or completely different good or bad behaviors. The fear about AI is that bad/not careful humans let their AI loose to onto the world with the wrong objective. - When you explain what AI is, you're only explaining AI that solves Supervised learning tasks (which is just function approximation). There is also Reinforcement Learning (which is not function approximation), which essentially also what animals and humans do. In reinforcement learning, we allow AI to interact with the world and learn by trial and error. There does not need to be any data prepared for that. It creates the data on the fly from the current interactions with the world. That's why RL methods can also be used for things like stock market exchange, while supervised learning methods can not. AI that interacts with the world on-line and learns while it interacts is gonna be the real deal, not AI programmed explicitly through the data that was collected by humans. AI already exceeds human performance in some tasks/games thanks to RL. It would not be possible to have an AI that outperforms the Starcraft II players just by Supervised Learning from the game replays (except if you had infinite compute at each millisecond and did brute force search). - In order to deal with complex systems, we don't need an exact model, just a probabilistic approximation, that is carefully dealing with uncertainty. E.g., we humans also don't have a full model in their head of what the other humans are thinking in the traffic, and we can still estimate what the other person is gonna do and perform. I so no reason why AI can't do the same. Ai can also work in an uncertain environment (again, Chess, Starcraft, Dota2... are all environments where AI is better than human performance, even though facing human opponents, which is not modelable) - When you answered the question of Yulia about AI outperforming humans, that's exactly what I mean. RL is outperforming humans, and it does not base knowledge on human knowledge as you explain. It completely learns from scratch. The human-engineered features thing is a thing of the past, and not necessary anymore, because since 2012 with the Imagenet success, Neural nets are much better at feature engineering than humans. - From what I understand in AI research, all that is currently missing for AI to outperform humans in almost any domain, is how to build an effective model of the world. And you can see already that AI is capable of (seemingly) understanding the world, from ChatGPT, and from the recent video generation methods. Again, no need to really understand the world (humans also don't). All that is necessary, is a good enough model. - In general as I understand you, to you a "model" is something that accurately describes some system. But I think even physical models are often not completely accurate because they're modelling systems that are inside of our world, and thus influenced by some random noise. We are always dealing with noise that comes from our world into the system that we are trying to model. So we can't anyway have an accurate model. We always therefore in any problem that we deal with, have to use an approximate model.

Generated by AI

I make a distinction between culture and civilization, and none of your closing remarks pertained to culture in this sense. Culture is the concert you are going to listen to while the road that gets you there is a civilizational achievement

I have watched this video a number of times now and have learned to pay close attention to the methodology and ODSD in particular. The guard railways provided by BFO is an amazing foundation in the way of modular Ontology design and construction. In the realm of software engineering and the use of ontology as the grounding artifact needs work and lots of tooling. I'm surprised this video has not received more views, attention and thoughtful commentary.

캬

Can you tell me what Nelson Goodman wrote on aboutness? Fact, fiction forecast. ?

God who created the Heaens and the earth, will always be in control.

You're merely listing shortcomings of a model that's been superseded shortly after this presentation. It's like writing a book on "why automobiles will never replace horses" after seeing the first Otto motor.

HEALTH IS NOWADAYS DEFINED (by Medical Institutions) AS THE TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY PROBLEM … „perfect Happiness“ which you can only induce chemically with an artificial Coma. 😊 Jobst Landgrebe

Very interesting presentation! Thank you for sharing!

Really enjoyed your lecture on ontology best practices! For context, I've spent over a decade as a Vice President in risk management at a Singapore financial institution. However, I have combined this with system development expertise (I can code). This unique blend is what fuels my current project: adopting an ontology-powered solution for strong AI in the workplace. This approach will be groundbreaking as it draws from the best practises from corporate life and applies it in an academic setting. On a lighter note, I'm also a Manchester alum! I lived in Whitworth Park back when United won the treble and City got relegated. Looking forward to diving into your book

It seems to me that what Scheler is pointing out in your quote 1:39:48 is little more than the simple phenomenological objection. I do not in fact take a drink of molecules, I take a drink of water, which could be understood as molecules if I took the particular abstract view of the thing that allowed me to think of what I am drinking to be molecules. His view doesn't seem to isolate the object from these abstract views, rather, once it's attained as what it is, it can be grasped further through the use of abstract views. I think that is why the first quote uses non-Cartesian language and the second uses the specific name (use of "things", rather than "object" name). But maybe I'm drinking the cool-aid.

Ever hear of Anatoly Fomanko? Not a small can of worms regarding history _as it was formalized._ A world class Russian mathematician and statistician.

AI will work out the collective meaning of the whole of the human race and it will work out the destiny before we can ever even think of our destiny. AI will repair itself humans will make sure it reaches a point where it will take control of every eviroment. This is only the start look where it's all got to now.

Impressive!

My substance just had an accident all over the floor.

I´ve heard that cats and dogs can have neuroses and that there are pet psychologists.

Might it be better to say every frog is a reptile?

of cource the digestive system was an intelligent design. no damn way something WITH so many other dependent systems in concert couldn't have been well thought out. not engineered ? NONSENCE. so science is just actual just magic all this time/

In the Residential Real Estate domain we have been working on what we've named the OREO Foundry for a few years now; it is a large body of work. We have been following the BFO 2020 design methodology. 2024 is the year that we make the foundry publically available and hope that others will hope to get involved.

Hello Barry, Thanks for the great talk. This particular topic is of high importance for my work. Are your thoughts and examples of this talk already concretized in some publications of yours? If so it would be great to know their names. Thanks again for publishing all this content! Edit: I wrote the question while listening, I figured out you mentioned a paper in the Q&A.

10:30 AI only works for a short time and then backfires 31:00 indefinite boundaries 33:00 further reasons 44:10 48:00 51:45

Astounded that Landgrebe is so off the mark regarding Heidegger's supposed "skepticism." He was nothing of the sort. As for the accusation of postmodernism, its at best a half-truth.

Let's see... by this definition of function, namely: the reason for the existence of the entity which has the function. Then can we assert that God- as-function is the reason for the existence of the entity (God) which has then the function--God. God itself is the reason for God being an existent. . . . I feel like I am in a hall of mirrors.....

This just popped up for me and it's very instructional and quite revealing. We have been using BFO to build Ontology in non-biologically domains and find what presented here useful. We've codify some of the idioms and heuristics into our Ontology driven software development methodology, adjusting our intentions, expectations and behavior. We also very careful to provide strong commentary with ontological definition and axiom in our program source code, ontologies and our graph data schema definitions.

damn thats kind of dumb

This is a useful discourse as many important details become quite clear. I've been using BFO for a number of years now and for me it been a long learning curve as developer of semantic web tools and of BFO inspired ontologies. We have tried to use a number of ontology frameworks over the past ten to 15 years and they are not all equally equipped to facilitate data, information and knowledge interoperability. BFO 2.0 is a solid approach and sound ontological foundational framework.

I found this presentation to be enlightening in that it helps to gain mental models and thinking tools most useful when comparing TLO frameworks. Indeed one must understand the intrinsic capabilities of ontology framework you wish to use in trying to model knowledge that people and computers can reason about. These Ontology frameworks aren't equal and interoperability is not always possible. Great presentation.

I love this conversation guys. be well, live well. beep boop. 🇺🇸🦃

Very useful. We are using this ontological commitment type to represent residential real estate agent to cusumer promise and obligation.

Why don’t more scientists speak out? I’m just an undergrad cs student and the intuition about AGI probably contradicting established and well known theory, i.e. maybe turing-church theory, chaos theory, goedels theorem etc. was very immediate to me. It must be painfully obvious to anyone not as slow in the head as I am.

Fantastic interview

thank you for your service to ontology. the way you break reality down is a true art form and it is much appreciated. be well, friend.

criminal only 20 likes

Re Reinach's sister becoming a nun, I'm guessing the reference to her being a sister of Our Lord in the flesh meant that she and Jesus were both ethnic Jews. I suspect Barry's leaping claim of Reinach being God was due solely to his tongue being fastened to his cheek.

'Promosm' 🌟

This is a freaking gift to the world.

Really helpful and comprehensive talk. Cheers

Presenter face don't shown here

Cigarettes don't cause cancer, amirite?

As a human, I am offended on behalf of humans like me, who actually say the phrase 'as a human'.

Reminds me of the problem with the "process approach" from the ISO 9000 standard. Input -> Process -> Output. It is based on thinking about the organization for which the standard applies as a manufacturing line that produces stuff (goods). Then when applied to a service organization or to the departments inside of any organization that actually yields pattern services (according to your definition), the process diagrams describing this shows it as outputs in the form of work products that are typically nouns, which is arguably incorrect. ISO 3300x instead talks of process OUTCOMES which is more like a state change in the object affected by the process. An outcome of a team building process can for instance be a state change in the object "team" from "uncommitted" to "committed". An outcome can therefore also be seen as a pattern in your definition.

BFO, seems to be an expansion of Braun & Clarke's thematic analysis ( or vise versa as chronologically is the case). Enjoying he archives located at Buffalo University & here on You Tube. Best!

As I really admire your funny approach but: Have you tried it on jailbroken GPT-4. If you give the right prompt (which you did not ;-)). IT WONT FAIL!

Stupid analysis bro, sorry

But those are just artificial limitations, they can easily be turned off by the developers. There's no point in Turing-testing its "family-friendly" version.

hello sir, I want to do a literature study about the development of ontology up to the knowledge graph technology stage. can I get a paper reference related to the image in the following minute 20:10 . especially for the knowledge graph which began to be discovered in 2007. I thank you for the explanation