特別節目·中文精讀

邁克爾·史蒂文斯:Vsauce

Michael Stevens: Vsauce

科普頻道 Vsauce 的創作者談好奇心驅動的選題方式、科學傳播的挑戰與冷知識的魅力。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

Vsauce 的邁克爾·史蒂文斯(Michael Stevens)在 YouTube 上有超過一千五百萬訂閱者,影片總播放量超過十七億次。他做過一期講“地球是平的”的影片。在那期影片裡,他一個髒字都沒用,認真推演了一遍:如果地球真是個盤子,重力會怎麼作用,人走在上面是什麼感覺。

然後在這期播客裡,他說了一句會讓很多人不舒服的話:我沒法證明地球不是平的。

這句話從別人嘴裡說出來像是在給偽科學遞刀,從史蒂文斯嘴裡說出來,則是另一套科學觀的入口。他緊接著補充:科學不證明任何東西,它只是降低不確定性。

地球是個扁球體(oblate spheroid),這條結論的機率極高,高到我們可以當它已經成立。但它永遠不會變成一條數學定理式的絕對真理。哪怕你坐火箭飛上去,親眼看見一個球體懸在黑暗裡,你依然沒法排除自己活在模擬裡,是個被插了電極的缸中之腦。史蒂文

史蒂文斯覺得這件事不但不讓人沮喪,反而挺讓人興奮。

地平說影片為什麼被踩得更多

史蒂文斯二十幾歲住在紐約時,某天點開了一個地平說論壇。那時候地平說還沒今天這麼流行,他在裡面讀那些人的推理論證,看他們怎麼回應最常見的反駁。讀到最後他意識到一件有意思的事:他分不清這些人裡有多少是真的相信,有多少隻是在釣魚。

真正讓他著迷的地方就在這裡。一個信念是怎麼被建立起來的?什麼樣的信念算“好”,什麼樣的算站不住腳?這比“地球到底是不是平的”重要得多。

在影片裡他用了兩把剃刀。一把是奧卡姆剃刀:不要增加不必要的假設。另一把是所謂“牛頓的火焰鐳射劍”:一個命題如果在原則上無法透過實驗區分真假,那它不值得繼續爭論下去。地平論者可以給每一條反駁都編一個解釋,但這些解釋是臨時拼湊的(ad hoc),彼此之間不構成一個自洽的整體。你永遠可以再多編一條,代價是這套理論越來越臃腫。

有意思的是,他在影片裡還主動給了地平說一個“臺階”。根據狹義相對論,物體在運動方向上會收縮。對一個以接近光速朝地球飛來的粒子來說,地球在它的參照系裡就是被壓扁的。所以對那個粒子而言,地球確實是平的。這話沒有嘲諷意味,它就是相對論的字面結論。

Lex 提到這期影片的點贊踩比例和平時不太一樣,踩的人偏多。史蒂文斯說自己還沒去看資料。他猜有兩種可能:有人看標題就點了踩,以為他在宣傳地平說;也有人嫌他不夠刻薄,希望他把那些理論直接嘲笑一頓。

這兩種反應其實指向同一個心理:人們想聽立場,不想聽推理過程。而史蒂文斯想要的恰恰相反。他說如果把這些人都叫成白痴,那他就永遠失去他們了。“他們笨到什麼程度呢?地球本來就不是個球,是扁球體,這本身就很有意思。”他後來專門做了一期《哪個方向是下》,講“下”根本不指向地心,它取決於你腳下、頭頂和四周有什麼,整個宇宙都在拉你。

如果我告訴你,推動物體的是幽靈

為了講清楚什麼叫科學,史蒂文斯在節目裡造了一個荒謬的理論。

我不相信“力”這個東西。我認為我推一個物體的時候,有一個幽靈從我身體裡出來,鑽進那個物體。幽靈在質量大的東西附近會變得特別懶,所以重的物體難推動。幽靈的懶惰程度和物體質量成正比。來,證明我錯。(邁克爾·史蒂文斯)

這套理論的問題不在於荒謬,而在於你永遠找不到那個幽靈,所以它和任何觀察都不衝突。它無法被證偽,也就不構成科學命題。

但只要他開始問“我能看見幽靈嗎”“為什麼該有幽靈”“如果沒有幽靈,我應該觀察到什麼不一樣的東西”,事情就變了。他開始設計能區分兩種情況的實驗,開始在意預測和結果是否吻合。到這一步,他就是在用科學思考了。

順著這個思路,史蒂文斯說了一句挺硬的話:那張黑洞照片不算科學。照片是資料,是感官經驗,是一堆畫素。科學是我們怎麼得到那張照片、怎麼理解它、怎麼相信它、怎麼把圍繞它的不確定性壓下去。提問才是科學方法裡最大的那一步。

這也是為什麼他說自己不太確定算不算科學家。Mind Field 裡他們確實做過有假設、有對照的實驗,但很多他探討的問題根本不是科學問題。他給自己的標籤只有“好奇”。他希望這種好奇能傳染。

不過他對科學共同體有一個不算客氣的觀察:有時候科學家翻白眼翻得太快了。地平說就是個例子。大多數人根本沒坐下來把那些論證擺出來看一遍,沒去問“這個說法錯在哪一步”,直接就下判斷了。他說這幾乎是他的一個測試:問一個人怎麼看地平說,看他要花多久開始翻白眼。

挑戰正規化這件事本身代價極高。史蒂文斯提到“自我”這個因素:如果你為了捍衛自己的理論,把其他所有解釋都嘲笑一頓,宣稱只有自己是對的,那 ego 就進場了,然後你一步也走不動。“力到底是什麼”這個問題極其重要,必須有人問,但得用一種政治上成熟的方式來問:尊重每個人,承認大家都在學,不把別人關在門外。

伽利略跟當局鬧得很不愉快。笛卡爾看在眼裡,說了句大意是“我基本同意伽利略,但這話我不能說”,然後轉頭去寫別的東西,免得惹上麻煩。知識還是慢慢往前挪了。革命在任何領域都難,在科學裡尤其難。

把心理學變成物理學,缺的不是方程

Lex 丟擲的問題是:心理學能不能從二十世紀那種一團亂麻的狀態,走到理論物理那樣精確、嚴謹的程度?

史蒂文斯的路徑是找心理學的物理基礎。如果情緒、心境、感受、行為,全都是大腦裡原子和分子機械運動的結果,那能不能找到對應關係?他承認這極難。混沌會讓這件事幾乎不可行,不確定性原理擺在那兒,你大概沒法同時知道一個大腦裡每一個量子態的位置和速度。

但如果真能走到那一步,就可以開始用物理和數學的方式談意識了。自指是什麼?你如何思考“你在思考”這件事?什麼樣的數學結構能產生這種結構?

有一種立場認為,意識是現實的基本組成部分,地位接近一條物理定律。史蒂文斯不站這一邊。他的直覺是:意識大概可以被完整地裝在物理定律裡面解釋。宇宙在量子層面的豐富和複雜程度太高了,如果這樣一套框架裡都塞不下意識,他會覺得意外。

至於“我們為什麼會有意識”“為什麼我們能覺察自己”,他說這是非常重要也非常奇怪的問題,未來幾千年大概都只能靠信仰來回答。然後他給了一個自己的猜想。

在宇宙所有可能構型的空間裡,有一類特殊的構型,它包含了其他構型的記憶。物理學家朱利安·巴伯(Julian Barbour)管它們叫時間膠囊態(time capsule states)。你手臂上有一道抓痕,同時這個宇宙狀態內部還封存著“三天前被貓抓了一下”的記憶。抓痕和關於抓痕的記憶,在同一個狀態裡。

然後有趣的事就發生了。一個包含其他狀態碎片的狀態,會讓你覺得有時間,覺得事情發生過,覺得過去存在。而這個狀態裡不含未來的資訊,所以你會覺得未來是未知的。至於為什麼宇宙會挑中這類狀態,可以有兩種說法:要麼這類狀態本來就更常見、更豐富;要麼它們極其稀有,但用人擇原理一說就通了,你之所以能問“我們為什麼有意識”,恰恰是因為你所在的狀態允許你問這個問題。

沒有意識的東西不會問自己為什麼有意識。

決定論可能是真的,但我不打算照它生活

把宇宙看成一臺按固定物理定律展開的機器,給定初始條件,同一條宇宙線就會以完全相同的方式鋪開。史蒂文斯說這是非常有用的思考方式,它把我們送上了月球,送到了今天的位置。

但他不會說自己以那種絕對形式相信決定論。“其實我不太在乎。”也許它是真的,但他不會照那個樣子去生活。

同樣的態度適用於感知與現實的鴻溝。我們經歷的一切都是大腦裡的事件。他看著一隻貓,他沒法證明那裡真有一隻貓,他能確認的只是自己腦內出現了“貓”這個知覺。他只是自己心智事件的目擊者。

但這不妨礙他給出一個實用建議:從“我腦內出現了貓的知覺”推斷出“那裡真有一隻貓,它有自己的感受和動機,應該被摸、被喂、被愛”,這個推斷極其有用,這就是你該過的生活。至於我們是不是活在模擬裡、是不是缸中之腦,他不知道,也不太在乎。

他在乎的是這個問題作為入口的價值。貓要不要喂,這是個實際問題。真貓不喂會死,遊戲裡的貓不喂只是掉個數值。他忘了喂電子寵物不會太難受,忘了喂真貓會非常難受。這個心理差異是真實存在的,而且它本身就值得研究。

模擬假說為什麼今天特別好用?史蒂文斯給了個很妙的對比。牛頓時代你跟人說“想象一臺鐘錶,機械複雜到能產生愛情”,沒人會買賬。但今天你看著虛擬現實和遊戲一年比一年真,你會真的開始琢磨:我這個小小的機器人朋友,什麼時候會變成那種我不想取消約會的物件?

“我們是不是活在模擬裡”“我是不是一個被某種不懷好意的存在輸入電訊號的缸中之腦”,這些問題的好處是你無法從任何一邊證明或證偽,所以它是把人領進最深那些問題的絕佳入口。

我不知道“智慧”是什麼意思

Lex 問當前 AI 到了哪一步、怎麼造出人類水平或超人類水平的智慧。史蒂文斯的回答是從地基開始拆:“我不知道智慧是什麼意思,這是我目前最大的疑問。”

他的本能總是先問:我們這場討論的底座是什麼?什麼叫智慧?怎麼測量一臺機器、一個程式的智慧?人類智慧本身怎麼測量都還是一門迷人的學問,就算把這些都當成已知,那個模模糊糊被叫做智慧的東西,到底是什麼?

圖靈測試夠嗎?一個能跟你聊上幾個小時、你願意跟它喝啤酒、願意跟它約飯的聊天機器人,會讓你印象深刻嗎?

他說自己幾乎什麼都會驚歎,所以這個問題對他不太好用。但他給了一個很具體的場景:如果有個 chatbot 真的很有個性,他分辨不出對面不是人,然後有人掀開簾子給他看一堆電線和機械件,說“你剛才聊天的就是這個”。他不會覺得自己殺了人。他會覺得可惜,像砸了一輛很好的車,做得很精良,很酷,但沒有謀殺感。

那個界限在哪?如果它會動,或者它表現得像在痛苦中(甚至真的在痛苦中)尖叫、掙扎、反抗,他一腳踢過去它就哀嚎,那它立刻被歸進另一個類別。人幾乎瞬間就把它擬人化了,問題從物理問題變成了心理學問題。

史蒂文斯覺得這個本能是好的。哪怕你不相信它有痛這種感受質(qualia),你不想聽見它叫,這個直覺仍然值得保留。但他馬上補了另一面:這個本能會被利用,機器人可以操縱它。而且不只有金屬外殼的那種才叫機器人。Facebook 和 YouTube 的推薦演算法也是機器人,它們用同一套機制操縱你。

那些擋在路上的擔憂

關於存在性風險,史蒂文斯的答案是“當然擔心,尤其是我們自己造出來的武器”。他提到一個思路:宇宙看起來這麼空,也許是因為文明一旦掌握某種毀滅性的力量,比如放射性,就再也沒能跨過去。他記得有個 YouTube 頻道專門講這個,可惜想不起名字。這就是後來被叫做大過濾器(Great Filter)的那類猜想。

但具體到 AI,他說自己不太擔心,理由是已經在擔心的人足夠多了,而且這些擔憂常常擋在進步前面,有些問題該留到以後解決。

他舉了自己在《電車難題》那期附加片段裡的採訪。他問一位做自動駕駛的人:如果出現這種極其人為構造的場景,車必須選擇轉向救司機但撞死一個孩子,車該怎麼做?對方反問:人會怎麼做?史蒂文斯的結論是,如果因為擔心這些細枝末節就抵制技術前進,那就擋路了。不該回避問題,但也不該讓問題變成絆腳石。

Lex 反推了一把:Elon Musk 和 Sam Harris 說的是擔心的人不夠多。專門研究核威懾的人也在說擔心核威懾的人不夠多。所以“夠不夠”這個閾值本身是個真問題。擔心的人太多,技術停滯;太少,一頭栽進深淵。

史蒂文斯承認他不知道正確的比例是多少。然後他給了一條歷史線索:有文字記錄以來,人們一直在擔心新技術。柏拉圖就反對教人寫字,理由是學會了寫字,人就不再用腦子記東西了。這類恐懼從沒斷過。

但他認為這些對話依然值得進行,因為從中能學到很多關於自己的東西。我們害怕某種有意識、能自我複製的 AI 出現,可這件事我們每天都在做,它叫人類出生。那些不是人造的,是人,但他們有智慧。他不希望活在一個因為“這孩子將來可能變壞”就不敢生孩子的世界裡。孩子可能有 83% 的機率成為精神病態者,怎麼辦?

他希望找到的答案裡,沒有“那就別讓他活著”這一項。他想要的是另一句話:所有人類生命都有價值,就算有 83% 的機率,他仍然值得尊嚴,仍然值得被善待,仍然有權利。他也清楚這是他的價值 bubble,他出生在蘇聯,那裡國家和集體的強大比任何個體都重要。哪種敘事會贏,他說不準。

順著這個思路,他乾脆把“人工”這個詞也拆了。我們執著於想象一種不依賴技術的純人類有機體,但這個東西不存在。人類和技術是一個有機體。

他指了指自己的眼鏡。外星人降落下來看見他,未必能立刻分辨出這不是他身上長出來的器官。文字、勺子、杯子,全都是技術。我們從來不是單獨存在的有機體。我們造出來的東西,不管是電子遊戲,還是會自我複製、會恨我們的 AI,其實屬於同一個有機體。

你坐在車裡,你在哪裡結束,車在哪裡開始?這問題看著好答,越想越發現人和發明是共生關係。擔心這件事的人很多,也應該有。但這件事是必然的。他甚至認為,把自己想成一個個孤立的智慧體本身就是個有點傻的念頭,更好的圖景是把整個人類文明、地球上所有活著的生物,看成一個活的有機體,一個智慧生物,因為所有東西都纏在一起。

說到馬斯克,史蒂文斯的語氣是真誠的佩服。那種量級的粉絲群體不常見,一個這麼討人喜歡的書呆子能有這種追隨,很讓人興奮。但權力伴隨責任。如果見到他,他想問的既不是火箭也不是隧道,他想問:你怎麼看待這份責任?

當那麼多人認同你的想法、你的夢想,跟你貼得那麼近,你手上的權力很大,而這份權力不是一開始就有的。他想知道成為一個符號的心理學。當追隨者群體變得比你還大,你怎麼負責任地管理它?也許他根本不為此困擾,那也行。但很多人會在某一刻意識到有很多雙眼睛盯著自己、很多人把他說的話當真、很多人會替他辯護,那可以是危險的,無論對社會還是對這個人自己。

Lex 把這個球扔了回去:你也是個有趣的人,撞上了巨大的追隨者,某種意義上是教育領域最大的那一個。你怎麼處理這份責任?

史蒂文斯的回答裡有個細節值得留意。他首先把自己摘出去:他不在第一線做實驗,他在轉述真正科學家的工作,慶祝他們的思考方式和好奇心的力量。他要始終說清楚的是,我們不知道所有答案,而且大概永遠不會到達那個點:這就是宇宙,這就是那個方程,代進條件算一下,你就知道明天會發生什麼。

他認為有一種傾向是把科學當成信仰來信,變得精英主義,變得僵硬。而科學應該起的作用恰恰相反:它應該讓你謙卑,讓你覺得自己很小。他覺得感到非常非常渺小、非常虛弱、需要別人,這件事本身很美。

所以他在節目開頭說的那句“這是 Michael 在這裡”,有它的用意。在他心裡 Vsauce 和 Michael 是兩個東西。這件事跟他是誰關係不大。他接進的是一個已經有幾百萬人在裡面的插口,希望鼓勵好奇、鼓勵負責任的思考、鼓勵擁抱懷疑並且對此感到自在。

演算法是一面鏡子,鏡子裡的東西是你投進去的

下一期嘉賓是 YouTube 工程副總裁,負責搜尋與發現。Lex 問史蒂文斯:如果能得到一個誠實的回答,你想問他什麼?另外,你希望演算法怎麼改?

他把演算法比作鏡子。它反射的是人們投進去的東西,個人層面和整體層面都是。我們不一定喜歡在鏡子裡看到的自己。推薦給你的內容,反映的是它認為你想看的,更準確地說是你會點的、你會看一會兒、然後繼續留在 YouTube 上的東西。

他猜 YouTube 並不在乎你只看了一秒,只要你下一個動作是開啟另一個影片。如果你關掉 app,那對他們是問題,因為他們不是訂閱制平臺,不是“你每月交二十塊,愛看不看”。他們需要你停留、消耗時間、看到廣告。

所以他真正好奇的是:他們有沒有為更長遠的、你作為一個人的發展做最佳化?因為短期喂多巴胺,讓你一直點貓影片,最終你會像從藥勁裡醒過來一樣說“我得戒了”。如果從長期留存的角度算,讓你看完之後覺得自己是個更好的人,可能反倒是更優的策略。

Lex 說史蒂文斯的影片其實不算最好點的那種,但看完之後感覺自己變成了更好的人。史蒂文斯說自己很幸運,不太需要操心演算法。看他的縮圖就知道,他不怎麼放飛。在 Mind Field 裡和 YouTube 合作做縮圖時,他經常要求“收一收,我們要神秘一點”。

他的策略是做別人沒在做的事。如果所有人都在瘋狂 PS,那他的縮圖就用幾條對齊的線,標題就一個詞。Vsauce 的幾個頻道養出了一批期待這種風格的觀眾,他們寧願看一個叫《汙漬》的影片,也不想看《我探索了汙漬,太震驚了》。

但他很清楚,還有別的觀眾想要後面那種,而且大多數人想要的確實就是演算法偏愛的東西:主流、傳統名人、新聞。這恰恰是 YouTube 和其他流媒體平臺真正的區別。沒人會說“世界上發生什麼事了?開啟 Netflix 看看”。但你會開啟 Twitter、Facebook、YouTube,因為熱門影片就是主流圈子裡那些人最近在幹什麼。這跟 YouTube 說“我希望你看到這個”關係不大,人們在看見某位流行歌手讀高中戀人的情書時,真的會點。

而他們看見一條標題叫《定律與原因》、畫面上有些數學線條的影片時,想的是:我在公交車上,沒時間上一整堂課。

所以他給了一句提醒:在你對 YouTube 大發雷霆之前,先承認它反射的就是人類行為本身。

被追問“如果是你會改什麼”,他承認這個系統對所有人都是黑箱,連 YouTube 內部的人大概也不完全清楚它在幹什麼。他們知道自己調了哪些引數,但模型會自己學、自己決定怎麼表現,員工有時候也只能攤手:不知道,也許該調一下觀看時長在目標裡的權重。

他想改的地方很具體,也很懷舊。他懷念互動能推動內容分發的那套機制。過去他給某個創作者(他舉例 Potassium 這個頻道)的影片點個贊,那條影片就會出現在他訂閱者的首頁上。他知道自己一個贊能給對方送去十萬播放。現在這件事不成立了。

但他認為那是一種好的使用者體驗。我關注一個人,我就想看到更多他喜歡的東西,我希望他替我策展。Twitter 和 Facebook 某種程度上在做,有時候做法很煩人,但他希望 YouTube 也這樣。那樣社群會更強,而不是平臺在心裡算:技術上 Michael 讚了這條影片,但人們點 Carpool Karaoke 的機率高得多,所以我不在乎他們是誰,給那個位置。

他說自己沒打算否定 Carpool Karaoke,那是我們社會里極其重要的一部分,很多人會不同意他,他們也應該能看到足夠多。但教育社群的特點是水漲船高。你看了 Numberphile 的影片,你更可能想看他的影片,不管是 Vsauce 主頻道還是 DONG。這不像傳統電視,兩臺節目同一時段播出,你看了那臺就沒看這臺。互相幫助靠合作要花很多功夫,但只是評論、點贊、訂閱這些動作,他希望變得更簡單、更有力量。

我註定會變成一個想法

最後的問題落在死亡上。你想自己的死嗎?

“每天都想。真的很可怕。”

然後他給出了這期節目裡最完整的一段自我剖白。他註定會變成一個概念,變成一段記憶。人類在延長壽命上有很令人興奮的進展,但我們仍然不知道怎麼保護你免於某個意外、某件沒預見的事。也許可以儲存他的連線組(connectome),把意識數字化重建,但那也可能丟失,只要它還存在某個物理介質上。

真正讓他覺得酷的是這件事:有一天會不再有一個 Michael 能站出來說“不,我不是那個意思”。剩下的只有人們去猜他是什麼意思,然後記住他。他以此延續的那個版本,甚至可能不是他想成為的樣子。

但這裡面有力量,另一種力量是讓未來的人自己主持局面。他很高興有一天讓開,說一句“好,這是你們的世界了”。

Lex 順著說:你這個物理實體會在觀念空間裡留下遠超壽命的漣漪,以你完全無法控制的方式。

史蒂文斯補充了一個重要限定。他說“記憶”的時候,指的不是人們記得他的名字、生日、維基百科上那張照片,那些都可以消失。他希望的是人們繼續提問,繼續用某些他覺得有用、也覺得滿足的方式去講概念。如果他們不知道是他推廣的,那也沒關係。

然後他把尺度拉到了宇宙級別。如果地球今天被燒成焦炭,宇宙不會在意,木星不會說“哦不”。而這件事是有可能發生的。

但我們確實有一種能力,把東西送上太空,延長我們記憶存在的時間。我們記錄世界、學習、寫故事、儲存這些,在他看來這才是做人的本質。

我們是宇宙的自傳作者,而且我們非常擅長這件事。我們比化石強,比光譜強,我們收集的關於正在發生之事的記憶要詳細得多,資料質量好得多。這應該是我們的遺產。(邁克爾·史蒂文斯)

他希望這也是他的遺產。但即使不是,一個人也不可能不產生影響,這是物理事實。你同時必須接受,那個影響可能看起來非常小,而這也行。

他引用《德伯家的苔絲》裡的一句話,大意是:衡量你生命的尺度,不取決於你的外部位移,而取決於你的主觀體驗。如果我是快樂的,我愛的人是快樂的,這夠不夠?如果夠,那就太好了。

這期播客沒有給出任何結論。它給出的是一套姿態:對不知道的事保持誠實,對荒謬的想法保持耐心,對自己的渺小保持舒適,然後繼續問下一個問題。

如果要把它變成能上手的東西,大概是這麼幾條:

  • 下次遇到明顯荒謬的觀點,先別翻白眼。花五分鐘把對方的論證擺出來,指出它錯在哪一步,把判斷留給對方。你保住的是這個人繼續思考的可能性。
  • 檢查自己的信念裡有沒有“幽靈推動物體”那一類。一個說法如果無論觀察到什麼都成立,它就沒有在告訴你任何事。好的信念應該能被某個具體現象推翻。
  • 把“科學證明了 X”換成“X 的機率極高”。這個語言習慣會讓你在討論量子力學、AI 風險、營養學時少犯很多錯。
  • 做思想實驗時給荒謬設定加約束,別急著加嘲笑。扁平地球上的重力怎麼作用,這個問題本身能教會你一整套關於質心、潮汐力、衛星軌道的東西。
  • 判斷一個 AI 是否值得信任,別隻看它說話像不像人。會尖叫、會示弱、會讓你產生愧疚感,這些恰恰是最容易被設計出來的操縱通道,推薦演算法早就在用。
  • 在你對平臺的推薦結果不滿之前,先承認它反射的是包括你在內的集體點選行為。想改變它,從改變自己點開什麼開始,比寫投訴信有效。
  • 把“我要留下什麼”這個問題從名聲裡解綁。你真正能留下的是一套別人還在用的提問方式,而這種方式不需要署你的名字。
文稿由本站用語音識別模型(基於官方釋出音訊)機器轉寫,可能有識別錯誤,人名與數字請以音訊為準。
[00:00:00] The following is a conversation with Michael Stephens, the creator of Jesus, one of the most popular educational YouTube channels in the world, with over 15 million subscribers and over one point seven billion views, his videos often ask and answer questions that are both profound and entertaining, spanning topics from physics to psychology. Popular questions include what if everyone jumped at once or what if the sun disappeared, or why are things creepy? Or What if the earth stops spinning as part of his channel? [00:00:34] He created Three Seasons of Minefield, a series that explored human behavior. His curiosity and passion are contagious and inspiring to millions of people. And so, as an educator, his impact and contribution to the world is truly immeasurable. This is the Artificial Intelligence Podcast. If you enjoy it, subscribe. I need to give our stars an Apple podcast support on Patrón or simply connect with me on Twitter. Àlex Friedman spelled F.R. Eyed Man. I recently started doing ads at the end of the introduction. [00:01:08] I'll do one or two minutes after introducing the episode and never any ads in the middle that break the flow of the conversation. I hope that works for you and doesn't hurt the listening experience. The show is presented by Kashyap, the number one finance app in the App Store. I personally use cash, have to send money to friends, but you can also use it to buy, sell and deposit Bitcoin. And Just Seconds Cash Up also has a new investing feature. [00:01:33] You can buy fractions of a stock, say one dollar's worth no matter what the stock prices. Brokerage services are provided by Cash Up Investing, a subsidiary of Square and member SIPC. I'm excited to be working with cash out to support one of my favorite organizations called First Best known for their first robotics and Lego competitions. They educate and inspire hundreds of thousands of students and over one hundred and ten countries and have a perfect rating. And Charity Navigator, which means the donated money is used for maximum effectiveness. [00:02:04] When you get cash out from the App Store or Google Play and Use Code Lux podcast, you'll get ten dollars in cash. I will also donate ten dollars to First, which again is an organization that I've personally seen inspire girls and boys to dream of engineering a better world. And now here's my conversation with Michael Stephens. One of your deeper interests is psychology, understanding human behavior. You've pointed out how messy, stunning human behavior is, and it's far from the scientific rigor of something like physics, for example. [00:02:57] How do you think we can take psychology from where it's been in the 20th century to something more like what the physicist theoretical physicists are doing, something precise, something rigorous? [00:03:10] Well, we we could do it by finding the physical foundations of psychology. Right. [00:03:18] If if all of our emotions and moods and feelings and behaviors are the result of mechanical behaviors of atoms and molecules in our brains, then can we find correlations? Perhaps chaos makes that really difficult. And the uncertainty principle and all these things like we can't know the position and velocity of every single quantum state in a brain, probably. But I think that if we can get to that point with psychology, then we can start to think about consciousness in a physical and and mathematical way. [00:03:57] When we ask questions like, well, what is self reference? How can you think about yourself thinking? What are some mathematical structures that could bring that about? [00:04:09] There's ideas of in terms of consciousness and breaking it down into physics. There's ideas of Sikhism where people believe that whatever consciousness is is a fundamental part of reality. It's almost like a physics law. Do you think what's your views on consciousness? Do you think it has this deep part of reality or is it something that's deeply human, constructed by us humans? [00:04:38] Start nice and light? Yeah, and I think I ask you today has actually proven answer, so we just hypothesize. [00:04:46] So, yeah, I mean, I should clarify, this is all speculation and I'm not an expert in any of these topics and I'm not God. But I think that consciousness is probably something that can be fully explained within the laws of physics. I think that our bodies and brains and and the universe and at the quantum level is so rich and complex, I'd be surprised if we couldn't find a room for consciousness there. And why should we be conscious? [00:05:22] Why are we aware of ourselves? [00:05:23] That is a very strange and interesting and important question. And I think for the next few thousand years, we're going to have to believe in answers purely on faith. But my guess is that we will find that, you know, within the configuration space of possible arrangements of the universe, there are some that contain memories of others. It literally Julian Barber calls them time capsule states where you're like, yeah, not only do I have a scratch on my arm, but also this state of the universe also contains a memory in my head of being scratched by my cat three days ago. [00:06:05] And for some reason, those kinds of states of the universe are more plentiful or more likely when you see those states, the ones with the contained memories of his past or ones that contain memories of his past and have degrees of consciousness. [00:06:22] Just the first part, because I think the consciousness then emerges from the fact that a state of the universe that contains fragments or memories of other states is one where you're going to feel like there's time, you're going to feel like, yeah, things and the happened in the past. And I don't know what will happen in the future because these states don't contain information about the future. For some reason, those kind of states are either more common, more plentiful, or you can use the anthropic principle and just say, well, they're extremely rare, but until you are in one or if you are in one, then you can ask questions like you're asking me on this podcast. [00:07:06] Why questions? [00:07:07] Yeah, it's like, why are we conscious? Well, because if we weren't, we wouldn't be asking why we were. You've kind of implied that you have a sense, again, hypothesis theorizing that the universe is deterministic. [00:07:22] What's your thoughts about free will? Do you think of the universe is deterministic in the sense that it's unrolling in particular, like there's it's operating under a specific set of physical laws. And when you have the set, the initial conditions, it will unroll in the exact same way in our particular line of the universe every time. That is a very useful way to think about the universe. It's done as well. It's brought us to the moon. It's brought us to where we are today. [00:07:51] Right. [00:07:53] I would not say that I believe in determinism in that kind of an absolute form or actually I just don't care. [00:08:02] Maybe it's true, but I'm not going to live my life like it is. What in your sense? [00:08:07] Because you've studied kind of how we humans think of the world. [00:08:12] What's in your view is the difference between our perception, like how we think the world is and reality? Do you think there's a huge gap there? Like, we delude ourselves that the whole thing is an illusion, just everything about human psychology, the way we see things and how things actually are, all the things you've studied. [00:08:31] What's your sense? How big is the gap between reality? Well, again, purely speculative. I think that we will never know the answer. We cannot know the answer. There is no experiment to find an answer to that question. Everything we experience is an event in our brain. When I look at a cat, I'm not even I can't prove that there's a cat there. All I am experiencing is the perception of a cat inside my own brain. [00:08:59] I am only a witness to the events of my mind. I think it is very useful to infer that if I witness the event of Cat in my head, it's because I'm looking at a cat that is literally there and it has its own feelings and motivations and should be pet and given food and water and love. I think that's the way you should live your life. But whether or not we live in a simulation of a brain in a vat, I don't know. [00:09:30] Do you care? I don't really. Well, I care because it's a fascinating question and it's a fantastic way to get people excited about all kinds of topics physics, psychology, consciousness, philosophy. But at the end of the day, what would the difference be if you the cat needs to be fed at the end of the day, otherwise it'll be a dead cat. Right. But if it's not even a real cat, then it's just like a video game cat and. [00:09:58] Right. So what's the difference between killing a a digital cat in a video game because of neglect versus a real cat? It seems very different to us psychologically. Like I don't really feel bad about, oh, my gosh, I forgot to feed my Tamagotchi. Right. But I would feel terrible if I forgot to feed my actual cats. So can you just touch on the topic of simulation? Do you find this thought experiment that we're living in simulation, useful, inspiring, a constructive of any kind of way? [00:10:28] Do you think it's ridiculous? Do you think it could be true or is it just a useful thought experiment? I think it is extremely useful as a thought experiment because it makes sense to everyone, especially as we see virtual reality and computer games getting more and more complex. You're not talking to an audience in like Newton's time where you're like imagine of a clock that has mechanics in it that are so complex that it can create love and everyone's like now. [00:10:59] But today you really start to feel, you know, man, at what point is this little robot friend of mine going to be like someone I don't want to cancel plans with, you know? And so it's a great the thought experiment of do we live in a simulation? Am I a brain in a vat that has just been given electrical impulses from some nefarious other beings? So that I believe that I live on Earth and that I have a body and all of this and the fact that you can't prove it either way is a fantastic way to introduce people to some of the deepest questions. [00:11:37] So you mentioned a little, buddy, that you would want to cancel an appointment with. So that's a lot of our conversations. That's from my researches artificial intelligence. And I apologize, but you're such a fun person to ask these big questions with. [00:11:53] Well, I hope I can give some answers that are interesting. [00:11:57] Well, because because of you've sharpened your brain's ability to explore some of the most some of the questions that many scientists are actually afraid of even touching, which is fascinating. I think you're in that sense ultimately a great scientist through this process of sharpening your brain. Well, I don't know if I am a scientist. I think, you know, science is a way of knowing. And there are a lot of questions I investigate that are not scientific questions on unlike mind field, we have definitely done scientific experiments and studies that had hypotheses and all of that. [00:12:35] But, you know, not to be too, like, precious about what does the word science mean. But I think I would just describe myself as curious and I hope that that curiosity is contagious. So to you, the scientific method is deeply connected to science because your curiosity took you to asking questions to me, asking a good question, even if you feel society feels it's not a question within the reach of science. [00:13:03] Currently, to me, asking the question is the biggest step of the scientific process. The scientific method is the second part and that maybe what traditionally is called science. But to me, asking the questions, being brave enough to ask the questions, being curious and not constrained by what you're supposed to think is is just true, what it means to be a scientist. It's certainly a huge part of what it means to be a human. If I were to say, you know what, I don't believe in forces, I think that when I push on a massive object, a ghost leaves my body and enters the object I'm pushing. [00:13:42] And these ghosts happen to just get really lazy when they're around massive things. And that's why articles may. Oh, and by the way, the laziness of the ghost is in proportion to the mass of the objects. So prove me wrong. Every experiment. Well, you can never find the ghost. And so none of that theory is scientific. But once I start saying, can I see the ghost? Why should there be a ghost? And if there aren't ghosts, what might I expect? [00:14:10] And I start to do different tests to see is this falsifiable? Are there things that should happen? If there are ghosts? Throw the things that shouldn't happen. And do they? You know, what do I observe now? I'm thinking scientifically, I don't think of science as wow, a picture of a black hole. That's just a photograph. That's an image. That's data. That's a sensory and perception experience. Science is how we got that and how we understand it and how we believe in it and how we reduce our uncertainty around what it means. [00:14:40] But I would say deeply within the scientific community and sometimes disheartened by the elite ism of the thinking, the sort of not allowing yourself to think outside the box. [00:14:53] So allowing the possibility of going against the conventions of science, I think is is a beautiful part of some of the greatest scientists in history. [00:15:03] I don't know. I I'm impressed by scientists every day and revolutions in our knowledge of the world occur. Only under very special circumstances, it is very scary to challenge conventional thinking and risky because let's go back to a liederman ego, right? If you just say, you know what, I believe in the spirits of my body and all forces are actually created by invisible creatures that that that transfer themselves between objects. [00:15:39] If you ridicule every other theory and say that you're what you're, you're correct, then ego gets involved and you just don't go anywhere. But the fundamentally the question of, well, what is a force is incredibly important. We need to have that conversation, but it needs to be done in this very political way of like let's be respectful of everyone and let's realize that we're all learning together and not shutting out other people. And so when you look at a lot of revolutionary ideas, they were not accepted right away. [00:16:14] And, you know, Galileo had a couple of problems with the authorities and later thinkers. [00:16:21] Descartes was like, all right, look, I kind of agree with Galileo, but I'm going to have to not say that. [00:16:28] Yeah, I'll have to create and invent and write different things that keep me from being in trouble. But we still slowly made progress. [00:16:34] Revolutions are difficult in all forms and certainly in science. Before we get to a topic of revolutionary ideas, let me ask and a Reddit AMA you said that is the Earth Flat is one of the favorite questions you've ever answered. [00:16:48] Speaking of revolutionary ideas, so your video on that people should definitely watch is really fascinating. [00:16:56] Can you elaborate why you enjoyed answering this question so much? Yeah, well, it's a long story. [00:17:02] I remember a long time ago I was living in New York at the time, so I had to have been like twenty nine or something. [00:17:10] I visited the flat earth forums and this was before the flat earth theories became as sort of mainstream as they are, say to the dumb question forms online forums. [00:17:23] Yeah, the flat Earth Society. I don't know if it's dotcom rogue, but I went there and I was reading, you know, their ideas and how they responded to typical criticisms of, well, the earth isn't flat because what about this and. I could not tell, and I mentioned this in my video, I couldn't tell how many of these. Community members actually believe the earth was flat or were just trolling, and I realized that the fascinating thing is how do we know anything and what makes for a good belief versus a maybe not so tenable or good belief. [00:18:02] And so that's really what my video about Earth being flat is about. It's about, look, there are a lot of reasons the earth is probably not flat, but a flat earth believer can respond to every single one of them. But it's all in an ad hoc way. And all of these all their rebuttals aren't necessarily going to form a cohesive, non contradictory whole. And I believe that's the episode where I talk about Occam's Razor and Newton's flaming laser sword. [00:18:34] And then I say, well, you know what? Wait a second. We know that. [00:18:39] Space contracts as you move, and so to a particle moving near the speed of light towards Earth, Earth would be flattened in the direction of that particles travel. [00:18:49] So to them, earth is flat, like we need to be, you know, really generous to even wild ideas, because they're all thinking. [00:19:00] They're all the communication of ideas. And what else can it mean to be a human? [00:19:05] And I think I'm a huge fan of the flat earth theory, quote unquote, in the sense that to me feels harmless to explore some of the questions of what it means to believe something, what it means to explore the edge of science and so on. It's because it's a harm. It's to me nobody gets hurt whether the earth is flat or around, not literally, but I mean intellectually when we're just having a conversation that said again to leftism, I find that scientists roll their eyes way too fast on the flat earth. [00:19:38] The kind of dismissal that I see to this even notion they haven't like, sat down and say, what are the arguments that are being proposed? [00:19:47] And this is why these arguments are incorrect. So, you know, that should be something that scientists should always do, even to the most sort of ideas that seem ridiculous. [00:19:59] So I like this is it's almost it's almost my tests when I ask people what they think about Fiderer theories as to how quickly they roll their eyes. [00:20:08] Well, yeah. I mean, let me go on record here and say that the earth is not flat. It is a three dimensional spheroid. [00:20:18] However, I don't know that and it has not been proven. Science doesn't prove anything. It just reduces uncertainty. Could the Earth actually be flat? [00:20:30] Extremely unlikely. Yes, extremely unlikely. And so it is a ridiculous notion if we care about how probable and certain our ideas might be. [00:20:43] But I think it's incredibly important to talk about science in that way and to not resort to. [00:20:50] Well, it's true. [00:20:53] It's true in the same way that a mathematical theorem is true. [00:20:58] And I think we're kind of like being pretty pedantic about defining this stuff. But like, sure, I could take a rocket ship out and I could orbit Earth and look at it and it would look like a ball. Right. [00:21:13] But I still can't prove that I'm not living in a simulation, that I'm not a brain in a VAT, that this isn't all an elaborate ruse created by some technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilization. Right. So there's always some doubt and that's fine. [00:21:27] That's exciting. And I think that kind of doubt, practically speaking, is useful when you start talking about quantum mechanics or string theory, sort of it helps to me that kind of little adds a little spice into the thinking process of scientists. So, I mean, just just as a thought experiment, your video kind of OK, say the earth is flat. What would the forces, when you walk about this flat earth feel like to the human? [00:21:55] That's a really nice thought experiment to think about. Right. [00:21:57] Because what's really nice about it is that it's it's a funny thought experiment, but you actually wind up accidentally learning a whole lot about gravity and about relativity and geometry. And I think that's really the goal of what I'm doing. [00:22:13] I'm not trying to convince people that the earth is round. I feel like you either believe that it is or you don't. And that's, you know, how can I change that? What I can do is change how you think and how you are introduced to important concepts like, well, how does gravity operate? [00:22:30] Oh, it's all about this center of mass of an object. So right on a sphere, we're all pulled towards the middle, essentially the centroid geometrically. But on a disk, you're going to be pulled at a weird angle if you're out near the edge. And that stuff's fascinating. [00:22:45] Yeah. [00:22:45] And to me, that's those that that particular video opened my eyes even more to what gravity is. [00:22:54] It's just a really nice visualization tool of because you always imagined gravity was spheres with masses that are spheres. Yeah. In imagining gravity on masses that are not spherical some some other shape. [00:23:06] But here a plate, a flat object is really interesting and it makes you really kind of visualize in a three dimensional way the force. Yeah. [00:23:15] Even if a disk the size of earth would be impossible, I think anything larger than like the moon basically needs to be a sphere because gravity will round it out. So you can't have a teacup the size of Jupiter, right? There's a great book about a teacup in the universe that I highly recommend. I don't remember the author, I forget her name, but it's a wonderful book. So look it up. I think it's called Teacup in the Universe. [00:23:47] Still linger on this point briefly. Your videos are generally superb. People love them, right? [00:23:53] If you look at the sort of number of likes versus dislikes, it's this measure of beauty is incredible. And as do I. [00:24:02] But this particular flat earth video has more dislikes than usual. [00:24:08] What what do you on that topic in general, what's your sense? How big is the community, not just who believes in flat earth, but so the entire scientific community that naturally distrust scientists in a way that's that's not an open minded way, like really just distrust scientists. Like they're bought by some the kind of mechanism of the some kind of bigger system is trying to manipulate human beings. What's your sense of the size of that community? [00:24:40] You're one of the sort of great educators in the world that educates people on the exciting power of science. [00:24:50] So you're kind of up against this community. What's your sense of it? I really have no idea. [00:24:58] I haven't looked at the likes and dislikes on the flat Earth video, and so I would wonder if it has a greater percentage of dislikes than usual. [00:25:08] Is that because of people disliking it? Because they think that it's a video about Earth being flat and they find that ridiculous and they dislike it without even really watching much? Do they wish that I was more like dismissive of the theories? [00:25:25] Yeah, I know there are a lot of response videos that kind of go through the episode and are pro flat earth. But I don't know if there's a larger community of unorthodox thinkers today than there have been in the past. And I just want to not lose them. I want them to keep listening and thinking and by calling them all, you know, idiots or something, that is no good because how idiotic are they really? I mean. The earth isn't a sphere at all, like we know that it's an oblate spheroid and that in and of itself is really interesting and I investigated that in which way is down where I'm like really down does not point towards the center of the earth. [00:26:13] It's it points in a different direction, depending on what's underneath you and what's above you and what's around you. [00:26:19] The whole universe is tugging on me. [00:26:22] And then you also show that gravity is non-uniform across the globe. Like if you there's just, I guess, thought experiment. [00:26:31] If you build a bridge all the way in all the way across the earth and then just knock out its pillars, what would happen would be you describe how would be like a very chaotic, unstable thing that's happening because gravity is non-uniform all throughout the earth. [00:26:48] Yeah. In small spaces like the ones we work in, we can essentially assume that gravity is uniform, but it's not. It is weaker the further you are from the earth. [00:26:59] And it also is going to be it's radially pointed towards the middle of the earth. So a really large object will feel tidal forces because of that, non-uniform this. And we can take advantage of that with satellites. Right. Gravitational induced talk. It's a great way to align your satellite without having to use fuel or any kind of, you know, engine. So let's jump back to it. [00:27:24] Artificial intelligence. What's your thought of the state of where we are at currently with artificial intelligence? And what do you think it takes to build human level or super human level intelligence? [00:27:34] I don't know what intelligence means. That's my biggest question at the moment. And it's I think because my instinct is always to go, well, what are the foundations here of our discussion? What does it mean to be intelligent? How do we measure the intelligence of an artificial machine or a program or something? [00:27:54] Can we say that humans are intelligent because there's also a fascinating field of how do you measure human intelligence? Of course. But if we just take that for granted, saying that the whatever this fuzzy intelligence thing we're talking about, humans kind of have it, what would be a good test for you? [00:28:13] The Turing developed test, the natural language conversation, would that impress you, a chatbot that you'd want to hang out and have a beer with of, you know, a bunch of hours or have dinner plans with? [00:28:25] Would is that a good test, natural energy conversation? Is there something else that would impress you or is that also to. Oh, yeah, I'm pretty much impressed by everything. [00:28:33] I think that if I remember if there was a chat bot that was like incredibly, I don't know, really had a personality. And I if I didn't see the Turing test right. Like if I'm unable to tell that it's not another person. But then I was shown a bunch of wires and mechanical components and it was like, that's actually what you're talking to. [00:28:59] I don't know if I would feel that guilty destroying it. I would feel guilty because clearly it's well-made and it's a really cool thing. It's like destroying a really cool car or something. But I would not feel like I was a murderer. So, yeah. At what point what? I start to feel that way. And this is such a subjective psychological question. [00:29:19] If you give it movement or if you have it, act as though or perhaps really feel pain as I destroy it and scream and resist, then I'd feel bad. [00:29:32] Yes. If we put and let's just say act like it's in pain. [00:29:37] So if you just have a robot that screams just like moans in pain, if you kick it, yeah. That immediately just puts in a class that we humans it becomes if we anthropomorphize it almost immediately, it becomes human psychology question as opposed to sort of a physics question. Right. [00:29:58] I think that's a really good instinct to have. [00:29:59] You know, if the robot screams, screams and moans, even if you don't believe that it has the mental experience, the qualia of pain and suffering, I think it's still a good instinct to say, you know what, I'd rather not heard it. [00:30:16] The problem is that instinct can get us in trouble because then robots can manipulate that. And, you know, there's different kinds of robots as robots like the Facebook and the YouTube algorithm that recommends video and they can manipulate in the same kind of way. Well, let me ask you just to stick on artificial intelligence for a second. Do you have worries about existential threats from AI or potential threats from other technologies like nuclear weapons that could potentially destroy life on Earth or damage it to a very significant degree? [00:30:48] Yeah, of course I do. Especially the weapons that we create. There's all kinds of famous ways to think about this. And one is that, wow, what if we don't see advanced? Alien civilizations because of the danger of a technology, what if we reach a point and I think there's a Channel 40 to watches, I wish I remember the name of the channel, but he delves into this this kind of limit of maybe once you discover radioactivity and it's power, you've reached this important hurdle. [00:31:24] And the reason the skies are so empty is that no one's ever managed to survive as a civilization once they have that destructive power. And when it comes to I, I, I'm not really very worried because I think that there are plenty of other people that are already worried enough. And oftentimes these worries are just they just get in the way of progress. And there are questions that we should address later. And, you know, I think I talk about this in my interview with the self-driving autonomous vehicle guy, as I think it is a bonus scene from. [00:32:07] The Trolley Problem episode, and I'm like, wow, what should a car do if, like, this really weird contrived scenario happens where it has to like, swerve and save the driver but kill a kid? And he's like, well, you know, what would a human do? And if we resist technological progress because we're worried about all of these little issues, then it gets in the way and we shouldn't avoid those problems, but we shouldn't allow them to be stumbling blocks to advancement. [00:32:35] So the, you know, folks like Sam Harris or Elon Musk are saying that we're not worried enough. So worried should not paralyze technological progress. But we're sort of marching technologies marching forward without the key scientists, the developing in technology, worrying about the overnight, having some effects that would be very detrimental to society. So sort of to push back on your thought of the idea that there's enough people worrying about it. Elon Musk says there's not enough people worrying about it. [00:33:11] That's the kind of balance is you know, it's the folks who are really focused on nuclear deterrence are saying there's not enough people worried about nuclear deterrence. Right. So it's an interesting question of what is a good threshold of people to worry about these. And if it's too many people that are worried, you're right. It'll be like the Presswood overreport on in. [00:33:35] There'll be technological halp, technological progress, if not enough, then we can march straight ahead into that abyss that human beings might be destined for with the problems. That analogy. Yeah, I don't know what the right balance is of how many people should be worried and how worried should they be. But we're always worried about new technology. You know, we know that Plato was worried about the written word is like we shouldn't teach people to write because then they won't use their minds to remember things. [00:34:05] There have been concerns over technology and it's advancement since the beginning of recorded history. And so, you know, I think, however, these conversations are really important to have because, again, we learn a lot about ourselves. If we're really scared of some kind of A.I., like coming into being that is conscious or whatever and can self replicate, we already do that every day. It's called humans being born. They're not artificial. They're they're humans, but they're intelligent. [00:34:35] And I don't want to live in a world where we're worried about babies being born because what if they become evil, right? What if they become mean people? What if they what if they're thieves? Maybe we should just like what, not have babies born. Like maybe we shouldn't create AI. It's like, you know, we will want to have safeguards in place in the same way that we know look, kid could be born, that becomes some kind of evil person. [00:35:01] But we have laws right in as possible that would advantage genetics in general to be able to you know, it's a scary thought to say that, you know, this my child, if born, would be would have an eighty three percent chance of being a psychopath. Right. Like being able to if it's something genetic, if there's some sort of and would to use that information, what to do with that information is a difficult ethical. [00:35:36] Yeah. I'd like to find an answer that isn't well let's not have them live know. I'd like to find an answer that is well, all human life is worthy. And if you have an eighty three percent chance of becoming a psychopath, well, you still deserve dignity and you still deserve to be treated well. And you still have rights, at least at this part of the world, at least in America. There's a respect for individual life in that way. [00:36:06] That's more to me. But again, I'm in this bubble is a beautiful thing. But there's other cultures where individual human life is not that important, that we're a society. So I was born in the Soviet Union where the strength of nation and society together is more important than any one particular individual. So it's an interesting also notion. The stories we tell ourselves, I like the one where individuals matter, but it's unclear that that was what the future holds. [00:36:36] Well, yeah, I mean, let me even throw this out. Like, what is artificial intelligence? How can it be artificial? I really think that we get pretty obsessed and stuck on the idea that there is something that is a wild human, a pure human organism without technology. But I don't think that's a real thing. I think that humans and human technology are one organism. Look at my glasses, OK? If an alien came down and saw me, would they? [00:37:05] Necessarily know that this is an invention that I don't grow these organically from my body, they wouldn't know that right away. And the written word and spoons and cups, these are all pieces of technology. We are not alone as an organism. And so the technology we create, whether it be video games or artificial intelligence that can self replicate and hate us, it's actually all the same organism. When you're in a car, where do you end? In the car begin? [00:37:37] It seems like a really easy question to answer, but the more you think about it, the more you realize, wow, we are in this symbiotic relationship with our inventions and there are plenty of people who are worried about it and there should be. But it's it's inevitable. And I think the even just us think of ourselves as individual individual intelligences may be a silly notion because, you know, it's much better to think of the entirety of human civilization living all living organisms on Earth as a single living organism. [00:38:10] Right. As a single intelligent creature, because. Right. Everything is intertwined. Everything is deeply connected. So imagine you must go see you're a curious lover of science. [00:38:23] What do you think of the efforts that Elon Musk is doing with space exploration, with electric vehicles, with autopilot sort of getting into the space of autonomous vehicles with boring underlay and NewLink trying to communicate brain machine interfaces, communicate between machines and human brains? [00:38:46] What's really inspiring, I mean, look at the the fandom that he's amassed. It's it's not common for someone like that to have such a following and so endearing nerd. [00:39:00] Yeah. So it's really it's really exciting. But I also think that a lot of responsibility comes with that kind of power. So, like, if I met him, I would love to hear how he feels about the responsibility he has. When when there are people who are such a fan of your ideas and your dreams and share them so closely with you. You have a lot of power, and he didn't always have that, you know, he wasn't born as Elon Musk. [00:39:28] Well, he was, but well, he was named that later. But the point is that that that I want to know the psychology of becoming a figure like him. I don't even know how to phrase the question. Right. [00:39:42] But it's a question about what do you do when you're you're following your fans become so, you know, large that it's almost bigger than you. And how do you how do you responsibly manage that? [00:39:58] And maybe it doesn't worry him at all. And that's fine, too. But I'd be really curious. And I think there are a lot of people that go through this when they realize, whoa, there are a lot of eyes on me. There are a lot of people who really take what I say very earnestly and and take it to heart and will defend me and who that's that's that that can be dangerous. And and you have to be responsible with it, both in terms of impact on society and psychologically for the individual. [00:40:28] Just just the burden psychologically and on the on. Yeah. Yeah. How does he how does he think about that part of his his persona? Well, let me throw that right back at you, because in some ways you're just a funny guy that got in the humongous following. Funny guy with a curiosity. [00:40:51] You got a huge following. [00:40:53] How do you psychologically deal with the responsibility? In many ways, you ever reach in many ways bigger than Elon Musk? What is your what is the burden that you feel in educating being one of the biggest educators in the world where everybody's listening to you? [00:41:10] And actually everybody, most of the world that uses YouTube for education material trust you as a source of good, strong scientific thinking. It's a burden. And I try to approach it with a lot of humility in sharing. Like I'm not out there doing a lot of scientific experiments. I am sharing the work of real scientists and I'm celebrating their work and the way that they think and the power of curiosity. But I want to make it clear at all times that, like, look, we don't know all the answers and I don't think we're ever going to reach a point where we're like, wow, and there you go. [00:41:56] That's the universe. It's this equation. You plug in some conditions or whatever, and you do the math and you know what's going to happen tomorrow. I don't think we're going to reach that point. But I, I, I think that there is a tendency to sometimes believe in science and become elitist and become, I don't know, hard when in reality it should humble you and make you feel smaller. I think there's something very beautiful about feeling very, very small and very weak and to feel that you need other people. [00:42:27] So I try to keep that in mind and say, look, thanks for watching. Besos is not I'm not besos you are. When I start the episodes, I say, hey, this was Michael here. Besos and Michael are actually a different thing in my mind. I don't know if that's always clear, but yeah, I have to approach it that way because it's not about me. Yeah, so it's not even you're not feeling the responsibility, you're just sort of plugging into this big thing that is scientific exploration of our reality. [00:42:56] And you're a voice that represents a bunch, but you're just plugging into this big visus ball that others, millions of others are plugged into. [00:43:06] Yeah. And I'm just hoping to encourage curiosity and responsible thinking and an embracement of of doubt and being OK with that. So next week, talking to Christoph's goodrow, I'm not sure if you familiar who he is, but he's the VP of engineering, head of the quote unquote YouTube algorithm or the search and discovery. [00:43:33] Yeah. [00:43:33] Let me ask first high level. Jeff, do you have a question for him that if you can get an honest answer, that you would ask, but more generally, how do you think about the YouTube algorithm that drives some of the motivation behind not know some of the design decisions you make as you ask and answer some of the questions you do? How would you improve this algorithm in your mind in general? So just what would you ask him? And outside of that, how would you like to see the algorithm improve? [00:44:09] Well, I think of the algorithm as a mirror. It reflects what people put in. [00:44:15] And we don't always like what we see in that mirror from the individual mirror to the individual merits or the society both. [00:44:23] In the aggregate, it's reflecting back what people on average want to watch. And when you see things being recommended to you, it's reflecting back what it thinks you want to see. And specifically, I would guess that it's not just what you want to see, but what you will click on and what you will watch some of and stay on YouTube because of. I don't think that is only guessing, but I don't think that YouTube cares if you only watch like a second of a video, as long as the next thing you do is open another video. [00:45:02] If you close the app or close the site, that's a problem for them because they're not a subscription platform. They're not like, look, you're giving us twenty bucks a month no matter what. So who cares? They need you to watch and spend time there and see ads. So one of the things I'm curious about, whether they do consider longer term sort of develop your longer term development as a human being, which I think ultimately will make you feel better about using YouTube in the long term and allowing you to stick with it for longer. [00:45:36] Because even if you feed the dopamine rush in the short term and you keep clicking on cat videos, the eventually you sort of wake up from a drug and say, I need to quit this. [00:45:47] So I wonder how much they're trying to optimize for the long term. [00:45:50] Because when I look at the you know, your videos aren't exactly a sort of no offense, but they're not the most clickable. They're both the most clickable. And I feel I watched the entire thing and I feel better human after I watch it. [00:46:06] Right. [00:46:06] So, like, they're not just optimizing for the click ability because I hope so. [00:46:15] My thought is, how do you think of it and does it affect your own content, like how deep you go, how profound you explore the directions and so on? [00:46:23] I've been really lucky in that I don't worry too much about the algorithm. I mean, look at my thumbnails. I don't really go too wild with them and with mine field where I'm in partnership with YouTube on the thumbnails, I'm often like, let's pull this back. [00:46:39] Let's be mysterious. Usually I'm just trying to do what everyone else is not doing. So if everyone's doing crazy Photoshop, what kind of thumbnails? I'm like, what if the thumbnails just align? And what if the title is just a word? [00:46:54] And I kind of feel like all of the VISUS channels have cultivated an audience that expects that. And so they would rather, Jake, make a video that's just called Stain's than one called I explored Stain's shocking. [00:47:07] Yeah, but there are other audiences out there that want that. And, you know, I think most people kind of want what you see the algorithm favoring, which is mainstream traditional celebrity and news kind of information. I mean, that's what makes YouTube really different than other streaming platforms. [00:47:23] No one's like what's going on in the world. Open up Netflix to find out. But you do open up Twitter to find that out. You open up Facebook, you can open up YouTube because you'll see that the trending videos are like what happened amongst the traditional mainstream people in different industries. And that's what's being shown. And it's it's not necessarily YouTube saying we want that to be what you see. It's. That's what people click on when they see Ariana Grande, you know, reads a love letter from, like her high school sweetheart, they're like, I want to see that. [00:47:54] And when they see a video from me that's got some lines in math and it's called Law and Causes, they're like, well, I mean, I'm just on the bus. Like, I don't have time to dive into a whole lesson. [00:48:05] So, you know, before you get super mad at YouTube, you should say really they're just reflecting back human behavior. [00:48:12] Is there something you would improve about the algorithm, knowing, of course, that as far as we're concerned, it's a black box, so we don't know how it works? [00:48:21] Right. [00:48:21] And I don't think that even anyone at YouTube really knows what it's doing. They know what they've tweaked. But then it learns, I think, that it learns and it decides how to behave. And sometimes they're the YouTube employees are left going, I don't know, maybe we should, like, change the value of how much it worries about watch time and maybe it should worry more about something. I don't know. [00:48:42] But I mean, I would like to see I don't know what they're doing and not doing well. [00:48:48] Is there a conversation that you think they should be having just internally, whether they're having it or not? Is there something should they be thinking about the long term future? Should they be thinking about educational content and whether that's educating about what just happened in the world today, news or education content like what you're providing, which is asking big sort of timeless questions about how the way the world works? [00:49:13] Well, it's interesting. What should they think about? Because it's called YouTube, not our tube. And that's why I think they have so many phenomenal educational creators. Yes. You don't have shows like three Blue, One Brown or Physics Girl or Looking Glass Universe or up an atom or brain scoop or I mean, I could go on and on. They aren't on Amazon Prime and Netflix and and they don't have commissioned shows from those platforms. It's all organically happening because there are people out there that want to share their passion for learning, that want to share their curiosity. [00:49:49] And YouTube could, you know, promote those kinds of shows more. But like, first of all. They probably wouldn't get as many clicks, and YouTube needs to make sure that the average user is always clicking and staying on the site, they could still promote it more for the good of society. But then we're making some really weird claims about what's good for society, because I think that cat videos are also an incredibly important part of what it means to be a human. [00:50:17] I mentioned this quote before from Unamuno about, look, I've seen a cat like estimate distances and calculated jump, you know, more often than I've seen a cat cry. And so things that that play with our emotions and make us feel things can be cheesy and can feel cheap, but like, man, that's very human. And so even the dumbest vlog is still so important that I don't think it I have a better claim to take it spot than it has to have that spot. [00:50:46] So it puts a mirror to us, the beautiful parts, the ugly parts, the shallow parts, the deep parts. You're right. [00:50:53] What I would like to see is, you know, I I miss the days when engaging with content on YouTube helped push it into my subscribers timelines. It used to be that when I liked a video, say, from potassium, it would show up in the feed on the front page of the app or the website of my subscribers. And I knew that if I liked a video, I could send it one hundred thousand views or more. That no longer is true, but I think that was a good user experience when I subscribed to someone. [00:51:25] When I'm following them, I want to see more of what they like. I want them to also curate the feed for me. And I think that Twitter and Facebook are doing that in also some ways that are kind of annoying. But I would like that to happen more. And I think we would see communities being stronger on YouTube if it was that way instead of YouTube going well, technically, Michael, like this potassium video, but people are way more likely to click on carpool karaoke. [00:51:50] So I don't even care who they are. [00:51:51] Just give them that, not say anything against carpool karaoke. [00:51:55] That is a extremely important part of our society, what it means to be a human on earth, you know, but I'll say it sucks, but. [00:52:05] Yeah, but a lot of people would disagree with you and they should be able to see as much of that as they want. And I think even people who don't think they like it should still be really aware of it because it's such an important thing and such an influential thing. [00:52:17] But yeah, I just wish that like new channels, I discover that I subscribe to I wish that my subscribers found out about that, because especially in the education community, a rising tide lifts all boats. If you watch a video from no file, you're just more likely to want to watch an episode from me, whether it be on Visus one or ding, it's not it's not competitive in the way that traditional TV was where it's like, well if you tune into that show it means you're not watching mine because they both air at the same time. [00:52:43] So helping each other out through collaborations takes a lot of work. But just through engaging commented on their videos, like in their videos, subscribing to them, whatever that I would love to see become easier and more powerful. [00:52:58] So a quick and impossibly deep question. Last question about mortality. You've spoken about death as an interesting topic. Do you think about your own mortality? [00:53:12] Yeah, every day. It's really scary. [00:53:16] So what do you think is the meaning of life that mortality makes very explicit. [00:53:24] So why are you here on Earth, Michael? What's the point of this whole thing? [00:53:35] What you know, what does mortality in the context of the whole universe make you realize about yourself? [00:53:43] Just you, Michael Stevens? Oh, well, it makes me realize that I am destined to become a notion. I'm destined to become a memory, and we can extend life. I think there's really exciting things being done to extend life. But we we still don't know how to, like, you know, protect you from some accident that could happen, you know, some unforeseen thing. Maybe we could, like, save my connectome and, like, recreate my consciousness digitally. [00:54:13] But even that could it could be lost if it's stored on a physical medium or something. So basically, I just think that. [00:54:24] Embracing and realizing how cool it is that like someday I will just be an idea and there won't be a Michael anymore that can be like, no, that's not what I meant. [00:54:33] It'll just be what people like. They have to guess what I meant and they'll remember me. And how I live on it, as that memory will. [00:54:43] Well, maybe not even be who I wanted to be, but there's something powerful about that and there's something powerful about letting future people run the show themselves. I think I'm glad to get out of their way at some point and say, all right, it's your world now. [00:55:00] So you, the physical entity, Michael, has, have ripple effects in the space of ideas that far outlives you. Yeah. In ways that you can't control. But nevertheless, fascinating to think. I mean, especially with you, you can imagine an alien species when they finally arrive and destroy. [00:55:17] All of us would watch your videos to try to figure out what were the questions. [00:55:22] But even if they didn't, you know, I still think that there will be ripples. Like when I say memory, I don't specifically mean people remember my name and my birth date and there's a photo of me on Wikipedia, like all that can be lost. But I still would hope that people ask questions and teach concepts and some of the ways that I have found useful and satisfying, if they don't know that I was the one who tried to popularize it, that's fine. [00:55:49] But if Earth was completely destroyed, like burnt to a crisp, everything on it today, what would the universe wouldn't care? Like Jupiter is not going to go. Oh, no. [00:56:04] And that could happen there. [00:56:06] So we do, however, have the power to launch things into space to try to extend how long our memory exists. And what I mean by that is we are recording things about the world and we're learning things and writing stories and all of this and preserving that is truly what I think is the essence of being a human. [00:56:33] We are autobiographers of the universe and we're really good at it. [00:56:38] We're better than fossils, we're better than light spectrum. We're better than any of that. We collect much more detailed memories of what's happening, much better data. And so that should be our legacy. And I hope that that's that's kind of mine, too, in terms of people remembering something or me having some kind of effect. But even if I don't, you can't not have an effect that is not me feeling like I hope that I have this powerful legacy. [00:57:07] It's like no matter who you are, you will. But you also have to embrace the fact that that impact might look really small. And that's OK. One of my favorite quotes is from Test of the d'Urbervilles, and it's along the lines of the measure of your life. Depends on not your external displacement, but your subjective experience. If I am happy and those that I love are happy. Can that be enough, because if so, excellent. I think there's no better place to end it. [00:57:40] Michael, thank you so much. It was an honor to meet you. Thanks for talking. Thank you. [00:57:42] It was a pleasure. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Michael Stephens and thank you to a presenting sponsor cash app download. It is called Lux podcast. You'll get ten dollars and ten dollars will go to First, a STEM education nonprofit that inspires hundreds of thousands of young minds to learn to dream of engineering our future. If you enjoy this podcast. Subscribe on YouTube. Give it five stars, an Apple podcast, support and patron or connect with me on Twitter. [00:58:12] And now let me leave you with some words of wisdom from Albert Einstein. The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existence. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity of life, the marvels structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

本集資源與出處