CT Adult Poll Dance #2

It seems as though a tacit agreement has been reached that, now that Ben has confessed to having weaknesses, they will stick to tech stuff and Ben will be allowed to expound to his heart's delight on the workings of his work, as long as Lex can ask for and get clarification without issue. It feels like a 'T' compromise in an unspoken, and largely unconscious, battle of Se with Ne over violation of PolR. Lex seems very self-possessed and Ben more ingratiating. This new balance does indeed go on for a long time and then Lex expands the focus of the discourse by asking at around 1:53', shortly after Ben mentioned that certain elements had fit together "beautifully": "What to you is the most beautiful aspect of open cog to you personally, some aspect that captivates your imagination, from beauty or power...uh...yeah." It seems not clear, including to Lex, whether he means for aesthetics and power to both be sources of beauty or not, but it's pretty clear he's not Se PolR. Another thing is that his delivery here seems extremely rehearsed (the word anthony had used), like he's repeating by rote (until he flubs it at the end), but he's riffing off of Ben. 

I think it's all involved, Lex's Fi role and his Se tool and also his absolute valuing of Ti, but I think the turning point here was a subconscious low Se blow by Lex. He just kept being made to feel he was putting his foot in his mouth every time he ventured to put forth his own new ideas, and so he kept chuckling along and then...he laughed at the idea of Ben teaching psychology. Technically, consciously he didn't--he laughed at the idea of teaching 'neural nets' in a psychology department. But even I know that all of this stuff fits fine in a psych department. He actually was laughing at Ben, and Ben picked up on it, also probably not really consciously, but that's when Ben got defensive, then nervous, then briefly funerary (deferring to Lex's Fi role), then confessional (ditto), and then their dynamic changed.

But one thing you have to remember is that a supervisee is a beneficiary if the supervisor goes into shadow. Ben did not but the supervision dynamic did, so Lex gave Ben a little lesson in Se. In meat space non-virtual raw power. And I'm pretty sure that's also why power came up again with Lex as handmaiden to beauty when he allowed the discussion to deviate from Tx again. I'm also pretty sure Lex isn't aware of that either but you get that scent of blood again from him with that SeNi gaze intermingled with the aw shucksness of it all. 

This was like reverse supervision the hard way. Lex benefacted Ben to Fi via Se. Se is not conceptual. This started when Lex told him he was inefficient...

Basically, he hurt Ben's feelings. And then they were on equal ground. 

Toward the end of the third hour Ben starts talking about his work with Hanson Robotics. Here he is moderating a debate between his two dolls. Sophia was a sensation when activated in early 2016, and was conferred Saudi Arabian citizenship, which was kinda creepy. Ben doesn't seem to be at ease in front of a live audience.

Ye, this still looks pretty much fake. But the idea of a general, as opposed to specialized, intelligence is what I like about Ben Goertzel. The AIs today are hyper-specialized. How AI works is that essentially, you hardcode a value-system "score metric" into it, and then alter the previous-working/first AI(s) slightly and keep those with the highest score, at the inclusive number of as much as you're willing for serendipity to hit you at the cost of speed, processing and memory to get to that point. This evolutionary system works on some basic software that is inspired by how neurons work, especially in babies.

Through ct, I think it's plausible to argue that at the moment, we still transcend AI, since their value-systems are hard-coded into them. They cannot create their own values. A friend of an infamous TwFP TeSi I met was actually working on AI that could solve the items of the highest validity g test there is, though in my opinion, that's kind of missing the point, as that is still a contrivedly specialized AI at solving the test of g, and I do not think it'd transfer across tasks and new situations.

I am easily lead astray by verbal cues, and distracted by their semantics, so I mostly observe ct visually. So I decided to do a visual nonverbal analysis of "A day in my life | Lex Fridman". 

Morning and Mantra:

0:14 - 1:49 confessional, reading script, particular disposition of hands on lap(fig 1., extrapolated, don't know how it's called), very few expressions, quite controlled hands until 1:49

1:49 - 3:47 abstract hand gestures, 2:07 opening up (to vulnerability?) => gravitas => broken gravitas => gravitas again, 3:04-3:09 reaching into mind for a particularly difficult thing to verbalize(PoLR strategy or Si)

3:47 - 4:42 unignoring Te, elements of Se, 4:42 re-alignment into stone

Watching a video without any audio is quite exhausting, and if I were to watch the whole thing and only then compile my observations, I'd probably not ever reach that stage. So I'm gonna be sending snippets of what I analyze, always with the probability of not following up on it. Right now I am giving myself a break on the analysis. I should probably also develop stamina in doing it.

fig 1.

EDIT: It's not a full ct analysis yet, as I have used ct only in places where I only knew how to describe it with ct. 

No, it's not a word. People (on google search) are playing with it as though it were to name companies and stuff but it's not. We have the word 'obfuscate' but I'm not sure if that's what you mean. 'Obfuscate' has a clearly negative connotation while the 'rendering obscure' of FiNe will often be as a means to elucidation. I think you may just mean 'obscuring'. 'To obfuscate' is more like 'to block' while 'to obscure' is more like 'to conceal'; but with 'holding the neck'...what do you mean?

Also where do you think Lex pushed back and pointed to morality issues before the end?