Do you think we'll have a future with something you call, uh, afterlife? We'll have avatars that mimic increasingly better and better our behavior, our appearance, all that kind of stuff, even though those are perhaps no longer with us. Yes, I mean we need

some information about about them. I mean, think about my father. I have what he wrote. Now, he didn't have a word processor, so he didn't actually write that much, and our memories of him aren't perfect. So how do you even know if you've created

something that's satisfactory? Now you could do a rake Frederick Kurzweil Turing test. He seems like Frederick Kurzweil to me, but the people who remember him like me don't have a perfect memory. Is there such a thing as a perfect

memory? Maybe the whole point is for him to make you feel a certain way. Yeah, well I think that would be the goal. And that's the connection we have with loved ones. It's not really based on a very strict definition of truth. It's more about the experiences we share. Yeah.

And they get more through memory, but ultimately they make us smile. I think we, we definitely can do that, and that would be very worthwhile. So do you think we'll have a world of replicants, of copies? Would there be a bunch of Rakers as well?

Like I could hang out with one. I can download it for five bucks and have a best friend Ray. And, uh, you, the original, you wouldn't even know about it. Um, is that, do you think that world is, um, first of all, do you think that world

is feasible and do you think there's ethical challenges there like how would you feel about me hanging out with a replicant of you and you not knowing about it?  Doesn't strike me as a problem, um, which would you, the original, would you, would that cause a problem for you?

No, I, I would really very much enjoy it.  No, not just hanging out with me, but if somebody's hanging out with you, a replicant of you, well, I think I would start, it sounds exciting, but then what if they uh, start doing better than me

and and take, take over my friend group and then and then I'll because because they may be um, an imperfect copy or there may be more social or these kinds of things and then I become like the old version that's not, not nearly as exciting.

Maybe they're a copy of the best version of me on a good day. Yeah, but if you hang out with a replicant of me and that turned out to be successful, I'd feel proud of that person because it's based on me, so it's, it, but it is a kind of

death of this version of you. Well, not necessarily, I mean you can still be alive right, but and you would be pro, okay, so it's like having kids and you're proud that they've done even more than you were able to do. Yeah, exactly. Uh, it does bring up new issues but

uh, it seems like an opportunity. Well, that, that replicant should probably have the same rights as you do. Well, that, that gets into a whole issue. [Music] Uh, because when a replicant occurs, they're not necessarily going to have your rights, and if a replicant occurs to somebody

Who's already dead, do they have all the obligations and that the original person had? Did they have all the agreements that they had? So I think you're going to have to have laws that say, yes, there has to be if you want to create a

replicant, they have to have all the same rights as human rights. Well, you don't know someone could create a replica and say, well, it's a replicant, but I didn't bother getting their rights. And so yeah, but that would be illegal. I mean,

like if you do that, you have to do that in the black market. You have to if you want to get an official replica. Okay, it's not so easy. Suppose you created multiple replicants. Uh, the original rights, uh, maybe for one person and not for a whole

group of people. Sure, so uh, so there has to be at least one and then all the other ones kind of share the rights. Yeah, I just don't, I don't think that that's very difficult to conceive for us humans, the, the, the, the idea

that has certain, I mean, I've talked to people about this, including my wife, who would like to get back her father, and she doesn't worry about who has rights to what. She would have somebody that she could visit with and like give her some satisfaction uh

and they wouldn't, she wouldn't care about any of these other rights. What does your wife think about multiple array cores? Walls? Well, you had that discussion. I wouldn't address that. Whether I think, I think ultimately that's an important question, loved ones, how they feel about there's a, there's

something about love, well that's the key thing right? If the loved one's rejected, it's not gonna work very well. So, so the loved ones really are the key to determine whether or not this works or not, but there's also ethical rules um we have to contend with the idea and

we have to contend with that idea with AI, but what's going to motivate it is, I mean, I talk to people who really miss people who are gone and they would love to get something back even if it isn't perfect and that's what's going to motivate this

and that person lives on in some form and the more data we have the more we're able to reconstruct that person and allow them to move on right? And eventually, as we go forward, we're going to have more and more of this data because we're going to have

nanobots that are inside our neocortex so we're going to collect a lot of data. In fact, anything that's data is is always collected. There's something a little bit sad which is becoming, or maybe it's hopeful which is more and more common these days

which when a person passes away you have their Twitter account, you know, and you have the last tweet they tweeted, like something and you can recreate them now with large language models and so on. I mean, you can create somebody that's just like them and can actually continue

to communicate. I think that's really exciting because I think in some sense like if I were to die today, in some sense I would continue on if I continued tweeting. I tweet therefore I am. Yeah, well in some sense, I mean that's one of the advantages of a replicant.

that can recreate the communications of that person, you

Will humans become immortal? | Ray Kurzweil and Lex Fridman

Clips from the Lex Fridman podcast. Visit the main channel for full conversations and other videos.

Lex Clips

디지털 사후 세계 아바타를 만들 수 있는 가능성

고인을 모방한 디지털 아바타의 제작 가능성에 대한 의문을 제기합니다.

메모리의 한계와 만족스러운 디지털 표현을 만드는 데 따르는 어려움에 대해 논의합니다.

완벽한 기억의 개념과 디지털 표현을 만드는 데 있어 그 관련성에 대해 질문합니다.

사실의 정확성을 엄격하게 준수하는 것보다 사랑하는 사람과의 연결이라는 정서적 측면을 강조합니다.

복제본 및 디지털 복제본의 윤리적 고려 사항

수많은 디지털 사본을 만들 수 있는 가능성과 그 사본과의 상호 작용 가능성을 탐색합니다.

원작자 모르게 복제인간을 만드는 것의 윤리적 의미에 대해 논의합니다.

리플리컨트가 특정 측면에서 원본을 능가할 수 있는 잠재력을 고려합니다.

리플리컨트를 만드는 것을 아이를 낳는 것과 비교하며 성취와 관련된 자부심을 느낍니다.

리플리컨트의 법적 및 권리 관련 사항

리플리컨트의 법적 권리 및 의무, 특히 사망한 개인의 권리와 의무에 대해 논의합니다.

리플리컨트에게 인간과 동일한 권리를 부여하는 법률의 필요성을 제안합니다.

적절한 권리 고려 없이 불법적으로 리플리컨트를 생성할 수 있는 가능성을 해결합니다.

여러 리플리컨트 간의 권한 분배에 대해 논의합니다.

리플리컨트의 개인적인 관점 및 정서적 영향

리플리컨트를 통해 돌아가신 아버지와 다시 만나고 싶다는 아내의 개인적인 일화를 공유했습니다.

복제인간 기술의 성공을 결정하는 데 있어 가족들의 수용이 중요하다는 점을 강조합니다.

리플리컨트 제작의 정서적 동기를 강조합니다.

향후 기술 발전 및 데이터 수집

나노봇과 같은 기술 발전으로 인해 증가하는 데이터의 가용성에 대해 논의합니다.

트위터와 같은 소셜 미디어 데이터를 사용하여 대규모 언어 모델을 사용하여 사망한 개인을 재현하는 것에 대해 언급합니다.

디지털 표현을 통해 고인과 지속적으로 소통할 수 있는 가능성을 강조합니다.