Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out.
>> The Joe Rogan Experience.
>> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY
NIGHT. All day.
>> It's great to see you again.
>> Yeah, good to see you.
So, um, since the last time we talked,
we we spent a lot of time where you were
trying to explain to me simulation
theory and why the probability of
simulation theory is uh more likely than
it not being a simulation.
>> Um, yeah, it was what, five years ago or
something?
>> I think it was six or six somewhere
along those lines.
>> I mean, a lot of things happened in the
world since then.
>> Yes. Yes. A lot of things. I mean, um,
for example, back then, I think we did
we even talk about AI.
>> It probably came up a bit, but it
>> wasn't it wasn't this thing looming over
civilization, which is really kind of
fascinating when you think about the
fact that it's only been six years. And
in six years, like what a a massive jump
in some new technology in our life. Like
>> just sort of like the internet where it
like crept up on us. we just accepted
that it's a thing but that the this this
thing has gotten massively entangled in
every aspect of society in every aspect
of people's lives in a very short period
of time.
>> Yeah. I mean things are like so much is
happening now that it's kind of a
full-time job just to monitor the
situation.
>> Yeah. Um,
>> and well, you're one of the things that
you're talking about is the positive
aspects of it, right? You're talking
about like that this is probably going
to be a net good for humanity to
>> hopefully. Um, I mean, I think I I take
both cases seriously, the sort of the
risk side and and the big unlock. Uh, if
we get things right, um,
>> I feel like we have the potential, like
we're on a whitewater raft. We have the
potential to get to our destination,
but we also have the potential to flip
over and try to figure out how to get to
shore in freezing cold water and sort of
rebuild.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That seems about
right. Yeah. And uh Yeah. And it seems
like it's kind of speeding up a bit as
well, right? If you're sort of Yeah.
>> In this field, there's like every few
weeks there's a new model being released
or something. I
>> Yes. I guess it's like if you imagine I
guess commentating some fight, right?
And that's been recorded and you're
supposed to do the voice over and the
first round is like normal speed and
then the second round is 2x and then the
third one 4x and it's just like a wor of
legs and arms and that's a great way to
describe it. Yeah, it's it's just so
strange how quickly it snuck up on us
and that there's there's two narratives
that we hear. Uh, one the one narrative
is we're in real trouble and that this
thing is going to take over every aspect
of society and it's essentially going to
be a superior life force, a superior
intellect that exists amongst us that we
created and we don't think that's wise.
And then there's the other side that is
saying things like what Elon says where
he's saying we're we're going to have
universal high income. It's going to be
so much prosperity that no one's ever
going to have to toil again. There'll be
no more third world countries. There'll
be no more no more poverty. Like we can
eradicate poverty with the resources
that we have on earth and we can change
what it means to have to work like you
just to provide yourself with food and
housing. That's all going to be easy and
free. And then everything else is going
to be you have to find a purpose in your
life.
>> Yeah.
>> My problem is and I love Elon but the
people who have that perspective are all
making money off AI.
>> They all they are all invested like
heavily. Mark Andre, all these people
that have this rosy view of it, they're
all um invested heavily into it. So when
someone like you who's not necessarily
in that camp, you know, that is more of
a an a true objective analyst of what's
going on, when you have a positive
aspect or a positive viewpoint of it, I
uh get a little more excited.
>> Yeah. Well, I mean, the truth is we
don't know, right, how it will pan out.
Um so um I mean I think there are these
scenarios where we unlock this you know
enormous boost both to economic
productivity but then you know across
medicine, entertainment, environment,
you know travel, all kinds of things and
like a tsunami of wealth just kind of
flows through and lifts all boats. Um
and then the idea of human work becomes
an anacronism and uh where where you
have machines that can do everything
that we can do physically and mentally
and do it much better and cheaper. Um
and so I think in those scenarios where
this really works it the transformation
is a lot deeper. I mean so that kind of
layers to the onion. So like the most
superficial level is well they automate
your job. So what are people going to
what are they going to do? Where are
they going to work? Yeah. Well, well,
that that comes a little bit deeper.
First, like the most superficial level
is people just wonder where will I get
the job if the robot replaces me.
>> And then the superficial level of that
conversation, I think, is well, you need
to retrain workers so they can work in
other fields. And maybe there needs to
be, I don't know, employment, insurance
whilst they are being retrained or
something like that. Um but but once you
think through where this ultimately
leads it's you think like it's not just
a few jobs I think but it's really
everything that that humans can do to um
a good approximation um with maybe the
exception being where
the consumer has a direct preference
that the particular product or service
be done by a human like priest,
prostitute and politician.
>> Um
>> those might survive. Uh
>> well politician hopefully not hopefully
AI can handle that all without any
corruption.
>> Yeah. But somebody's got to take credit
for it.
>> This is true. And code it. Yeah. It's um
>> um and so then then you get to these uh
like more profound questions I think
about meaning and purpose and like what
does a human life look like
>> right
>> at technological maturity
>> right? Uh also what is experience? Is
does experience have to be um
measurable? Like can do you have to
touch it? Do you have to measure it and
weigh it? Or is uh virtual experience
still experience? Like if you have a
very full and enjoyable and fulfilling
virtual life, is that enough?
>> You know what I mean? Like do do you
have to do everything in the material
world or can you find happiness
in a virtual world world that doesn't
currently exist but we could clearly see
the technology if it expands it's going
to there's going to be the possibility
of experiencing a matrix type reality.
Yeah, I I I think I see where you're
going. But yeah, I mean I think like
different strokes for different folks.
If you imagine um a world where
presumably these virtual worlds will be
very rich
>> uh and deep and fascinating, but some
people might just like the idea of you
know climbing the real Mount Everest
rather than you know being in
>> most certainly but however there there
could come a time where people are
locked out of regular reality like this
is worst case scenario with AI is that
you you you have your needs taken care
of but there is no purpose.
There's nothing to do. There's nothing
to do because AI is taking care of all
aspects of society other than
recreation. There's nothing to do. And
then this one recreation comes along
that's not reality, but it's way more
fulfilling and exciting than any other
aspect of reality.
>> And you know, an example of that would
just be in a very minor way,
your phone provides you with that sort
of an escape and it's not even that
thrilling and yet it's massively
addicting.
your phone. People are on their phones
six hours a day.
>> If you if we come up with a virtual
reality that's way more exciting than
regular reality,
>> everyone's going to hop on in.
>> Yeah. I mean, I think to some extent
this uh will maybe be the case whether
you go the virtual path or the physical
path. I mean, you could imagine a future
where there are like resorts and people
are sort of lying in beach chairs
sipping drinks all day long and like
that's also a kind of checking out,
right? Yeah. Well, that yeah, that's not
fulfilling. You know, the what the thing
about a virtual reality is you don't
have to even live within our physics. I
mean, you can fly, you can do anything.
>> It's a larger space of possibilities.
But either way, it could be like a
passive existence in physical reality
where you're like launching at the beach
or climbing mountains or in video games.
Like you could have like a really
intense every straining every fiber to
try to succeed in this virtual
environment or like one where you're
just kind of floating on some cloud in a
drug-like state.
>> But I don't think people are going to be
interested in that because just the way
the human mind works like what kind of
video games are people attracted to?
It's because a video game is essentially
a prox it's an approximation of that.
You're just watching it on a screen but
you're sort of forgetting the fact that
you're watching on a screen. and you're
just concentrating on this 3D reality
that you're running through with a
machine gun or whatever you're doing,
right? That's what people are interested
in. They're not interested in these
games where you just like float over the
earth and like fly and and and just eat
bananas. No, they're they're interested
in thrilling things. And if that gets
provided in a virtual way, the amount of
people that are going to just say this
is better than regular boring life or
we're a slave to a computer.
>> Yeah. Yeah, I mean there are there are
both kind.
>> Okay, we're back. Uh where were we?
>> Um oh yeah, I was just saying that there
are also these computer games that like
provide a more passive experience where
you're like not really doing much and
it's more kind of zoning out.
>> But most people aren't interested in
those. Most people are interested in
Call of Duty. They're interested in
these wild firstperson shooters where
you're running down hallways and
everything's exciting and thrill orient
some sci-fi game or, you know,
>> Halflife, something like that. That's
what people are interested in.
>> Yeah. Well, I mean, I I think there are
like some some personality differences
in what path you would take there. But
either way, I think a lot of the choices
that people would make currently
depend on what they are sort of designed
to respond to by feeling good about it.
So like if you enjoy one thing you
choose that if you enjoy another that in
this condition of technological maturity
if we imagine sort of a future
civilization that has developed all
possible technologies to their maximum.
>> Yeah.
>> Um then amongst the affordances amongst
the things they could do is like they
wouldn't just have control over the
external environment um things around
them but but also their own biology and
brains. So if you were one of these
people and like maybe right now the only
way you get enjoyment is by you know
getting like crazy drunk or doing sort
of things you don't really approve of
maybe but that's that's actually what
sort of um uh lights your fire. Like you
could imagine redesigning yourself to
take the same kind of pleasure but in
some kind of contemplating the beauty of
the universe or like appreciating the
goodness in the heart of others or like
some some more sort of noble aspiration
um like solving abstract mathematics
rather than you know playing first
person shooters. You would have a choice
like whether you would get your
>> your thrills from from one kind of
activity or the other.
>> Yeah. Which brings us to the question
like what does it mean to be human? Like
for people finding beauty and joy in you
know interesting and fascinating things
and you know how to be a better person
and all all all the different aspects of
human life that we think about when we
think about people. We think about noble
aspects of humanity. But doesn't that
have to exist in conjunction with the
worst aspects of society for us to
appreciate it? It seems like this is a
part of the human condition is that we
have to have crime so that we can
appreciate peace. We have to have war so
we could appreciate peace. We have to
have hate so we could appreciate love.
And we're never without one or the
other. They're always both together in
constant conflict. And we're always noly
hoping that the good wins out over the
bad. And this is part of the struggle of
being a human being. And if we just
completely eliminate that struggle,
we're going to have to find some we're
going to have we're have we're going to
have to be a different thing because
what we are is this very strange
territorial primate and who's endlessly
curious. And this territorial primate is
moving in a certain direction. And that
direction seems to be a better society.
Seems to be over time. If you look at
statistics from thousands of years ago
to today, there's less violence. There's
better medicine. There's better
education. It's moving in a better and
better and better direction. But it's in
a struggle. That's part of why it moves.
If all of a sudden there's no struggle
and everyone is this wonderful
enlightened being, like what are we?
Because we're going to be a different
thing than what we are right now. And if
you love music and if you love art and
if you love me, you know, novels and all
these different things that come out of
the human condition. Well, what what
those things come out of struggle. Those
things come out of confusion and pain
and heartbreak and and love and joy and
all that stuff all piled up together.
without that like what are we? And so if
we are moving in this direction
technologically and we're not moving as
fast biologically
do we merge because that seems to be
what I think. I think that if this thing
goes the way it continues to go the
bottleneck is going to be human biology.
>> Yeah. Yeah. there there is a kind of
paradox
embedded in in our efforts to make
progress. So like there are all these
kind of scientists and people working to
develop better technologies and
throughout the economy you know you in
some company maybe you try to figure out
how to make some process a little bit
more efficient so you can serve
customers better and all of this is
designed to solve problems right to like
if if you sort of extrapolate that to
its logical end point right you would
imagine we would have perfect technology
that can do everything solve all the
problems like presumably with AI and
automation
>> right
>> um but then you end up in this condition
where there is kind of nothing left for
us to do. You might think and so
although it looks like we have these
strong reasons to push forward in this
direction. If you actually look at the
end point if we succeeded
to many people it will look kind of
unpalatable and like this kind of future
where you know all the problems are
solved and um nevertheless that that
does seem to be you know the direction
that we are headed in probably the
direction that we should be headed in.
>> Yeah. Wouldn't that be a better goal if
there was zero murder, zero violence,
zero crime, zero lying, zero corruption,
>> and human beings all worked in
coordination with each other?
>> Just like in a a sense of unique sinking
and harmony,
>> right?
>> That would be way better.
>> Um I I think but but it does like if you
actually stare at that situation, it
does have these slightly unpalatable
>> Yeah. quality because you might think it
looks kind of bland then, right? If it's
>> not necessarily though, it's just it
looks bland if you think about what
we're experiencing now like all the the
excitement and the weirdness of
uncertainty and of not knowing, you
know, and and also the negative aspects
of our life in conjunction with the
positive aspects of our life. So, we
contrast the two of them and you really
appreciate good people after you're
around a bunch of [ __ ] [ __ ] You
know, if that doesn't but doesn't have
to be that way. This is just what we are
dealing with. This is my position on
work, too. Because everybody in their
head is like, "What happens when AI
takes all the jobs?"
>> And I'm like, "Do you have to have a
[ __ ] job? Isn't that a human
invention? Like, why do you have to have
a job? That seems crazy that our main
focus is on housing and food
>> and like most people are basically just
working for that. Most people that are
most people that are struggling check to
check basically housing and food is
their daily labor. If that's removed,
>> wouldn't enough people figure out what
to do with their time?
>> Yeah. Yeah. I I I think so that like
yeah, there will be some transition and
discomfort in change ultimately that is
like Yeah. I I I mean I think it's like
so slavery is really bad, right? Like
but wage labor is a sort of you know
slavery light in a sense. you have to
sell a third of your working day
>> um just to get money to to pay for
necessities.
>> And the people that are trying to make
the most money make the conditions for
their employees as shitty as possible
because it costs the least amount.
>> They don't think about it like listen
maybe we make less money but we have an
awesome experience for everybody that
works there. Nobody thinks like that.
They all think like we have to make the
most money because we have shareholders
and we have a responsibility and these
people need to make more money every
quarter. So yeah, although sometimes you
do this, you compete for talent like
>> that's true too. But now but only the
top talent. That's why the CEOs get all
the bread and all the people on the
assembly line.
>> Some employees get treated well, right?
What would you say? I mean
>> Jamie is a different kind of employee.
Jamie is literally the co
>> Exactly.
>> I mean he's the co-person on the show.
>> Yeah,
>> that's different. But if you know some
dude who's out there, you know, stocking
boxes for Amazon, that's different than
being the CEO.
>> Yeah. So I mean I think like ultimately
that would be a huge liberation and and
kind of restore dignity like you should
be in control of your own time. It's
kind of almost the most like aside from
your own body like your own time your
own attention
>> and we have to teach people discipline.
They have to that's the thing is like if
you give people the opportunity to just
do nothing we we do you know we're
primates we we'll find a way to re
there's we're genetically sort of
designed to conserve resources. You
don't want to overuse resources for no
reason, do a bunch of [ __ ] because you
won't survive. You don't have enough
food. So, we're sort of designed to like
know how to be lazy. And so, we're going
to have to find things that give us
purpose or or we'll get depressed. This
episode is brought to you by Visible.
It's officially summer, folks. And boy,
what a summer we are having. It feels
like one of those good oldfashioned
summers where you just want to enjoy
every moment and keep up with the
action. Your best companion this summer.
Visible wireless. Visible gives you
unlimited 5G data and unlimited hotspot
powered by Verizon for just $25 a month.
So you can make this the summer of fun
and savings. Visible is more than just a
wireless plan. It's unlimited wireless
designed to always keep you connected
with no contract to tie you down. Switch
today at visible.com. plan start at $25
a month or get our premium Visible Plus
Pro plan and save $10 on your first
month when you use promo code Rogan.
Terms apply. See visible.com for plan
features and network management details.
>> Yeah. I mean, so it used to be the
traditional idea like of British
aristocracy like that you wouldn't have
to work for a living. It was kind of an
unfortunate necessity for many people
that they had to work for their daily
bread, right? But the ideal way of being
human was that you just had money and
then you spent your time doing other
things like you know maybe you were
involved in politics or maybe you had
like an art collection or you did your
gardening or entertain friends.
>> That's the best aspect of it. So but
when you think about British
aristocracy, don't you think about
fuckups? I do. I think about guys that
are just drunk. They drive their Ferrari
into a lake and they accidentally drown
their friend and then they pay off the
cops and they get away with it. There's
that's what I think of when I think of
>> Yeah, there's that. But there were also
these kind of I don't know amateur
scientists or eccentrics who had their
weird thing and it kind of added to um
so I guess it brings out like the more
freedom somebody has the more they can
reveal their true nature like um
>> well it also depends on how they're
raised right who who are their parents
what what values did they instill in
them when they were young did they
explain the value of hard work that it's
actually good for you and then if you
just find something you really want to
do and you concentrate on it and you
really work hard at it it's actually
very fulfilling.
>> Yeah. So you could imagine for example
the education system in in this world
where we no longer need to work like
>> right
>> presumably would need to be redesigned
from from from scratch basically because
right now it's a kind of machine right.
So you take children coming in kind of
on a conveyor belt.
>> Yeah.
>> And then some processing is done like
sit at your desk here is this assignment
here's a grid and then they come out
with a quality label attached.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. And then they are meant to be
productive workers that you could put in
an office and they will um so so this it
kind of is an unfortunate
fact about the current condition that I
mean the world needs a lot of these
office workers that can do all these
tasks in the economy so like it's we
have to have
>> until it doesn't
>> until it doesn't and at that point it
would be absurd to keep doing this right
then you could imagine changing
education so that it would be
>> uh much more about like how how can you
learn to uh live well a life of leisure
like you imagine
>> you're right stay
>> cultivating like you know the art of
conversation appreciation for art and
music
>> hobbies physical wellness like nature
>> um the ability to set your own goals and
take your own initiatives to
>> um you know to develop true friendships
with people like these are things are
not taught in school but you could
imagine that being the curriculum like
spirituality like all kinds of
>> sure things that would then equip people
to sort of use their freedom, their
wealth, uh their free time for uh you
know some kind of you know actually um
meaningful and beautiful activities
>> for sure. For for sure preemptively we
should be kind of teaching people like
that now. Like if young people are
coming up now, the world that they're if
you're in first grade right now, 12
years from now when you're graduating
from high school, like the world is a
totally different place. And this idea
that being a productive worker who can
sit still for eight hours a day is
that's the the best way we should teach
kids. That seems crazy if we're really
like seeing the world that you're
describing and that most people seem to
think is oncoming.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I guess the the timeline is
still a little bit uncertain. So you
don't end up in a situation, right,
where you sort of now you find yourself
you're 20 years old, it's time to go out
in the world. You have no skills. The AI
revolution hasn't yet quite happened.
It's kind of
>> Isn't that a liberal arts degree anyway?
>> Yeah. And and how is that going?
>> There's a lot of silly degrees that
people get right now that are useless
anyway. And they spend a tremendous
amount of time working on getting it and
then when they get out there's no jobs
for that degree. Yeah. So, so they were
a little bit too early maybe in hopping
on this
>> maybe or you know there's also traps
there there's there's things that you
can get really excited about and do like
if you want to play professional bowling
you want to bowl professionally like
well the amount of money you're going to
make is very limited because the best
bowler in the world like what is the
best professional bowler in the world
make?
>> Let's guess. I say $100,000
professional bowlers. We used to knew
know a guy Ari's friends with a guy uh
Tommy God I can't remember his last
name. Do you remember his last name
Jamie?
>> He was a professional bowler but he used
to come to the comedy store and hang
out. Really nice guy and love comedy.
And
>> I imagine like maybe the very best one
makes a pretty decent living and then
like the third best like it's just
>> I bet barely barely.
>> I bet the best guy probably makes maybe
100 grand or 200 grand at the most. And
that means like the 30th guy in the
world is [ __ ]
>> Yeah. There you have to have another job
to pursue that.
>> Well, but then in in this
>> what does he make?
>> Oh,
>> 200k. Oh, 400k in big season. 450
including prize money and sponsorships.
>> But then like what does
>> EJ Tucket made $43? [ __ ] yeah. EJ EJ
Tacket made uh $437,540
for the 2025 season with several others
between $190K and 270K in prize money
alone. Top tier. So the top tier guys
make a good living.
>> But how many guys are there? You you
know what I'm saying? Uh it's probably
like a very thin sort of peak and
>> so if you choose to go into bowling it's
not like choosing to go into you know
there's a lot of other jobs like even if
you want to be a basketball player
they're they're making a lot of money
you know if you're a really good
basketball player and you pursue that
like you could get very very rich but
how many of them get rich
>> most don't yeah but then like so maybe
maybe the the money factor would kind of
drop out of the picture
>> and it would just be what you're
interested in and then maybe even it
would
>> I mean
are endless and what other people are
interested in to some extent because
like I think part of what people are
competing for is also prestige and
status and
>> that would be a thing right like status
would be more important it's like who's
the best at this thing like like a bunch
of friends who play golf like Jamie
plays golf all the time golfers are all
like comparing each other's scores and
they're all they're playing they're
competing in this game instead and that
they think about that more than they
think about work
>> like people who love golf they [ __ ]
hate work like I used to say that about
uh comedy. Back when uh I first started,
one of the things that I noticed is the
guys who really got into golf, their
careers kind of stalled cuz they were
more excited about playing golf than
they were about writing jokes and going
on the road. And I was like, okay. So,
if the average person doesn't need food
and housing anymore from labor, if
that's gone and now you just get it. And
so now you could just go do things. We
just have to teach people to be excited
about stuff. We have to teach people the
value of curiosity and finding things
that are interesting to you and then the
value of just education for the sake of
learning things because it's interesting
just just pure satisfaction of curiosity
which is a beautiful thing. Like that
would be great for everybody if we
instead of learning things because your
teacher tells you you have to learn it.
Well, there's always going to be people
that just naturally gravitate towards
mathematics and they're really
fascinated by mathematics and there's
always going to be people that are just
naturally gravitating towards history.
They're like, "How did we get here? What
is this? How did this start? Who wrote
that? Who's the first guy to figure that
out?" And that that's you're going to
naturally go towards that and just be
educated for the sake of satisfying your
curiosity. And maybe we'll have a more
balanced society because people will
actually be able to just pursue their
interests. But we have to teach them to
do it. That's what I think is going to
be really important about young people
in the future. Teach them to actually
pursue their curiosity rather than just
squash any desires they have for novelty
and for interesting things and just be
able to work all day doing something you
hate because that's what it means to be
an adult.
>> Yeah. I think like cultivating that
would be like
the way forward in in this case, right?
>> And seems very possible. It's doable.
Like we know curious people and we Yeah.
>> And at least to some extent. Now I think
there's probably also some differences
in how different folks are wired. Like
some people get bored very easily.
Others find everything fascinating.
>> Some people are like just naturally
depressed or have low mood. Others are
sort of evolving.
>> Yeah. But those people that are
naturally depressed, how much would
their life change if they were coached
at a very early age the value of
exercise? And if they started running,
if they started doing yoga and they
started feeling much better and they
weren't naturally depressed anymore, and
then you changed their diet and you
start adding in vitamins and nutrients
and stop giving them processed foods and
all a sudden they feel better because
the concept even of depression, like
what does that mean?
>> Well, it it varies so wildly. And when
you're talking about people that aren't
taking care of their bodies and that's
not thought of as a primary factor in
why depression exists in the first
place, well, this is a very unscientific
approach then because we know that it
has a profound impact on human beings.
So we're pretending that there's like
this oneizefititall.
No, I think that should be also a part
of teaching people how to be a human
being. chase your curiosities, but also
this is why you're not feeling well and
that if you just develop this ability to
get some momentum going and just show up
at that yoga class every day, you'll
feel way better
>> and you don't have to take a pill.
>> Yeah. And I'm I think yeah uh many could
be a lot improved if they were taught to
sort of take care of their basic
physiology and
>> everyone can be improved. 100% of them
can be improved. It's a part of being a
human being.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean I don't know. I think
there is also some people who might just
have you know some you know imbalance of
some neurotransmitter because of some
genetic
>> 100% or maybe they don't even have the
energy to engage in these activities
that would make them feel better but
then I think there would be much better
medicines for uh helping
>> that's where aderall comes in let's go
give them some aderall
>> well get them fired up
>> get them to start running I'm kidding
but but what we're saying is all doable
we're not asking people to breathe
underwater, right? Where you're we're
saying is that there are people on Earth
that live like that. And this idea that
living just for a paycheck so that you
can cover your food and your housing,
which we've always thought of as being a
just an undeniable part of being a
person, an adult. This is what you have
to do. You have to pay for your food,
pay for your housing. But if we we do
get to a point where the structure of
society is now run by hyper inelligent
artificial intelligence,
you would wouldn't need most jobs that
people have to do that suck. And in
order to get our society to this point,
if you wanted an iPhone, you needed some
people that were at a factory somewhere
putting it all together. You needed
someone who's designing it. you needed
someone who's sitting there in the
office trying to figure out how to
market it. You needed all those jobs.
But when we don't need all those jobs
anymore, then things are going to be
very interesting. And that that's what
I'm saying. We need to become a
different thing. Like it's kind of true
and kind of not. Like you you can be a
human being and live in that world, but
we're going to have to re-educate people
how to be a human being. It's it's going
to this our our education system
specifically in this country is just
designed to make factory workers
specifically like there's a there's a
real history of it like we we know why
they made it this way. They made it this
way and they got people in really early
so they could get people set up for
jobs. They just want people to work.
>> Yeah. So, so we are kind of currently
ills suited for really um thriving in in
an environment of abundance and for
enjoying life because I mean both at
deep biological time scales and and
during the life span of a single
individual there are all these pressures
necessities that kind of force us to
become a certain types. I mean we talked
about the education system training
people to be the kind who can sit at the
desk all day long and perform tasks
right
>> biologically
um we've
evolved drives to you know be lazy to
conserve energy to eat as much as we can
and now in the modern environment where
there are fridges everywhere like it
causes problems metabolically.
Um and in terms of enjoying life for
many people there is this hyonic
treadmill right like so you achieve
something some improvement there's a
spike of happiness and then you sort of
go back to baseline very quickly you
start to take for granted all the
blessings of life which makes it very
difficult to actually achieve a state of
um permanent happiness and felicity and
but and and it's kind of been necessary
because we that that there needed to be
this motivation to keep striving for the
next thing. Now once you've actually
achieved all the things though then
maybe that becomes
kind of dysfunctional right like why
keep wanting to strive for the next
thing if all the things have already
been achieved at least in a certain
domain
>> and so I think as we move deeper into
this hypothesized future like where we
get all these magical technologies then
at some point probably some
transformation of of human nature uh
would have to go along with that First
maybe cultural changes to sort of equip
people for a life of leisure.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh and then ultimately maybe more
profound changes to to our very biology.
And so that imagine if you solve aging
and you can now live
>> for thousands of years, right? Like may
maybe the way our memory work is not
really set up for them. Maybe we would
just go stale after 200 years with our
current brains. Like we just get stuck
in a rot.
>> We don't know because we haven't lived
for 200 years. But that could easily
turn out to be the case with a human. So
then maybe at that point you would need
to sort of do something to sort of add
more um cognitive resources, more
flexibility, do some sort of psychedelic
reset or something to sort of keep the
the flexibility going for, you know,
longer periods of time. I I'm glad you
said a psychedelic reset because it'd be
very funny if the main tools that we
have for navigating this are all illegal
because I I think they might be and
specifically with psilocybin and DMT and
and probably Iane as well. Like if we
wanted chemical tools to navigate a new
reality, those are probably the best
ones that we have available and they're
all illegal. And I think you're right. I
think if we're going to be able to
navigate this correctly, we have to kind
of change the way we uh interact with
each other, what it means to be a
person. But I I wonder how much of the
conflict that we have is a direct result
of this inherent struggle that so many
people have. And I mean, there's a
direct correlation between extreme
poverty and extreme crime. You know,
specifically in this country, if you
look at the areas of extreme poverty in
this country, they're also the areas
with extreme crime. And um I wonder how
much of that would be completely
alleviated with a complete lack of
poverty. You know, we've always assumed
that if you're going to have uh a a
functioning society that you're going to
have slums. Why? Like why? That they
don't they don't serve any function.
It's not a good thing. Well, well, it's
because some people are always going to
be making bad decisions and some people
are always going to be going down the
wrong road and crime and this and that,
right? But there's still just humans and
some humans don't do that. So, wouldn't
it be better to figure out a way to not
have humans ever do that anymore? And it
seems like a way to there seems like a
way to do that. It's again not asking
people to breathe underwater. We're just
we're trying to figure out why does some
people never engage in crime. Why do
some people live these really fulfilling
and interesting lives? Well, probably
because they were exposed to it when
they were really young. Probably because
they weren't exposed to like very bad
environments and very bad crime and very
bad poverty. And how much of that would
change if there was no more poverty? It
sounds like such a little fairy tale
childlike, oh, one day we'll have no
poverty, but that's doable. If everyone
is alive, right? Okay. That that's alive
right now is not starving to death. That
means we figured out a way to at least
the very least get you resources so you
could feed yourself, right? That this no
matter how dysfunctional things are, all
it has to do is get ramped up a few
steps.
>> I am.
>> And now you have no one ever worried
about being fed, no one ever worrying
about not having a place to sleep. And
then you have to find purpose. But it
seems like there's a lot of people that
find purpose without having a a
financial price tag attached to it. just
by what we're talking about with golf or
you could be like really into writing
books. You could write books all day
long and people are always going to want
human created fiction. People are always
going to be interested in the way other
people think about things. You you'll
find you there's plenty of things to do.
There's plenty of games to play and
plenty of skills to learn. The idea that
the only reason why we work is to eat
and to not get rained on seems nuts. Um
yeah I I it is I guess to some extent an
open question to what extent people will
always want um to read human fiction or
to
prefer the human generated outputs. It
might be just because current AI
generated writing is kind of lacking in
various ways. It's often slo and boring.
But if if it became really good
>> Yeah. Then um you know maybe it would
just be like much more fun to to like
like if a movie made by an AI might just
be so much better and richer and the
lighting is perfect and the dialogue is
sharp and it's more funny and deep and
>> certainly touches it. Then you go and
watch this
>> human produced thing and it's going like
like most people don't go and watch sort
of film school students productions
>> right but then there's that like that
movie obsession. Wasn't that movie made
like very uh inexpensively?
>> And it's a huge hit, right?
>> And that's part of the thrill of it is
that this guy who was like a YouTuber,
right,
>> who created this film and now this movie
is a giant hit and everybody's like
super excited about it. Now that same
movie was made by AI. I wonder if it
would have that impact because it
doesn't have the human connection. So
that so that's possible that that we
keep getting interested in these things
because we sort of are really entangled
with with the human world much more than
than we are with the world of AIs. And I
mean for the same reason you might be
more interested in if if like your
brother or friend did something you
might think ah this is interesting I
want to check that out. Of course it was
some random dude who made something
slightly better. It's like doesn't mean
>> right when you go to see your nephew
play baseball, you wouldn't really go
see little kids baseball.
>> No, no, just randomly, right?
>> When your nephew gets on first base like
way to go, Bobby.
>> So, I think these kind of um social
entanglements that we have like will be
a big part of what gives u structure.
>> Yes.
>> Um to to lives in this condition where
where like the external constraints are
removed. I think that there is a great
value for the human mind for whatever
reason in getting better at things and
learning things. And I think that if we
could instill that in people at a young
age, I think it would be fairly easy to
get people to pursue that path. But we
have to completely revamp our education
system, which should have been done a
long time ago anyway. The idea of having
unenthusiastic, un under underpaid
people
being any percentage of what children
encounter for most of the day when
they're in their most formative period
is insane.
>> It should be a a rich, exciting,
enthusiastic journey and how to be a
better person and how it's exciting to
learn things and how it's exciting to
get better at things and about how
anybody can get better at things.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I hate
that every day of school. I remember
>> I hated it. Hate it. I didn't even know
that I was interested in learning
anything until I got out of school.
>> The same for me. I mean, I only
discovered like I also hated books and
everything like that for my first 15
years of life because I associated that
with school. That was the kind of school
thing. So it's only then randomly one
day I happened to uh walk into the local
library for no reason and pulled out the
book here and there and then I
discovered that there was this whole
world of science and idea and literature
and all of that like very very different
from what we were doing in school and
then then that kind of opened the gates
for me to this
>> imagine what a head start you would have
had if you had like a different kind of
education
>> with super enthusiastic people who
really love teaching children are really
good at and that we reward them and that
it becomes a very prestigious position
to be in rather than what it is now. If
you talk to some guy and he goes, "I'm a
high school teacher." You're like, "Oh,
the poor bastard. How's he feed
himself?" That's the immediately what I
think. Like, good for you that you're
doing that, but also I guarantee you
could probably be making a lot more
money and be happier doing another job.
And so, that's a terrible way to start
life off. And if we just revamp that,
then you have a bunch of people that are
interacting with life in a very
different way. And instead of being
thought, I have to get a job someday. I
have to get a job after school anyway to
help my mom pay the bills because we're
struggling. So, I got to contribute to
the household even though I'm 16 now. I
can't hang out with friends. If all that
stuff's out the window and now it's
like, no, what we need to find out is
what is exciting for you? like what what
excites your mind, your specific
personality? What is it about life
that's interesting? And let's expose you
to a bunch of different things that are
exciting and interesting that other
people find value in and let's find out
which way you gravitate because maybe
you gravitate towards chess or maybe you
gravitate towards something completely
different. Maybe you're just really into
a painting. Maybe painting just lights
you up and you like look at a canvas and
you just start [ __ ] around with it
and that's your thing. There's a lot of
people in this world that find that.
It's just they have to find it
themselves unfortunately.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I think that that's kind of
inspiring. And but like I think the
train doesn't stop there. So if we think
even more further into this kind of
condition of technological maturity, I
think in in addition to sort of freeing
up people, you know, like making it easy
to produce the food and the houses and
like cars that go faster and don't
pollute and all of this stuff. Like if
you think through what maybe a
technologically mature civilization
could do like so a lot of these um like
learning for example is something that
gives people purpose but maybe you would
have the ability to sort of download
knowledge
>> um at the click of a button. So rather
than like if you want to learn advanced
mathematics now you have to study year
like for years right do like books with
exercises and apply yourself and then
eventually you sort of unlock.
>> Yeah. Um but like maybe at technical
maturity they would be like okay
understand mathematics okay I'm going to
press that button boom now I understand
mathematics
>> like the matrix I know kung fu remember
>> yeah so if you had like you know you may
be some kind of nanobots that could
infiltrate your brain and then change
the synopsis in just such a way that
you're now the same as you were before
except you have these concepts from
abstract mathematics.
>> Yes. uh you know after 20 minutes or
something like that some super
intelligence works out how to change
your synopsis to this new condition. Um
and if you were inclined to do various
things because they give you joy and
pleasure uh like you could also think
well I could do those things and get the
joy and pleasure or I could just push
this button that's like activates the
same joy and pleasure. M.
>> So there would be these shortcuts to
everything
and it looks like you would have a post
instrumental condition where there would
at least at first sight seem to be no
reason to do anything for the sake of
achieving something else because there
would always be this like shorter path
to that other thing that pressing the
button.
>> Yeah.
>> Um and so that's a kind of deeper form
of redundancy. It seems that all forms
of human instrumental effort would
become unmotivated.
uh you could still, you know, go to the
gym uh every day and sweat for an hour
or you could just take the pill that
induces exactly the same physiological
effects and the mental effect like the
calm or whatever you feel after.
>> Um so
>> or maybe even better genetically
engineer something so you don't have to
take a pill.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um
>> and so so then I think you're getting
more into these like fundamental
questions of value,
>> right? philosophical questions about
what ultimately is it that makes a life
good
>> um
>> and what makes a life good for a primate
because that's what we are or a
primitive version of primates I think
we're going to become something
different and if we do it through
technologically induced evolution or
biologically induced evolution we're
still moving in a general direction just
biologically there I mean if you look at
ancient hominids and look at us we're
clearly very different so we're moving
in a general direction anyway way. And
when you look at the grays, like these
uh prototypical aliens that everybody
sees with the big heads and the skinny
bodies, what do they look like? Well,
they look like if we keep going, that's
what we're going to look like. We're
going to be these genderless, sexless,
muscleless little skinny things with
giant heads that communicate
telepathically, which is probably where
we're moving. And if we're moving that
way, uh maybe we, you know, we think of
them as being an alien from another,
maybe that's not maybe that's just the
general direction that primates go once
they figure out technology. They
eventually realize, well, all first of
all, the idea of having to have a male
and a female is kind of crazy, right?
Why? Well, because we have to reproduce.
Well, what if we don't reproduce like
that anymore? What if all reproduction
is done through engineering and there's
no more there's no more sex so there's
no more lust so there's no more jealousy
so there's no more ego there's no more
anything and then there's a hive mind
because technology advanced to the point
where the reason why they have these big
giant heads they're they're essentially
locked into everybody all around them
all the time
>> yeah well is that what we would want
though
>> not us but I don't think we'll be us
anymore I think this idea like if you
went to chimps and you said hey dude One
day you're going to be on a plane eating
peanuts, flying over the ocean. They'd
be like, "Fuck that. I don't want to do
that. I'll just stay here where the
fruit is. You guys are nuts. Like, why
do you want to do that?" And you'll be
uh addicted toratom and you'll be uh
watching YouTube all day long. Like, no,
I don't want to do that. That doesn't
sound fun.
>> We do. We do have a lot of bananas,
though.
>> Maybe. Or you have to get killed by the
other chimpanzees that want the bananas.
You know, they have chimp wars. They
come in and kill each other. So I think
we're going to be something different
and I think that's inevitable anyway. If
you believe in evolution, it's
inevitable anyway that we become
something different. We're not a
finished product.
>> Yeah. No, I I think that is true. We are
not the finished product. Now the
question is the thing that we become or
that becomes is that um a result of us
choosing how we want to be or is it just
these kind of impersonal forces like
evolution selecting certain types that
might end up uh leading to outcomes that
we actually don't want. And so I guess
the hope is that we would be able to
develop along a path that preserves and
develops uh the things that we actually
value about being human, maybe amplifies
them, then maybe adds other things.
>> Um so there are many different possible
things you could develop in the future,
but that we sort of select those that
actually make us better rather than just
randomly different um that we can sort
of grow into our ideals. But it's so
funny how much value we put in human
condition, how much value we put in
meaning because it it is valuable to us.
When you think about like what that
means in terms of the amount of energy
it produces, the amount of impact that
it has versus the structure of the
universe itself versus black holes and
stellar nurseries and things that are
just infinitely more spectacular than
the human condition. But to us it's
like, "Oh, what is meaning? What is
meaning? What is meaning to me?" Like,
well, what is meaning to me? You is
you're a finite biological organism that
has to find meaning because you're sort
of trumping around through this weird
world where eventually you're going to
die and you're going to leave your mark
and maybe reincarnation's real, maybe
the afterlife's real. Nobody [ __ ]
knows. So, you got to have meaning. But
the universe itself, like a human only
lives 100 years, how much meaning can
you have in a hundred years?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Now that is I I think we
kind of die prematurely. I mean we think
of us as like first first you become
stronger and more capable for 15 20
years right
uh then biologically you stagnate and
then
>> maybe you keep accumulating sort of
knowledge and skills for another few
decades but like just as you have
>> started to acquire like a modiccom of
wisdom like your brain starts to rot.
>> Yep. And then uh everything is erased
either by Alzheimer's or death and it's
kind of okay now that's all gone the
whole lifetime of experiences
>> there's your meaning
>> all the the the memories and like the
hardearned lessons that so that seems
kind of sad and probably not the best
way for things to be I think we would
want to extend the human lifespan so you
could continue to grow up not just kind
of reach 20 and then plateau there for
the rest of your life but what if we
could continue to develop so that like
at at 80 you were as much stronger uh
and like be able to understand more and
move better and like just have the same
capacity increase as you had like
between like zero and 20 and you just
kept going. Uh
>> well these life extension scientists
that are working on these things guys
like David Sinclair like they believe
that that's a not just a possibility but
an inevitability.
>> Yeah. Well so that that's more like I
guess preserving like pre preventing or
delaying that decay.
>> Sure. which is already very good like
reversing. They're talking about
reversing.
>> Yeah. But then you would go back to
being 20, right? In terms of biological
>> but um but then you have engineering
>> if if you have very long time spans. So
then you might at some point want to
continue to grow.
>> Yeah.
>> Like you might not want to just be stuck
at a 20-year-old human 10,000 years.
Like maybe eventually you would want to
become
>> um uh like slightly bigger in like in
terms of your ability to engage with the
world.
>> Sure. Of course. And if if they can
figure out how to make people Well,
there's already genetic engineering
that's being done in terms of increasing
potential intelligence and IQ. They're
already doing that, you know. And so
this was a I know I'm sure you know
about that thing that happened in China
where um this one doctor got in trouble
because he had genetically engineered
some babies to be um inoculated to HIV.
But it also at the same time gave them a
far increased potential IQ. Well, it
remains to be seen whether or not it
actually works as these guys, you know,
become like 20 and 30 and we start
putting them in chess tournaments and
see if it really did make them smarter.
But if the possibility of that is
already being studied, they already
understand the differences between like
what what is what's possible, what we
understand, and that increases every
day. They understand more every day,
more is possible every day. If that just
keeps going, well, you have a different
version of what the human consciousness
is. You have a different version of the
human mind.
>> Yeah. Although I think the the way AI is
going, I think that's the train that's
going to reach the destination faster.
>> Oh yeah. Um and then once you do have
super intelligence in machine substrate
like then that can then unlock all kinds
of technologies including these
biological technologies or
nanotechnology or host of other things
that could then sort of bring us up if
that's how how we decide to go.
>> Yeah.
>> Um and uplift us into different like
either biologically enhancing us or like
uploading us into
>> but again it's that whitewater river
raft. It's like we're we're going down
this white water and we might make it
out of this or it might crash. You know,
one of the weird things about um I'm
very fascinated with uh uh ancient
civilizations and one of the weirdest
things about ancient civilizations is
when you go really really far back, a
bunch of them have these depictions of
kings that ruled for thousands of years.
And it's very strange stuff because the
Egyptians and an ancient Sumere uh
there's a bunch of different depictions
of these kings that lived lives that
were way longer than biological humans
lived. And then there's the flood myth
or the flood story. And then after the
flood, biological life decreases pretty
radically. and it seems to get back to
like a normal version of what we assume
now, which is like a hundred years.
>> And one of the weird questions that
these um alternative ancient historians
have is are we missing the possibility
that there was a hyper advanced
civilization that existed tens of
thousands of years ago and that what
we're seeing now is not a linear
progression from caveman to human being
with an iPhone in 2026. that along the
way there might have been a very high
level of sophistication and the evidence
of that might be the pyramids and some
of these other ancient structures that
are mindboggling. As much as you try to
explain them away when you're dealing
with 2,300,000
stones, some of them are cut from a
quarry 500 miles away, 80 ton stones
that are in the seal, like perfectly cut
granite where it looks like they have
diamond drill holes in them. It seems
like there's some lost technology. And
every society has this flood myth. And
every society that has this flood myth,
especially these ones that were very
advanced somehow or another like ancient
Egypt, they have these depictions of
people that lived way longer than people
live today. And I wonder if human beings
one day will realize like, oh, if you
keep going long enough, a hundred years
is silly. Like people can they'll just
figure out what it is that makes people
age and die. Fix that and you'll live an
insanely long time. And then if people
live an insanely long time and their
capacity for reason and logic increases,
their capacity for intelligence
increases, then you have these insane
technologies that were required to do
things like build the pyramids. And that
might be what happens. That might be a a
natural course of progression that the
first thing we realize is 100 years is
not enough because I I I'm 58. I'm a
[ __ ] still. Like why am I learning
every day? How come I'm getting better
at being a person every day? Well, I
would have I should have figured this
out already. But you don't ever have
time to figure it out.
>> You don't have time.
>> There's not enough time
>> and you only get one run. Like I mean
you would think you'd want a trial run
first, right, on life and then like okay
now now I kind of know a little bit how
it works now. Now let's do it for real.
>> Well that's the concept.
>> It's kind of scary. I mean it's a bit
crazy that each of us is put in charge
of a whole human life
>> right
>> like are we really like reach the level
of like if you want to run an airplane
you have to go through these
certifications and stuff right and then
maybe you can be a pilot but like for a
human life it's like every single person
like okay you have 100% dictatorial
control of this person like they're
completely hostage your whims
>> and and then that's like us so but
that's that's the way it is but yeah
having the ability to kind of um try
different things and maybe do like uh
like have a kind of uh opportunity to do
a doover. Um if like if the life turned
out to be like a f every 50 years or
something, you have a chance to kind of
>> um
>> or maybe not even a doover, but it's the
same life, but you can do whatever you
want and you don't have to be
constrained to this idea that you only
have a certain amount of time and you
want to retire by your 65. We we might
look at that as being like a one of the
first completely archaic notions and the
reason why people got it all wrong like
well society will be better because
people are going to live way longer and
if you think about how much smarter how
old are you? 53.
>> Okay. Now, with the way you said that
was sad.
>> I'm older than you, dog. Don't worry
about it. But if you think about how
much smarter you are at 53 than you were
at 13, you know, now imagine how much
smarter you will be at 353
or a,53.
And if that actually becomes possible,
if a person can live to be 100 years,
why can't they live to be 4,000 years?
If they can figure out what makes people
age, if we we really can genetically
engineer human beings, that's not again
that's not breathing underwater. That's
just extending life. And if you ext
extend life and in extend intellectual
capacity and your ability to learn and
grow, holy [ __ ] you're you're dealing
with a 2,000-y old person. That's a
completely different kind of thing. And
that could be real someday. And that
might be also one of the things that
comes along with this new understanding
of uh of just life in general with super
intelligent AI.
>> Yeah. No, for sure. Uh fixing aging and
reversing it would be amongst the things
that a technologically mature
civilization would be able to do.
>> We just have to get people out of the
idea that it's vain. Why do you want to
live forever?
>> That's what they say now, right? But
when somebody actually has the therapy
and you could like here you could either
continue to get you know worse kidneys
and more painful knees and wrinkles
>> and you start forget things or you can
take this uh this rejuvenation serum
that everybody else is using and they
are like full of energy and running
around and doing stuff like
>> do you still think it's vain? So I think
a lot of this is Stockholm syndrome that
like you are kind of faced with the
inevitability of aging and decay and
have been for thousands of years. So you
develop a kind of romantic scaffold that
reconciles you to the inevitable.
>> I like it Stockholm syndrome
>> which is is maybe adaptive but only up
until the point where there actually
might be something you could do to
escape. Right? Then if you're too stuck
in this mindset, it might sort of
prevent you from taking advantage to to
regain your freedom,
>> right?
>> Um, and I think we are now at that
stage. We don't yet have the therapies,
but there are certainly like investments
and research and stuff we could do that
would hasten the arrival.
>> Um, and I think in fact we should have
started on a big sort of, you know,
Manhattan project to defeat aging like
decades ago and maybe we would have
better therapies by now then. But for a
long time aging was not seen as a
problem only the specific diseases that
are the result of the aging.
>> Yeah.
>> And they they got all this funding right
like so you have like huge research
products for Alzheimer's and for heart
disease and for cancer.
>> But if you look at the the main common
cause of most human disease it's scence
like you're much more likely to get any
of these when you're 80 than when you're
20 because your cells gradually decay
and gunk builds up.
>> Arteries clog up. you know, your your
DNA mutates, your methylation pattern
gets scrambled,
>> your brain.
>> Um, so so rather than just trying to put
out the fires one by one after they
occur, like at some point you just need
to sort of try to to prevent like maybe
you need a bit of rain to sort of
prevent the
>> It's kind of amazing how much we've
accomplished as a society, as
civilization, when you think about the
fact that people only live to be 100.
>> Kind of incredible.
>> Yeah. It's
>> kind of incredible. got rockets and
satellites and cell phones and
>> and people only live. So it's like
everybody has to build on everybody
else's intelligence and everybody else's
understanding of the world and develop
new things and everybody has to learn
those new things
>> and each brain is so small that it can
only learn a small little specialty,
right? and you need millions of them to
really although it's not entirely clear
with
>> with humans um
>> if if we had been much more longived
like the way we currently are configured
maybe we would just have gotten too
stuck in our ways and sort of stagnated
into some sort of ultra-conservative
society where nobody's allowed to do
anything different or the old gizers
that have their way of doing things just
remain forever in charge.
>> Yeah. Um so um I mean we just don't know
right like u whether whether that would
have slowed
>> progress or or accelerated it. Um but
but it is yeah it is still it is still
amazing like it's a long path from sort
of running around in the forest uh to
sort of these look at these uh like
advanced chip technologies and the whole
global supply chain where where like
thousands of people are working to
develop just one little tool that then
feeds into the ability to make another
tool that eventually makes these leading
edge AI chips
>> where they're layering things four atoms
deep.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh it's it's it's
remarkable.
>> It's incredible. And humans only live to
be 100. Imagine what we could accomplish
if we lived to be 3,000, you know.
>> Yeah. Um or if we were just a little
bit, you know, better at these things.
Yes. Because I think we are sort of the
stupidest possible species that are
capable of developing uh advanced
technology like because as soon as we
evolved to reach that level, we started
developing it, right? And then so that's
where we are like the dumbest possible
that just barely can do this,
>> right? barely can do this while we're
blowing each other up.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. At the same time all over the
world.
>> Blowing up people.
>> So, um
>> Yeah. But maybe a lot of that frantic,
stupid, illogical behavior is because
we're so finite, like we're in a rush
that, you know, we realize we only have
a certain amount of time to get things
done. And so this sort of accentuates
the the desire to control resources and
to cement your immortality and to do
these things that people love to do, put
their name on buildings. This there's a
thing that people like to do that it's
almost like cementing their immortality
that maybe there'll be less of a desire
to do that if people lived way longer.
And then you would have to assume
if you can engineer humans to live
longer, you could probably engineer a
lot of stupidity out of us. they could
just find out why people behave like
what if you could just eliminate lying?
What if there's like a a genetic
solution to lying?
>> Well, or just a really good lie
detector.
>> Yeah, but I mean, what if you you can
genetically engineer out the desire to
lie?
>> Well, I mean, if you had a perfect lie
detector, there would be no point in
lying because people would just see it
immediately, right? Um,
>> well, if you could read each other's
minds, it'd be fruitless.
>> Yeah. And so that that might be closer.
I mean, who knows what you could do if
you sort of had like powerful AI system
trained to detect micro expression.
>> We just all have to get the big gray
heads with the black eyes like the
aliens have.
>> Then they read each other's minds.
>> You want one of those? Well, one of the
the weirder things that uh Bob Lazar
said, again, I don't know if you're into
this UFO stuff, but he was one of the
guys that um was a whistleblower that
said he backered crafts for the United
States government in the 1980s. They
don't have any controls in these crafts
supposedly and that they're all powered
by the minds of the beings that are
running it and that they have it's
almost like these crafts are alive and
they have some sort of a sinking with
the thing that instead of like pressing
buttons and working a joystick they just
sync with this this creation and then
they can propel it with their minds.
>> So their minds become the computer that
that moves this thing around.
>> I'm I'm a bit skeptical. I haven't
looked into that so I don't
>> You should be.
>> Sounds crazy.
>> How could you not be? And anybody who's
not skeptical sounds crazy, but if you
think about where we are now and where
we're going to be, the possibility of
that being our future is pretty likely,
right?
>> I I think like that the kind of
possibility of engineering something
like that with sufficiently advanced
technology would be there like all kinds
of stuff.
>> Yeah. Yeah, basically everything that
doesn't violate some law of physics um
to a first approximation you would be
able to construct.
>> And even when we say that it's like our
current understanding of physics, it's
not the understanding of physics a
society that's a million years older
than ours.
>> You because that's I mean that's a blink
in the eye of the time that it took to
create what we are at right now from the
big bang. Like a million years is
nothing. Um yeah, but even with our
current understanding of what physics
permits, that's still an enormous space
of uh designs and types of life and
being that you could imagine
instantiating. You could have uh you
know like a Dyson sphere. You've heard
of this concept, right? It's basically
like using the output of the sun for
energy generation. And you could have
like you surround the the sun by solar
panels that then powers
>> a civilization infrastructure maybe like
a computer like imagine the like already
we have like AI compute growing at like
240% per year or something right with
this
>> and then like imagine the kind of mind
that could run on that sized computer.
Um, so people are wondering whether like
could machines be conscious and like
discussing that right now. I think like
maybe the more pertinent question is
like are we really conscious? I think
barely
u so you're driving on on like the road
for two and a half hours a motorist,
right? and like driving past thousands
of people and homes and like mothers
with their strollers and then after does
he does he remember any of that? Like
was he even really aware of any of this
while he was driving? It's like a little
diffused sense of body and some murky
perceptions floating through uh maybe
some confused abstract idea that we
don't really understand. That's kind of
the consciousness that can fit into this
coconut sized biological organ that we
think and we think wow we are so
conscious but like imagine this Dyson
sphere consciousness
>> right
>> or uh like a mind that maybe spans a
galaxy. I think the difference between
the sort of awareness that it could have
and our awareness might be like bigger
than the difference between our
awareness and like whatever a flea has
or something like that. Way bigger. Um
so it could be this like transition
where we develop super intelligent minds
that for the first time is really life
waking up and becoming truly aware.
>> Yeah. Um and and that we are a little
bit sort of uh over pride proud in in
our own specialness when we think that
like we have achieved something close to
the maximum level of uh that we are the
standard by which consciousness should
be measured and and we we this kind of
feeble confused murky glimmer that is
barely sentient at all. Um so so that's
like I think maybe the big challenge for
our uh era like giving birth to super
intelligence and then hopefully shaping
and nurturing it and steering it so that
it becomes a positive thing both for us
ourselves uh and also for it itself and
also for whatever other if there are
other super beings somewhere in in the
world or in the cosmos that it sort of
is able to get along. with us and and
contribute positively at at the cosmic
scale. Um, and that's that's a very
multifaceted challenge, but I think
that's kind of seems to be what's going
on.
>> Yeah. And it's hard for people to think
that far ahead. You know, you just think
of intelligence being something superior
to what we currently experience. But
when you're talking about
a computer or a a
a being a conscious being that is
infinitely more powerful than anything
we can imagine, that seems to be what if
everything keeps going in the same
general direction and AI increases its
power and we figure out new ways to
power it and then because one of the
things that AI needs that's so
interesting is it needs enormous amounts
of power. And so the just these AI
centers that they're developing now,
they're de like Google's doing one where
they're developing their own nuclear
power.
>> Do you want some coffee?
>> Are you sure?
>> Yeah. Right here.
>> Let's get a little
>> I saw you reaching for your cup.
>> You shouldn't be drinking out of paper
cups anyway, man.
>> I don't usually do that.
>> So I know I don't either, but
occasionally I do. But they're so bad
for you.
>> I know. I'm usually quite conscientious
with like coming a little bit
>> up. Even when I go on the road, I've
started taking a little uh Yeti uh
coffee cup with me. So I could buy
coffee and just have them put it in
that.
>> The the inside of those things is just
lined with plastic. You're pouring hot
water into plastic and then the plastic
leeches into your coffee.
>> I don't do that normally, but I figured
like for for
having a chat with you on Jan would be
worth like I guess someund
microplastics.
>> Well, thank you. Um, I I I think uh what
we're talking about is inevitable if
human beings don't blow ourselves up. If
we don't get hit with an asteroid, blow
ourselves up or a super vul volcano
doesn't eradicate civilization. All this
stuff is it's inevitable. It's just it's
how much time does it take and how much
does it grow exponentially in power?
Because we're we're talking about
computers. And then they start bringing
up quantum computing and quantum
computers ability to do calculations and
it doesn't even make sense.
And so you think like well this is just
one version of that like what if what is
a quantum computing going to look like
500 years from now? Like what what is
computing power uh which is connected to
AI? What is what is that going to look
like 500 years from now? It's impossible
to even guess.
>> Well, we can sort of see lower bounds on
what's possible. like thinking already
of just the designs we can conceive of
that we see in principle you could make.
Maybe it'll take a long a lot of grind
to get there. But at least that
establishes like a lower bound of what a
technologically mature civilization
could do. And then maybe they have
additional ideas beyond that. But but
already that is is is enough to really
unlock. Um so if you think of a a space
of possible modes of being where like a
mode of being is a way of experiencing,
living, interacting. Um I think you look
around humanity and all people who have
existed in the past. A lot of different
characters, right? Um men, women, like
mean people, uh nasty people, crazy
people. But I think all of that
diversity of human experience is like a
tiny little corner in in in this space
of possible modes of being like it's a
huge cathedral and we've been kind of
basically sitting in in the janitor's
closet. That's like the the exploration
we've done and and the kinds of uh modes
of being, the kinds of ways of
experiencing and relating to each other
or or thinking and doing stuff that are
ultimately possible is just this this
this enormous space that we haven't that
we haven't been able to explore. Because
ultimately what we can currently
conceive of and imagine and experience
and feel is like limited to to our
biological substrate, the human brain.
And and just as your
uh like early human ancestors from a few
million years ago that you were talking
about before, like they wouldn't really
have been able to um conceive of the
modern human condition. Not just because
I didn't think of it, but because like
the ape brain can't really they don't
like like even if you try to describe it
to them somehow like what is music, what
is humor, what is romantic love, like
>> what what is science? What what is like
all of these things? What's literature?
>> Like that just doesn't fit into
>> right.
>> Right. And so presumably, I mean, you
could think right now we've achieved the
right brain size where all possible
values and interesting ideas are
accessible to us. That seems kind of
implausible. Like it seems much more
likely that just as the chimpanzees are
necessarily blind to uh like a lot of
what can give life meaning and value and
significance probably are we too.
>> Yeah. They don't even have the capacity
for it which is interesting.
>> They can't even consume it.
>> Yeah. think of them as being so
intelligent and they are in comparison
to a lot of other animals. But I think
one of the things that they were puzzled
by when they started teaching uh
primates sign language was that they
never ask questions
>> like they don't seem to have questions
about stuff. So they just they just they
exist in an intelligent way. They can
figure things out. They can they can do
things. They they know when the doors
left unlocked. They understand they
understand fairness, which is really
weird. Like chimps uh get very upset if
they're treated unfairly. Like if one
chimp gets something and they don't get
they get super violent.
>> Uh but they don't have a lot of
questions, you know, and we're filled
with questions like so what what are we
missing
>> that the next stage of being a human
will have that we're not even
considering now because it's not a part
of our experience
>> like what's the asking question type of
thing that we are not able to imagine.
Yeah.
>> And I'm at many of those types of
things.
>> Yeah. And the possibilities are
literally endless. We just don't
conceive of them because we're trapped
in this territorial primate mindset.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I think that's likely.
>> Yeah. I think so, too. I think so, too.
I think the the possibilities are
endless. And uh I think it's going to be
really really weird if uh that happens
inside of our lifetime. Like because you
and I were, you know, close to the same
age, so we grew up with answering
machines. You probably remember the
first cell phones. You probably got
online and probably the like when did
you get online? Like the early
>> 96.
>> Yeah, there you go. Yeah. See, I think
for me it was 94. Uh um so we uh we got
to see all this happen. If we get to see
the new version of humans in our
lifetime, that would be like literally
bonkers.
What an amazing time to be alive if you
really think about it. We're so
fortunate. Cuz if you grew up between
like 1700 and 1800, how much did [ __ ]
change? 1600 to,700. What? You make a
better boat? Like what's what's
different? Not a lot of different, man.
Everybody kind of is the same for a
hundred years. And inside of our
lifetime from the 19 the late 1960s for
me to the early 70s for you like in in
the amount of time that we've been alive
things have radically changed like
really really radically to the point
where it's probably the biggest shift in
uh human ingenuity and innovation that
the world has ever seen. And we're just
in the middle of it. And we might be in
the middle of the next one which like
literally allows us to see what the
world looks like a thousand years from
now because you're going to be alive.
>> Yeah. I mean that's why Yeah. It is now
this full-time job just to monitor the
situation like it's really but it is
>> how do you do that? Well,
you you don't really, but if you you try
to sort of um so I think the opportunity
so it used to be um like at least in my
sphere of effect if you're doing
philosophy or something like it um
most people would think you have a kind
of unlimited time horizon. people have
been working on philosophical questions
for thousands of years and um there
doesn't seem to be any huge urgency uh
if if if they have been unsolved for
thousands of years maybe if it takes
another 500 or so but I I always thought
of philosophy as having a deadline um
meaning that at some point we would
develop smarter than human forms of
intelligence presumably AI that could
then do the philosophy much better than
us and so there was a limited period of
time during which uh any advances um
like I could contribute to would be
meaningful and that it would then make
sense on focusing on that subset of
philosophical questions or general
questions that we really need the answer
to now as opposed to like you know 10 20
years in the future when when somebody
else can do them better like the machine
minds so that's that's kind of been a
lens through which I have selected the
things to work on and now of course that
deadline is moving closer So um there's
less time remaining and so my focus is
increasingly drifting towards questions
where it like that it might be relevant
to have the answer to now rather than a
year or two from now. So
>> you're almost like a cultural navigator
like a guy with a sex stent at the the
helm of a ship
looking at the constellations go I think
we're in the right direction.
>> Yeah. But now now we're sort of moving
maybe in into close to harbor and and
you need to like
>> like pay more attention to exactly
>> how deep the rocks are
>> the rocks are and like look look scan
around you
>> what when you think about um a timeline
for radical change what in your mind
what do you think what do what do you
think that looks like?
>> Well I I mean I take short timelines
seriously with AI. I mean for what we
know it could be like like could be like
a year or two or three or four and
probably be a bit longer. Um but we're
no longer at a point where we can be
confident that we won't have super
intelligence in in just a few years like
it could happen. Uh so
>> what is that when you say that for the
uninitiated? What do you mean by super
intelligence?
>> Um well I guess
we first have AGI artificial general
intelligence. uh um AI that can do all
the stuff that we can do. Um and then
super intelligence would just be that
but can do it way better than any human
can do. Um so all technical intellectual
common sense tasks and then you would
have robotics as well that can do all
the physical stuff not much later. Um
and um so this yeah so the timeline
remains on on on uncertain but um I I
think like it's it's not impossible that
this could happen very soon and then
once you have super intelligence then I
think from there on it it might be like
a sort of sprint to something
approximating technological maturity
because what you have super intelligence
that then designs even more smart AIs
right using its kind of super
intelligent AI research capability and
designing better chips and all of that.
Um, so you might then have this like
intelligence explosion
where where you go from something
slightly greater than human level to
some radical super intelligence that can
then sort of invent whatever the
remaining technologies are. Maybe there
needs to be some trial and error and
experiments in the physical world that
slows things down a bit. but some
smallish number like a singledigit
number of years from super intelligence
I think you might have something that
unlocks all these like sci-fi level
capabilities that that we've talked
about. Um at at least that's seems
relatively plausible to me.
Um
seems inevitable and the my my question
is how does it how does it announce
itself? Does it send a mass text message
to the whole world? Everybody's phone
just starts like, you know, when you
have those Amber alerts and your phone
starts vibrating or when there's some
sort of a storm warning,
>> all of a sudden your phone goes off and
then it alerts you to the fact that it's
taken over.
>> Well, so this I mean, so here we don't
really know. It's like this is very
confusing and we've never done this
before and so it's like very hard to
figure out how how this is going to
unfold and and maybe it's not even fixed
yet. Maybe it depends a little bit on
what on which we do and the extent to
which different actors get their stuff
together. Yeah.
>> Um
>> but um
like one I guess
one possible type of scenario is where
like things are just like um
accelerating. There are more and more of
these uh advances model releases
increasingly there is automation of the
research process in AI labs. Like
already you have coding assistants right
that are really useful to people in AI
labs they're using them to write a lot
of their software like right now you
still need humans for sort of the
research taste and judgment and
sometimes things go like get stuck and
you need a human to kind of redirect
them but but more and more of that make
it automated and then
um you have kind of
new iterations of models being trained
at a faster and faster clip. They can do
more and more stuff. Um
they start to uh
automate increasing chunks of the
economy. So so right now a lot of coding
is automated but like other areas as
well. Maybe they they become drop in
virtual workers that um can do
everything like a human could do with a
remote connection
uh initially and then like you have
people working on robotics. So that that
would start to kick in and then
eventually just more and more of the
action is is run by these AI systems
>> one or more um and and they're kind of
doing it at their time scale which is
speeding up.
Um then from that point um it would
depend a lot on on whether we we have
successfully aligned these systems uh so
that they actually do what the people
created them intended or or whether they
have somehow gone off the rails. Um
>> is there's also the fear that uh America
doesn't come up with it first.
This is our mostly affair in in America.
Like in China, for example, it's America
that comes up with a first. Yeah. I
mean, it's it's really just America and
China that are at the forefront of this
race, right? Russia a little bit, but
not in the same level.
>> Not not Russia.
>> No, not Russia. Who else is it?
>> Did you see this last week?
>> Ford hiring 350 engineers after AI
failed shows
failed shows human value in AI era. What
does that mean?
I tried to find the only one that didn't
just did it.
>> Um,
>> they rehired a bunch of engineers they
fired after their AI wasn't matching the
quality they needed.
>> Oh, and this is Ford. That's
interesting. They probably jumped the
gun, you know.
>> Yep.
>> They probably fired them too quickly and
now these people that they rehire, these
people are going to like, oh, how much
time we have left? Six months before AI
figures out how to do this just as well.
>> We don't know. I mean it it's it's also
possible that uh things timelines could
extend if and like
one one way that could happen is so so
the progress we've seen in the last 10
years which has been remarkable right
it's to a substantial extent driven by
the advances the increase in compute
that is being used to train and run
these systems like it used to be that
you had a cutting edge AI system if you
were some academic like running on your
PC in your office like that that was
kind of the amount of computing power
that was applied to like doing AI stuff
and now of course you have these kind of
tens of billions of dollar data centers
like hundreds of megawws
>> right
>> uh like just massive funding so the
chips have gotten better but also just
the amount of funding like you're just
building many more of these chips and so
as you apply more and more compute like
performance improves and that's like has
been a big driver. Now, at some point
there, like you might not be able to
keep increasing the amount of money you
spend on it because like you you can you
can go from like a $1,000 PC to like a
million dollars quite easily. And you
can go from a million dollar to a
billion dollars. And now maybe you're
spending on the order of a trillion
dollars across the world to build data
centers per year, but you can't really
do like three orders of magnitude very
easily there. is like not a thousand
trillion dollars to spend on it. So at
some point just expenditure has to kind
of slow down. So if we haven't achieved
super intelligence by then then maybe
that would mean progress gets slower if
if the main driver is the scale up of
compute. Now it is also true that some
of the progress is driven by algorithmic
advances like just kind of clever
algorithms.
Um so that that might continue but if
one driver stalls out then that could
result in faster progress. Uh and then
of course there's a possibility that um
the the people who want to uh uh pass or
regulate AI gain enough traction to kind
of get regulatory inhibitions.
How would they do that though if there
really is some sort of a Manhattan
project style race between the United
States and China? And what what other
countries are developing AI right now
that are close?
>> Well, I mean those are the
>> those are the two big ones.
>> The big ones. Is it possible that
someone could sneak up on us and develop
super intelligent AI first?
>> Yeah, I mean it's possible if there were
like some big algorithmic breakthrough
for example that made it a lot more
efficient to run
>> right
>> uh a similar level of capability with
less sort of AI data center
infrastructure
>> and many other countries are also trying
it's just that they are not uh as
advanced and and and out of US and China
I'd say like US currently has the edge.
What would happen if China got there
first?
>> Well, I mean um part would depend on
whether they had successfully aligned
their AI. If if it's unaligned, then I
guess the same thing happens as if US AI
is unaligned. That is the future gets
shaped according to whatever values this
AI had ended up with. Um if the
alignment problem is solved then it
might make a difference because then the
the the values would then depend on sort
of the people who owned and controlled
or governed it um would ask it to
pursue. So then then in that scenario
maybe it makes some difference um who
who
initiates it. Um,
>> so right now the the big players are,
you know, there's Google and there's uh
Open AI. There's all all these different
companies. When you say aligned, do they
have to all be kind of on the same page
or like when aligned, we're not going to
be aligned if there's a bunch of
corporations that are competing to come
up with this first? So they have to be
aligned in terms of the way they're
programmed that they're valuing human
life and that they're valuing society.
Like what do you mean by all? So, so I
mean just the technical challenge of if
if you are building an AI system and you
have certain things you want it to do
and certain things you don't want it to
do,
>> right?
>> Are you technically able to get the AI
to behave that way that you as the
person who gets to decide how
>> well that's a separate question which is
equally important maybe but different
because that's not the technical like
you can't just go to the whiteboard and
write down some formula now you have
that's like a political question
ultimately the question of governance.
>> Yes. Um so there you need you know
political organization appeals to the
best in human nature dialogues like
checks and balances whatever stuff that
might work in the political arena um to
to hope that the governance of this that
the values to which it is aligned are
sort of benign values that hopefully
incorporates um a wide set of
stakeholders.
>> Right. But that's a little isn't that a
little naive because whenever there's
any sort of a situation where something
has massive amounts of power above
others that one of the first things they
think of is what's the most money you
can generate
doing it and what is the best way to
generate the most amount of money like
that's they're going to think that way.
They're not going to think like what's
the best for the human race. Like no one
ever thinks that way. They think what is
the best way in terms of like destroying
the competition? What is the best way in
terms of extracting the most resources
out of this? Making it work for me.
That's that's what that's what people
think of immediately. And what's the
best way to stop other people from
competing with us,
>> right? Yeah. Well, so so that would be I
think a lot of um
um uh pressures and strains on whatever
governance mechanism exists at the time
when super intelligence is developed.
>> Right. Um,
>> so is this something that the technology
is so far ahead, the the potential for
it to be so far ahead of our
understanding of what it's going to be
able to do that like making laws for
that now, it's it's going to be very
difficult to even explain to people.
Like we need we need these laws and we
need these guard rails in place now
because here's what could happen. And
that that conversation is not really
happening right now. It
>> it is happening. Um
>> but is it happening politically?
>> It's starting to happen. Yeah, it's been
happening uh to an increasing extent
politically and there have been various
actions.
>> Okay. Like what actions?
>> Um well, so a few years ago for example,
there was the uh whole expert uh export
regime imposed by the US on on chips,
the most advanced chips where like China
was cut out from being able to access
the the most advanced Nvidia chips and
so forth. Um
um and that's that's kind of been
modified but that's that was motivated
to a significant extent by trying to
preserve AI edge that the US has
>> right but that's like internationally I
mean in terms of like being able to stop
corporations
>> from having the the kind of power that
this could provide them. So, so then
there have been various uh efforts that
was like proposition in California where
there were various things um more
recently you saw the whole thing I don't
know if you followed it with the um
mythos and fable five the anthropic
models that um where like so so mythos
has not been released this is the most
powerful model because it seems to have
significant cyber offense capabilities
um it can easily detect vulnerabilities
in software. And so, uh, Anthropic
figured that rather than immediately
making it available to everybody, maybe
it would be better to first try to make
it available to, um, providers of, um,
critical software infrastructure like
like like big banks and I'd like that to
patch up their systems.
Um
um and then uh Fable 5 was a kind of
restricted version of the Mythos model
like the same underlying model but with
extra safeguards. It basically refused
anything that remotely seemed like
um you know cyber hacking programming
biological stuff because maybe that
would be bio. So like it sort of drew a
wide circle around anything that even
remotely looked possibly dangerous and
it just refuses that. So that was
released. Um but then after like a week
or so
the administration uh imposed an
um an kind of export restriction that
prevented any non- US citizen uh from
using it. And that meant Anthropic had
to cut it up for everybody because they
didn't have a way in real time to verify
who is a US citizen and not.
>> Oh wow.
>> Um so then it was like unavailable for
several weeks and and like intense
negotiations behind the scenes and
working to try to figure out because
allegedly it was possible to jailbreak
it so that it sometimes gave some little
assistance with some cyber like finding
vulnerabilities in code. Um and now
recently it just became available again
because they had reached some
understanding with with the government
um where it was deemed sufficiently
safeguarded to to be released. Um and
now there's like efforts underway to try
to work out the framework because like
in the future you wouldn't want to do
this on an ad hoc basis like somebody
just decides this particular model for
some unspecified reason like you want to
have clear standards ideally right that
applies to everybody every company. So
there's now some industrywide effort to
try to work with the government to any
anyway. So there's like a lot of this
stuff um happening. I expect much more
uh of this going forward. It just has
recently become like a serious issue. PE
people until recently were kind of
ignoring the whole AI thing for the most
part. Um and then there is a second wave
coming I think once so so far we haven't
really seen any big impact on the labor
market
right uh from AI. But once that starts
to hit and you get maybe, you know, high
levels of unemployment amongst white
collar workers and like imagine if you
have millions and millions of people
with that have their university
diplomas, right? They feel a sense of
superiority and entitlement. They've
gone through the whole process. They got
their degree and now they expect a
well-paying job. Um, and then there is
no job for them. They've got nothing to
do all day long. what what they but but
complain about AI. Uh so you got to have
all these well educated people who feel
resentful and are going to say every
possible bad thing about AI that could
be said all day long and mobilize the
very powerful political constituency
that will emerge from that that's not
even yet happened but that will kind of
add to all of these other
>> um grievances that that people point to
with AI. So I think there's going to be
kind of significant political pressures
uh for doing something about AI. Um
>> isn't the the key is getting ahead of it
though. So like how how can people find
how how how can we see the
vulnerabilities in advance and recognize
like when this is going to like if there
is going to be a tipping point and a
bunch of white collar workers are going
to be out of work and there's going to
get to a point where we realize like
this is coming. This is like 3 weeks
from now. what do we do? Like what do
they do? Like what?
>> Yeah. So that's not clear to me at
least. I mean a lot of people think uh
they have different views about what
should be done on course, but
>> I it's like very hard to have an
>> it's such a complex strategic. I mean
I've been thinking about this for like
three decades maybe. Uh and I still feel
extremely unsure even which direction is
kind of up and which is down.
>> Yeah. Um, I don't think it would be
possible right now to sort of figure out
a detailed, you know, perfect regulatory
scheme or system of laws. Like there's
so many unknowns. I think we'd need to
sort of watch this closely as it happens
and be ready to react quickly to issues
that come up. Um, and hope that relevant
people are like highly competent and
well motivated and are trying their
best. And I I it's then on the margin
maybe we can do things that kind of are
constructive and increases the chances
that it will be for the good. Um
if and when I have some clear insight as
to some overall big directional push uh
I I will let you know. Um
but even basic questions like for
example do we want more government
involvement or less government
involvement? Do we want faster progress
in AI or slower progress in AI?
Um,
I don't know. Uh, is is not not
completely obvious to me. Well, I think
it's eventually going to get to wherever
it's going to get either way. Having it
slower, I I I don't I don't know if
that's really going to help us. I I
think almost like we have to crash and
then we have to figure out how to
rebuild and pick up the pieces. I don't
think we're going to be intelligent or
have enough foresight to recognize where
all these flaws and where where all
these problems are going to ultimately
be. I think they're just going to have
to happen and then people are going to
have to adjust. That's what I think.
Yeah. So I'm not advocating an AI pass
by contrast to a lot of some of my
colleagues and friends and stuff like I
I I could see though some scenario in
which it would be helpful at some point
to have a temporary slowdown of you know
a few months maybe or half a year or a
year like if you imagine you know there
are different companies countries maybe
racing to get there first.
>> Yeah. And then eventually somebody
figures out they basically have the
system in place. They just need to uh
like amp up like run it for longer. They
can sort of see that it will become
super intolerant. They hope it's
aligned. It might be very helpful in
that situation to have a few extra
months just to sort of double check all
your safeguards and rather than
immediately cranking all the knobs up to
11, like maybe sort of do it a little
bit incrementally, watch what happens,
study it, then crank it up a little bit
more. And I just think you might gain
some extra safety if you have a few
extra months there. Like the pressures
on these people in the lab
>> if it's all going to happen over a week
like it's just going to be this is the
first time we ever do this hugely
complex thing. It has to be right. We
never get a second chance. just
>> being able to like even just being able
to sleep properly for like between your
work sessions and like having
>> you know a weekend to mold things over
like just that kind of human humans
don't really operate on on
well on in in these like super short
timelines. I think a short if you could
be sure that the pause would in fact be
limited and short and then it would be
lifted. I think that could be quite
useful to have at if it could also be
timed to be at the right moment and well
implemented.
>> But wouldn't the problem be espionage
first of all?
>> That's one one issue with it.
>> Yeah. if they realize if somebody
realized hey they're about 3 days away
from this and then China bribes a bunch
of people and you know people take off
and move to
>> yeah there there are various uh
>> there are various downsides to pausing
um so one one is that um like there are
competitors who just even without
espionage are catching up
>> um another is it's not as if the world
is safe without AI Right.
>> Um,
>> good point.
>> Other like whether like the natural
hazards I think they are very small like
super volcanoes and stuff like that on
the relevant time scales
>> until they're not.
>> Well, I mean we've survived for like
hundreds of thousands of years, right?
>> And we're almost wiped out entirely
70,000 years ago.
>> Yeah. Well, that's a long time ago.
>> Is it though?
>> Well,
>> not if it happens tomorrow.
>> If it Well, but like if if something
hasn't done us in in that long a time,
probably it's not going to do us in
within the next 10 years. Boy, you're
more optimistic than me.
>> Well, it's just based on the actual
empirics of these natural catastrophes.
By contrast, I would say there are other
hazards that are not low. Uh I mean, we
have rapid advances in synthetic
biology. Some some of them driven you
are enabled maybe even by already
um um AI progress that has already taken
place like that can start to assist with
this and and more just happening
independently. you get increasing risks
from syn synthetic biology. We still
have the nuclear arsenals, right? Kind
of existing
um we think have gotten a little bit
complacent about the risks of nuclear
war. Um
um and um and various other things as
well. So I think there's like a
background level of existential risk
that humanity faces in the absence of
super intolerance that probably is
growing as well. So you don't want to
wait so long that you don't even get the
chance to roll the dice with AI because
you destroyed yourself before even
gotten that would kind of be sad.
>> Um and then um then also I mean I think
there's like some risk if you set up a
pause infrastructure that what's
initially meant to be a temporary thing
becomes permanent. Like they say there's
nothing more permanent like than a
temporary government program. If you set
up the infrastructure to actually
control this ideally at the global
scale, right? It's meant to be for six
months, like what what happens after six
months, nobody can still prove that the
AI will be safe. So you have all these
people now whose job it is to to
regulate it and like maybe they so it
could it could become kind of frozen in
and become permanent. Um and and then
also
the delay benefits of this. So if you
think what like 65 million people die
every year, um that's that's a lot of
human lives. Um
that's like one 911 every 25 minutes
just kind of boom like
>> that's a way to look at it. Um and so
there is a certain urgency if there is
something that somehow could have a
chance to to to to fix this like all the
suffering that is happening in the world
like aside from the people dying like
all the people who are bererieved right
who lost their loved one and then all
the disease that led up to that dying.
Uh right. And then all the non disease
related all the the horrible poverty and
like the suicidal depression and the
animals in the animal factories that are
like spending the there's just like this
>> I think moral urgency that if there is a
hope that getting AI right could fix
this then you don't want to wait
unnecessarily long because every day is
just this massive horror
>> right
>> um so I think there are many reasons for
why you wouldn't want unnecessary or
excessive uh uh delays in developing AI,
but but there is a trade-off because if
we can make more progress on AI safety
and alignment and get our act together a
little bit before we take the plunge,
like that's also worth quite a lot.
It's uh it it's certainly exciting
because the possibilities are right in
front of us and they're kind of endless
and it seems like they're right in front
of us. It seems like to in my mind it
seems like we're like 24 months away
from something really insane.
I I think
>> could could be could be could be could
be 48 months. It could be I mean we
don't we don't
>> Yeah, it could be. Yeah. Who knows? But
there's something happening really
quickly. You know, I talked to Elon
about Grock. He said it's uh it shocks
us like every couple weeks that we're
like, how is it doing this? How is it so
fast? How is it advancing so quickly?
And um one day cat's going to be out of
the bag and there's not going to be any
way to stop it. Like if the power went
out right now, if there was some sort of
a massive solar flare that killed our
power grids and all computer hard drives
got fried and we had to restart from
now, like
we would have to rebuild society, right?
But if we get to the point where this
thing understands what would cause that,
how to prevent that, how to make sure
that never happens, much better power
supply, much better um allocation of
resources, much better batteries, much
better uh redundant data systems where
you never have to worry about
hard drives crashing and you never have
to worry about any of these problems.
like any information you have now will
be secure and then understanding of
natural disasters will actually get
drill into this volcano and it never
goes off. Like there's gonna be a few
things that they're going to figure out
through AI that's going to prevent a lot
of the things that are probably wiped
out enormous swast of I mean imagine if
we could just actually see asteroids
coming all of them and know how to
divert them instantaneously
where we have a bunch of ideas right now
on how to do it right like coding them
>> yeah with something changes the
aerodynamics of them and
>> I think that one would be relatively
easy I mean even we could figure out to
do that I think
>> and there's also detonating There's a
bunch of different crazy ideas, but
imagine if AI is like, "Actually, you
could just do this, you know, and then
you put a shield over the Earth and you
never have to worry about it ever." The
shield's powered by the sun, so you have
ultimate power and you never have to
worry about being hit by a Manhattan
sized asteroid.
>> Yeah. I think the trickier ones might be
ones that are more internal to
civilization. If you have some process
that's either like a worldwide process
with different humans and corporations
and governments or or like an internal
process in the AI like on the one hand
you want to be able to continue to
develop new ideas new ways of doing
things. So you need to experiment and
try new things. But then there's also
the risk of you just keep trying new
ideas like that eventually you you get
stuck on some idea that actually proves
really harmful or dangerous to you.
>> Um and that you then sort of derail
internally through your own matic or
internal evolutionary development. So
>> um
>> how to sort of grow up safely in this
world where you have unlocked all kinds
of new technological capabilities even
if you're easily able to protect
yourself against external threats like
volcanoes and asteroids and stuff,
right? There might still be processes
arising from within this global
civilization just as we might invent new
technologies that are dangerous. We
might invent new like drugs that are
super addictive. Once you invent them,
you try them and then you're addicted,
you never want to.
>> Yeah. Oh, there could be other like some
some crazy ideology that once it takes
hold.
>> I'm glad you brought that upd.
>> Um, yeah. And I mean I think all that's
in fact I would add that to the list of
I've mentioned nuclear and bio
terrorist risk as like background
existential risks like another is like
some form of insanity like collective
insanity. I I feel our our
civilizational sanity already is kind of
a little bit precarious. I think we're
just kind of maybe barely holding
ourselves together. Uh-huh.
>> Um, and it's amazing how well the world
functions despite how crazy people are
and how much they loathe their opponents
and so forth. And we still managed to
somehow get it to work.
>> There's also manipulation of the
zeitgeist that's clearly being done by
bots. So, you've got a bunch of people
online that are having arguments on
Twitter and they're not even talking to
people. There's a bunch of ideas that
are being pushed out on Twitter and a
lot of these social media platforms.
It's not even human beings tweeting
about it. It's not It's not It's There's
There's algorithms. There's AI. There's
people that are hired to do it. There's
people that are working for certain
organizations that are hired to muddy up
the waters, gaslight people, create
problems, have people argue with each
other. And so it's like if AI recognizes
how easy it is to manipulate people, do
whatever it wants, that's a fear as
well.
>> Um yeah. So whenever you change the
basic parameters of sort of the
social cultural political discourse
um new dynamics will emerge
and we don't have the kind of social
science that is able to predict what
happens if you change some of these
knobs. So we've seen in the past like
you invent let's go all the way back
like somebody invents writing.
Okay. So that turns out to have had a
huge effect uh not just on people
writing like literature and stuff but
like on political systems. So you could
now have states that could keep tax
records, right? So you could have larger
political units with writing and then
they can hire standing armies
and now you have like large scale war.
You have social stratification. You
could have like the the ruler of a large
area could have, you know, enormous
wealth and you could have a soldier cast
that like protects against internal and
external. So like just the way that
human societies are politically
organized changes as a result of this
change in the rules of communication
when you can have written texts, right?
And then you have the printing press
again with like like 100 years of
religious wars in in Europe like
reformation and all of this stuff is
possibly and then like forms of
democracy later on also coming out of
this and the scientific revolution. Um
then you have like mass media in the
last century with like radio and stuff
and you have kind of demagogues that
take advantage of being able to
simultaneously talk to millions of
people because that was never possible
before. Right. Right?
>> Could have some charismatic kind of guy
who's like rallies up the whole nation
and then new ideologies become matically
fit in that situation that might never
have if if it were people writing kind
of
letters to the editor. Like it's a kind
of a different type of idea that works
there than if you're giving a kind of
stump speech that goes out to millions
simultaneously. And now with social
media of course we have another one of
these and you do see that starting to
change culture in different ways.
>> Yeah. And and now with AI being the next
wave of this, that will also change. You
have like bots, you have new ways of
finding information. You have maybe AIS
that can themselves be super persuaders.
That will also change presumably in some
unknown an unknowable way the the way
that like social discourse pans out. And
for any one of these, I guess it could
turn out to be a lot better. We could
become more informed having AI advisors.
I think that's a fairly likely scenario.
But it's also possible somehow the
dynamics shape out in a different way
and we kind of go collectively insane in
some way. Um
>> back to the white water raft.
>> Um white to backwater raft. Yes. And it
all becomes kind of totalitarian or we
sort of fragment into like political
waring tribes or we become kind of
completely unhinged. Every one of us
becomes convinced of their own little
naughty theory that they then like their
AI or feed just serves them more
material to kind of fuel their
conviction. that there different ways in
which this could go badly but um
>> but don't you think even if that happens
ultimately the progress of AI won't stop
and so
the the again I keep going back to this
thing but I think this is really what it
is is we have to change like what it
means to be a person all those things
are only problems if people stay what we
are now which is territorial primates
with desire to possess material goods
for some strange reason even though
we're a finite life form. If all that
changes, if we change what it means to
be a person, which seems inevitable,
>> then then it won't matter. Then if we
all like if we if there's no if we could
figure out a way to literally engineer
out all of the issues that humans have
with greed and violence and all the all
the different things that trouble
society if the desire for that is no
longer a part of being a person
which is that's doable that's that seems
like if we're going to continue to
evolve past you know Australiathecus to
homo sapien 2026
If they if we continue the same amount
of time in the future, we probably won't
be like that anymore. The best versions
of people aren't people that want to
steal your house and steal your land and
shoot you and take your resources.
That's the best people are the people
that contribute and they're interesting
and they they make you excited to be
around them and you like it. that if
that keeps going on and that and if that
is aided by technology, if we recognize
that there's actual patterns of human
thinking and behavior that can be
changed and that if we all agree to
subscribe to this algorithm to connect
to this computer program, connect to
this external device or maybe not even
external, maybe maybe it's internal that
allows us to communicate with each other
telepathically. Like all that all that
changes and then it doesn't matter. It
it doesn't matter if there's any guard
rails for AI or not because we're not
the same thing anymore. Like all the
problem the worry that we have about AI,
the worry we have about power
manipulation and the the ability to
influence people, all that kind of goes
away if people don't behave the way they
behave currently.
>> Mhm. Well, I guess here is one
difference with your like white water
rafting metaphor that so the one is in
in that metaphor, it's kind of we need
to hang on like there's a risk we could
smash ourselves on the rock. But if we
don't do that, then there's kind of one
way we end up right downstream.
>> We get up in a nice lake.
>> Yeah. But I think in reality what might
also be the case that in addition to
trying to not smash ourselves on the
rock, there might be places where the
choices we make affect the ultimate
destination,
>> right?
>> Um
>> go left or go right.
>> Yeah. Or which stream maybe a more Yeah.
>> multi and where like if if you stare in
one direction, you you might end up in
in one place ultimately in some sort of
strange posthuman world. Then maybe it's
really beautiful and people have the
chance to grow into their true self and
we love each other and are creative and
take initiatives and go a different way.
Maybe you have a paperclipip maximizing
AI or maybe that just everything is
paperclip. So going a third way maybe
you have like a totalitarian system with
like a small elite on top and everybody
else.
>> Yeah.
>> Um or just
>> sci-fi
>> kind of Yeah. Then there are many more
possibilities and and maybe some that
kind of we would think would look kind
of good if we chose now, but then in
reality they have some hidden flaw that
we didn't think of. So if we chose
those, it would sort of be a mistake.
>> And then maybe others that don't look
that appealing to us now, if you just
presented them in a brochure to you,
like but then actually if you thought
hard about it, maybe you would realize
that actually would be a really nice
place to live. uh because like in in in
the current world there are places that
are nice to visit that are interesting
but then those are not necessarily the
same places we would want to live and
raise a kid right so there's right
>> there are like novels and movies that
are really fun to watch
>> but you wouldn't want to live in those
worlds so there's a difference between
the kind of what makes for the good
interesting story and the place where
you actually want to spend the rest of
your life
>> and so I think there would be possibly a
lot of opportunities to make foolish
choices uh or unwise choices or
conflicts that sort of thwarts the the
process and makes us end up not not just
that we go extinct before we reach
there, but that the deer that we reach
might depend on the level of wisdom and
kindness that we have during the
process.
>> And there's always unintended
consequences with every solution that we
try to find for any problem that we
have. There's always some new thing that
comes up. We're like, "Oh, we didn't see
that coming." I mean, it's certainly
when whenever we're dealing with nature,
like whenever they've uh brought in
invasive species to handle other
invasive species, it always a giant
disaster, you know.
>> Yeah.
>> Always. And there's always unintended
consequences like, oh, now you have a
100red million frogs. Who was telling us
about that? Was it Ali Sadik that was
telling us about the frogs? Who
>> about they brought in? What did they
bring in?
forget what the invasive species was.
They brought in uh this one species to
kill another species. And the problem
they didn't realize that that species
had been was like coyotes or I forget it
was
>> in Guam.
>> It was Guam. What was it? What did they
get rid of?
>> Whatever it was, they got rid of this
thing that had been killing the frogs.
So then they had to, right? Was it
toads? So they had millions of these
things that were like all over the
highway. So you drive on them, you just
squash them everywhere you go because
there was nothing controlling the
population of these things anymore. It's
like unintended consequences of, you
know, because we're
>> we're very shortsighted in even in our
ability to be contemplative about what
the possibility of the future is when
you're dealing with such an open-ended
thing like AI, super general
intelligence that can maybe make better
versions of itself. Like what? Who the
hell knows what that means? That's
>> Are we making a god? Because it seems
like if it keeps going and that if it
makes better versions of itself, it's
ultimately going to get to the point
where it could do anything, which is
exactly what a god is. It can make
universes,
you know. What if the ultimate end of
this is a big bang button that some
scientist invents?
>> Yeah. So, so we are a little bit like
Yeah. It's I don't know the different
analogies one might reach for but I mean
I guess like
uh like say you're on a plane and then
like the the pilot has passed out or had
a heart attack or something and now it's
like we passengers
>> who somehow have to I don't know figure
out how to do the uh
>> run the controls uh we not really I mean
we we you have to still try to make your
best right but then add to that that all
the passengers are fighting amongst each
other each one thinks they are the guy
who should control the the like they're
all convinced that they are the superior
person to try to land the plane.
>> So in addition to trying to figure out
how the controls work, they are like
actually having a big fist fight in the
cockpit as well and somebody's like
dragging somebody else away. And there
like the the kind of monk tribe that is
the current state of the world here and
we're trying to shepherd like this ship
of humanity into um utopia. It's
>> Yeah,
>> it's um Yeah, it's it's it's an
interesting
>> it's Doctor Strange love on steroids.
>> But uh but that's it. We might only have
to like get it. So at at some point we
would should be able to hand over like
um the reins like once you have a
sufficiently good AI like we maybe get
assistance from that point on. I think
it's the first thing that it's going to
take over is government. He's going to
realize how unbelievably inefficient
the government is at doing almost
everything and how much how much of the
money that gets allocated is fraud and
waste. If you allow AI to sort through
that and develop much more efficient
pathways to controlling and
>> some people would not want to see that
particular
>> Exactly. That's going to be a problem.
But if we get to the point where there's
some sort of um some sort of a hive mind
possibility, some sort of a I mean, one
of the things that Elon said that I
thought was really fascinating, he said,
"You're going to be able to talk without
words."
Well, if we're able to talk without
words, like, does that eventually get to
the point we could read minds? Could
could we is is is
thought and is communication no longer
verbal? It's no longer sounds. So, right
now we associate sounds that I'm making
where you know what words I'm using,
what I'm referencing, and we get a a
certain understanding of what each other
is trying to say. But what if that's
just clunky and that's silly? And what
if uh instead of uh a scroll that you
leave in a cave somewhere, now you have
a movie that you can watch like
something much more engrossing and much
more much more powerful. And that this
is what human communication becomes. It
doesn't it and maybe this is why the
grays don't have mouths. We move away
from sounds because right now what we
figured out is like sort of like u duct
tape. We've we we're communicating. We
kind of patched it up. We figured out
some thing. We're just going to use
noises we make. Well, we have different
noises here than the people that live on
this island. They have totally different
noises. I don't know what the [ __ ]
they're saying. And then you have people
on the other side of the world. Totally
different noises. So, Tower of Babel
type situation, right? Where we really
can't communicate with each other unless
we have translators. But if we get to
the point where that's not how humans
communicate, we communicate purely
through thought and intention and
understanding and that it's no longer
based on language. It's no longer based
on this is a transistor. This is a
coffee mug. Instead, it's a complete
understanding of each individual thing
that we're discussing. everything. You
know what it is, you understand what it
is without it having to have a a noise
associated with it.
>> Yeah. I mean, I guess the cyber security
implications are significant if you're
giving direct access to other people to
transmit
>> signals to your brain in a high
bandwidth way that is not just
>> words kind of that it's almost like you
heard them even though there's no sound
in your ear. But if it's like actually
directly kind of interfacing in a high
bandwidth way with your neural network.
>> Also, encryption's out the window. If we
no longer have encryption, if if we get
to the point where
>> Why is that out of the window?
>> Because if computing gets to the point
where the bottleneck is like, think
about money, right? What what is money
right now? Money is all ones and zero
somewhere essentially, right? It's all
bank accounts. It's like it's like we're
not on a gold standard anymore. So what
if that bottleneck it's it's an
information bottleneck like someone's
preventing you from going to going into
these places and getting these ones and
zeros and transferring it to your place.
But what if that is all if what if
computing power gets to the point with
AI gets to the point where that those
boundaries are nonsense now all all
encryption is instantaneously decoded. I
think probably
uh cryptography is uh defense dominant
in the limit. I think like if you
imagine um mature technology, I think it
would be possible to encrypt. I mean if
nothing else you could use like a
one-time pad which would enable you to
encrypt things in a way that is
unbreakable
>> really.
>> Um I feel like that's going to be a
bottleneck. I feel and I think once we
start reading each other's minds that
might be the first thing to go.
>> Well,
>> it'll be like the ultimate social.
>> That's where you really probably would
want encryption, right? If you're going
to transmit thoughts to me through some
like you don't you don't want sort of
have a
>> Oh, you don't want some [ __ ] like
constantly in your head, your next door
neighbor just poking you and proddding
you. But you was you would hope that
along with this technology becomes like
a a a general state of enlightenment
that the human beings achieve where
that's no longer the kind of behavior
that we indulge in the which behavior do
we no longer
>> annoying each other each other stealing
each other's money that kind of stuff
>> well but then yeah I guess it goes back
to this question of the the utopian
condition like if you
>> and I it so there are a lot of things
that individually are bad
um like lying, stealing, cheating,
greed, uh excessive pride, like all
kinds of disease, stubbing your knee is
bad. Like
yet if you sort of imagine removing all
of those things then that changes the
human condition quite profoundly and to
some people would feel kind of maybe or
appear flavorless or
>> sort of um if there is no no tension, no
conflict, no
>> no no bruised ego, no like
>> but it might still be good but but it
does force us to sort of I think it
would be a rather fundamentally
different thing that we would be
metamorphosing
If if we went all the way in that
direction, which ultimately might be
right, but it it it would require us to
kind of find new ways of realizing
whatever values are imperfectly realized
in the current world through conflict
and competition and pain. Like some
people get maybe motivation from painful
failure.
>> Yeah. And so if you get rid of the pain
from failure, then you'd need some other
motivation like some other thing that
drives you on which they could be like
maybe it's just a love of achievement
and you feel kind of neutral or just
less happy when you fail, but you would
still need something that kind of
preserves
um whatever structure it is that we
think is valuable in the current human
condition. Unless you go all the way to
sort of radical hedonism and and think
the future is best if we were all just
kind of floating in some kind of drug
induced euphoria as as blobs that
experienced immense pleasure but had no
real texture in our experiences, didn't
engage in activities and didn't interact
with each other. Like there's like a
philosophical view where ultimately
pleasure is the only thing that matters
and the minimization of suffering. So if
if that's your axiology then it's
relatively easy to see then how at
technological maturity you would achieve
a sort of optimal state. But if you have
a more complex value system where maybe
pleasure is one good thing maybe really
important but there are also other
things like appreciating beauty you know
true friendship courage achievement and
ideally you'd want a future that
includes all of these things. then you
need to do a little bit more sort of
design work to figure out a way to
combine them all in a in a in a
meaningful way.
>> But this all comes back to our idea of
human meaning. What what's important to
humans? Our our finite 100year lifespan
adoption of this concept of meaning. But
the black hole doesn't give a [ __ ] about
human meaning. And it's going to be
around a lot longer than us. And it's
got a lot more power than us. And it's
doing a lot more change than us. And we
want to think that we're more important
than black holes.
>> Yeah. I mean,
>> we are us.
>> I think we are. I mean,
>> to us.
>> Yeah. To us. And uh
>> but to the universe, is it is human
meaning that important to the universe
or is it just sort of a placeholder for
like what we'll ultimately become? Is it
is it motivate us to continue to
progress?
>> Well, so I think like at technological
maturity there are certainly forms of
purpose that you could have. you could
have artificial purpose. Um, so this is
when you basically set yourself a goal
for the sake of having the goal and then
doing the activity that so you know
maybe maybe you set yourself the goal
I'm going to get this little white ball
into a sequence of 18 holes
and not only that but in order to
achieve this goal it's part of the goal
that I'm only use allowed to use this
very inconvenient method. I I can hit
the ball with a club, right? I can't.
Much easier to just pick it up and put
it in each hole successively, but that
doesn't count as being successful.
>> So, you could make up this goal
pretty arbitrary. Now, once you have
that goal, then you now have a reason to
try hard, to concentrate, to perfect
your swing, and you can play golf. So,
the goal enables you to to do this
activity of golf playing, which maybe
you find fun or worthwhile or
meaningful. Um the reason it meaningful
is because it's difficult to do.
>> Yeah. Uh um and so the future would
consist, I think, if we succeed in a lot
of game playing. Uh and you could
certainly have these artificial purposes
that you set yourself these goals that
then give you a reason to engage in an
activity.
>> Now we're back in the world of HalfLife.
Now we're back in a video game. Now
we're we're also in the simulation.
>> This is going to be your artificial
goal. And and you could imagine I think
maybe we shouldn't think of video games
here, but it could be much like games we
can't even imagine. It could be like
societywide games that last for 20 years
that involve all kinds of multimodal
things and little groups that work
together to like
>> come up with new ways of creatively. And
so in in that broad sense of kind of
things we do for their own sake, I think
game playing could be and and it's like
a lot of what children do. They're kind
of for curiosity and spend a lot of the
time playing games and we might all be
like kids again. What might be in
shorter supply is sort of natural
purpose um like purposes
um which we don't just arbitrarily make
up in order to have a purpose but that
are sort of given to us. So, so, so
right now in the world you might say um
you know making a living is not just an
arbitrary purpose because there are real
consequences if you fail like maybe
eventually you get kicked out from your
flat and then you know it's really cold
and you get rained on and like horrible
things happen. So like similarly if if
you like don't brush your teeth
eventually you will have tooth decay and
there will be real consequences. So
these there are like various things that
you have reason to do uh because there
are real negative consequences if you
fail to do them. And a lot of our lives
is structured by these natural purposes
at a societal level there's a whole
bunch of things we need to do together
right and in this future world maybe
there would be many fewer of those
natural purposes because for any one of
them you could just ask the AI to sort
it out.
>> Yeah.
>> And so the artificial purposes would be
a larger chunk. It's interesting to
think are there any natural purposes
that would survive to technological
maturity like any things that we still
have sort of instrumental reasons that
that we need to do ourselves.
Um and I think there might be a few um
but they are more subtle. that might not
strike us currently as very important,
but
um it's one of those things where
like you know that during the day if
you're outside you can't see the stars,
right? Uh it's not because they're not
there like it's because like there's so
much light that they are sort of blotted
out. But at at night
um when the stronger light from the sun
is absent, you can see these fainter
lights. I think similarly
uh in in this future there might be on
once these sort of urgent screaming
moral values of immediately pressing
practical concern go away you might be
able to perceive a whole constellation
of these more subtle values that we are
blind to currently.
>> So take the value of take the value of
like I don't know like some like
honoring uh your forebears.
So right now it doesn't seem I mean
maybe it's nice sometimes to remember
your your past parents or some
historical hero who did something good
that benefited humanity right but it's
like not the main thing that you're like
maybe that would be a bigger thing if
that was nothing else you needed to do
maybe you could actually spend serious
time um or spiritual quests like even
for people who are very religious a lot
of their actual waking hours are spent
on random other things doing their
laundry like driving to work, like the
all kinds of stuff. Like if all of that
was automated, you could imagine
spending more time on trying to align
yourself, orient yourself to this higher
being and trying to be in communication
with them. Like maybe aesthetic values
like there are maybe some things that
would just be kind of nice and cool if
if the world were like that. We don't
really have time to worry so much about
them now. But if there was nothing else
on the agenda, like coming together in
in a way that upholds some tradition in
a beautiful original way that still is
true to the original spirit together
with other people and enacting some
ceremony. Like maybe those things would
start to fill more of our time in in
conjunction with this game playing. Um
um and there might be many other uh of
these kind of subtler values that that
would start to shape what people were
doing.
>> Yeah. And ultimately, who knows?
>> Yes.
It's it's very interesting and it's very
open-ended and we really don't know
what's going to happen, but we're
probably going to see it. We're probably
going to see the strangest
thing that humans have ever had a
possibility to experience.
>> Yeah. And in the end, I guess it's uh
trustful.
>> Yeah. Well, uh I mean these the
conversations are always fascinating.
And who knows, let's let's do another
one in a few years and see how off we
are.
>> If you if come back in four years.
>> All right. Let's if we have four years.
If we have 4 years, if you can, if
you're allowed to travel in 4 years,
come back and let's see how wrong we
were.
>> Yeah, make an update.
>> Well, thank you very much. I really
appreciate you coming in here. It's
great to see you again.
>> Fun.
>> It's always fun. Okay. All right. Think
about it, kids. Bye, everybody.