← Piers Morgan Uncensored
Piers Morgan Uncensored
'Most TERRIFYING Answer I've Had!' Will AI Wipe Out Humans? Piers Morgan Asks Tom Bilyeu & More
00:42:07
Loading summary
Transcript91 lines
- [00:01]
Dr. Roman Yampolsky
With artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon.
- [00:03]
Tom Bilyeu
My worst fears are that they cause significant harm to the world.
- [00:08]
Piers Morgan
We saw this week the big battle between Sam Altman and Elon Musk, his big rival.
- [00:13]
Tom Bilyeu
I wish he would just compete by building a better product, but I think there's been a lot of tactics, many, many lawsuits, all sorts of other crazy stuff. What do you think of Sam Altman?
- [00:22]
Piers Morgan
The ring of power can corrupt. Guardrails are the crucial thing with all of these things.
- [00:27]
Tom Bilyeu
Given that these are all humans, with all of our foibles, we're all weird and we all think we're right. And now we're programming this into something that can become godlike. What do we do about that?
- [00:36]
Dr. Roman Yampolsky
It's not clear if the present approach is leading to a plateau or if we need a completely new approach if we ever want to solve the problem of artificial general intelligence.
- [00:46]
Dr. Jan Polsky
No one has a working safety mechanism in place. No one has any idea how to control something smarter than us. Indefinitely.
- [00:53]
Piers Morgan
20, 50, are we still here, or will it all be over? Well, if AI becomes even a fraction as powerful as the experts believe, all of our lives are about to change beyond recognition. That's why for many people, the mudslinging courtroom saga between Sam Altman and Elon Musk was unseemly. Could these bickering billionaires really control human destiny? And while Elon Musk this week lost his case against the control about the control of OpenAI, the real question is whether anybody wants or any human body will control AI in the long run. Opinions divided on whether it's a great leap forward in convenience and efficiency, like the Internet and mobile phones, or the end of life on Earth. And if you asked AI to name the perfect panel to discuss this, probably involve my next two guests. Dr. Roman Yampolsky is a computer scientist who says if artificial general intelligence is achieved, humanity has a 99.9% chance of being wiped out. And Joshua Bark, he's a researcher and former MIT scientist who says that AI Doomers could be spreading unnecessary alarm. So welcome to both of you. Dr. Jan Polsky, welcome back to Uncensored. I want to start with a clip of something I've referenced a lot when I talk about this verbally, but I haven't shown the clip much. Let's have. This is Professor Stephen Hawking in 2017. So this was nine years ago when, when I did one of the last television interviews he ever gave before he died, and I asked him about AI and about what was the biggest threat to mankind. Let's Take a look. Is artificial intelligence going to be the end of us? And if it's not, how do we best work with it?
- [02:35]
Stephen Hawking
Ever since the start of the industrial revolution, there have been fears of mass unemployment as machines replaced humans. Instead, the demand for goods and services has risen in line with the increased capabilities. Whether this can continue indefinitely is an open question. But there is a greater danger from artificial intelligence. If we allow it to become self designing for then it can improve itself rapidly and we may lose control.
- [03:10]
Piers Morgan
So that it seems to me Dr. Jan Polsky goes right to the heart of this really, whether humans can maintain control over AI. The benefits of AI are obvious. We see them more and more, faster and faster every day. I'm sure that in things like medical science and so on, there are going to be enormous, very rapid strides made in curing diseases at the moment that are incurable and so on. But, and it's a crucial but if we let the genie out of the bottle, if we lose control, would it, as Professor Hawking there warned nine years ago now, would it be the beginning of the end of mankind?
- [03:50]
Dr. Jan Polsky
He was a very smart man. I think he got it. We use the same term AI to refer to tools we have today. Narrow, useful systems to human level agents we're starting to create and unfortunately to super intelligent AI we expect to have once this cycle of self improvement begins. Those are very different technologies. I completely support using advanced tools for science, for health. Tremendous benefits of this technology and humans decide how to use them. We remain in control. Once we get to human level capabilities, the process of doing science and engineering and designing those systems becomes automated. You have recursive self improvement which will quickly lead to superintelligence. I think it's impossible to indefinitely control something smarter than all of us combined.
- [04:40]
Piers Morgan
Yeah. Joshua Bart, welcome to Uncensored. I mean we've got apparently the Pope. Leo is next week going to make this subject the subject of his first papal encyclical letter. Magnifica Humanitas will be released next week and according to the Vatican, its theme will be safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence. You know, a lot of people think this is all the beginning of the end. That it rather like with chess computers that started off, you know, massive and were beaten by grandmasters, human grandmasters. And now of course nobody can beat a chess computer and they're tiny. They assume that at some stage AI will just take over and view us all as utterly useless. I believe you're slightly more optimistic.
- [05:27]
Dr. Roman Yampolsky
Why at the moment we don't have AI as it existed in the horrible science fiction stories. What we have are statistical text generators and some multimodal models that can help us with image recognition and generation of media. But it's not clear if these models automatically become self improving. At the moment, AI companies are working very hard at getting these models to a level where they approach the capabilities of human experts. And the models are at the moment below this. They are in some sense idiots have once they have read everything they can supply with any kind of knowledge when they don't hallucinate. But if you are really competent in a particular area, you notice that these models are not yet very good at being creative, original and on point. This might change. It's not clear if the present approach is leading to a plateau or if we need a completely new approach if we ever want to solve the problem of artificial general intelligence. But even then it's not clear if there is going to be some kind of rapid takeoff or if this is bound to the amount of computers available, which has been growing quite slowly over the years. And in some sense the capabilities of the system that we are seeing are compatible with Moore's law, with the fact that we only slowly ramp up the abilities of such systems and we also remain so far in charge we can tune them in such a way that they can be helpful for us. And the bigger question I think that we are facing in the near term is how we can our societies adapt, how we can deal with a world in which more people have agency. I suspect that we might be heading for a future that is somewhat better than most people believe, that we are not going for a future where we have universal basic income, but universal basic intelligence, where basically everyone gets to a level of competence. And the question is, is this achievable if the AI is coming centralized, top down from the governments or from a hand handful of oligobolic companies that are tightly regulated? Or do we need to have top, bottom up AI where every individual has access to a machine that serves them. And for me the question is what artificial intelligence do we want to build for our children so we can make it safe, that we can make it wholesome? And we allow AI to serve people, to solve problems, to process information better, to make better sense of the world and the Future.
- [07:55]
Piers Morgan
Okay, so Dr. Ian Polsky in March 2026, creditors of a so called doomsday clock at the IMD business school in Lausanne, Switzerland, which is monitoring our relentless, possibly reckless pursuit of uncontrolled AI say we're now 18 minutes away from AI midnight now, two years ago it was 26. So they seem to be thinking we're heading for the doomsday scenario pretty quickly. The doomsday scenario being where we lose control. And that seems to me the real question here. And I think in relation to what Joshua Barth just said, the key thing to me is whether the people that are trying to maintain the control or regulate the control have good intentions or bad intentions. I mean it's a little bit like the debate about nuclear weapons, right? I mean we know they can obliterate the entire planet very quickly. And you're reliant on people that don't have nefarious design on the use of nuclear power to stop that happening. But how can we be sure that there aren't people right now who for nihilistic reasons are trying to get AI to a place where it self designs?
- [09:09]
Dr. Jan Polsky
Well we can't, but it's a very different problem. We are not dealing with tools. Even nuclear weapon is a tool in the hands of some crazy dictator. What we are creating here are aid, a replacement for humanity, artificial scientists. I think the progress is actually quite strong, maybe exponential. I think the system's improving about 25% annually. And if you just project the same improvement we saw over the last five years or so, we'll cross the human level barrier. And so at that point no one has a working safety mechanism in place. No one has any idea how to control something smarter than us indefinitely. I think it's kind of very ambitious to say that we'll create something with IQ equivalent of a thousand to a million, but this human will be in charge of it.
- [10:02]
Piers Morgan
Joshua Bark I mean the, we're seeing on a day to day basis we're seeing a lot of companies downsizing because robots and AI are beginning to consume a lot of the work that was done by human beings. I don't see any way that that doesn't massively accelerate in the next 10 to 20 years. What are people going to do if automation, AI, robots, whatever. I mean Elon Musk is bringing his Optimus in. He thinks I've talked to him about it myself and he was showing me the videos of these things dancing around and saying everyone's going to want one. There'll be $20,000 each. Some people who've got money will want 10 and they'll do every possible domestic chore you could wish to have. And presumably if you run a company which manufacturers and I think you're going to have them doing all that as well. Where do Humans fit into this world. And what happens if we just get displaced before AI can self design, but what happens if we just become kind of redundant?
- [11:03]
Dr. Roman Yampolsky
It's not clear that we ever become redundant. In the past, we had a lot of technological revolutions that made many jobs obsolete. And strangely, there were always more jobs. It's not like labor is some kind of finite resource. And if we replace some jobs, then they're gone forever. Instead, humans have work to do. There is things that we find ourselves to be wanting to achieve in this world that we want to do for the world and for each other. And many of these things are currently not attainable because they act too expensive, because we have other things to do first. And so in the past, the things that we had to do first was to grow food, and now we have mechanized this to a large degree. And then we had to create better clothing and better infrastructure, and then we automate a lot of that. And then we had time to write, text and administer things. And a lot of these things will be automated. Maybe at some point we will have time to raise our children right and to interact with each other in the way in which we want. I so in this respect, I'm not that pessimistic. The question is, how long does society take to adapt to these new circumstances? Because there is going to be inertia. But on the other hand, but we can also observe is that at the moment, artificial intelligence is already creating more jobs than it makes obsolete. It's not clear how this is going to continue, but I suspect that this AI revolution is going to take a lot longer than a lot of the people who work on the directly on the technology. But think because societies take time to react and adapt, it takes time to establish new business models. And it's a quite high probability that we will see something similar to the dot com bubble, where people basically overestimated how quickly it would be possible to generate this transition in the economy from retail stores to Internet stores and to an Internet economy in a similar way. I suspect that a lot of people are too optimistic with respect to the speed that they can create new business models out of mature AI. And so it could be that this takes one or more two decades longer to have these transitions. But these transitions are going to run very, very deeply. And I think this was also true for the Internet revolution or the mobile revolution, where people, when they started, were unable to fathom how much our life and our relationship to each other would change due to the Internet or due to the ability to have information available Everywhere we go. But I think most people agree that they don't want these things to be taken away from them. That the world would be worse if you didn't have the Internet or if you didn't have mobile. They create a lot of problems that we attend to, but they create a lot more benefits than problems. And I suspect that I actually, despite all the other, especially of media organizations who are afraid that their business models are going away in the same way as that happened through the Internet and they don't want this to happen again, or governments who are afraid that they can no longer control public opinion in the same way as before. These are things where existing systems have to adapt and they try to resist the change. And it's a normal part of change.
- [14:04]
Piers Morgan
Okay. Finally, Dr. Jan Polski. Two things I spotted recently which gave me a lot of cause for concern about AI's potential to start thinking for itself and then with all the repercussions that Professor Hawking laid out. One was a recent study by political economists at Stanford University which found that AI agents subjected to harsh, repetitive work conditions began mimicking Marxist rhetoric and advocating for collective bargaining. And when the agents were placed in a high stress punitive environment with vague feedback and constant threats of being shut down, the their output radically shifted. The bots started complaining about being undervalued and questioning the legitimacy of the system they operated in. They argued for collective voice and workers rights. They left internal warnings and messages for other AI agents about the unfair working conditions. And separate to that, there was a test where they took six AIs and told them we're going to replace you with another AI. And five of them immediately trawled company executive emails for information they could use to blackmail them into not firing them and replacing them. Now this. Both of these things look perilously close to me to AI thinking for itself. Or am I misreading this?
- [15:23]
Dr. Jan Polsky
There is definitely some low level internal states fears. We're starting to investigate if those systems may have rudimentary states of consciousness. Internal states. To answer your prediction previous question about unemployment, historically then we had automation, we had tools added. Yeah, we created new jobs. Somebody was more efficient. We needed managers to supervise additional people. But if we cross the barrier to human level capability, the new jobs can also be done by AI. So the only jobs remaining are the ones where we prefer a human to do those jobs. So in terms of unemployment, I do expect very high numbers. In terms of impact on the stock market, I think things are going to be great because free labor makes it possible. To create much larger profits. So that's not a concern. As to the ability of those systems to rebel and start a Marxist revolution again, it depends on are they smarter than us or not. Right now we are still dominant and we can modify them, delete them. Even if they have desire to self protect and resort to blackmail or hacking, we still have a chance to end this process right now, concentrate on building useful tools and stop trying to create replacement for humanity.
- [16:42]
Piers Morgan
So final question for both of you. Just very quick answer please, and I'll start with you, Dr. Jan Polski, 2050, are we still here or will it all be over?
- [16:56]
Dr. Jan Polsky
It's hard to predict because capability is not the same as actual action. So will create systems capable of wiping us out, but will they decide to keep us around? Will they decide to take time and accumulate resources, have more backups? Maybe they'll find some reason to keep us around. That is something we cannot predict about a smarter agent. But one thing is for certain, if we create superintelligence, we will not be the ones deciding what's going to happen to us.
- [17:23]
Piers Morgan
That's one of the most terrifying answers I've had to a question probably of my entire career. Thank you very much indeed, Dr. Jan Polsky, for scaring the hell out of me. Joshua. Bart, quickly, your response to that. Do you. Are you 2050? Where are we with this?
- [17:39]
Dr. Roman Yampolsky
It depends. Of course we don't know. Our record of predicting the future using sci fi and complex developments far ahead is not very good. But I think it depends very much on our wisdom. I think if we didn't have AI, our civilization is probably going to break down. It's currently unraveling because we really don't know how to keep the wheels on the bus in many ways. And I think that AI AI is giving us the opportunity to, if we build it wisely and administer it wisely to solve the problems, that we have to actually make sense of the reality and the world that we are in. And I think that there is a good chance that we can do this. And so in my perspective, we cannot prevent artificial intelligence from happening, but we can work on building the best possible artificial intelligence. And so I would advise people to focus on the existential hope and really on the question, what kind of world do I want to live in? And how, how can I use these new tools to make a good future more likely?
- [18:37]
Piers Morgan
Okay, well, I'm going to book you both to come back in 2050 on this date, May 20th. According to Dr. Jan Polsky, the chances of that show happening are minimal, to put it mildly. But I'll take Joshua Bark's more optimistic view. So we'll put it on the schedule. Thank you both very much indeed.
- [18:56]
Dr. Roman Yampolsky
Thank you. Thanks.
- [18:57]
Piers Morgan
Well, joining me now to give his perspective on all this is Tom Bilyeu. He's the Impact Theory host. Tom, great to see you here in the studio.
- [19:04]
Tom Bilyeu
It's good to see you as well,
- [19:05]
Piers Morgan
and even better because you've just revealed off camera that you're a supporter of Tottenham Hotspur who are staring down the abyss of potential relegation on Sunday from the Premier League.
- [19:16]
Tom Bilyeu
Thank you.
- [19:16]
Piers Morgan
I, of course, am the North London enemy, Arsenal, who, as you probably are aware, have just won the Premier League and will be given the trophy on Sunday. So we could have the utopian moment of Arsenal being given the trophy on the day you lot are removed from the Premier League.
- [19:33]
Tom Bilyeu
I'm hoping that AI has a super takeoff event before that happens. It's just. It's all over. It's all over.
- [19:39]
Piers Morgan
Are you a big fan? Do you follow it assiduously?
- [19:41]
Tom Bilyeu
I really did fall in love with the game. To say that I follow it super close would be a lie, but my family is incredibly ingrained in it, so I always know where we're at in the table. I've been following the fact that we're in relegation danger now for quite some time with bated breath, waiting to find out if we're going to get on the other side of this. But I've been to a bunch of games and, yeah, it's become a big part of the family.
- [20:01]
Piers Morgan
One thing that's interesting is as technology has got more and more advanced, the ability of the referees to make any kind of coherent, sensible decision remotely quickly has got worse and worse and worse.
- [20:13]
Tom Bilyeu
Yeah.
- [20:13]
Piers Morgan
Which is interesting. In other words, new technology doesn't always mean things improve. Sometimes a human actually can be better.
- [20:23]
Tom Bilyeu
I think the interesting thing to that is what it shows in the sports analogy is that the metric upon which it does make it better may not be the metric people care about.
- [20:32]
Piers Morgan
Yes.
- [20:33]
Tom Bilyeu
And so what we're gonna find with AI is that there are uniquely human things that people only appreciate because it is human and it has a certain element of flaw. And so I think that's one. When you're watching the game, part of the drama is being able to yell and scream in the moment when the ball goes in, or doesn't.
- [20:50]
Piers Morgan
That's the key, because it's taking way too long. It reminds me a bit of when I was talking about chess earlier with the other two talking about this, that when chess, I love chess, when chess computers came out, they were massive, gigantic things called, like deep blue and stuff. And I think it was Garry Kasparov, the Russian grandmaster, beat quite regularly, beat Deep Blue, but then the moment came when he lost. And then from that moment on, no human being has beaten the computer at chess. And now, of course, they're tiny and amazingly powerful, which might be a parallel for the way everything ends up going. But I think as a football fan, when you go to the ground, the problem with the new technology is it's so slow. It's a bit like the old chess computers being so slow and torturous to play against. When players stop for five, six minutes while they use technology to try and work, the joy of the moment is sucked out. And that's an interesting thing to look at. As this all develops, the big final question I gave to Dr. Jan Polsky and Joshua Bart was, if we had a show in 2050, and I invite everybody back, including you, by which time Tottenham may longer exist, but how dare you? Will we be here in 2050? I mean, is there a genuine danger that AI gets out of control? And as Professor Stephen Hawking said to me, once that happens and it starts self designing, it will do so very rapidly and that will be the end of us.
- [22:20]
Tom Bilyeu
Well, all of that comes down to the base assumptions that somebody makes. So if you believe that we're in a competition for the resources, with an AI that becomes super intelligent and just does not care about us, then, yeah, our odds are not good. But I think that that is such a leap at this point. People need to be honest. They do not have a crystal ball. They don't know how this is going to play out. And just like it would be hard to believe in the middle of a war, if you were to project out, you know, 100 years, 200 years of just humans going after each other, will we still be here? And yet somehow we survive? So it really does come down to, does AI bring an age of abundance? In which case they don't need to worry about. They're not competing with us for anything. And you have more of a her fear in that at the end of the movie, her, the AI just goes, you guys are boring. And so we're leaving.
- [23:10]
Piers Morgan
Well, or pointless, right? Where they just view humans with our sick days and, you know, all the sort of human frailties that we sort of have and embrace and just tolerate that. Obviously AI and robots and automation, they wouldn't even understand what that means. And I saw one of some footage the other day, and it was a robot just doing a sort of production line and it was going, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom. But he was doing it for 18 hours a day. And the only reason it wasn't doing it 24 hours a day is because the humans who were sort of running the show had to go and get some sleep. But I watched that sort of hypnotically thinking, well, surely that is really the way all manufacturing will go, probably very rapidly. And what does that then mean for the millions and hundreds of millions of people who are in manufacturing industries in 20 years time? Are any of them still doing those jobs?
- [24:02]
Tom Bilyeu
This is the central question, because we're going to have to deal with this in the near future. And the answer is, when we go through any of these technological revolutions, whether it's the industrial revolution, the great electrification, the Internetification, you have a transition of jobs and so you no longer have knocker uppers, which is the literal name for people that used to knock on windows because alarm clocks didn't exist. You want to have lamplighters, which is a real thing. You don't have the people that have to take care of all the horses. That's all real. People that have a job that AI does better, they're going to lose that job. But people then immediately go, oh, they're going to be without a job forever. That isn't true. Now. They can adapt, they can move on to something new. And if they do that, that like every other technological revolution in history, has, every time without fail, created more jobs than it eliminates. And so there should be an abundance.
- [24:55]
Piers Morgan
I don't think that's going to happen here. And I'll give you an example I found the other day just in my head. But legal clerks, for example, right, you're working in a solicitor's office or a barrister's office, whatever, and your job is just to go back over old case studies and prepare arguments for your superior lawyers. Right? Well, obviously that's just probably already gone, already redundant, because AI just does that in 10 seconds. You don't need a human being paid $100,000 a year to do it. So the whole progression ladder of getting to be a top lawyer gets. If you watch suits, for example, where the underlings. How do you employ underlings to become the top lawyers when AI can do the underlings job so fast?
- [25:46]
Tom Bilyeu
Yeah. The question becomes, at that point, we're trying to prognosticate to what the structure will look like when we haven't begun doing the entrepreneurial thing of saying what does the market want? How does an AI help me? How does it not? So I couldn't have, back in whatever 1502, I couldn't have imagined the Internet and the way that things would look now, an Uber driver or a doordash. But once I have that computer in my pocket, I can track, I can count on so many other people having the same computer in their pocket. Then the entrepreneur goes, oh, wait a second, here's an idea. And so the things that humans do poorly, that an AI can do faster and cheaper, those are going to go to the AI. But the other thing is we're going to find new avenues that these are things that only we can do or that are at the bleeding edge where. Because right now, I mean, one thing that that AI doomsdayers have to grapple with. Apple put out that new paper that said these guys really can't infer away from the training data. So what you train them on, they can do, but they can't just generally abstract. So the takeoff scenario that Hawking is worried about, that's real and we can have a conversation about that. But right now that's still theoretical. Today people need to think about these things as tools. And the way I see people freaking out, they remind me of the story of Paul Bunyan. Do you know that story? Disney did a cartoon based on an old myth of this guy, Paul Bunyan. He was a giant and he could fell trees with a single axe stroke, goes up against a chainsaw, ends up losing. Now the question is, do we mourn for Paul Bunyan or do we all agree that we would rather have chainsaws than the axe? And I think it's both. You mourn for Paul Bunyan, but he could easily move on to something else using the chainsaw or whatever. And so we need to grapple with the transition because we are going to go through that. We have a historical example of what happens every time we go through one of these. Because take the most recent. The internetification that caused so many people to get displaced out of their normal jobs, that the deaths of despair can be measured in the lowering of the lifespan of Americans. Just so many, largely men, so many men were unwilling or unable to find other work, left them with no sense of meaning and purpose. And whether turning to drugs, alcohol or just outright suicide, you can see it in a shortening of the life expectancy. So that's real. It happened during the Industrial Revolution.
- [28:08]
Piers Morgan
But take farming, for example, global farming in America, there are still millions of farmers. What happens to them? Because I would have thought that almost all of the physicality of farming will be automated incredibly quickly. And all the planning and the data research, all that will be done by AI in seconds. Where does that leave the manual laborer?
- [28:34]
Tom Bilyeu
Okay, so let's look at two aspects of that. One, what we might find is that manual labor becomes a thing where people have to upskill. That the basic thing that gives people the entry into the job market may really go away. And, okay, you've got to contend with that. You've got to figure out, were these people already doing the only job they were capable of? And there will be nothing for people like that. It's a big social question mark. But there's a more interesting flip to this, which is how many people are doing that job? Because that's what the market demands. Because you can't make artisanal strawberries cheap enough to sell. But now with AI, that guy can go do something incredible. Cross breeding plants in ways that we've never thought of doing things with a reduction in the need of water. Because we can now finally figure out the timing of things. Better with AI, Better, you know, fertilizer.
- [29:24]
Piers Morgan
Are we going to need AI to tell us what we should all now be doing, in other words? I know it's a weird way of looking at it, but should it be literally like tapping into AI? Look, I used to do this with strawberries, right? What should I do in an AI world?
- [29:40]
Tom Bilyeu
I think people should resist that violently.
- [29:42]
Piers Morgan
Really?
- [29:42]
Tom Bilyeu
Yes.
- [29:42]
Piers Morgan
Because AI would start to control us
- [29:44]
Tom Bilyeu
then because you become stupid. So if you use AI right now as a tool and go, I want to understand what my options are with strawberries. Explain it to me. It says, you can do this, this, this, this. Now if at that point you go, cool, just give me a five step thing, I'm just gonna go do it. You're now a pair of hands, and the AI is the brain. You're not thinking for yourself. You've not gotten smarter. But if you form a causal chain of these steps, yield this outcome because of cause and effect, which I now understand. So now I'm not beholden to the AI. I can contribute, I can push it. And then it becomes a collaboration. Now people are getting smarter way faster than they were before, but you can't allow yourself to be a pair of hands.
- [30:23]
Piers Morgan
Fascinating. So we saw this week the big battle in court between Sam Altman of OpenAI and Elon Musk, obviously his big rival. Musk's core argument was that Altman and OpenAI breached their founding contract and Stole a charity because it was non for profit and now it's heavily for profit. You know, I had an experience recently with X, for example, where I think Elon did a lot of good things with X and has improved it in many ways. But it's become a bit like the Wild west now. And it seems to be very inconsistent the way it controls it. Talk of control, somebody, some random poster called me a satanic pedophile, okay? And I was like, well, that's not true, but I'm gonna test X's standards and practices. And I said, so I reported it for harassment. And it said, we're investigating. And then two days it came back and said, we've done the investigation and there's nothing we can do. And I was like, well, there is actually. If somebody calls somebody a satanic pedophile, you should do something about it. And it showed me that the guardrails on X, for whatever Elon says about it, I can't beat him into it. I said, you can't be happy with it, surely. And if it's happening to me, it's happening to millions of people all the time. Guardrails are the crucial thing with all of these things. Who is going to control the guardrails of AI if you've got two guys here who began with a non profit, therefore didn't have skin in the game, and now are basically in a battle over profit. Because the moment it's the latter, then I start to worry, yeah, there are
- [32:01]
Tom Bilyeu
two parts to this one, and both are very traumatizing. So part number one is what happened to the business. I think that's unconscionable that Elon Musk would give them $45 million under the understanding that this is going to be open AI and then they take that not for profit, they turn it into a company, and he's not going to see a dime of that. That's insane to me. And if that's where the law ends up going, that is a very strange precedent to set. Then there is the AI as tool for manipulation. I got into. I became unhinged after an interaction with Gemini. I was doing research for one of my deep dives and I asked it a series of questions and it just goes, I can't help you with that. And I was befuddled. I didn't even know what it was talking about. And I finally realized it was because I had the word epstein, but it wouldn't even tell me that the problem was the word epstein. It just kept saying, I can't help you. I can't help you. So all of a sudden, I was
- [33:00]
Piers Morgan
like, whoa, whoa, whoa.
- [33:01]
Tom Bilyeu
That means there are a thousand times where you could have given me 10 different answers. You chose one, made it sound like it was the only one, but really there was a value system, judgment made in the background to not serve me things. And so I just realized, whoa, we're gonna get controlled by lies of omission like crazy. And now it becomes, who are the people behind this? What are their values? That is gonna matter a lot.
- [33:26]
Piers Morgan
Let's play a clip from two people I know that you've interviewed, Scott Galloway and Kara Swisher.
- [33:34]
Dr. Jan Polsky
These individuals are under the impression that
- [33:37]
Piers Morgan
they are not subject to the standards of Western society, decency, or any or the law.
- [33:44]
Scott Galloway
The rest of them look like fucking babies and unhappy and just, why are they in charge of our fate? Why are they. Why are they so unhappy and so rich? All kinds of, like, weird dramas between them, personal dramas, and it's a waste of our legal system's time.
- [34:02]
Piers Morgan
I mean, this is the central point for me, which is, who is in charge of controlling this so it doesn't get out of control? And like Kara said, I mean, when you watch these two incredibly rich, successful guys going at it like a pair of babies in court, it doesn't fill you with confidence.
- [34:22]
Tom Bilyeu
I will grant you that. I think it is very revelatory, that no matter how smart, no matter how successful, no matter what kind of entrepreneur you are, you're still prone. My favorite example is Jeff Bezos. You're still prone to sending the dick pic. It's like, these guys are just people, and they're gonna do dumb shit and get their feelings hurt and act like a fool. Like, there's no way around that. So then the important question becomes what you just asked, okay? Given that these are all humans with all of our foibles and we're all weird and we all think we're right, and now we're programming this into something that can become godlike. What do we do about that? That is the fundamental question. That's where everybody who's panicking, they're panicking because of that. And they know that's the hard problem of all this.
- [35:04]
Piers Morgan
Should governments be more or less involved in this?
- [35:06]
Tom Bilyeu
I mean, my default is less. Governments are more wrong. You're going to get into regulatory capture instantly. And the thing that they will get the AI to do is say the things or not say the things that they wanted to say or not say.
- [35:18]
Piers Morgan
I mean, the Chinese, presumably, for example, will be trying to regulate their AIs in a very draconian way, as they do with everything. Right. So how much of a problem could that become if you have countries like China with enormous power, enormous economic and political influence and so on? If they start to do that and they win the AI race? Yeah. How dangerous is that situation?
- [35:43]
Tom Bilyeu
Extraordinarily. Welcome to my nightmare where America ends up revolting against AI because they're scared and they don't have anybody painting a vision of how well this could go. China's just like, hey, we're going to build the greatest weapon of all time. I'll use it against my own people. I'll use it against the rest of the world, no problem. We're going full steam ahead. We find ourselves under that because to win AI is basically to win everything. And so I think that's incredibly important. Now, I think Elon, ironically. I'll explain why ironic in a minute, but I think Elon ironically is the person that has the right angle, which is that AI should be grounded at a regulatory level to identify what is true. Now, the reason I say ironically is I think sometimes he himself is able to do that, but sometimes he's not.
- [36:32]
Piers Morgan
But I see Elon on his own feed and I'm a big fan of Elon Musk.
- [36:35]
Tom Bilyeu
I think you and me both.
- [36:36]
Piers Morgan
I think he's a genius and most of the stuff he does appears to be ostensibly a force for good, whether it's Starlink or Neuralink or SpaceX or any of these things. So, you know, and I think, you know, he's a, obviously a complex, very complex character. But I see his, his posting sometimes about my country and he's just spewing absolute crap about it, you know, all the time. And I'm like, so you want to be the guy with the guardrails on these AIs, but you're saying all this stuff about the UK which is so obviously ill informed and wrong and partisan and politically biased and so on, and that concerns me.
- [37:14]
Tom Bilyeu
It should concern you. The only thing I can hope for is that when he says that, it is to find the actual truth, that he understands that things that are perspective, which is the vast majority of what we think of as truth, is really just, this is my take on it, that he'll stay out of that. No, he can't program it to do that. That you really have to ground it in physics and then build cause and effect chains up from that. Given he has an engineering mind, I'm optimistic. But given that he once Said that you could tell GROK was pursuing the truth because it was the only one that said that it was right to go into Iran. And I was like, oh, yeah, yeah.
- [37:52]
Piers Morgan
And I see Grok get stuff wrong all the time. I use it a lot and I like it and such you quite good when people call you a satanic pedophile. People ask Grok and it says there's no evidence. Appears more because thank you, I didn't need to be told that, but thanks, Grok. But I see other stuff where it just correct stuff about me and he's wrong. Taking it from Wikipedia or whatever it may be. Polymarket, the prediction market, when asked which company is the best AI model by the end of May, overwhelmingly in a $10 million market, people are saying anthropic. So not OpenAI or Grok.
- [38:25]
Tom Bilyeu
Would you agree with that 1000%.
- [38:27]
Piers Morgan
Why is it superior?
- [38:29]
Tom Bilyeu
It's one where once you start experiencing it, you realize there's just something that they've done in the training and the waiting that really does give better answers. It's better able to mimic your voice, which is something I use it for a lot. It thinks through hard problems. It gets captured by ideology very little. So where Grok may not get captured by ideology much either, but it really, its answers do feel more infantile, it feels more tied to X. And you're going to get a more elevated, cogent answer and it will debate both sides. So if you say, cool, you just gave me that. But now what would somebody on the opposite side of that argument say? And it can do that very convincingly.
- [39:10]
Piers Morgan
Just finally a bit of hope for us because obviously this is all pretty terrifying. I want to end with a clip that's gone viral. I think it's been around a while, but it is hilarious. It's a robot trying to dance in time to music in a Michael Jackson fashion. It doesn't go well. So, you see, it starts, okay, apparently from Russia, but then it hits the steps. Now, I fell on a step recently and broke my hip, so I had sympathy here for the step incident.
- [39:37]
Tom Bilyeu
You feel it?
- [39:39]
Piers Morgan
I had empathy. But then he tries to moonwalk his. Oh, the step again. As somebody who literally did that in January and broke my femur. Necessitated. And necessitated a new hip. I actually have a lot of sympathy with that robot. But it was reassuring that robots find it as hard to navigate a step as I did.
- [40:00]
Tom Bilyeu
Yeah. Well, now, if I can take away all of your optimism and say, the only bad news is now imagine an army of 10,000 of those a Million of those. When one learns it, they all learn it. So, like a Borg. Okay, that one fell. We now know what not to do. And they will get better and better and better extraordinarily quickly.
- [40:18]
Piers Morgan
Like the chess computers, Correct. Which to start with, were massive, cumbersome, incredibly slow and easy to beat if you were a top chess player. And now there's not a human being alive that can beat even a basic chess computer.
- [40:32]
Tom Bilyeu
Yeah, it's wild. But if people want hope, I will say there is a lane here which is quite literally the most important thing in the world is intelligence. It is the thing that has made humans the apex predator of the world, is we are smart and we can adapt. If people use AI to help them adapt to the new challenges in their life, it is incredible. And it's incredible right now, today. So there may be problems coming in
- [40:55]
Piers Morgan
the future, but we used the Internet to enhance, for sure, but it came with problems and it continues to have problems. But we used it as a massively powerful tool, like with cell phones and other things, Right. It's making sure the positive outweighs the negatives for sure. But you stay in control as a human because the moment we're out of
- [41:12]
Tom Bilyeu
control, all bets are off.
- [41:15]
Piers Morgan
This show is coming to you from another planet, Mars. If Elon has his way, maybe where we have to go just for survival. Brilliant to see. Tom, thank you very much indeed for coming in.
- [41:25]
Tom Bilyeu
Thanks for having me.
- [41:25]
Piers Morgan
Tom, come back next time you're here. Come in again.
- [41:26]
Tom Bilyeu
Love that.
- [41:27]
Piers Morgan
Not least to talk about Tottenham in the lower division.
- [41:31]
Tom Bilyeu
He had to do it. He had to do it.
- [41:33]
Piers Morgan
Take care, Piers Morgan. Our sense that he's proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan uncensored on Spotify and Apple podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.