← Tom Bilyeu's Impact Theory
Tom Bilyeu's Impact Theory
AI Reset: "Life As We Know It Will Be Gone In 5 Years" - Upcoming Utopia vs Dystopia | Salim Ismail PT 1 (Fan Fave)
01:45:09
Loading summary
Transcript264 lines
- [00:01]
A
Day or night, VRBoCare is here 24, 7 to help make every part of your stay seamless. If anything comes up or you simply need a little guidance, support is ready whenever you reach out. From the moment you book to the moment you head home. We're here to help things run smoothly. Because a great trip starts with the right support. And hey, a good playlist doesn't hurt either.
- [00:31]
B
I'm Jake Stauch, co founder and CEO of Cervel. We built Cervel to automate the IT work that slows companies down. Onboarding password resets, access to applications. My laptop stopped working. While employees wait for help, their real work is put on hold. It desperately wants to automate this work. And that's why they need Serval. You just tell Serval what you want to automate in plain English and it's built. No drag and drop workflows, no expensive consultants. Employees get unblocked and IT teams go from drowning in tickets to building what actually matters. With Cerbal, it becomes the AI engine powering the entire company. This is a new way to run it. We guarantee you'll automate 50% of all tickets and we'll prove it to you in a free four week pilot. Go to cerbal.com tickets. That's S-E-R-V-A-L.com tickets.
- [01:30]
C
We have two futures in our world today. Either a Mad Max future or a Star Trek future.
- [01:35]
D
Do you think that as we transition over to AI that it will take us through a valley of despair? Or is this going to be a straight line to Utopia?
- [01:44]
C
Oh no. Big valleys of chaotic despair.
- [01:46]
D
An AI is going to be a million times smarter than you.
- [01:49]
C
This is the biggest inflection point that we've ever seen.
- [01:52]
D
How do they create the next billion dol company with three people? If that's the way to play it,
- [01:56]
C
this is what needs to happen.
- [01:59]
D
Describe the most likely sequencing over the next 30 years.
- [02:04]
C
I think we. For me, the AI transition is typewriter to word processor. It's just an uplifting and enabling of all sorts of capabilities across multiple, multiple sectors and industries. And it transforms how we do things pretty fundamentally from creativity to rank and file work to blue collar work, etc. I think the world robotic stuff is further down the line than most people think. Peter's very excited about it. We have all the humanoid robots, but robotics is really, really hard and will take much longer in my opinion. But the AI stuff will actually allow us to uplift ourselves very quickly. And you know, we talk about scarcity to abundance. I think AI gets us to abundance very, very fast. And I think that's for me the most exciting and optimistic side of things. We have two futures in our world today. Either a Mad Max future or which you can see playing out in Gaza or Ukraine, or a Star Trek future where we have abundance and we're operating on a, on a much more highly conscious basis, et cetera. And so which future do we pick as a human species is the choice that's in front of us right now.
- [03:08]
D
Okay, so you believe that there's a branching path before us and we get to choose which path we go down.
- [03:15]
C
It's a little, we're actually heading down the Mad Max path. So if you look at our politics, you look at what's happening, you look at the political rhetoric here in the US There's a huge transitional shift happening. And my favorite sensible way of dealing with or talking about that is a centralized to decentralized shift. We run the world today on very centralized systems. Governments and corporations and the military industrial complex, et cetera. We're moving to much more decentralized and bottom up peer to peer systems. And you could call that a male archetype versus a female archetype if you want to go there. But when you get to abundance, you want a female archetype to be running the world because the female archetype shares resources around naturally. So for example, the male archetype, when it meets abundance, relates to it as power and tries to hoard it. Middle east oil, Wall street money, et cetera. Female archetype meets abundance and shares it around. So you really need a sharing, decentralized model as we move the world to abundance. And that's the tension that I think I see in the world more than anything is that centralized to decentralized architecture. And we've started to see the rise of this over the last few decades. The Burning man philosophy, open source movements, DIY movements, the maker movement, et cetera. Democracy itself is a bottom up movement as a reaction to feudal systems and top down empires. And we're moving in that direction. It's just slow and painful and centralized systems don't like to relinquish power. We know that very clearly. So that's the tension that I see that's playing out, that's underpinning all the other, how it's showing up. So for example, when I think about Trump or Brexit, it wasn't left versus right, it was actually urban versus rural. Brexit was 100% London versus the rest of the country.
- [05:07]
D
Why would that be the break point?
- [05:09]
C
Because there's a tension in cities. And how do we allocate resources to cities versus the countryside where people. Because the metabolism of a city is much faster. Innovation happens very fast in a city. And so therefore that, that's the environment in which we're doing most of our, of our innovation work and technological development today. And if you're left behind, you get very unhappy with that. And so this is the tension that I think we're seeing around the world.
- [05:35]
D
So we have this fundamental tension between. Things could go well, things could go poorly. Splitting between the different archetypes, male, female, how we respond to abundance, power, or sharing the resources, urban and rural. I'm starting to get a sense of where you're going. Do you think that as we transition over to AI that it will take us through a valley of despair, or is this going to be a straight line to utopia?
- [06:03]
C
Oh, no. Big valleys of chaotic despair. These types of transitions, I think this is the biggest transformation in the history of civilization, maybe the history of species on Earth. It's that big. And that transition is going to be very painful. They never are clean. Right. Like dinosaur asteroid hits and the dinosaurs get wiped out and now you have Cambrian explosion types. I think that's the kind of transition we're seeing here.
- [06:30]
D
Okay, that, that is arguably the most devastating thing to ever happen to life on this Earth.
- [06:37]
C
Yeah. Wait, I don't, I don't believe AI gets us there, but it's meaning AI
- [06:43]
D
will not have that kind of cataclysmic.
- [06:44]
C
That's right.
- [06:45]
D
Knock on effect.
- [06:46]
C
That's right. I actually am hugely optimistic about the future. So just. That's a really important framing point. But there's no question in civilization at least, this is the biggest inflection point that we've ever seen. And I think the next 30 years defines the next 300 years.
- [07:04]
D
Why will the next 30 years define it? What, what does that look. Is that the period of transition?
- [07:08]
C
Yeah, it's the transition period. And this is chaos theory. Right. The initial conditions are really critical. And how you navigate those initial conditions with as much experience, guidance and a lot of luck, will then guide the rest of the future. If you know chaos theory, the idea is that if you drop a pebble down the top of a mountain, it doesn't matter how many times you drop the pebble is always going to take a different path. Because some micro change in the initial atmosphere, or the pressure when you released it, or the first bounce of the density of the first thing it hit or the change in humidity along the way will have it go down a different route. So you never know what's going to happen, but it just knows. We're just in the really big transition and it's super exciting, but it's very, very chaotic.
- [07:52]
D
I have heard you that this is going to be very difficult to predict. However, one of the most interesting descriptions of quantum mechanics I heard is that, yes, while all things are simply probabilistic, the world that you see is the most likely. And I thought that was a really great explanation. So assuming that knowing that no matter how many times you drop the pebble, it'll be different, but there's. There's a most likely sort of cluster of effects.
- [08:17]
C
Yeah. Think of it as a stock market chart. Right. You never have a clear straight line. It's always a choppy, and then it stabilizes. Then it has a breakthrough moment and then it's choppy again. It's kind of like that. I think that's the pattern that we see.
- [08:31]
D
Okay, what causes that? Like, I can actually explain economically what's going on in terms of human greed, fear, and the way that cultural energy will move through a medium that can be an economic medium. So you can actually see cultural energy move through a stock market. You, if anybody paying attention to Bitcoin, I will just tell you right now, that is simply a cultural idea that is spreading through the medium of cryptocurrency. I won't derail the conversation on that. But like, with that in mind, that, to me, my base assumption about those jagged lines is that is human, the human brain responding in a somewhat predictable way. And you can watch that idea ripple through, including sort of bounding it so it's only going to go up so high and it's only going to go down so low. And so you see this sort of bounding fluctuation and you can look back through history and you see that same sort of bounded fluctuation. Now, those bounded fluctuations to me are terrifying. And if you read history, because like I said, the long arc is bending towards prosperity for all. And if you zoom out long enough on human time scales, it's unbelievable the progress made. Oh, my God. But that, that does not help the guy whose family all gets rolled up in rugs by the Mongols and trampled to death.
- [09:47]
C
Yes.
- [09:47]
D
Like, that's just no consolation. And so I'm saying we're all that guy. Right? We all live one life.
- [09:53]
C
Yes.
- [09:54]
D
We are bounded from a time perspective so far. And so it matters to me a lot where I am on these jagged lines. So going back to AI, what are these jagged lines? Do you buy into my thesis or do you have a different one?
- [10:08]
C
Oh, I agree with you, but with some caveats. So, for example, the economic outcomes of AI, I think are pretty clear in terms of what's going to happen. I think we're going to see massive productivity gains across the board. Board. The challenge we have is the underlying system is flawed in terms of economic development and economic growth. Right. Our entire system, global system is. Money is the main mode of discourse in the world today. And it's good because if you think of money as a form of energy, we freed money, energy from religious structures and feudal systems. And then the power of ideas came along and the power of technology came along and now it flows very nicely, very quickly to new ideas and good ideas via venture capital, via private equity, bitcoin, New ideas. Ideas can pop up and money will flow where the best ideas are. So that's fantastic at one level. But we're moving from money as a main mode of discourse in the world to information as a main mode of discourse in the world. So, for example, any startup would much rather gather data about things rather than getting money early because they can monetize the data much more and they're fungible. Today you can convert money into information and vice versa. Over time, information becomes a higher order bit, because take your health, you're much more interested in the different biomarkers you can track than how much it'll cost you to fix things, et cetera, because the information is more valuable. So I think at a very metaphysical level, we're shifting from the quest for money and the quest for greed, et cetera, and energy that way and shifting it into information. When we move that transition now, things become really powerful. I think this is the massive insight that Ray Kurzweil had when he started tracking Moore's Law, that as we digitize, we turn things into information. That information can then be manipulated into, back into matter, back into money, and vice versa. And you have this amazing cyclical pattern that can take place and little by little we're moving more and more into that over time. Money will become less important on this scale. If you went back a thousand years ago, we were all working 18 hours a day in the fields to put three meals on the table. And you did.
- [12:19]
D
Some of us still are.
- [12:20]
C
Sleep, some of us still are. But you didn't have a choice then. You pretty much had to do that. Only a very small percentage of the population could not do that today. That number of that population that doesn't have to do that is much, much, much bigger. And little by little, as we do better vertical farming and solar energy into all sorts of remote parts in the world and satellite Internet and water extraction out of the atmosphere, pretty much we'll be able to have an amazing life anywhere on the planet for every level. That's why Peter gets so excited. That's why we get so excited about the technological progress. The problem is our social systems and all our infrastructure and all our institutions are not geared for smooth progress in this thing. I think to summarize those lines that you were talking about, I would quote E.O. wilson, the famous biologist who said the problem with humanity is that our emotions are Paleolithic, our institutions are medieval, and our technology is godlike. Right. Pretty much all the problems in the world come from the gaps in those layers. And I think the pressure is so intense today that any leader today will spend the next 20 years of our lives basically dealing with the gaps in those in those layers.
- [13:34]
D
Yeah, let's name that the human Problem.
- [13:36]
C
The Human problem.
- [13:37]
D
So my thing is the human problem is not going anywhere. So for instance, you were just talking about right now, people are seeking money. That becomes the game. But now the information is going to become the higher order bit. People are going to start pursuing that. But what I will ask is why? And the answer to me seems self evidently it's more powerful. So you still have humans playing a game of power, which is why I'm still very concerned about these valleys of despair. Because unless something changes in our biology that makes us pursue different things, we will simply derange AI we will simply derange the pursuit of information. And, and while you and I share a very optimistic vision of the long term future because of that long arc, what way do you see us? So going back to your branching choice between Mad Max or Utopia, how do we nudge humanity to not go down Mad Max, which you're saying we're doing currently, and instead go to Utopia? What. How do you solve the human problem?
- [14:41]
C
I think you open up as fast as possible and decentralized as fast as possible. Okay, so the number two to Zelensky in the Ukraine is one of our community members. So we've got our global open exo community that are building for the 21st century, building companies and transforming governments, et cetera. And I was chatting with him and he was asking some advice. Turns out they've been using my book a bit in, in their dealing with the what's happening there. And one of the con comments I made is, look, this is how is it that you've become so resilient as in terms of the, in the face of the aggression? And he said we decentralized the country. We decentralized the country. So there's no single point of attack for energy or for infrastructure or for electricity, etc. And we've been doing that for 10 years because we could see this could be a likely possibility. So I think what happens is when you decentralize, things become much, much resilient. Just take energy for example. If you decentralize and we can have solar energy powering lots of small communities, then there's no need for security at the central power grid because there isn't one. And anybody can generate solar energy at a very local level. And the efficiency means we'll get better and better at storing it and better and better at generating it. And now you have amazing resource capability anywhere and a wonderful level. Most of our wars over the last hundred years have been over energy. Oil specifically. Right. So when we free ourselves from that, hopefully you should get to a peaceful nature. Now, I was under the impression for a while that when we get to abundance that we won't be fighting anymore. And I got disillusioned from that by a couple of the deep thinkers who said, no, we'll still have lots of human conflict because humans are really geared towards conflict and xprize we try and push people towards healthy competition and let's work things out that way. We've got all sorts of really great ways of dealing with the natural conflict that we bring up in human beings, for example sports teams, the Olympics, etc. And that allows us to vent a lot of kind of aggression that might otherwise come out in other ways. But we still have to deal with the fundamental human nature problem and hopefully the abundance side gets there faster than some lone small team of people trying to use AI to design a virus that will attack all middle aged Indian bald guys. Right? That would be the, the hope.
- [17:12]
D
Okay, so decentralization. I am one of the few people that is beyond obsessed with cryptocurrencies web3 and believes that decentralization is just deeply problematic. So the reason I think that decentralization is deeply problematic is that you cannot galvanize the energy of humans well. And so while some things will respond to decentralization very well, so the very nature of the blockchain, the fact that it is distributed, that they all run as nodes, is brilliant. I'm here for that. I love it. The most.
- [17:48]
C
Yeah.
- [17:49]
D
However, I am doing battle with Coinbase, for instance, which keeps wanting to verify my identity, keeps asking me where I got my money. I'm like, bro, I am about as public as you get. I don't know what else you want me to show you, but I want them to be centralized because I don't want to have to like do a bunch of crazy stuff to make sure that I'm getting my crypto. Crypto exchange in a safe way, all that stuff. So I'm. I'm making a willing trade for simplicity, for security. I know all the memes, but nonetheless, and I think that more people are like me. Okay, so people want centralization, and you have a hard time aiming everybody's energy in the same direction when all the decision making is completely distributed. You also have what our founding fathers were trying to protect against, which is the tyranny of the majority.
- [18:41]
C
Yes.
- [18:42]
D
And so there are reasons, think to be skeptical that decentralization is a magical solution. So let's use Ukraine, since you brought them up as an example. There's a guy named John Mearsheimer, brilliant political thinker, military. I don't know if he's officially a strategist, but anyway seems to deeply understand that. And he just keeps saying Ukraine is going to lose, it is inevitable, and they're going to end up a dysfunctional rump state. And when I hear that rhetoric, I'm like, okay, one, let me just be very clear. I have not. I'm not close enough to the problem or to just that thing in general to know if he's right. But there's so much internal logic to the way that he approaches it. So I'm looking at your argument. They've decentralized a bunch of things so it becomes harder to attack, but that also makes it feel like each region is going to be easier to overtake. And so if I'm Russia, I'm just going to go zone by zone by zone, being like, I don't have to worry about the Hulk Collective because you guys are decentralized.
- [19:44]
C
Yeah.
- [19:44]
D
So I'm just going to eat this node and then eat this node.
- [19:47]
C
Yeah. However, the problem with eating these nodes is keeping that node is non trivial. Okay. So for example, they installed a bunch of Russian mayors in some of the initial towns that they. And they just put car bombs under them and started blowing them up. So now who wants to go be a Russian mayor of a local Ukrainian town when your lifespan is going to be very short, so the resistance is going to be strong. Just because they don't have a choice. Right. This is existential for them. And this is the same thing why it's difficult to take over Afghanistan or take over. It may become a rump state. That's possible. But if that's the case, it was going to become that anyway and you might as well fight it, which is what they're doing right now. The question is, can they win? And I think they can't win without obviously a huge amount of Western aid. But I think they could win in that situation.
- [20:41]
D
What do you think becomes the galvanizing force? So you mentioned Afghanistan. I have a feeling without a sense of cultural identity and possibly religion, it would be easy to disrupt. But there's a galvanizing force that allows the distributed nature of all of that to work, that they still have this thing that sits over them, that unites them.
- [21:06]
C
Yeah. So this is a great question, is what is that binding force? Because it used to be religion. Actually, it used to be tribal structures because we would cooperate on nomadic tribes and the tribes and then fight. And over a period of time, as technology became better, the tribes would get bigger and bigger and formed countries and empires. The Mongols that you mentioned earlier, my favorite thing about the Mongols is from an old BBC documentary that said they destroyed anything that got angry at and they got angry at anything they didn't understand. So they came down from the steps down to Han China, found a million Chinese farmers doing agriculture, didn't understand it, got angry at it and literally wiped out a million farmers just because of that cascading logic. Right now, if you grow an empire to a certain level, can you keep it or not keep it as one area? The ones that worked best are the ones that decentralized the administration and navigated local preferences in a powerful way. Akbar in India, the Mongols did it pretty powerfully and pretty well. Alexander the Great manager pretty well. The Roman Empire did pretty well. There's that whole idea of the fourth turning and all of the cyclical aspects. I look at all these folks, Piketty, Ray, dalio, yuval, harari, etc. And I think they're incredibly insightful about the past. I find they're not that useful about the future. Why? Because I think this inflection point, and I know this is a tired kind of meme of this time is different, but I think this time it's really different. The combination of energetic abundance and lifespan that we're about to break, life extension plus AI makes it a completely different cocktail than we've ever seen before in the history of humanity. And so I think this is a complete step change and this is why it's so exciting to be around today. Okay.
- [23:01]
D
For the audience that doesn't know you, you have a business framework that I think is going to be really useful to help us think through. Because I keep finding you drift to the well once we're on the other side of this. There's energy abundance and it solves all these medical problems. And those are the things that I think calms everybody down in the long run, but they do not help us in the next. Call it from now to seven years is sort of the time window where I think things are going to get really weird. So really fast. Walk people your thinking around how in business we can use some of these strategies to become an exponential organization.
- [23:44]
C
Sure. So you know, if you went back to the 20th century, the most successful organizations were the biggest. Top down hierarchical command and control structures, pyramid structured with a CEO at the top, designed for two things, designed for efficiency and designed for predictability. Right. If you're Pampers, you're trying to deliver the same box of Pampers in a million locations around the world or McDonald's or healthcare services or whatever. Today you need to be architected for agility, flexibility, adaptability and speed. And we found in the last episode we did with you that the top 10 of the Fortune 100 that are the most flexible and agile compared to the bottom 10 in our opinion that are the least exo Friendly had delivered 40 times better shareholder returns over a seven year period than the one. So there's a clear economic thesis here. As the world becomes more volatile, your ability to adapt will drive market value and have a better organization. So how do you build that? And we call these exponential organizations where you have a massive purpose like cure cancer. Elon has three take us to space, solve transportation, solve the climate. And then you build an organization with a set of externalities like leveraging community like Ted does, leveraging assets that you don't own like Airbnb, not hiring your own staff like Uber. And then a set of internal mechanisms like the lean startup thinking ideas and decentralized org structures because you can push decision making to the edge. We found that the more of these characteristics are used, the better. And we're clear now over the next decade that every government, department, impact project, nonprofit for profit will tend towards these structures because we now have enough evidence to show that that's better. So for example, when we talk to CEOs today, they are not AI ready at all because they're all 20th century organization structures is absolutely not set up for what's coming with AI, Right? They're not AI ready. And so they're all asking us, can you please give us a workshop, set us up with some help on how do we navigate AI? And I see two problems that are paramount today with companies implementing AI. The first is they jump in very quickly and they can't see the rocks before they dive in and they get into trouble, either by accidentally putting all their data into ChatGPT or putting the wrong models into place. And the second issue, which is the bigger issue, is the immune system problem. So I first came across this problem at Yahoo, and I was running their incubator. And the more disruptive an idea we came up with in the incubator, the less the company could handle it, right? I was like, wait, you hired me to do disruptive stuff and I bring you something and you guys can't cope? Right? You can't integrate it. Why? Because of that. That efficiency and agility problem that really stuck in my head. And going through seven years of building singularity and noticing that we have 20 Gutenberg moments hitting us. AI is hitting us right now. But we have. Biotech, we have. Blockchain is a Gutenberg moment. Solar energy is a Gutenberg moment. Life extension is a Gutenberg moment. We will not be able to manage the future with our current existing organization structures or our current government structures or institution structures. So we architected this model. We now can see that it will work. And we have to solve two things. One is, what's the thoughtful way in which you apply technology to derive great value from it? Secondly, how do you navigate that immune system response? And so we're coaching companies and so on how to do this, because if you push AI into a company, all the people go, whoa, nelly. And they freak out and the antibodies attack you and nothing moves. This analogy was first given to me by the CTO of Autodesk. I was chatting with him and I was complaining about him. He was like, oh, you've got an immune system response. And I went, ding. It's the best articulated framing. You try anything disruptive in a big company, and it's worse in the public sector because we have taxis fighting Uber, we have bankers fighting Bitcoin. We're not progressing society long enough, quickly enough, because when there's new technological breakthroughs, all the antibodies freak out and we get. So we have to solve that problem at a cultural level because companies have their immune systems, but. And governments have their. But institutions have really bad Immune systems education. God help you if you try and update academia. Religion has probably the worst immune system because they'll kill you literally in those cases. Right. So I remember having a conversation with Salman Rushdie a few years ago and he was talking about the fatwa and I asked him, how was that like for you? And he said, you know, I grew up in the 60s. And he had this really tired tone in his voice. He goes, I grew up in the 60s. We thought we nailed religion, we thought it was done. And then in the 80s it comes roaring back and boom, immune system problem.
- [28:36]
D
Did you talk to him before or after? Because he got attacked.
- [28:38]
C
He got attacked. He lost an eye. Yeah, yeah, that was just recently. I haven't talked to him for decades.
- [28:43]
D
They laid in wait.
- [28:46]
C
But the problem is that when you have deep seated institutional or political beliefs, they don't go away. They're wired into your limbic system. So all religions work in the following way. Okay. You take a young child below the age of 10, you give them an absolute truth, an assumptive truth, like Virgin Mary, Muhammad is the last prophet, Jesus is the son of God, whatever, and then you bind it into them with ritual repetition and a lot of sweets, a lot of sugar. And all religious functions operate on this. And then when the neocortex forms in the, from the 10 to 13 year old age, the kid's brain is already deeply wired with these absolute assumptive truths. And you can't, if you, if you stress it at that point, you evoke a fight or flight response. This is why the Jesuits say, give me the boy until the age of seven, I'll give you the met. Right, because you can wire a young child. So all religions operate that way. We have to undo some of that damage that we're doing to kids with religion around this. But the problem that you pointed out that's really important is what's the binding of coagulant that holds society together in the absence of that model. And that's the big challenge we have to figure out. Storytelling is one aspect of it. We have modern myths like Star wars and Star Trek and others that are popping up, but they're not connective enough as tissue to hold us together.
- [30:08]
D
Yeah, agreed. Also, I think that even though I've dedicated my life to that form of storytelling, it does not touch the realm of religion. Which is why I'm utterly fascinated with what's going on right now. What I think of as the, the tradicalization of society. So we are going to be radicalized in the direction of the traditional. I think we're. The next three years is really going to be marked by that. And I think because of AI, it's just going to massively fuel those flames. But before we get lost on that, the, the idea of the immune system, which I think is incredibly important. As you were talking, this is so hilarious, to how my mind works. I was like, he's setting his own crap. Okay, so keep in mind what I really want people to understand is, I think, and I think you'll agree with this, the world is going to be fundamentally different three to five years from now.
- [30:58]
C
Yes.
- [30:59]
D
And to a point. You start stretching that out far enough and it, it becomes absolutely unrecognizable. If you have a kid that's in kindergarten now, by the time they reach high school, the world will look nothing like it does now. This is a very near term concern. What you're calling the immune system, which to me is a reflection of what I'm calling the human problem, which is humans long for power. Humans have pursuit dialed to 11. So they want to get better, they want to accrue more power.
- [31:28]
C
We all, we also have this massive quest for control to make sense of the world. To control the world. Right? Because, you know, if, if you go back to our, our evolutionary roots, it was a survive or die. Either you manage the world around you or it manages you. And you're done pretty quickly. So you have to gain control of your environment as fast as possible and as aggressively as possible. In that model, we are now controlling most of the species on the planet, whether we like it or not. We're controlling the atmosphere whether we like it or not, accidentally, badly. Now we're trying to manage this future of technology. And this is where regulatory comes in, Right. We try and put in guardrails for how we manage technology going forward. And you know, over the centuries, we've done a pretty good job of it. The big challenge with regulatory is how do you extract the promise of technology without the peril. Like, I can use fire to heat my house and I can use it to burn down your house. How do we navigate that? I tend to be really optimistic about this because of the old ebay study that I think we talked about last time.
- [32:34]
D
Time.
- [32:36]
C
So when craigslist and ebay merged for the first time, you could study human nature at scale. And because I can on Craigslist very easily put up a fake picture of a MacBook, you send me $1,000 and I'm off to Fiji, right? And I can mask my Email address pretty quickly. Same thing with Craigslist. So sociologists and anthropologists got pretty interested in this at all. We can actually study human nature. I can equally do good or bad? Bad. What's the actual ratio? Right. So they started studying these systems, Kijiji in Canada, Craigslist here, ebay etc, and it turns out very consistently across these systems where a human being can do a positive or a fraudulent transaction, the actual ratio turns out to be something like a thousand to one consistently. Which is really surreal and incredibly exciting actually, because that means if you opened up drones and said, anybody do whatever they want with drones, you'll get 8,000 positive use cases to the one bad guy. Okay. Which is fantastic for society. Except our current model, as drones come out, the regulatory goes, oh my God, somebody might load up a C4 on a drone and fly it into the White House. This can't ban all drones. And then slowly open that tap. And over a 20 year period, we get the benefits of that technology. So we have a ton of problems with prisons today with drones flying cell phones and cameras and money over the prison walls and dropping them into the prisoners. And the wardens are going crazy. Crazy, Right. So hello, let's deal with this in a different way. So now there's technologies to solve the drone interference problem. We'll get there. But this is a technological arbitrage problem. And so the challenge is, how do we make sure we're doing good things with technology, not the bad things with technology. And over the years, I think we're doing a pretty good job of it in general. But I think that with the democratization of technology and the easy access to anybody that has access to AI or, or can home build a drone, this becomes harder and harder. So we have to lift human nature and get to abundance and give everybody what they want materially as fast as we can so they don't go down the dark path. Is one path that was an obvious one.
- [34:42]
D
I think even if I were to accept the ratio of good actors to bad actors, the thing that's missing is the level to which a bad actor will exploit.
- [34:51]
C
Yes. Importantly, the amplitude of that negative is growing. Growing. Right. So the amount of damage one person can do is growing exponentially. And so our ability to control one person is dropping exponentially. That's not a great equation. We have Mark Goodman as one of our community members. He was a futurist for the FBI. So if you can get him drunk, he has awesome stories about how criminals and terrorists use technology in a negative way. And it's actually fascinating to see how creative they are around some of this. But the big challenge is the amplitude is actually growing back to the Middle East Indian Bulgai virus.
- [35:28]
A
When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery, so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [35:58]
D
If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place, from H Vac and plumbing supplies to lighting and more, more and all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-granger. Visit granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done. Yeah, which hopefully they never make.
- [36:30]
C
Hopefully.
- [36:31]
D
Salim I would be very sad. Even though most people are going to do good things, you're going to have these moments of exploitation. People will take advantage of that. The amplitude of that is growing. You also have the immune system response that is just trying, trying to stop change from happening, which can be good or bad. But ultimately I think it is to your point, you have a. A creature that is born of evolution that had to learn to control its environment, that had to have pursuit dialed to 11 so it would try to go out and try to control its environment and do better things for the group and all that stuff and acquire power and all that. So I am still at this moment of before us us is a fork in the road. And Ev, you have really done a great job of laying out what humans are like, but I still don't see the thing other than AI finally begins delivering on some of the promises and then we all go, okay, yeah, cool, like I'm going to embrace this, but I still think we have to go through Mad Max. I don't see any way around that equation. So if you feel like there's an argument left that will convince me, if not, please detail for us. What are those amazing things that AI is going to deliver us that will make having gone through this valley of despair well worth unleashing AI upon the world?
- [37:53]
C
Okay. So important to note that we don't have a choice about unleashing AI into the world. Kevin Kelly wrote this book what technology Wants and basically showed in very clear thing that technology is moving at its own pace and our only hope is to really keep up with it because it's, it's taken on a life of its own in a sense because if we try and regulate AI then other people go run amok with it and so it ends up being an arms race and you end up having to do it anyway. So now let me give you the some use cases where AI can radically change things in a short period of time for the radically better. I'll channel Imad Mustak here. This the head of ST who is the head of stability and one of the projects he's working on is can we take all the the healthcare data in a country and load it up into an LLM and all the legal, legislative, the law books and put that into an LLM and all the software code base globally and put that into. And you give every child three or four links. A doctor, a lawyer, a software programmer and a general AI helper. Okay. Now if you give every kid in Africa a link with a doctor and there's a medical problem at home, they will just start using it and transforming their healthcare locally for free. And this will completely change the world. Same thing with education. As we load up all the educational content into an AI, it's going to do a way better job of teaching kids and kids can self learn in a much more effective way than our current systems can do it. So you do those two things and healthcare and education suddenly become free and adapted and personalized to every child in the world. That's an unbelievable future. So the whole ecosystem and the methodology we've been building is how do you enable those people to build as fast as possible and build that optimistic future as fast as possible? And that's what exponential organizations. So exo as we use it as a metaphor is the thing at the edge. Exoskeleton, exoplanet, exothermic reaction. So we want to find exo builders and exo heroes. That's the collection we're launching on finding people that are building things at the edge. Because we need to build that edge very fast and let that become the new gravity center very fast because the current system is imploding.
- [40:10]
D
Think like a sci fi writer for me for a second.
- [40:12]
C
Yes.
- [40:12]
D
So a sci fi writer's job is not to imagine the automobile, it's to predict the traffic jam. So what are the. If we're giving people Access to all this information around healthcare. They have a private doctor, a private lawyer, they're educated. It's hyper tailored to them. We're going to unlock as much of their intelligence and their creativity as is going to be possible. What are the things that are born of that?
- [40:39]
C
Well, I think there'll be some negatives. You may have accidents, people misinterpret the data. People do source the wrong information from their bodies and put it into the AI and we'll get the wrong diagnosis. Lots of issues can come along, but the general outcome was the benefits will so outweigh the negatives that I think it's absolutely worth doing. There's no question in my mind that giving kids the ability to learn at their own pace, on their own, and then socializing as they need to in different ways is going to transform the education system in a much more powerful way. From a push system to a pull system. Can I just delve into education just for a second please? Okay, so we've been doing education for a couple hundred years on what I call, or John Hagel used to call the push system system. You get a bunch of kids into a classroom and you try and cram algebra into them, right? Mostly they're thinking about lunch. Little by little we move to a pull basis where I pull, I take a new job or a new role or new gig and I pull down the knowledge I need to do that job. Right. That's great. Now we're. And the whole education system for the last few hundred years has been supply side. Go become an accountant, an engineer, a doctor, a lawyer, a plumber and sell that in the job marketplace. Place acquire set of skills, which is what universities do. They give you that job schooling, which is all that universities do today. And then you go to the job market, the demand side and you try and sell those skills in the demand side. I think what we're going to see happen is we're going to go from push based education to pull based learning, but demand driven. So for example, if you take Elon, he's like I'm going to build an electric car and let me go find the technologies, the skills, the capabilities. I need no experience or capability of doing it at the time, but he'll pull them towards him and solve that problem, problem. So what we see kids doing this is what's encapsulated in the massive transformative purpose in the exo model. Pick a huge purpose, cure cancer and then go find the technologies and skills and capabilities and pull those to you as you need to, to solve those problems that I think is going to be the future of education. Getting there from the existing system is impossible. So you need technology to help you bridge that gap between A and B and you need it to be permissionless. So one of the most exciting vectors of development that I'm seeing today, something I call PDI permissionless Disruptive innovation. Okay. If you wanted to do disruptive innovation throughout history, you had to get a sponsor, an investor, a government to bless you. Somebody had to give you permission to go do that or give you the resources to go do that. Look at Ethereum. Vitalik Buterin, middle class kid out of Toronto gets together with eight friends. Boom. They go create Ethereum for no money, with no cash, no resources, and boom, it's now a $400 billion ecosystem. Right. Take my favorite example is this is the, is a car that's called the Vega. It's, it looks like a Lamborghini. It's the third fastest car in the world. 900 horsepower, this thing. It's being designed and engineered and built in Sri Lanka, which is an island of fishermen and farmers with no investors, ecosystem experience, education or track record. Record. I'm going to suggest that if you can do Ethereum or if you can build the third fastest car in the world on an island, I love showing it to German car executives. Their brains literally melt when they see this. Right. I'm going to suggest you can do anything anywhere. So now we can give people the tools to build radical new solutions in vertical farming and a new battery technology all over the world and just let them go and they'll figure it out. And that's why we're trying to decent. That's why the decentralized world is so important. We need to decentralize innovation as fast as possible. Possible. And that Vector might pull us out as faster than the Mad Max vector. So that's my hope. Okay.
- [44:27]
D
It might pull us faster than the Mad Max vector. Okay. So that's.
- [44:30]
C
Well, it might get us to a secure place faster than Mad Max will destroy us.
- [44:37]
D
Got it. So we're, we are going into Mad Max territory, but hopefully before that can completely destroy everybody.
- [44:44]
C
We, yeah, for example, were mostly in the Middle east fighting for the last hundred years because of oil. If we have solar energy delivering an energy abundance, which will happen in the next four doublings, about eight to 10 years, then you don't need oil and therefore what are you fighting over? So that's the hope. Now will we find other things to fight about? Absolutely. Because we're human Beings, but it'll be less existential. I hope you look at the number of people dying in wars today is actually incredibly small compared to 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 500. So the data is very clear. The trend is very good. But we need to get out of our current structures because our current structures will take us back. My, my biggest observation I've ever had about human beings is that human beings would much rather be comfortable than happy.
- [45:32]
D
Can you give me more detail on that, please?
- [45:34]
C
Yeah. I may not embrace health care technologies that may deliver longevity because I'm so stuck in a Judeo Christian religious framework of the world that heaven is a good thing. And I want to get to heaven as fast as possible.
- [45:49]
D
That feels like either familiarity and fitting in with a tribe. Comfortable, comfortable. I think of comfortable as I'm warm, I'm safe, I'm relaxed. And both may be equally true.
- [46:04]
C
Emotionally, emotionally secure. Let's use that as an easy moniker for comfortable. Right? So. So you could put something amazing in front of somebody. Can I tell you a story about the Trump election? So I'm Canadian and my Canadian passport, I'm like golem with the precious, like, hold onto that thing. As the US goes into all sorts of chaos. About three months after Trump is elected in 2016, I was in an Uber going to a conference and the health, the driver is looking very unhealthy. And I said, are you okay? How much do you drive? And he goes, oh, I drive 18 hours a day. I said 18 hours a day. Hopefully you're not at the end of your shift because that's not great for me as a passenger. Then he tells you this amazing story. He was the CEO of a 300 person construction firm and they voted as a company should they get rid of corporate healthcare or not? And they vote as a company. He lobbies for it because less admin for the company, bit more expensive for the people, but more choice. So he votes lobbies and they get rid of. They vote and they get rid of corporate health care. Three weeks later he's not feeling well, goes to the doctor and finds out he's got multiple stage three cancers riddling his body. And now he's got a major problem because they got rid of the healthcare. He can't get covered because of the pre existing conditions problem. So one of those pops at stage four and he's a dead man. So he literally starts planning his funeral, gives away the company, plans his end times, like really right there. I'm like, that's incredible. But you said that happened a few years ago. You're here now, what happened? He goes, obamacare package passed. I'm like, okay. He goes, then I could get the insurance, I got the treatment, I saved my life. I'm like, wow, what a journey to go through. You think you're going to die and then this thing happens and it saves your life. We pull into the hotel, I'm getting out of the car and kind of as a joke I said, I guess in this last election you must have voted for Hillary Clinton. And he goes, no, I voted for Trump. And I was gobsmacked and I said, but you just said Obamacare saved your life life. He goes, yeah, I did. Completely 100% Obamacare state. All that. I said. But then you voted for the guy that said he was going to get rid of it on his first day. He goes, yeah, and he's getting rid of it. And now I'm back to planning my funeral. I've never been able to square that circle.
- [48:17]
D
You didn't ask him the follow up
- [48:19]
C
question that was so if you could go back and do it again, what would you do? What was, what would be the follow up question you would ask him?
- [48:25]
D
I, I would have asked, did you know that was going to be the outcome and if so, did you? There's it that leads me to believe you have a base assumption that something trumps your own personal safety.
- [48:37]
C
I, I, I, I've never, I've never, I've, I've sat with that like anecdote for years now. I've never been able to figure that out. Where people will literally vote against their self interest.
- [48:48]
D
I don't think anyone votes against their self interest. I think there are things that they care about that they may not be aware of yet. So he may have a philosophical underpinning that he's not even aware of. A value system that drives him. This is because thing and look, I don't know this guy, who knows? But just hearing what I've heard that what I would say drives him is freedom over everything. So hey, we have a healthcare plan, but I can make it better by giving people choice. Oh, that bit me in the ass. But my value system is still there. Trump in his mind stands for more freedoms and so I'm going to vote for more freedoms even though it brings me. Now obviously I'd want to push him and like really understand if that's what he's saying. But I find most people are driven by a value system that they don't understand, understand, but they are driven by it, every choice they make is an echo of a value system they don't understand.
- [49:36]
C
Can I say something out of a little bit of anger at all times. I've lived in eight countries around the world for more than a year each, so I've seen a lot of different Systems. Healthcare, Governance, etc. Canada, Europe, India, you name it. This whole vector of freedom drives me crazy because it's a complete. It's complete horticulture. I feel less free in the US than most other countries in the world. Why are you here? Oh, great place to do business.
- [50:04]
D
Fascinating.
- [50:05]
C
It's a great place to. But I feel like. I'll give you. Because here in the US the reason the US is successful is there's a latent entrepreneurship that is unbelievably powerful. And it epitomizes in Silicon Valley, where if you build a business and you fail, we call it experience. Anywhere else in the business, in the world. You build a business and it fails, you're a bad guy. Right. And this is true around the world.
- [50:28]
D
So we have one freedom. The freedom to fail.
- [50:31]
C
Freedom to fail is a huge one. And it's institutionalized in bankruptcy laws. It's, it's. You can fairly elegantly shut down a company here compared to other places. I built a subsidiary for one of my businesses to do software development in India and the mothership failed and it orphaned the subsidiary. Subsidiary. Right. It took me seven years to shut down that subsidiary in India because all the political, the, the regulatory, blah, blah, blah, crap. Just the thing. Am I likely to ever do another business in India again? Never. Because who wants to go through that hell, right? Whereas in the US if something fails. So we just merged, by the way, opening XO into a public company a couple of weeks ago. Okay. Called Genius Group. Yeah. So we're super thrilled because it's a global platform for teaching entrepreneurship. And that's the constituency that we're most excited. So we're very excited about the future there. The unbelievable potential of. In Delaware, when you are doing a merger or whatever, there's this incredible legal framework called a reparations act or something. Whereas if you haven't done your corporate paperwork that you forgot about, they give you one chance to kind of fix it all and come clean before you do a major transaction. It's fantastic. Right? Never is that happening anywhere else in the world. Because if you do something in Paris and under French law and whatever, later, I'll tell another quick story. I had a French girlfriend when I was living in Paris for a few years and she was trying to get her identity card because the French government said everybody has to get an identity. So she goes to the government, says, here's my identity. I want to apply. And they're, like, looking at all the paperwork, and they go, oh, problem? She's like, what's wrong? She says, well, you were born in France. You have a French passport. Port, your father was born in France, but your mother was not born in France. That's a problem. And she's like, but my mother was a French citizen. And the reason she wasn't born in France was her parents were the commanding forces for the French forces in Vietnam. She was a military kid, so she got born in Vietnam, but she's a French citizen. And they're like, problem. So she's like, okay, what do I do? So we need affidavits from all four of your grandparents saying, that was actually our daughter. Da, da, da, da, da. So she goes through all of this hell to get that. And she shows it to them, and she puts it all together, and they go, problem? She's like, what is it now? They said, your birth certificate has expired. Because in France, it turns out a birth certificate only is valid for three months. And then when you want one, for some reason, you have to apply to get a birth certificate. So this is the bureaucracy that most of the world deals with that the US has cleaned up a lot of. Canada is even better, by the way, because that's a newer country. Okay. So that lack that less bureaucracy makes it easy to build a business and do interesting new things. And that's why I live here. I think, by the way, I'm going to say it also for the record, I think the US Constitution is the most important document ever written, but doesn't
- [53:27]
D
have anything to do with freedom. We'll get to that in a minute.
- [53:31]
C
Yeah.
- [53:31]
D
In what country did you feel the most free?
- [53:33]
C
Most European countries, at an individual level, I felt very free. Businesses nightmare because the regulatory and chaos and bureaucracy nightmare. But I can drive without ever getting a speeding ticket in Europe, cannot drive here without getting a speeding ticket. Is that the barometer for freedom? I don't know. I'm just telling you.
- [53:51]
D
Paint a picture for me.
- [53:52]
C
Okay, let me give you another example. If I'm anywhere in the world, I never, ever see a police car. Whereas here in the US I just see police cars all the time. Every. Every day.
- [54:02]
D
People get arrested in the uk, a place where both of us have lived.
- [54:06]
C
Yeah.
- [54:07]
D
People get arrested in the UK for
- [54:09]
C
a tweet that someone separate Issues, different set.
- [54:12]
D
I'm trying to pin you down on freedom because I really want to understand this.
- [54:15]
C
Yeah. So look, in India, if I railed against the government, I would be in big trouble right now. So. So freedom of expression is a big problem around the world. And I think freedom of expression is more powerful here. And I. I do. There's definitely freedom here for freedom of expression more than anywhere else in the world. Okay. But this whole vector of the being more like the. If you vote Republican because you want more freedom rather than less is, I think, bullshit. Just my personal view, having lived well.
- [54:46]
D
So that to me, I interpret very differently. So that just sounds like. I don't think Republicans are the party of freedom.
- [54:51]
C
Okay.
- [54:52]
D
Yeah, but you said that you don't feel as free in America as you did in European countries.
- [54:58]
C
I feel. Yeah. When I, I. It's. It's. And there's good and bad to this. So I'll give you an example on both sides. Okay, So I came into the US once, and my name is Salim as Mel. I look a little dodgy, right? And they go, sir, we have a problem. Your name matches the name of an Afghan warlord wanted in Kabul for poppy trading. And he's wanted by the FBI, who's
- [55:20]
D
super likely to use his real name.
- [55:22]
C
And I'm like, okay. He goes, it's. You're a vice president of Yahoo. You're clearly not an Afghan warlord. I've got good news and bad news. And I'm like, what's the good news? So the good news is I'm pretty clear you're speaking at conferences. We've looked you up. You're not an Afghan world. I said, that's great. What's the problem? What's the bad news? He goes, I'm not allowed to make that decision. I have to check with Washington. It's like your coinbase thing. I have to check with Washington. It'll take about four hours. You're going to miss your flight. Have a seat. No. Say you're kidding. And literally, I got to the. I was coming across the border enough times that I got to the point where the border guys were like, hey, Mr. Ismail, how are you? Please come aside for this security check because we have to check with Washington again. So that's the bad side, right? Because you can get stopped for all sorts of bizarre things. I've never seen that anywhere else in the world. Okay, here's. I'll give you the good side. I had a very surreal incident at 911 where one of my family members who's psychic calls me up in the last two weeks of August and says, what are you doing the first two weeks of September? September 2001? I said, well, I'm working. I'm doing stuff. And she said, I want you to leave. I want you out of New York City. And I kind of learned enough to kind of pay attention to this that I took a vacation and I was in Switzerland and 911 happens. And I found out later, looked up later, had canceled a meeting in the World Trade Towers that Tuesday morning to go on this trip. And just by accident was there. So now I have to get back because the company I'm the COO of is in big trouble. Trouble. And I'm on the first plane that lands into JFK after 9 11. The first flight. The first plane that landed lands back in New York City. And you know, Salima smell. I look a bit Middle Eastern. My Canadian. My US Visa for Canadian visa to the US Was expiring the next day. So I'm in deep trouble. And I got to the border guards and they could not have been more constructive and helpful and. And sensible and common sense in that environment that I could ever have seen anywhere else in the world. Unbelievable. So at. At a very deep political level, there's lots of unbelievable freedoms, which is why I think this country is very powerful. However, day to day, I feel less free.
- [57:35]
D
H. Okay, so here would be my take on that. Let me know what you think it sounds like. Like you have had run ins that sound more racist to me than they sound anti freedom. But I get how if somebody's stopping you every time you turn around because of your name, because of your nationality, whatever, that would leave a horrific taste in my mouth. Now Canada froze people's bank accounts.
- [58:08]
C
Oh yeah.
- [58:09]
D
Because they donated money to a rebellion protest. I don't know. The trucker Conway. That was ultra terrifying. They have bills that compel speech. So not just. You can't say this. You must say this.
- [58:26]
C
Yes.
- [58:26]
D
That's insane. From a freedom perspective, if people vote for it, they should get what they want.
- [58:31]
C
Yeah.
- [58:32]
D
But that certainly does not feel free.
- [58:36]
C
So agree.
- [58:37]
D
When I think about what freedoms matter for me, what you're calling freedom of expression, what I will call all free speech is. Is quite literally the ability to think. And any country, and that would be every country but America, as far as I know, does not have freedom of speech. At which point they are 1984 style, compelling. The breakdown of your own ability to think properly.
- [59:02]
C
Yeah. And then you stifle innovation. You look at China as the extreme where they're shutting down the CEOs of the tech sector. Right. They're going to just kill innovation.
- [59:10]
D
Completely shutting down. They are literally absconding with them, taking them somewhere.
- [59:15]
C
That's right.
- [59:15]
D
Doing something that makes their expressions very different when they come out.
- [59:19]
C
And you don't. You know, this is an important point, and I. I will totally grant you on this one. Okay. The ability to buck against the status quo is bigger here than anywhere else in the world. And therefore you get disruptive innovation. And that fundamental innovation is what steers the U.S. forward in a very powerful way. This is the whole root of American exception, is you see a problem, you fix it. And I think that's a magical, magical thing. And I think that's why I said, go back to my point of I choose to. I could live anywhere in the world. I choose to live here. It's a really amazing place. However, there's lots of. Like, I was in an Uber going from San Francisco to Marin once, and the driver was African American. And we pull into Marin and there's a police check at the side of the road, and he literally starts freaking out. Like, he's shaking. He's completely, completely spazzed out. I'm like, dude, what's wrong? He goes, you have no idea what I go through when police see me behind the whip. And I was like, wow. And it's just something I'm, you know, just sits with me. I don't feel. I don't have that problem.
- [60:27]
D
You, unfortunately, to me, I'm glad you don't have that problem. But you're. What you were saying about immigration giving you a hard time. You're not the first person to talk about that. Where I thought you were going with 911 was. Since then, like, things have really just gone downhill that. I've heard that from many people that have.
- [60:45]
C
Downhill in what sense of the. You mean the immigrant experience?
- [60:48]
D
Feeling wanted is probably how I would have framed it. You framed it as freedom, which makes me think maybe I'm not mapping your mind quite correctly. So anyway, that. That part I certainly understand and has always rubbed me the wrong way.
- [61:01]
C
Yeah.
- [61:02]
D
I tweeted something out today around something that America does. This was actually Canadian, though. I become unhinged when banks act like my money's their money.
- [61:14]
C
I'm with you, bro. And. And by the way, Canadians shutting down the bank accounts was a very bad black stain. And I don't think they're going to get out from under that for a long time. Outrageous, right? Because if I've got a lot of money. Am I going to go to the Canada and trust my money there? I. I need to be able to get to my money. And this, I think, is an important part of maybe the most powerful aspect of web 3. Why we're so excited about it, is that you can have full custodial of and your value and nobody can take it away from you. I think that's a really powerful place.
- [61:44]
D
Okay, tell me how I'm wrong. The government can and will take your Web3 holdings. People always talk about the wrench attack. I can imagine no bigger wrench than the US Government. They will kneecap you. They will imprison you. They will do whatever they have to. I don't understand people who think crypto makes you immune from the government. It. The following thing is true. You can abscond at night, get on a boat, and go to a country, let's say Estonia, that does not have negative stance on crypto. And because you can memorize your seed phrase, you can escape with your money much easier. So if I'm a German, sorry, if I'm a Jew in Germany and it's like 1939, hey, I'm very great grateful for cryptocurrency because now I can just bail and I can take my wealth with me. So do not get me wrong, I love crypto the most. It's amazing. I have so much invested in crypto. I'm a believer. But when people act like governments can't come in and take that from you, that's crazy town. You can escape easier. But who the vast majority of people, should the government ever decide to, they will seize the shit out of it.
- [62:58]
C
Give me. So if I. If my seed phrase is sitting in England and I don't know it, and I don't have my sticks with me or anything like that, what's the government going to do, put you in jail? Oh, that's fine. They can take my freedom.
- [63:11]
D
Well, that's not.
- [63:12]
C
But they will never get my bitcoin, man.
- [63:13]
D
This is like your, your Wallace moment where you're, well, being tortured to death.
- [63:17]
C
I think, I think you can take
- [63:19]
D
my life, but you can always take my crypto.
- [63:21]
C
This was the same argument I use against guns. Right. People go, I need guns because I need to be able to fight against a government that comes after me.
- [63:28]
D
Yeah.
- [63:28]
C
And I'm like, they can just. They have bigger guns.
- [63:30]
D
They do. But you talked about the Afghans. I'm telling you, I got a distributed nation with a reason to fight. And their Own weapons. And I have not thought a lot about the second amendment, I'll be the first to tell you, but I'm like, oh, when I look at the. The reason they said they gave us the first, the second amendment, I'm like, yeah, word. You need to be able to protect yourself from the tyranny of just bureaucracy. Like don't even make it a fancy word like government.
- [63:55]
C
I'm totally good with that. Can I just give you my beef with the second amendment Because I've gone pretty deep on this and I appreciate the US enough that I've gone pretty deep on all the different structures, et cetera. The second amendment says you shall not ban the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. Not that every post dunk guy should have a gun. It should be in a well regulated militia. You Congress cannot pass a law that will stop a well regulated militia from over. If Congress oversteps. That is the second amendment, which is good.
- [64:29]
D
Hit us with the second amendment. I need to see that it's bringing home that I've actually never read. It's the actual second amendment.
- [64:35]
C
People forget people. There you go. A well regulated militia shall not be infringed. That's the second amendment.
- [64:42]
D
It doesn't say that. It says a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Now I read that as saying, hey, the people may need to build up a well regulated militia, therefore I'm not going to stop people from having guns. So what I hear is guns come first, militia comes second. So I could very easily say people saying, look, I hope I don't need to become a well regulated militia, but I need the guns now.
- [65:11]
C
Oh, I see. You frame it that way. Okay.
- [65:13]
D
I think that's how it's actually framed.
- [65:15]
C
This is where we need clarity, right? Can we.
- [65:17]
D
Is that really. That can't be the whole whole thing. No way.
- [65:20]
C
Yeah.
- [65:20]
D
That's the entire second amendment.
- [65:22]
C
That is.
- [65:22]
D
It is a single sentence.
- [65:23]
C
It's a single sentence.
- [65:24]
D
Is that really true?
- [65:25]
C
It really is.
- [65:26]
D
We're watching my ignorance unfold in real time.
- [65:29]
C
The amendments are this short. I thought these are like whole documents. They get longer as later down the list. Scroll.
- [65:35]
D
Let me see. These are scandalously short. If you guys all knew this and
- [65:39]
C
never tweeted about it.
- [65:42]
D
Wow. I can't believe I didn't know this. Okay, yeah, these are a little bit longer.
- [65:45]
C
So this is an interpretation.
- [65:46]
D
Still really short.
- [65:47]
C
Wow.
- [65:48]
D
No, these are verbatim this is the whole thing.
- [65:50]
C
Yeah.
- [65:51]
D
The comment section is going to be clowning on me.
- [65:54]
C
It's unbelievably beautiful. I'm going to say it again. The US Constitution Bill of Rights. The most beautiful documents ever created in crazy in the world. Right.
- [66:04]
D
I always thought when people gave these bits they were just quoting from a much larger document.
- [66:08]
C
No.
- [66:09]
D
That is hilarious.
- [66:11]
C
I can't wait to see the Twitter comments. But. So this is an interpretation thing because it's a clause, it's not saying anybody can have rights. And by the way, it says a well regulated militia by the people shall not be infringed. So the people can have arms in a well regulated militia.
- [66:29]
D
You and I read this so differently. This is utterly fascinating for everybody listening that is not familiar with this. I want to read this one more time. Pay attention to the sequencing of these words. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. Meaning you do not have a free state if you cannot protect yourself, presumably from the tyranny of state. Exactly. So the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's really interesting that to me you and I read something super.
- [67:01]
C
So if you had a period there, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, that would be fine. But it's not that. It's the well regulated militia. Comma. Yeah. So for if you were. If.
- [67:15]
D
I mean I will say this feels like an admonition that we should have well regulated militias standing. Which I don't love that.
- [67:23]
C
Well, that's, that's okay, that's. That's. I'm. I'm good with that. But guns should be operating inside a well regulated militia. Not everybody and their grandmother and free conceal and all that stupidity.
- [67:34]
D
If you, you think about technology and you're able to predict a traffic jam, it's like, whoa. That's pretty insightful. You may get the car wrong, but you get the idea of mass transit and people will bump into each other and it will slow things down. Anyway, so here are the beautiful things that I think will AI will bring. And if you could let me know, just yes or no life extension. I think we will live longer.
- [67:55]
C
Okay.
- [67:56]
D
I think while it probably might will take a while that AI will discover new. New physics.
- [68:02]
C
Yeah.
- [68:02]
D
Okay. New physics I think will have as big of an impact on our lives
- [68:06]
C
as somebody sees all the grand unification theory in the wave particle duality of light. I have a physics degree.
- [68:13]
D
I'll just talk to your boy Eric Weinstein. He thinks. He thinks he's got it. New governmental structures, new and better.
- [68:20]
C
Better. Okay, yeah. Policymaking should be done with an AI. For example, if you want to drop inflation by 2%, do you think it
- [68:28]
D
should be done by AI or should
- [68:29]
C
it be heavily, heavily, heavily guided by. For example, if you say, hey, we want to drop inflation by 2%, a human being trying to make policy, looking at all the data, has no hope in making sense of any. An AI could go, oh, do these three things, and the human being can sense, check it, and goes that reasonable or not, and then off you go. I think we're going to end up with the chess outcome where the best chess players are an AI and a human being. And that combination will be unbeatable because there's still a sense of.
- [68:57]
D
Don't you already have the answer to that? And that it's just AI. Can a human add anything to the
- [69:02]
C
greatest chess common sense?
- [69:04]
D
Are you sure?
- [69:05]
C
Oh, yeah.
- [69:06]
D
Can we look that up? We need to look that up. I don't buy for a second that a human can contribute anything to a chess.
- [69:11]
C
The best chess player, a human being and a chess AI will always beat an AI.
- [69:15]
D
Magnus Carlson, when teamed with chess AI beats chess AI by itself.
- [69:21]
C
Oh, yeah, yeah.
- [69:23]
D
Okay. That's a noble thing. We're looking that up. In the meantime, do you think that we will get free or nearly free energy?
- [69:30]
C
Yes.
- [69:31]
D
Okay, go deep on that one. What does nearly free energy look like? Why will that matter?
- [69:36]
C
Okay, let me go. Let me give you a graph that I use in my presentations, which is if you went back 500 years ago, the cost of lighting up a building or a room was unbelievably high. Whale blubber. You had to go kill whales and get the blubber back and light up a candle. Game of Thrones technology. Then we found paraffin and we could create candle candles. Then we invented electricity and the price of electricity. So can I step back one second? There's two really important things about technology that are important here that people should understand as we get into this. Number one, for the first time in human history, we have a dozen technologies all operating on an exponential doubling pattern. Solar Energy every 22 months. Drones are doubling every nine months in their price performance. Gene sequencing every six months, et cetera. The resolution at which we can image the human brain is doubling every year. For example. We've never seen this many technologies all move at an accelerated pace at the same time. So that's one. The second thing that I think is More profound that leads to that PDI comment I made earlier. Or disruptive. Permissionless. Disruptive innovation is that throughout human history, advanced technologies always cost a lot. And only a government lab or a big corporate lab could do R and D. Launch new products and services. Today, for the first time in human history, advanced technologies are cheap. AI is cheap, sensors are cheap, solar energy cheap. The blockchain is open source. Anybody can now do disruptive innovation. So that if you couple that with the idea that technology is a major driver of progress in the world, it might be the only major driver of progress we've ever seen in the world. Now you have a dozen of them that cost very little. There's going to be a Cambrian explosion of 20 Gutenberg moments all coming down the pike. So if we believe that technology is a force enabler for good and does delivers that, then we're in an unbelievable heavenly space for the future of innovation and all the things we're going to come seeing out of it. How quickly we implement that is the big challenge. And that's the problem. Now we've been fighting over oil for the last 200 years, big wars, et cetera, because that was the cheapest form of energy. We are moving now to solar energy being the cheapest form of energy. And the big challenge is what covers the baseline load. And I think small nuclear will do it as well as thorium reactors, which are now safe nuclear reactors. And over time we'll find Sol fusion, but that's going to be a while a ways away. So that gives us free energy. Yeah, free energy means you can desalinate freely. And that means if you have clean water, you take out half of all the infectious diseases in the world. So the ripple effects are profound. So energy in the next five to seven years will go to nearly free.
- [72:20]
A
When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery. So you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-8-800, granger click granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.
- [72:50]
D
Okay, so the desalinization is a great example, I'm going to say, and it's possible I'm, I'm missing something huge here, but I don't think so. If energy costs drop to effectively zero, the cost of everything else will drop Dramatically, yes. Because it takes energy to extract minerals from the ground. Restaurant. Most of the things you want in your life are about consuming energy. So when you're going to a restaurant and buying food, you're paying. So much of that is the energy cost for transportation to get the meat from the farm to the actual restaurant, or the cost of the energy to freeze the food. It's like the number of things that come down to energy. There's a guy named Arthur Hayes. I don't know if you know who he is. Arthur Hayes, amazing guy. I've been on the show a couple times. Amazing, amazing. And he said everybody should think of their lives in terms of how much energy, how many kilowatts essentially, can you purchase with your salary. Everything else is going to fluctuate, but that's the one that's going to.
- [73:50]
C
I love that metric. Yeah.
- [73:51]
D
Super brilliant. And so he doesn't look at how much am I making, he's only looking at how much does that buy me? And he said it reduces a lot of the illusion of, oh, my wages are going up, sure, but if your wages don't match the rise in the cost of energy, you could actually be making more dollars, technically. But losing purchasing power in energy, which meant matters more than people understand. Energy touches every little corner of your life. The cost of your shampoo is tied, the cost of your water is tied. Just energy, energy everywhere. Energy. The modern world brought to you by oil.
- [74:25]
C
So the best metaphor I've seen for this whole transition comes from Lawrence Bloom, one of my mentors. He said to me, you must have paid a lot of money in another dimension to be living this life. And I was like, damn, I think you're right. So this is his metaphor. He looks at humanity as different stages of a rocket lifting off Earth. So when you first have a rocket lifting off Earth, you need a really big fat booster rocket to get you the enough energy to get you out of the gravity well. And so that's oil, that's capitalism. Fossil fuel capitalism has been an unbelievable enabler to lift the world out of poverty, deliver all sorts of unbelievable innovation to us, products and services, etc, etc. However, when you have a rocket and it's taking off at a certain altitude, you have to jettison that booster rocket because that will, if you don't let it go, it's going to pull you back down. If then you jettison it and you take on a much more lighter craft that takes you to the next level. So the question is, we are in that transition point where we need to jettison fossil fuel and jettison capitalism is what I would put in another way and find that lighter craft. And what is that? Lighter craft is now the interesting question for me going forward, but it's a really important metaphor because it doesn't deny the benefits we've gotten from cheap oil over the last few hundred years. Absolutely. Delivering unbelievable benefits into the world.
- [75:46]
D
Yeah, very well said. Okay, so that is a very much tip of the iceberg in terms of all the amazing things that I think AI will help us race to timelines, we will inevitably get wrong. I like to give timelines, though, as a way of anchoring people around my thinking as of today with full knowledge that I know whatever timeline I give is, is going to be broke.
- [76:09]
C
Sure.
- [76:10]
D
But I'll. I'll walk you through a very quick breakdown of the phases that I see over the next 10 years and let me know what you think about this. So over the next three years, it'll be marked by things are getting easier. So cost of energy is going down. You can do more with less. Some amount of your work, if you're a graphic designer, will be done by AI. Like some of the things that Adobe's doing just un amazing. And so that's going to be happening all over in law, in health care, and just things will get easier. Existential dread is going to set in for the young because of what I call the famous quote from Gretzky, don't skate to where the puck is. Skate to where the puck is going to be. That used to be tremendously good advice. Hey, you're going to graduate in year 2030. So don't, don't think about what's happening today. Think about 2030. But now that Puck is teleporting.
- [76:58]
C
Yeah.
- [76:59]
D
So it's very hard to predict where that's actually going to be when you graduate. I think that's really going to cause a high rate of anxiety and depression among the young. I think what I call the, the pure human movement is going to start. So there'll be this sense of like, oh, we reject any brain computer interface. We reject anything where AIs. You're already seeing this in the art movement. So as much as I literally as the words Adobe's doing amazing things is coming out of my mouth, I know a portion of my audience is going to attack me because they are absolutely livid at the way that Adobe has trained their things and they feel like they've just been so stolen from. So the pure human movement is going to begin. So this this creation brought to you by only humans. No AI touches whatsoever. There's going to be a softening of the job market because, I mean, I'll just speak for myself. I have definitively hired less people because we've been deploying AI as much as we can.
- [77:52]
C
Yes.
- [77:52]
D
All right, so that's three years, nothing insane. You're going to have like chat GPT moments where it was like huge for a minute, seemed like it was going to revolutionize everything, but then you kind of like did it. Five years. The riots begin, but they're going to be minor. It's going to be people like the Waymo car that got vandalized.
- [78:11]
C
That's right.
- [78:11]
D
So Waymo self driving car, there's no driver. It's crazy. When you see them in real life one, they smashed its windows, lit it on fire. Maybe not because it was self driving, maybe not because of what it represents or maybe precisely because of what it represents. I think you're going to start seeing more of that and that's already happening. Deaths of despair are going to go up. We're already seeing that in the us you have, there's a breakdown of the countries listed in order of the number of suicides per thousand. Yeah, it's bad, it's, it's pretty crazy that it does not map to affluence.
- [78:43]
C
Yeah.
- [78:44]
D
So you have some really poverty stricken countries not doing well and you have really affluent countries not doing well. So money's not going to solve the problem. So as AI unleashes everything is getting cheaper. It's not going to solve the problem because of meaning and purpose which we will certainly get more into.
- [79:00]
C
Yes.
- [79:01]
D
I think the pure human movements starts actually breaking machines. So whether they're way mos, whether they're those little robots that wonder. Yep. They're, they're going to go after those. There's going to be a massive job transition happening. So you're going to get a ton of graduates going into the world like hey, there's no jobs. You're going to see people shift into more trades. So being a plumber and things that it's going to be harder, at least for now before robots hit regulation is going to start to escalate. So the masses begin to panic, they begin voting people into power on this issue. Will you stop or at least dramatically slow AI? I think that's going to really ramp up in the five year time frame and then in the seven year time frame AI is going to be better at most things than humans. I think we're going to see a horrifying spike in either. It will. Either. In fact, it'll be both. You'll see a tremendous spike in deaths of despair because people AI will just be better than you at everything. And that will be really damaging for the young who try to look out and say, well, if I got really good at this thing, it will matter to humanity. And I think they'll come up empty. And unfortunately, even though we probably will give UBI of some kind, it's just not going to solve the problem. Because I think humans need meaningful pursuit. And if they don't need to win at a thing to win money, I think they'll actually have a problem. And hey, look at the homelessness crisis. When you give people money and you don't register them. Some portion, not most, nowhere near, but some people just go, cool, I'm just going to do drugs all day. The pro human thing is going to riot at scale. You hit 10 years, you get a real bifurcation in humanity. Some break. It's just pure human. And some are like, I'm all cyborg all the time. Which if people don't know right now, today, as we're recording this, the first person to get a neuralink brain computer interface has already happened. It's already happened. This guy beat his dad. That's his dad, but beat his dad at a game, Mario Kart, with his mind. He did not touch a controller. He can't even move his arms, okay? And he. It is insane when you see him play because they show you this. One of these is being played by somebody using their arms, and the other is being played by somebody just with their mind. You can't tell the difference. It is unbelievable. So anyway, you can aim the shells and everything. Oh, God, it was. Blew me away. So you're gonna get. 10 years from now, you're gonna have people that were quadriplegics that are now moving about with an exoskeleton or maybe even able to bypass the break and just literally control their own limbs again. It's going to be pure insanity. You're now going to be hitting where energy is just ridiculously low. Healthcare is going to be unbelievable. You're going to have magic AI doctors, but you're also going to have sex bots. You're going to have just an absolute cratering of traditional human relationships.
- [81:54]
C
Yes.
- [81:54]
D
And this is where the tralization will really be important because otherwise people are just going to stop having kids because you're having sex with your sex bot who knows you perfectly. And can morph into whatever you want that day. Oh God, it's going to get so weird. All right, what'd I get wrong?
- [82:09]
C
Oh, so I think I. It's entirely plausible as a scenario, right? And as if you're a futurist, you're always looking at scenario planning and, and as a vector that's completely accurate. I disagree with a couple of things. I think I disagree with. The kids will be upset about this. I think the kids in our framing, the kids will be upset about this. But kids natively grow up in the model, the world that they're in and they just take it as normal.
- [82:38]
D
How did we break them so much with social media?
- [82:41]
C
Ah, that's a different problem, that's fixable and I think we'll be fixing that pretty soon. I think you get them off. Social media is the problem. It's too much of an addictive sugar drug type model for the utility that it's delivering. And that's a regulatory problem. The governments have been incredibly lax. I think in, in, in navigating that.
- [83:03]
D
I see the AIs being used by the social media companies as proof of what AI does in practice. That feels like an AI problem to me. Yes, TikTok will suck you into a vortex. It's.
- [83:17]
C
But you know, my, my 12 year old comes to me and he goes dad, I haven't had a chance this week to play Fortnite because I've been to Snyder basketball tournament here and we went there. He goes, I feel like lot better. My, my, my friends are up playing. I'm not going to do it. I'm going to try. He goes, how do you, you know what, what do you want me to do with this? Like it's so weird. I said, you know what, give it another day without it and another day and just take it one day at a time and see how you feel. And it's incredibly inspiring to hear him reflect on it and do that now. Not that everybody's doing that or can or will or whatever, but I think we'll figure that out. We've always had, had this problem, okay. When we were growing up find this problem, okay? The parentals not understanding what their kids are going through and trying to fix. The kids when I was growing up there was like, they were like get off the phone, what the hell are you doing? You don't need to be on the phone for hours with your friends, etc. Etc. Right. There's lots of constructive ways in which you can use technology and some of what's coming In a very powerful way. I'll give you an example of a friend who has four kids, four girls, and. And when he was growing, bringing them up, he, at an early age, from like five, six, seven years, he started watching reality TV shows with them, Survivor and all the weird ones. I'm like, you watch those with your kids? He goes, yeah, I sit down with them because when they go to the playground, they've got one instance of a bullying or something or some. When I sit with them day after day and they watch this, they're getting a lesson on human nature. I sit with them so that we could talk about what's going on. We start predicting. And all those four girl have become unbelievable leaders in their own right over the, over the years. They're now about 20 years old each. Because he had the foresight to go be with them and bring them along that journey. And they'll learn faster because they'll assemble the knowledge faster. Douglas Adams, who wrote Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I think said this the best. He said, anything in the world when you're born, that's normal. Anything that's invented when you're young, that's a career. And anything invented after you're 35 years old is just bad, just bad for the world. And I think that's a great framing for what's happening today. We freak out about what the younger kids, because we don't understand it and we don't know how they're going to adapt to it. And I think we just have to trust them that they will figure it out. We figured it out. You know, our parents were freaked out about us going to movies and playing video games and whatever, and we figured it out. And I think the kids today will figure it out again. Take me with my optimism bias, because I have a deep optimism bias around some of this stuff.
- [85:57]
D
I want people to take me with my optimism bias as well, because I am entirely swung that way. And yet, even with that bias, I'm going to ask the following question. Do you think there is such a thing as a rate of change so rapid that children cannot adapt?
- [86:14]
C
That children cannot adapt? That's a great question. Question, Yes. And that would be what we would call the singularity, Right. So we are hitting that right now in AI. Does your audience know what the singularity is?
- [86:31]
D
You should give it to. And you should also tell me what year you think we hit that.
- [86:36]
C
Okay. I don't believe in it, by the
- [86:38]
D
way, so heard you talk on this, so. But give it to us all the whole shebang.
- [86:43]
C
So Werner Vinge coined this phrase, the technological singularity. And he basically said the minute machine intelligence overtakes human intelligence, then we take on a technological evolutionary path, not a biological evolutionary path. And the minute that happens, we are complete. The world is completely different. And Ray Kurzweil popularized that as the Singularity and wrote this book called the Singularity is near in 1999, positing that in 2045 we would get to that point where machine intelligence overtakes human intelligence. I disagree with this for two levels. First, and I've had lots of conversations with Ray on this. The first is that we don't know what intelligence is. The IQ test measures two aspects of intelligence. The speed of thought processing and the ability to match concepts across frameworks. But we have many dimensions, about a dozen other facets of intelligence, like linguistic intelligence, spatial intelligence, emotional intelligence, this concept of spiritual awareness, or the concept of presence, the Eastern concept of being present. None of that is reflected in an IQ test. And that whole sum of the parts is what we call intelligence. So my first issue with it is what the hell do you mean by intelligence? Right. And the second issue I have is what do you mean by overtaking? Because the minute I can prescriptively describe Attack Task, an AI robot is going to do much better than me anyway. And so let them do it. And therefore it frees me to be much more creative and so on. And I think what we're doing is we're merging with technology. And this is where Ray and I definitely do agree, where you're merging with technology such that the human experience is augmented and amplified. The fact that I have a smartphone, I would argue, makes me more human than less human. Because of my memories in there, freeing up lots of neurons to do other work. I can communicate with my son for free around the the world, which is unbelievable. I can project empathy around the world, which is incredible. So I'm more human with my device than without it. And I think that's a powerful commentary for where intelligence goes. Most people worry about AI as, oh my God, it'll come take, Come on, take over the world and will destroy us. And if we're lucky, we're pets, and if we're unlucky, we're food. It's kind of like pretty much always goes that way. Skynet, Terminator of the Matrix. But we actually see is we're augmenting the human experience with technology an amazing level. And I think that's very, very inspiring. We're more human now. So let's look at education for example. Over the last or jobs over the last 200 years, we roboticized, our employees said that's your job function. Do that one job. You're an audit accountant, you do audits and you do it repetitively. And we're going to measure you by how quickly and how effectively and how fast and mistake free are your audits and not your bonuses. But based on that. So we turn people into robots. People on me assembly lines stamping out widgets. Now with the advent of AI and robotics and so on, people are becoming much more human again. The most valuable employees or colleagues you have in any company are the people that learn the fastest. And that's a magical thing to be. Now as AI comes along, the big challenges and I would argue that in the concept of the, what you would call the singularity in AI, we've hit the singularity. The pace of change in AI is now so fast you can, you can't absorb it. By the time you've, you've made an investment, your, your investment is out of date. And so this is a huge structural challenge with this. It's, it's, I'll give you an analog in the, in the education world. If you're doing a master's degree in neuroscience today, by the time you finish your master's degree, you're out of date. Because computational neuroscience is overtaking the field so fast that it's, it's making the old ways irrelevant very quickly. So our, our, the structural issue we have in education is we can't up update our educational frameworks quickly enough to deal with all the new changes. And A.I. i think is, is the epitome of that right now. And this is where I made the comment. Elon tweeted this little video completely last weekend saying there's no mechanism that we can see by which you can regulate AI at all, at all. You'd have to regulate every line of code written. And I just don't see that happening. That's when you really have issues with freedom.
- [90:56]
D
By 10 years from now, you're now in 2034. Elon made a quip that in the 2032 election it won't be a question of what human will win, it would be a question of what AI. Now, assuming that he's kidding, ha. But that he's directionally indicating it, I think that Ray is going to be right by 2029, which is well under my 10 year time frame here. You've got AI is just smarter than any single single human. So that means AI is going to be better than every human at anything. Then it becomes a question of DID before we get there, did they start having existential dread based on the rate at which things are changing?
- [91:41]
C
Who's they? The kids?
- [91:42]
D
Yeah, kids. I think this impacts everybody, but kids will be the most paralyzed because they don't have the world experience to know. Oh, I can navigate this way.
- [91:52]
C
I deeply disagree with this, this whole smarter than human beings thing. Okay, so we're again going back to the definition of intelligence. We don't have a clear definition of intelligence. Okay, so because now you have, you
- [92:05]
D
said if something can be defined, I forget the exact word you use, but if it can, if a task can be defined prescriptively, the minute I can
- [92:12]
C
prescriptively describe a task, an AI will
- [92:15]
D
name a thing that you think humans will continue to be better than AI at in 10 years.
- [92:22]
C
Empathy, creativity, humor. There's lots of domain spiritual awareness.
- [92:29]
D
The only one of those I'm going to give you is humor. Maybe. And they probably get thrashed.
- [92:34]
C
They'll get way better at jokes. Sure.
- [92:36]
D
Than what's left. What do you mean?
- [92:37]
C
Well, but the, the. But now you see what, look, let me, let me describe what I'm. We need to get clear on what we're talking about. Intelligence. Okay, so we have this concept of intelligence and we think some things will be smart, harder than us, but in what way? Is it faster, is it better, is it more complete? That's one challenge, right? Because there's all these other facets of intelligence that make us human beings that are different. Common sense, for example, etc. Then you bleed into AGI, you have narrow AI, which always is going to be better than a human being because it's anti lock breaking systems, credit card fraud detection. We use narrow AI to run the world today. If you took that out, world would just grind to a halt very quickly. Then we get to AGI, which is artificial general intelligence, the ability to match concepts across frameworks. And that's what people talk about. I think when people talk about intelligence today, that AIs, once they achieve AGI, will be able to do tasks better than human beings. Okay, now I actually look at this as an optimistic thing because there's a lot of human white collar drudgery that AIs will take over. Okay, I'll give you a small example. I'm a booking agent for cloud med resorts and the family calls and they go, we want, we have three families, we want two adjoining rooms and the kids have to be on the same floor. And I have to go do a lot of crappy work to figure out how I'm going to manage that permutation. And there's a ton of stupid shit that goes into figuring that out. It takes a ton of my time. That's where I think AI will shine a lot, but it'll allow me to then focus my time on real problem solving or other areas where. Where they're less good. And yes, over time, we won't need that human booking agent because the. I will do a lot of it anyway. Okay? But that's been a steady vector forever. The minute you have a concrete truck, it replaces 100 concrete workers shoveling concrete. You free them up to do more higher order things and so on. So the question is, what work will there be there to do? And I think this is the really big question that we don't have a clue. That's where I think the interesting question is. The rest of it, I think, is fear mongering to some extent. And by the way, I see AGI just like intelligence kind of. We had the Turing test that kept shifting the goalpost, and then all of a sudden we passed it a long time ago. And we're like, oh, not a big deal. I think AGI will be like that. We'll have AGI and everybody go, oh, my God, we have AGI. And then it'll become, oh, this is okay, and it'll be normal. And I think AGI is bleeding into what we would call contrast consciousness. And there again, you have a big definition problem and a test problem. We don't have a definition for consciousness. We don't have a test for consciousness. Right. A subset of consciousness is self awareness. And you look like you're self aware. So I attribute self consciousness or self awareness to you. I feel like I'm self aware, but my wife disagrees. So it's really hard to even have the conversation because we don't have a clear definition of this. And so. And when you bleed into those areas where I think things get really, really interesting. Quick anecdote. I remember we had a robotics expert, one of the NASA astronauts was used to build robots when we were doing Singularity. And I asked them a question, I said, look, is there a system in the world that has the inputs and outputs and enough processing power that it might generate self awareness and it might suddenly go, oh, I'm a system, right? And he's like, huh, let me think about that. So he goes off a couple of days, he comes back and he goes, I think I have an answer. I'm like, okay. He goes, traffic systems? I said, really? He goes, yeah. He goes, in my opinion, I've thought about this for a couple of days. Traffic systems have enough inputs and outputs and processing capability that one day it might generate self awareness and might go, oh, I'm a traffic system. And two questions emerge at that point. What would it do and how would we know? And the problem is we wouldn't know. So I think when we hit AGI, we won't know when an AI hits that point. We won't know when an AI hits consciousness because we don't have a test for it. And just to help this whole thing, Ray Kurzweil put it most brilliantly. He was asked once about consciousness and he goes, language is a really thin pipe to discuss concepts as complex as that.
- [96:50]
D
Ray's brilliant. I love Ray the most. He was the very first audiobook I ever read. So I will forever have a debt of gratitude. I've interviewed him, I've had the good fortune of dining with him. But that is a cheap excuse not to think about a very hard problem.
- [97:05]
C
It is, it is, but it's a valid observation. We struggle a great deal with language. So I think what ends up. You have to really. You have to really think back. When you talk all about all this stuff, intelligence, consciousness, you have to go back to what is a human human being. And this is where I become really fascinated. I've been fascinated for a long time in metaphysics, and I've been fascinated by what is the human condition. And I have actually a diagram that I think summarizes this. Nice.
- [97:31]
D
I want to wrap this point first. That is 100% an area that we will touch on before we go. So you have really unique insights there. But first I want to say I think consciousness is a red herring.
- [97:42]
C
Okay?
- [97:43]
D
And I want to reorient people. What we're talking about is, are. Are we all going to struggle as AI gets better than us at everything? I think kids will be the canary in the coal mine. You think kids will be the far more resilient. Your argumentation. And please, if I say this in a way that you don't recognize or think is uncharitable, let me know. But that we don't even understand what intelligence is. These systems might become conscious, but we'll never know because there's no way for us to engage with that. Kids are going to get it. They're going to use AI in the way that they use it, and they'll step away from it when like your son with Fortnite. When it stops being useful in his life, he's going to step back. People need to understand my base assumption that I think the brain developed so that humans could move. Why did humans need to move? So they could take control of their environment. Why do they need to take control of their environment? So they could survive.
- [98:34]
C
Yes.
- [98:34]
D
So then the game from an evolutionary algorithm standpoint becomes to keep this thing alive long enough to have kids. That have kids. And the. The granddaddy of all the algorithms that it planted in our brains is the desire for meaningful pursuit. Both of those words are important. Meaningful means I can draw a straight line between going out and killing this thing and the survival of the people that I love. So yo, like, this really mattered. It was a whole thing. And so when we do it, we're celebrating. We feel all the neurochemistry that we want to feel. This is awesome. Awesome. That is meaningful pursuit. This is why when you have a job that feels like a dead end and it's not going anywhere and all it does is let you pay your rent, it's not interesting. Now, once AI Becomes, it crosses the uncanny valley, and it's no longer like Chad GBT giving you the lamest dad jokes ever. And it is Blade Runner and I, without doing a special test where I put a thing up against your iris, I can't tell if you're real or not. And in fact, you don't even know if you're real or not. Now, again, consciousness is a red herring, okay? Who cares? It is just like hanging out with your friend, except for one really brutal fact. They're better than you at everything possible. And so now it's like, well, this really sucks, because meaningful pursuit would be that I need to go do a thing to help me and mine, but energy costs have dropped to zero because these things are so damn good at everything. Everything that now why would I go do that? Because we can just get an AI to do it way better than me.
- [100:06]
C
Yes.
- [100:07]
D
That kid, when he's. Or adult, when they're interfacing with an entity that is better than them at everything, they're going to be like, huh? How do I have meaningful. Meaningful pursuit? And the answer will be, you get meaningful pursuit in the next life. And I just need you to do these things. And you're going to have meaning today. Even though we don't need you to go capture and animal, because all that's taken care of. But I'm going to give you this path to meaning through this ancient book through this tribe and all of that. And bro, it's going to get weird. And I lay all these pieces out on the table for one reason and one reason only. Because again, I'm wearing a shirt that says Neon future because I believe technology is going to make our lives better. But one of the earliest things we talked about is those spikes on a graph that is human nature. That, that is an idea set moving through the medium of the human mind and the way humans act as a collective. And if we plant wise ideas now, if we warn people about this stuff, if we talk about, hey, here's how you branch to Mad Max, here's how you branch to Utopia, let's make sure that we're all hyper aware of how the human mind breaks bad and how it can break good. Then there's one last thing that I have to say because I find very smart people like yourself are not facing a very ugly truth. And that very ugly truth is this is, this is a paraphrase, but it's going to get really damn close. You said that people will be able to step into a higher order of existence, engagement with the world as all the sort of menial stuff is taken away. Now the reason that feels true to you is you are very smart. The bad news is that human intellect is on a gigantic scale. And Einstein, who's only like a 165 IQ, and I say only on purpose because the smartest person living, I think is a 220. So and I mean that literally in the, the actual Webster's dictionary definition is like somebody with an 83 IQ, I think. So the difference between that person and Einstein, if I remember, it's like 2.6 or something like that in terms of the difference in iq. And it's almost that again between Einstein and this smartest person.
- [102:17]
C
Okay.
- [102:17]
D
An AI by according to Ray Kurzweil, is going to be a million times smarter than you.
- [102:23]
C
Yeah.
- [102:23]
D
So it's like, bro, if the difference between Einstein and A is 2.6 and we're talking about something that is a million times smarter than you, I will hypothesize that we have officially hit the point at which the rate of change will be so rapid that you, you can't absorb it. And so now your only answer. Answer is, and again, you need only look at Elon Musk who's doing all of this stuff in plain view. You have to merge with technology.
- [102:48]
C
Yeah.
- [102:48]
D
To keep up, to have meaningful, for meaningful pursuit, you have to be able to keep up with them from just a Raw horsepower perspective. But again, society will break along those lines. People that will and people that won't. And if that does not strike people as, to quote you from the beginning, the most dramatic seismic shift in human existence ever, then I, I, I, I'm at a loss to help them understand change.
- [103:17]
C
Wonderful articulation. I think that was a really great and very tight concise articulation of a future. And there's absolutely valid points that you make all the way up and down. I have a couple of point issues. One is when you say kids will be despairing because they won't be able to do things as good as an AI, I disagree with that because I don't think they'll despair. They'll go, that thing's better, I'll do this, I'll go do something else, or I'll figure something else out. So that's, I don't think they'll go to despair.
- [103:47]
D
They will innovate their way out of the problem.
- [103:49]
C
Innovate all. They just adapt. Kids are adaptive. They just figure it out and they just adapt their.
- [103:54]
D
So explain to me how they've adapted to social media.
- [103:58]
C
Well, badly, because it's, it's, it sucked up their minds, but that's true.
- [104:02]
D
Adapt poorly to social media, but wonderfully to this really brutally intelligent AI.
- [104:08]
C
Yeah. So now that becomes how do you guide them and how do you manage them and how do you parent them, et cetera, in many cases are doing a very bad job because they're leaving them to the social media and that's just fucking up their brains. Okay. However, there's some really interesting vectors coming out of that. There's a woman out of Chicago called Nicole Driesky who looked at this device addiction problem and social media addiction problem, problem. And she said, you know, the problem is not the fact, not we're looking at the wrong problem here. The problem is their higher order thinking is not triggered. They're passively consuming. They're just viewing a screen and they're not really there. So how do we trigger that? If we can, then it doesn't matter what they watch. So she created a program called ScreenSmart where they take kids through a little program. And you can literally boils down to if you as a parent sit with you, your child twice a week for 15 minutes and ask them a set of leading questions. For example, you're watching a movie, why do you think the characters are doing what they're doing? What do you think the director is trying to achieve with this plot? What would you do? Direct Differently if you were the director, if you do that twice a week for 15 minutes, it turns out that even when they're on their own, their higher order thinking starts buzzing and they're now actively engaging with the content. They've not taken like a few tens of thousands of kids through this program. Program. It's unbelievable the outcomes they're seeing from this. They've broken the addiction problem. Their vocabulary is increased like 86% or something crazy like this. It's just so I. It's one of those where I think we'll figure it out. Just like we figured out how once we realize that the, the addiction patterns of social media, we need to regulate it and say like, not that it's a great example, but in China they're saying you can't have social media until you're certain age because your brain has to be more fully formed, etc. I think we'll figure that part out. It's just there's an arms race problem always in this stuff where something happens and then we figured out the consequences and then we fix it, etc. The reason I tend to be optimistic is when you bring more intelligence into the world, the world just becomes better. Now we do have definitely the paperclip problem which is in the extension of your or AI talking about training and education, et cetera. You know the paperclip problem, right. You say do an A and make all the paperclips and it sucks all the energy out of human beings because it wants to.
- [106:32]
D
Yeah, it gets lost and it gets
- [106:34]
C
lost in the trying to letter of its objective. I think that's a huge danger. Okay. Because two inflection points came out when we allowed AIs to code and gave them access to the code base. And the second one was when they got access to the Internet. And those two put together mean that AI can program pretty much whatever it wants. And there's no question there's going to be bad agents out there trying to do these things in a particular way. I still tend to be optimistic because as the cost drops, the reasons to fight drop, etc. Etc. I don't see the Terminator Matrix scenarios which are always a Hollywood thing. I do agree. We need to me blend with technology and we need merge with AI because it'll just make all of our bodily functions better. And AI deeply embedded into my body would be fantastic because I'd reach for a donut and it would say whoa, whoa, whoa, I'm still metabolizing your coffee. Please wait 10 minutes. And for God's sakes, don't have the donut. Have something else. Right. By the way, it's amazing what you and Lisa are doing across the board with nutrition and all the wellness stuff and the women's empowerment. It's just one of the most important vectors that we could pursue in terms of helping human beings. Things get more better and human. More human and more real about the world side thing. But in terms of AI specifically, I think we'll end up merging with it in that particular way, because what's going to happen is an AI is, and you saw this in Star Trek Next Generation. What did Data want more than anything else? He wanted to be human. He wanted to experience what it meant, like, to be human. And I think that's where it'll go.
- [108:08]
D
Lord knows, I hope you're right.