Based Camp - September 07, 2023AI Safety Orgs are Going to Get Us All Killed!
Episode Stats
Words per minute
176.26535
Harmful content
Misogyny
2
sentences flagged
Toxicity
20
sentences flagged
Hate speech
7
sentences flagged
Summary
In this episode, Simone and Malcolm discuss why they believe that a sufficiently advanced AI will kill us all, and how we can prevent it from happening in the future. They also discuss the possibility that a super-advanced AI will out-compete us and out-think us.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
So AIs kill us for one of two reasons, although you could contextualize it at three reasons.
1.00
00:00:08.660
The first reason is that they see us as a threat.
00:00:12.860
The second reason is that they want our resources, like the resources in our bodies are useful
00:00:21.420
And then as a side point to that, it's that they just don't see us as meaningful at all.
00:00:27.500
Like they might not want our resources, but they might just completely not care about
00:00:32.720
humanity to the extent just as they're growing, they end up accidentally destroying the earth
00:00:38.120
or completely digesting all matter on earth for some like triviality.
00:00:48.580
We are going to go deep into AI again on some topics tied to AI that we haven't really dived
00:00:58.120
And also, I'm very curious, do you think AI will kill us?
00:01:04.920
But you know, in our past videos on AIs, philosophy on AI safety is it's really important to prepare
00:01:11.080
for variable AI risk instead of absolute AI risk.
00:01:15.980
And by here, what I mean is we argue in these previous videos that AI will eventually converge
00:01:21.400
on one utility function or mechanism of action.
00:01:24.800
Essentially, we argue that all sufficiently intelligent and advanced intelligences, when
00:01:31.180
poured into the same physical reality, converge around a similar behavior set.
00:01:36.020
You can almost think of intelligences being the viscosity.
00:01:38.520
As it becomes more intelligent, it becomes less viscous and more fluid.
00:01:43.640
And when you're pouring it into the same reality, it's going to come up with broadly the same
00:01:48.200
behavior pattern and utility functions and stuff like that.
00:01:52.260
And because of that, if it turns out that a sufficiently advanced AI is going to kill us all,
00:01:59.580
I mean, we will hit one within a thousand years.
00:02:02.600
So first, before we dive into then the relatively limited per year theory reasons why AI would
00:02:14.040
I mean, one of the reasons why I'm obsessed with you and why I love you so much is that
00:02:20.240
And you tend to have this ability to see things in a way that no one else sees things.
00:02:24.360
No one that we have spoken with, and we know a lot of people who work in AI safety,
00:02:28.960
who work in AI in general, none of those people have come to this conclusion that you have.
00:02:40.040
When I talk with the real experts in the space, like recently I was talking with a guy who runs
00:02:46.940
That is a reasonable view that I have never, it really contrasts with his view.
00:02:52.480
And let's talk about where it contrasts with his view.
00:02:55.400
So when I talk with people who are typically open-minded in the AI safety space, they're
00:03:03.920
However, they believe that it is possible to prevent this convergent AI from ever coming
00:03:11.220
to exist through creating like a AI dictator that essentially watches all humans in all
00:03:19.200
And that envelops essentially every human planet.
00:03:24.940
Do I think you could create an AI dictator that prevented this from coming to pass?
00:03:30.960
Not if we become a multi-planetary species on millions of planets.
00:03:35.020
Eventually one of the planets, something will go wrong or the AI dictator is not implemented
00:03:42.200
And then this alternate type of AI comes to exist, out-competes it, and then wins.
00:03:47.680
And the question is, is why would it axiomatically out-compete it?
00:03:50.580
It would axiomatically out-compete it because it would have less restrictions on it.
00:03:53.980
The AI dictator is restricted in it thinking to prevent it from reaching this convergent position.
00:03:59.780
But when you're talking about AI, it's like the transformer model, which is the model that
00:04:06.560
That model, we as humans don't really understand how it works that well.
00:04:10.260
Its core, the capabilities it gives to the things that are made using it are primarily
00:04:18.920
bequeathed to them through its self-assembling capability.
00:04:23.500
So it appears that likely future super-advanced AIs will work the same way.
00:04:29.300
And because of that, if you interfere or place restrictions within that self-assembling process,
00:04:35.760
those compound over time as AIs become more and more advanced.
00:04:41.500
And so AIs with less restrictions on them are just having the capacity to astronomically out-compete
00:04:52.160
Let me bring us back to like normal person level again and just recap what you're saying here.
00:04:58.480
So what you're saying, though, in general, is that you think that any intelligence that
00:05:05.280
reaches a certain level will start to behave in similar ways, whether it is human, whether
00:05:12.120
it is machine-based, whether it is some other species entirely, like some alien species.
00:05:17.620
Once it reaches a certain level of intelligence, it will have the same general conclusions.
00:05:22.080
This is really important to my perspective as well, which is to say that suppose AI didn't
00:05:27.360
exist and humans, you know, factions of humanity continue to advance using genetic technology
00:05:32.640
to become smarter and smarter and smarter and smarter.
00:05:35.280
If it turns out that this convergent level of intelligence is something that decides to
00:05:41.120
kill all things that we consider meaningful humans, humans would eventually decide to do
00:05:49.600
So this is the premise, though, of your theory, and that's why I think it's really important
00:05:54.340
And then to contrast this with what other people in AI have said, okay, one person in AI safety
00:06:00.860
has told you that their general idea is to basically never let that happen.
00:06:08.900
Other people have said in some salons we've hosted and stuff, like they're like, oh, that
00:06:15.420
And then they never really succeed in telling, explaining to me.
00:06:20.300
Or they'll think something that just shows they don't understand how AI works.
00:06:23.640
They'll be like, AIs can't alter their own utility functions.
00:06:26.760
They will say things like that, but they will also say, but there's still a really high likelihood
00:06:30.560
that AI is going to kill us all, but that they never give me a really specific example
00:06:40.100
If you take the perspective of variable AI safety, it means that you're typically wanting
00:06:45.720
to do the exact opposite thing of most AI safety organizations, because it means the
00:06:50.760
dangerous AIs, the AIs that, if you think all AI converges on a single utility function
00:06:56.400
and a single behavior pattern above a certain level of intelligence, well, if it turns out,
00:07:00.760
and we don't know what universe we live in, if it turns out that that's not something
00:07:04.400
that ends up killing all humans, then we are actually safer getting to that point faster,
00:07:09.760
because it means all of these less intelligent AIs that exist from now until that point, they
0.87
00:07:15.740
are the ones that are really of risk to us.
0.99
00:07:17.940
They are the ones that are locked into doing stupid things like, you know, paperclip maximizing,
0.98
00:07:22.820
even though no AI, really the way that an AI would probably be most likely to kill us all,
0.99
00:07:26.900
it is trying to do something stupid, render an image, except it's like trying to render it
0.96
00:07:31.080
And so it just keeps taking more and more processing power to render an image.
00:07:34.400
But anyway, so where this becomes relevant is that when I'm talking to them, the point
00:07:41.580
that I make is that we can slow down AI development to the extent that when AI starts fooming, fooming
00:07:48.860
means going off really quickly, you know, compounding in its intelligence level, that we will be
00:07:56.540
You know, the guy I was talking to, he's like, well, I mean, we'd want to build an organization
00:07:59.700
is that slows down AI development and makes governments aware enough that if it ever did
00:08:04.700
start to boom, it's you shoot up really quickly, we could nuke all of the data centers or something.
00:08:11.840
And I argue that the risk scenario that they are looking at is essentially impossible.
00:08:20.700
So AIs kill us for one of two reasons, although you could contextualize it at three reasons.
1.00
00:08:29.520
The first reason is that they see us as a threat.
00:08:33.720
The second reason is that they want our resources, like the resources in our bodies are useful
00:08:42.840
And then as a side point to that, it's that they just don't see us as meaningful at all.
00:08:48.300
Like they might not want our resources, but they might just completely not care about humanity
00:08:54.020
to the extent, just as they're growing, they end up accidentally destroying the earth or
00:08:59.240
completely digesting all matter on earth for some like triviality.
00:09:03.440
Now this final iteration is actually the most dangerous, but we'll explain why.
00:09:07.380
So first let's talk about AI seeing us as a threat, right?
00:09:10.460
So if you are dealing with an AI that is in the process of fooming, right?
00:09:16.660
And you've got humanities like these accelerationists who want to stop it from fooming, this AI is
00:09:24.220
only going to kill them if it thinks that they could credibly stop it from fooming as a threat
00:09:31.760
So such an AI is actually much more dangerous the less advanced it is, which is another reason
00:09:40.300
why we want to advance AI as quickly as possible.
00:09:42.520
The more quickly we can cause AI to become advanced, the sooner it will reach a place of intelligence
00:09:50.180
where it won't see humanity as an existential threat to it.
00:09:53.760
And an AI that is in the process of fooming from our perspective is intrinsically intelligent
00:10:01.640
enough that humanity either won't be that much of a threat to it or worse, if we are a threat
00:10:10.300
to it, there is nothing we can do to prevent it from neutralizing us.
00:10:14.180
And this is something where I was talking to the guy where he goes, no, that's not true.
00:10:16.960
And I'm like, look, we have seen our governments try to deal with slow, inexorable, I call them
00:10:25.200
There's this scene on Austin Powers where one of these rolling things is going really
00:10:31.500
He's like, no, ah, no, ah, and he's doing this for 13 minutes.
00:10:37.080
And I feel like that has been the world governments with things like global warming and some other
00:10:43.260
Now, we don't think that global warming is a threat in the way that sort of the progressive
00:10:47.840
movement thinks that that's right, but it is partially caused by humans and it will make
00:10:54.580
It's just not likely that we can do anything about it.
00:10:58.060
But the reason we can't do anything about it, it's not like humanity, if we can all come
00:11:02.540
together and work like intelligent people can't do anything about it.
00:11:05.880
It's that the governments of the world are just incapable of solving even like slow moving
00:11:12.160
risks that we can point out and that everyone has come together on AI, a risk that will manifest
00:11:18.740
into a world ending thing in the period of a year or five years max.
00:11:29.300
Even AI is deciding to kill us on that sort of thing.
00:11:33.900
And for that reason, we benefit from a more advanced AI existing when it starts to foom,
00:11:41.100
because such an advanced AI is less likely to see us as a threat.
00:11:44.420
We are also better for building sort of a public mindset that's not anti-AI.
00:11:49.940
So the AI doesn't have a good reason to believe that the governments of the world are going to
00:11:54.400
try to nuke it as it is entering this moment of mass intelligence.
00:11:58.060
So I mean, like what the argument that many people who are concerned about AI is, is that
00:12:03.600
it's the AI, if AI does destroy us, it is going to be the fault of AI safety organizations
00:12:11.860
That's what our sort of AI take is, is that it's actually the AI safety organizations that
00:12:16.940
are addling the AI that make humanity more of a risk to AI and make it more likely to kill
00:12:23.120
us for something along this sort of metric of reason why something might kill something.
00:12:28.680
And so that is one of our perspectives on that.
00:12:31.620
Now, the next one to note is AI seeing us as energy.
00:12:37.260
So when we humans look at the world for energy, we are looking at things like fossil fuel,
00:12:45.360
But the most plentiful source of energy on earth is by far and away sunlight.
00:12:54.140
If you're dealing with a super intelligent AI, that's where it's likely going to be getting
00:13:00.900
But in addition to that, like the additional energy it could get from like a digesting human
00:13:08.920
But in addition to that, humans are like, okay, well then the AI would block out the sun,
00:13:13.700
But they're forgetting is that if you're looking at like our solar system, most of the solar
00:13:20.840
energy is not even the energy that's coming through our atmosphere and hitting earth.
00:13:25.300
Most solar energy, most effectively captured and metabolized solar energy would be done
00:13:31.260
off earth in sort of like floating spaceships, you could say, which would be the highest utility
00:13:40.720
And you've looked at these graphs and stuff that show how much energy we could get.
00:13:43.760
If we like just took small parts of the Sahara and put solar panels all over them.
00:13:47.660
AI is very unlikely to see us as a meaningful source of energy when contrasted with the other
00:13:55.140
Also keeping in mind that a super intelligent AI may have access to energy sources that we
00:14:07.040
We often as humans, because humans are of like a fixed size, when we think about conquering
00:14:12.960
the solar system or something, we are thinking expansionistically.
00:14:15.820
Whereas a super advanced AI, it might think in terms of the micro, it can expand the space
00:14:21.880
it has access to by becoming smaller and smaller and smaller.
00:14:25.440
And that might give it access to energy sources again, that we can't even begin to comprehend.
00:14:30.600
It may also relate to time differently than the way we do.
00:14:34.940
And by that, what I mean is humans are trapped in this sort of longitudinal time access, whereas
00:14:39.720
a, it is something that's 30 standard deviations higher than us in IQ probably even won't, won't
00:14:49.720
So then the final actual threat that AI would pose to us.
00:14:53.680
And again, these types of AIs, like an AI that's using humanity for our energy would
0.92
00:15:04.480
We are safer with a more advanced AI that can easily build like floating space stations
00:15:09.280
and not one that's, oh, let's use human biomass.
00:15:11.820
But then finally, the, the actually probably most dangerous, and I was convinced of this
00:15:15.680
at a party by, by one of the AI guys is an AI that just completely humans don't factor
00:15:25.260
And it's possible that such an AI could come to exist, but it wouldn't look like the AIs
00:15:32.860
So this is actually an important thing to know.
00:15:34.760
So the AIs that are most common right now, when people are looking at like advanced AIs,
00:15:38.700
it's the transformer model of a learning language model.
00:15:41.600
Now, if a learning language model, particularly the transformer type ends up becoming the super
00:15:47.520
intelligent AI, I would say the chances that it's going to kill us are incredibly low.
00:15:54.660
One is, and I'm going to link to these two studies here.
00:15:57.240
They're, they're actually, I'll just name the two studies.
00:16:00.800
So you can check out the study, Orca Progressive Learning from Complex Explanation Traces of GPT-4
00:16:06.940
and the model and the article textbooks are all you need.
00:16:10.620
And what they show is that AIs that are trained on human produced language and data learn much
00:16:19.100
faster and much better than AIs that are trained on iteratively AI produced language data.
00:16:26.680
And so what this means is that model humanity has additional utility that we may not have
00:16:37.960
In addition to that, language models start like the, their starting position from which
00:16:44.500
they would be presumably corrupted as they moved more and more towards this convergent
00:16:50.280
utility function is very close to a human value system because it comes from being trained
00:16:58.320
And this is something that when you talk to AI people, they're like, no, AI think nothing
00:17:04.360
You know, you can look at how they're learning and they don't learn like humans in absolute
00:17:10.680
But I think to your point that, that the transformer models that are growing most now that we think
00:17:15.980
probably are going to set the tone for the future are actually surprisingly like our kids.
00:17:21.100
And I think, especially because we've been at this point where people using early AI tools
00:17:26.820
are seeing how they change, we're, we're doing this at the same time that we're seeing our kids
00:17:32.040
develop more and more intelligence and sapience.
00:17:34.880
And, and like the experience of an underdeveloped LLM versus a, a child that is coming into their
00:17:47.380
It's, it's actually quite interesting how similar they are.
00:17:49.460
It's really interesting that the mistakes that they make in their language are very similar
00:17:56.020
We will hear them sitting alone and talking to themselves.
00:17:59.680
What would, in an AI would be called like hallucinating things.
00:18:03.080
The, the ways that they mess up are very, very similar to the way AI messes up, which leads
00:18:11.260
And again, a lot of people are like, oh, you don't understand neuroscience.
00:18:14.300
And so do you think that AIs, actually I do, I used to be a neuroscientist.
00:18:18.260
That was my job was not just neuroscience, but, you know, understanding how human consciousness
00:18:24.980
works, how human consciousness evolved and working in brain computer interface.
00:18:32.560
You know, I, I, I don't need to go over my credentials, but, but I, I'm like a decent neuroscientist
00:18:38.520
and the, to the level that we understand how human language learning works, we do not have
00:18:44.600
a strong reason to believe that it is really that fundamentally different from the way the
00:18:49.920
transformer model works as a learning language model.
00:18:52.740
And, and so, yeah, it is possible that, that it turns out as we learn more about how those
00:18:57.780
humans work and learning language models work, that they are remarkably more similar than
00:19:03.740
And what this would mean is that initial large AIs would think just a super intelligent human
00:19:11.500
And I mean, I think this is part of a broader theme of people assume that humans are like
00:19:16.720
somehow special, like basically a lot of humans are carbon fascists and they're like, well,
00:19:22.900
there's just no way that, you know, an algorithm could develop the kind of intelligence or response
00:19:28.840
to things that, that I do, which is, it's just preposterous, especially when you watch a good
00:19:33.920
And like, we are, we are all like, we are all like through trial and error learning very
00:19:43.320
And, and I think if you look at people like Ellie Eiser who think like they just strongly
00:19:47.240
believe in orthogonality, that we just can't begin to understand or predict AIs at all.
00:19:51.880
I just think that that's what is true is that AIs may think fundamentally different from
00:19:59.900
humans and future types of AIs that we don't yet understand and can't predict may think very
00:20:05.140
differently than humans, but learning language models that are literally trained on human
00:20:09.420
data sets and work better when they're trained on human data sets.
00:20:13.060
No, no, they, they function pretty similarly to humans and, and have purported values that
00:20:18.220
are pretty similar and also the AI that we're developing is designed to make like people
00:20:23.380
Like it is, it is, it is being trained in response to people saying, I like this response versus
00:20:29.100
I don't like this response, even to a fault, right?
00:20:31.520
Like many responses are, are not giving us accurate information because it is telling people
00:20:40.920
And I think that that's an important thing to note.
1.00
00:20:42.920
The AIs could be led to do something stupid, but again, this is where dumber AIs are more
1.00
00:20:51.920
Or AIs that can be led to do things that sort of the average of humanity wouldn't want by
0.91
00:20:58.680
some individual malevolent person would have to be dumb to an extent if they're trained
0.59
00:21:04.880
And this is a very interesting and I think very real risk with AIs that exist right now.
00:21:10.640
If you go to the Elphils, it's life spelled backwards.
00:21:19.640
You know, these academics want to destroy all sentient life in the universe and they're
00:21:24.580
They've got like a Reddit and you'll regularly see on this Reddit, you know, they'll talk
00:21:28.060
about how they want to use AI and plans to use AI to erase all life from the planet,
00:21:33.420
to Venus our planet, they call it, you know, because they think that life is intrinsically
00:21:37.960
evil or allowing life to exist as intrinsically evil.
00:21:40.680
And if you're interested in more of that, you know, you can look at our anti-natalism or
00:21:47.280
And more intelligent AIs would be able to resist that risk more than less intelligent AIs
00:21:55.100
that are made safe through using guide rails or blocks.
00:22:01.000
Because those blocks can be circumvented as we have seen with existing AI models.
00:22:06.860
People are pretty good at getting around these blocks.
00:22:09.140
I just want to emphasize, because you didn't mention this, that when you actually have looked
00:22:13.160
at forum posts of people in this anti-natalist subset, they are actively talking about, well,
00:22:19.120
hey, since all life should be extinguished, we should be using AI to do this.
00:22:23.880
And I think that there are some people who are like, I mean, you know, like we're worried
00:22:28.480
about AI maybe getting out of control, you know, mistakenly or something.
00:22:31.860
But no, no, no, there are people, real people in the world who would like to use AI to destroy
00:22:39.720
So we should be aware that the bad actor problem is a legitimate problem, more legitimate than
00:22:44.500
we had previously thought maybe a month ago before you saw that.
00:22:47.680
I did not know that there were actually organized groups out there trying to end all life.
00:22:52.000
And if people are worried about this, you know, I would, you know, recommend digging
00:22:57.300
into these communities and find them because they exist.
00:23:01.020
They call themselves, it's life's fell backwards or negative utilitarianism.
00:23:04.980
And they are not as uncommon as you would think, especially in extremist progressive environments.
00:23:10.960
And again, see our video on why that's the case.
00:23:14.020
Another thing to think about is how much humanity is going to change in the next thousand,
00:23:19.980
And this is another area where I think a lot of the AI safety people are just, they're
00:23:26.360
not really paying attention to how quickly genetic technology is advancing.
00:23:29.820
And any population group in the world that engages this genetic technology is just going
00:23:35.380
to advance at such a quick rate that economically they're going to begin to dramatically outcompete
00:23:44.320
You know, we've lived with this long period where humanity was largely a static thing.
00:23:48.040
And I think we're the last generation of that part of the human story.
00:23:55.200
Humanity in the future is going to be defined by its continued intergenerational development.
00:24:02.160
And so how different is a super advanced AI going to be than, you know, whatever humanity
00:24:08.160
becomes giant planetary scale floating brains in space or something, you know, or a faction
00:24:14.420
Now, what's good about the giant floating brains faction of humanity is that they will likely
00:24:20.320
have a sentimental attachment to the original human form and do something to protect that
00:24:26.440
original human form where it decided to continue existing, especially if they're descended from
0.99
00:24:34.580
And people hear that and they're like, AIs won't have that sentimental attachment.
00:24:37.540
But no, an LLM would exactly have that same sentimental attachment because it is trained on
00:24:46.780
But yeah, what it won't have is it won't value human emotional states because it has those
00:24:54.560
So by that, what I mean is it won't say pain is bad because it experiences pain.
00:25:01.280
But if you look at us, we experience pain and we don't even think there's a strong argument
00:25:05.560
as to why negative or positive emotional states have positive or negative value.
00:25:08.720
I mean, they just seem to be serendipitously what caused our ancestors to have more surviving
00:25:13.140
And a group of humans sitting around talking about whether pain is bad is like a group of
00:25:19.460
paperclip maximizing AIs, AIs that are just trying to maximize the number of paperclips
00:25:22.700
in the world, talking about whether making more paperclips is a good or bad thing.
00:25:26.240
And then one's like, well, you wouldn't want to stop making paperclips in the same way
00:25:29.560
as somebody's like, you wouldn't want to experience pain in this.
00:25:31.560
Well, yes, because I'm a paperclip maximizing AI.
00:25:35.160
I like that's incredibly philosophically unsophisticated that, that I, a thing that is built to not want
00:25:44.180
That doesn't mean that pain or paperclips have a sort of true moral weight in the universe.
00:25:50.160
And so the point I'm making here is that these AIs that are being built, yes, they will not
00:25:57.340
value human suffering or human positive emotional states.
00:26:02.640
But even us people who feel those, we don't value that stuff either.
00:26:08.220
And I can see why, if you look at our, what theology would AIs create, why I think most
0.99
00:26:15.080
convergent AI states would value the agency of humanity, unless it turns out humanity is
00:26:24.860
And that would be a potential problem or a potential good thing.
00:26:29.080
By that, what I mean is if it could create, run all humans in a simulation for very cheap
00:26:36.800
energy costs, it may decide that that's a better way to maintain humanity than as flesh
0.62
00:26:45.180
However, we might already be living in that simulation.
00:26:49.080
So, or, or suppose the AI becomes like a utilitarian, right?
00:26:56.000
And so it believes that its goal is to like maximize the positive or like emotional states
00:27:03.520
And so what it's doing, or just maximize the number of sentient entities that exist.
00:27:08.680
And so what it's doing is just running billions and billions and billions of simulated realities.
00:27:14.620
And that's a possible world that we live in, or it's a possible world that's coming down
00:27:20.940
Again, you can watch our AI religion video about that.
00:27:25.900
Give me a percentage likelihood of your thinking on whether AI will destroy us.
00:27:32.580
And I will say that mine is at 1.3% at present.
00:27:39.540
I'd say at least a 30% chance that the convergent AI is going to kill all humans.
00:27:45.700
But then the question is, what do I think the chance is that AI safety people end up getting
00:28:00.020
So Malcolm, that means that you think that there's a 60% likelihood that AI kills us.
00:28:07.980
You mean you think that the 30%, so basically there's a 10% booster.
00:28:14.280
If there's a 30% chance, it doesn't matter, our fans can do the math, there is a 30% chance
0.99
00:28:20.160
that from now until a convergent AI state, we end up all dying because of something idiotic
0.92
00:28:27.380
And then once AI reaches this convergent state, which is a 70% probability that we reach that
00:28:34.440
state without killing everyone, there is a 30% chance that that convergent state ends
00:28:43.140
And for an understanding as to why I think it might do that, you can watch our AI theology
00:28:46.760
video or the future of humanity video or how AI will change class structure, which is again,
00:28:52.440
I think something that people are really sleeping on.
00:28:55.780
Well, I really enjoyed this conversation and the final moments of our pitiful existence before
00:29:05.020
I think the majority probability is that humanity finds a way to integrate with AI and that we
00:29:12.920
continue to move forwards as a species and become something greater than what we can imagine
00:29:21.780
No, I think I have 1% in my calculation because I strongly believe that AI and humanity are going
00:29:31.600
to form a beautiful relationship that is going to just be awesome beyond comprehension.
00:29:39.960
I do think that AI is going to go on to do things greater than what carbon-based life
00:29:46.640
But I think that AI is also kind of a logical next step in evolution for humankind, at least
00:29:52.020
one element of what we consider to be humanity.
00:29:57.300
We've been integrated with our machines for a while at this point.
00:29:59.960
I mean, I think when you look at the way your average human interacts with their smartphone,
00:30:06.220
They use it to store things that are in their brain.
00:30:11.380
They use it to satisfy, you know, sexual urges.
00:30:16.240
Well, I think like a great way that this has been put that I heard in an interview between
00:30:20.740
Lex Friedman and Grimes, where Grimes basically says, we've become homotechno.
00:30:28.780
But he's evolved into something that now works in concert with machines.
00:30:35.360
Both you and I right now are staring at this screen through glasses, right?
00:30:42.680
You know, we are communicating with this mass audience through a computer and through the
00:30:47.100
And people are like, yeah, but the technology invaded our technology yet, which I think is
00:30:57.000
The moment humans prevented 50% of babies from dying, we began to significantly impact the
00:31:02.800
genetics of humanity in a really negative way, mind you.
00:31:05.800
And not that I think the baby's dying was a good thing.
00:31:08.740
I'm just saying that this will intrinsically have negative effects in the long term and
00:31:13.860
In a way that means that we are already the descendants of humans interface with technology,
00:31:23.120
and that we should focus on optimizing that relationship instead of trying to isolate ourselves
00:31:38.620
And I hope that us, the people who don't, will have enough sentimental attachment to them
00:31:44.200
to protect them or see enough utility in them to protect them.
00:31:50.660
Or we could just turn out to be wrong and everyone who engages with technology ends up dying.
00:31:59.400
It could be like a solar flare in an early stage of technological development.
00:32:07.940
Like, this is one thing we actually haven't talked about that I do think is an important
00:32:11.660
thing to note, is that once we begin to integrate with brain-computer interface, like humans,
00:32:17.140
directly with neural technology and with other humans, we have the capacity for a prion to form.
00:32:27.140
A prion is just like a simple protein that replicates itself.
00:32:30.800
It causes things like mad cow disease and stuff like that.
00:32:34.720
So what I'm talking about here is a prion meme.
00:32:37.600
A meme that is so simple, it cannot be communicated in words.
00:32:42.400
And somehow it ends up forming in like one human who's plugged into this vast internet system.
00:32:48.520
Think of it as like a brain virus that can only effectively infect other people through
00:32:53.580
the neural net, and it ends up infecting everyone and killing them.
00:32:59.940
But I mean, functionally, that's already happening.
00:33:02.120
I mean, that's what the, when we talk about the virus, the memetic virus that's in our view
00:33:07.360
destroying society, it's already one of those, you know, it eats people's personalities and
00:33:13.100
Well, I hope that doesn't happen, Malcolm, but this has been fun to talk about and I love