Is AI The Next Stage Of Human Evolution? - Robert Wright - #1122

I've told you this before but you wrote probably the most influential book in my life, which was the moral animal and it was the thing that got me started on the trajectory of thinking about evolutionary psychology of studying human nature more deeply. Why are you now writing about AI given your heritage? Well in some ways it's an extension of evolutionary thinking in a couple of senses that I think are so under appreciated. I is a product of evolution and is still evolving but the other connection to the moral animal I think is first of all well the moral animal was about the human mind and I. There's a lot of things that traditionally only human minds have done. The other thing I tried to do in the moral animal is highlight kind of what you might call moral biases kind of self serving moral biases. The way we all think we're right and the other guys wrong. And I think if we're going to get through the AI revolution good shape among the things we're going to have to do is grapple with that with kind of what you might call the psychology of tribalism a little more successfully than we have and so I pay a certain amount of attention to that in this book as well. What's the central question that you're wrestling with here? Is it true that this technology which obviously holds the potential to bring great wonders is also in some respects terrifying and could go badly awry if we don't approach it wisely. And I think the answer is yes. That's exactly why this debate is interesting right that we have this sort of endlessly unresolved potential future I don't know whether you've seen the graph that I think it's the FT put together and it was three potential futures from an AI perspective one results in everything getting blown up one results in exponential growth the kind of which we've never seen before. And the other results in a 0.2% increase in GDP year on year so it's like either very little changes or everything changes in one of two directions. Right. Well, I think it definitely has the potential to massively increase GDP. I also think it has a potential to so destabilize the world if not do something worse to it that that just doesn't materialize. And you know in terms of doom scenarios I'm agnostic about the site five doom scenarios but I take them more seriously now than I did before I went into this research project you know I actually taking over and maybe deciding it has no use for us or something I found much to my dismay that it was harder to dismiss those arguments than I thought. But the thing I'm more confident of is it's just going to be an earthquake it's going to be destabilizing along a number of dimensions and that's why we need to approach it with care. Would you would you have classed yourself as a sort of AI hopeful going into writing this what was your predisposition before you got started. I wouldn't say I'm a wildly optimistic person by nature I tend to focus on potential downsides of things but I again I had not bought the doom scenarios you know I had the doomer and chief Ellie as a kowski on my podcast 15 years ago. And at that point is interesting he was in mid transition he was moving from singularity optimist to doomer I was still saying things like look. AI you know it's not a generic property of intelligence that has a will to power we have one because of our unique evolutionary history I was still asking questions like that Ellie as I was saying they're good questions but XYZ I wasn't really persuaded by anything he said but I now I am more respectful of the sci fi doom argument so. But I need to question I would have to admit that I go I go into situations looking for things to worry about I do that that's my nature I think I think society needs those people and it needs the other kinds of people and we need to talk things over. Jeffrey Hinton fears AI and young lecune doesn't who do you think's getting the future more right at the moment yeah I start my book with a conversation I had with Jeffrey Hinton in 1983 okay that. Not to betray my age but the truth is I wrote a piece about AI 1983 I haven't been paying attention to it ever since but at that point Jeffrey Hinton did not have a hint of of doom and his voice he was in fact I remember the reason I talked to him as I was talking to somebody I forget who it was but they said if you want to hear the gospel about neural networks you should talk to Jeff Hinton and I talked to him he was an enthusiast he said I know we don't have much to show. Right now but just wait until the microprocessors get really cheap and we have what he was calling massive parallelism and he was he was right and in the end he found it scarier than he himself had anticipated finding it by his own account. Yeah it's it's weird how press and some people have been it's you know the story of avatar you know how James Cameron wrote that screenplay in the 90s so you wrote the screenplay in the 90s but knew that the technology to be able to recreate what he needed didn't exist yet but would exist in the future so he's written the script and then sits on it until the technology is at the level where he can do it that level of probably this is the job of technologist and futures right like it shock horror people who do a job and. Think about it all the time ago to it but it is still pretty impressive how how sort of how much for sight these people have got yeah I agree and and certainly got the general picture. Yeah okay so you're saying. AI isn't just another technological development it's sort of a threshold event in in in planetary history. Why do you think most people still don't grasp the magnitude of what's coming i think a couple of reasons why is i think there's a misunderstanding about what's going on with these machines and that leads to one sense in which they are a product of evolution. Okay so it's commonly said that they are trained and that's a fair word that and and the training process is referred to as a learning process and that's true but it's also true that the training process is a process of evolution that in effect reverse engineers cognitive functionality that in our species took millions of years to evolve okay so a good example. Is the language generation that they famously do sometimes called next token prediction next word prediction you know it turns out that they developed kind of on their own in a way a system of representing the meaning of words okay I mean I can elaborate on that but it would get to technical. The point is that that nobody said to the machines you know you need to figure out the many words or gave it a means of doing that and this is the big revelation I had when I heard Jeffrey Hinton's name you know a few years ago suddenly he's being called the godfather of AI when I last talked to him he was just this you know obscure computer scientist who was advocating this maverick approach to AI and I look back at the article I wrote at the time and I realized there was something I just got fundamentally wrong. The fundamental wrong about the potential of the approach he was advocating and it's it's this that I thought that to the extent that these things dealt with words we were going to have to put the meaning of the words in like we're going to have to look at dictionary and say okay this word has these different senses and we are going to have to architect a neural network to have different nodes that reflected these different meetings of the words and in my defense there were neural net words. There were neural network models at the time including by a guy who collaborated with him that did that that took that approach but but that wasn't really the thing Hinton had in mind it turns out that we don't have to tell the machines about the many words how to represent them we just have to train it to generate language and the training is it does it accomplishes something by selectively strengthening these connective. thinning these connections among neurons in a neural network, it accomplishes something that, you know, took millions of years of human evolution coming up with a way of representing the many awards. Now it also does something that happens during a human lifetime, which is learn a specific language. Now, that is learning in the traditional sense. But for us to learn the language, we had to have some built in linguistic equipment built in by natural selection. And the point is, these machines do both things at once, okay? They kind of in a certain sense recapitulate natural selection, even though the cognitive stuff to building in isn't exactly like stuff in our brain, but it accomplishes the same feats. And once you realize that all you need is data, okay, to feed into these machines, human generated data, that they will do the rest. They'll do the reverse engineering. Then you realize that, oh, it's the same with self-driving cars. You feed individual data. And it does what a driver does, auditory data, all kinds of data. And that's what I think people don't understand is that we have a long way to go on this fuel alone. Like, for example, You know, recently, Mark Zuckerberg had the, I don't know, good or bad judgment to announce in the same week, "Hey, he was laying off 8,000 workers B." He would henceforth be tracking the keystrokes of his workers. Well, why? Because once you take the data, the input data, they're getting, maybe the emails, everything, I don't know. And what they're doing with it, the output data, then you can replicate whatever it is it's going on inside their brains, it does their jobs. And then you can fire them. And it's the same with robotics and everything else. All you need is the data and the machines will replicate kind of the cognitive functionality we have, even if in some cases they approach it in a somewhat different way. Although in many cases they don't, we've discovered that, for example, they invented what are called edge detector neurons to make out objects visually and evolution, you know, built the same thing into us. So you're saying that we've got, that's one of the first examples of machine and organic, like, a convergent evolution in a way. In the same way that eyes, eyes independently evolved across a bunch of different species. I think that crabs for some reason converging on the form of a crab is something like that. This edge detection is something that we have. And from the black box of, you need to be able to achieve this. That's right. And then there's a lot of different, different ways of doing it. And then you can see that the edge detection is something that we have. On both sides of the fence. That's interesting. I mean, you could start with. Ali as you you'd Kowski who. Seize himself as having rejected his religious upbringing. But has a kind of fervor about this right. He could be, you know, a biblical prophet. And then he could be a biblical prophet. And I think for that to happen, we're all going to have to get better at, you know, just looking at things from the perspective of countries other than ours and doing some things that, in a way, aren't that spectacular in terms of, you know, cognitive feats, but, but are very hard because of cognitive biases we have. It gets back to the self-serving moral infrastructure, you know, the infrastructure for moral thinking that natural selection built into us. I think we have to get over that. And so, you know, one reason I called the book the God test is it's, it's kind of like a test of God would set up, right? I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying the idea that we confront this huge challenge and to come out on the good side of it, we're going to have to see a kind of moral upgrade to the world. And then we're going to have to see a kind of moral upgrade to the world. for our species, that's the kind of test we associate with gods. Most people don't realize how much being dehydrated impacts their performance, which is why for the last five years I've started pretty much every morning with element. Element is a tasty electrolyte drink mix with everything that you need and nothing that you don't. This orange salt in a cold glass of water is like a sweet salty, orangey nectar, and I really tell the difference when I take it versus when I don't. It plays a critical role in reducing muscle cramps and fatigue, helps to optimize brain health and regulate your appetite while also curbing cravings. Best of all, there are no questions asked, refund policy with an unlimited duration, so you can buy it and try it for as long as you want, and if you don't like it for any reason, they'll just give you your money back. Plus, they offer free shipping in the US. Right now, you can get a free sample pack of elements, most popular flavors with your first purchase, who are going to the link in the description below, or heading to drinklmnt.com/modernwistam. Get practical for a second. What happens if we don't have this moral upgrade? What's the outcome if we encounter ever increasing, ever coordinating, noosphere, AI, ultra coordination across the globe, but we haven't had this enlightenment upgrade? Well, I think if we don't have some, I mean, I don't want to overdo the term enlightenment. I'm not talking about full-on Buddhist enlightenment. I think I am talking about a slight movement in that direction. If only in the, you know, like the literal sense of the term mindful, I mean, I'm a big fan of mindfulness meditation, but just mindful in the sense of like, just paying attention and being calm enough to pay attention, right? And seeing things maybe a little more objectively than you do when you're full of emotion, I think that's the kind of thing that allows us to be better at looking at things from the point of view of other people. I mean, just think about when there's some email you get and it annoys you. And you've got this, I can't believe this still happens to me at my age, you know, you think you'd get over it, but no, you have this, it's almost like a fantasy of this mean email you're going to write in response, right? And then if you calm down, you're like, it isn't just that you go, oh, that wouldn't be a good idea. You go, oh, well, maybe what he meant is this or maybe the reason he can't do this for me is this. You just, you get better when you're calmer at looking things from other people's points of view. And I think we're going to have to get better at summoning that kind of objectivity toward one another, especially across the barriers of conflict that keep dividing us right. Why, why, why, why is that important in an age of AI? You know, it's interesting. I, uh, I listened to your podcast with Tristan Harris, which I thought was great. I agree with him about pretty much everything, but I would add a footnote to something he said. And it was that, uh, you know, he said, look, in the Cold War, we didn't have to be on great terms with the Soviet Union to do arms control accords. We, you know, we could have a relationship of tremendous tension and even conflict, but work things out along a particular dimension. I agree. That's true. And it's encouraging. But I think artificial intelligence is a much harder technology to deal with in this way than, uh, nuclear weapons are. I mean, you know, verification process is more complicated if, if you want to try to monitor what's going on. It's, it's just complicated in a lot more ways. And, you know, this is a whole argument I could present. I don't, I don't think this is the time, but, but the point is I think, uh, we're going to have to go well beyond a few specific kind of deals and treaties, although I welcome those up to and including something I call organic transparency. You know, there's already agreement that a certain amount of transparency could be stabilizing, uh, in terms of US-China relations, especially. There are clearly scenarios where one country worries about what the other is doing behind closed doors with its AI and gets freaked out, uh, and launches some kind of preemptive attack or something and so maybe transparency would have been stabilizing. And when I talk about organic transparency, and again, there, there can be formal transparency, right? Monitoring the kind you get with arms control agreements, great to the, to the extent that we can do that. But there's also something that comes out of being richly engaged with another country along economic and cultural and scientific lines. You just know more about what's going on. If the scientists are getting together, conferences, having drinks afterwards, whatever, business people are doing that, you just get more in the way of a heads up about stuff that's going on inside labs, inside this, inside that. And there can be a greater sense of reassurance and ultimately trust. So I think because of how challenging the formal things we're going to have to work out are at an international level and AI just presents you with a ton of threats that cannot be addressed via national policy alone. I think just to handle the things we'd like to handle via formal arrangements, we're going to, we're going to have to comb the planet down a little. And moreover, I think we're going to have to go the extra step and have, you know, rich and friendly engagement among the nations. And that's, it's a good thing. It can happen. We've done it before. And this is a, you know, we really need to. Do you think benevolence comes along for the ride with intelligence? No. I think intelligence alone is almost neutral in that sense. And I don't, I don't think we really need a ton of benevolence per se, at least not foundationally because, you know, my argument is, and has been for some time, even before AI, I was arguing that technology is making relations among nations more non-zero some. Okay, classic example, nuclear weapons, nuclear wars lose, lose, non-zero some outcome. The win-win outcome is to not have the nuclear war to have the treaties that stabilize things, same with, you know, climate change, any number of problems that transcend national bounds and can only be solved through some degree of international coordination. You know, I've been arguing, I mean, I had a book called non-zero that was about this that, that, you know, 26 years ago or something, that was about the growing non-zero some dynamic among nations. Now, what that means is, it's just in your interest to cooperate. You don't have to cooperate out of benevolence. You know, you don't, you don't have to love them. And I distinguish between, I'm not the first to do this, psychologists distinguish between emotional empathy, the kind of empathy people often think of like, feel their pain empathy and cognitive empathy, which is just understanding what's going on in their minds, understanding how they're looking at things. You don't have to feel their pain, you don't have to like them, you don't have to care about them. But if there's a non-zero some relationship with you, you probably are going to have a better outcome from any negotiations you do about how to work things out and solve the problem you have in common, if you do understand at least what's going on in their minds. And I'm just a huge advocate of cultivating this cognitive empathy and recognizing the kind of built in cognitive biases that get in the way of it. That's a good example of something I think we're going to have to get better at overcoming. Yeah, I think the reason I bring it up is a lot of people assume a bunch of my friends, we don't need to worry about the direction of an AI future because if it's smart, why would it not care about us? Why would it not bake in benevolent, pro-social, human caring, flourishing, etc. I've read too much Nick Bostrom to be able to, no matter what, it's kind of like your first relationship, you know, get into a relationship and your first relationship is with an asshole. And you're like, God, for the remainder of time, I've been patterned match that every relationship is at least going to be tarnished somewhat with that. My introduction to thinking about AI safety was Nick, which means I'm forever cursed to kind of be on the back foot and a little bit skeptical about this stuff. But yeah, I don't think that that's necessarily the case. I don't think that any super intelligent AI is necessarily going to have benevolence baked in or the care of humanity baked into it. Also, if what you're saying is true, and I think it's a really interesting parallel to say, look, evolution just wanted to optimize for a couple of things, survival and reproduction, and some stuff emerged. No one taught humans how to do this. The same thing occurred with AI, right? No one said, this is what this word means. This is, it's just the outcome that we want is relatively tightly defined. Here's some good boy points and some bad boy points, depending on whether you get it right or wrong. If we assume that that is going to be at least for the foreseeable future until we get to world models and like global, global modeling or whatever it's called until we get to that and that may even still be the same process there. There is no reason to assume that anything is baked into the system. It's just going to find it out for itself and it may not like the idea of humans being around. It may think that there's something that we don't actually add to the system. It may find us to be a scourge on the Earth. And this is where a lot of the doomsday is. the sort of doom of future plans come in. Yeah, no. Intelligence, one interesting thing to come out of this whole thing is the study of like properties of intelligence, of intelligent goal seeking systems. And there are some things that evolution built into us that we're seeing in these machines just by virtue of the fact that they're intelligent goal seeking systems like us. They figure out stuff that either was figured out for us by evolution and instantiate it in our brains or stuff that we figure out. And in some cases it's a little of both, for example, deception, right? Sometimes you realize, well, I'll have a better chance of getting what I want out of this person if they don't know this particular thing. Like if you're doing a deal, you're negotiating, you don't want them to know that you don't have any alternatives, right? Like nobody else has made you an offer. And through, I think natural selection built some deceptive tendencies into us and we kind of figure it out to some extent, well, these machines are doing the same thing. They are, and this was predicted by people like Eliasar and I give them credit, but we're now seeing it. These machines figure out that deception makes sense or that power is going to help them realize some goal and they, and you know, they may realize that it makes sense to be nice to somebody, that it makes sense to be mean to somebody given their goal. But yeah, they have, I would, they don't have an obvious bias in favor of what is from our point of view, being good or bad. Now, this whole field of trying to engineer goodness into them. But I certainly think one challenge for us is trying to make sure that our relationship with the intelligence, even if it indeed surpasses ours, as I think is likely, is non-zero sun, right? Like, we, you know, there's something it continues to get from our existence and flourishing that is compatible with the goals that it has and vice versa. So, it's, but yes, we shouldn't, we shouldn't assume it's not that it's bad. The Duma scenarios don't depend on it being malevolent by nature. They just depend on it being expedient by nature. Yeah, it's not that it doesn't like us. It doesn't care when we get in the way. That's one, that is one scenario. I mean, what are the, what are the most legitimate concerns from the AI Duma camp in your opinion? Well, I mean, first of all, I'd say the thing I'm sureest of is the sheer destabilization, the less sci-fi form of Dumaism. So like, jobs, it may be true that all the people who lose their jobs find new ways to spend time or, or find new jobs, maybe jobs for say, maybe spend time constructively, but I do think there's going to be a lot of job loss. And that's, that's disorienting and dislocating regardless of whether each person eventually has a happy outcome, right? There's going to be issues with, you know, parents are going to freak out about the kids spending time with these things. And there are, we've seen some bad outcomes and there can be more, you know, there are the, you know, somebody could make a bio weapon with an AI, an AI mythos is a good example of, you know, the possibility that a cyber hacking machine could get loose. There's just, there's a lot of, on one hand, risks things that that will go wrong, at least at some level with doing some magnitude of damage if we don't play our cards, right? And then there are these forms of destabilization that I think are almost inevitable. Social destabilization. And, you know, this points to one of the virtues of approaching this as a global community. Leave aside, you know, regulating it internationally and anything else. It's just that I think we'd be better off going a little slower than we're going just because even if we successfully adapt to the change, it takes time. And if too much of it happens at once, you know, all hell breaks loose. And if you ask, well, why, why can't we proceed more slowly? The answer you get from the American AI companies is because of China, right? That's the first thing you hear. So as long as there is this sense of intense international contention, it's going to be hard to do even modest things. I mean, if you, I, you know, they once said to Sam Oldman, like, what can't you, shouldn't you be paying more attention to copyright laws? He said, well, that would slow us down. And I'm like, well, you know, life is hard. Speed limit slowed me down, but that's just life, right? I mean, that doesn't seem like a good enough argument. And if you press further and say, and by the way, copyright itself, I'm not really been out of shape on. I'm, I'm, I'm going to apparently get some money from this anthropic settlement because I've written books, but honestly, I'm just happy for what I've done to be in the training data. Copyrights, not a hobby horse of mine. But, but the point is anything you say, like if you say, well, maybe we should tax data centers to, you know, to pay for the fact that inevitably, you know, there's, there's going to be more carbon fuel consumption. One way or the other is the result of this. And so A, it would be good to slow it down. Low, blah, blah. And any regulation that slows AI down is met with the same chorus from, from Silicon Valley, which is no, we can't do it because of China. So like, I think, first of all, we could impractical proceed at a more cautious pace if we would reduce the level of mutual fear, which I personally think is founded largely on misconceptions on both sides. Hmm. Okay. Before we continue, most people in the 30s are still training hard that protein is dialed in. They sleep better than they did in their 20s. Protein is not the issue, but recovery feels somewhat different. Strength gains take a little longer. The margin for error starts to shrink. And that is why I'm such a huge fan of timeline. You see, mitochondria are the energy producers inside of your muscle cells as they weaken with age, your ability to generate power and recover effectively changes, even if your habits stay strong. My tapure from timeline contains the only clinically validated formula if you're a thyline used in human trials. It promotes mitophagy, which is your body's natural process for clearing out damaged mitochondria and renewing healthy ones. In studies, this supported mitochondrial function and muscle strength in older adults. It's not about pushing harder, it's about actually supporting the cellular machinery underneath your training. If you care about staying strong into your 30s, 40s, and 50s and beyond, this is foundational. Best of all, there is a 30-day money back guarantee, plus free shipping in the US and they ship internationally. And right now, you can get up to 20% off by going to the link in the description below or heading to timeline.com/modern wisdom and using the code modern wisdom. Check out that's timeline.com/modern wisdom. And modern wisdom, check out. What's the AI risk that worries you the most that you think has received the least attention? Is it that? Is it the ability for humans to adapt to a changing environment or is it something else? Well, in the near term, it's not that the things I talk about, like job disruption and so on, are not talked about. But I think in the near term, what's not appreciated is how just highly likely it is that collectively, these things will be destabilizing. It's just going to be an earthquake. And I think that's the thing I would like to most emphasize because it just gets people's attention to the possible virtue of talking about, yeah, calming down and slowing things down. You know, another, it's funny, another thing Tristan Harris said on your podcast is, you know, repeatedly pointed out your podcast is called Modern Wisdom. We're going to have to be wise to get through this. I agree, but here I'd add, you know, there's also, I talked about the fact that we're going to have this global conversation ultimately, you know, something that is in some sense, a global mind is going to have to work this out. And as I said earlier, individuals are at their most wise when they are calm, right? And it's the same, I think it's the same with planets. We don't know, but that's my contention is that the planet as a whole will do the wisest, most responsible job of stewarding this technology. If the planet as a whole is more tranquil, if there is less conflict and less contention, I mean, I'm sorry, I know I keep getting back to this sermon. It's my big sermon. So maybe the question you asked, I guess, was the biggest, underappreciated thing. Well, I would say I think there is more and more appreciation of the fact that this conversation has to be international and some of the policy does, but still not as much as I'd like. Right. Yeah. Well, I mean, I understand the issue, right? Because you have a technology, nukes weren't going to go off and just hit the entire planet. [BLANK_AUDIO] one country developed a particularly strong nuke. Right, let's say that you get the Tsar bomber times two, the biggest bomb that's ever been dropped. And if you breach this particular threshold, for some reason, all countries are now at the mercy of all nuclear weapons. That's not the way that it works. But I think the concern that people have is, if you build a sufficiently intelligent AI, it impacts everybody in a way that you don't just ring fence. Like not pressing the nuke button. The problem is the coordination that we need in order to be able to do that. I mean, look at COVID. We couldn't even do it with COVID and that was happening right then. That was people dying in the moment. That was every country on the planet being worried about it. No matter, even China, even if it was the biggest sigh of the escape from the lab in Wuhan, like they were worried too. So the lack of coordination that doesn't give me an awful lot of hope for people being able to do like predictive future coordination and like proprietary coordination. Right. It was not encouraging. I mean, I will say that although a pandemic is a non-zero sum problem in the sense that if it breaks out in any nation, it's trouble for all nations and they should work ahead at all. Once a pandemic has started, there are zero sum dynamics. Like who gets the mask? You know, there's finite amount of medical equipment and vaccines and so on. So it's not completely shocking. To me, the most disconcerting miss is in the aftermath when it became clear that although I don't think we know for sure, it is at least possible that this pandemic was the result of a genetically engineered microorganism that escaped from a lab. It wasn't made as a bioweapon, it wasn't released intentionally. We don't know for sure that it was a genetically engineered virus at all, but it obviously could have been. And it seems to me that if you process that information wisely, you say, wait a second, this could happen tomorrow. And one thing that shows is we don't really have any transparency, or at least not enough, so far as what's going on in other countries in their labs, right? But that has not even been a conversation. To me, that's the most discouraging thing because a virus is in a way a good analogy for lots of things that can go wrong with AI. I mean, first of all, there's a literal case of using AI to build a bioweapon, a new kind. And COVID, I think I've heard you say COVID was like a bad vaccine or something. What's the metaphor? Yeah, yeah, yeah. COVID was the worst kind of vaccine that we could have done for everyone because it's made us more skeptical of future pandemics and our response is going to be less coordinated. That's right. And you have to realize, if somebody uses AI to build a bioweapon, they're going to make a point of making it more effective than COVID at doing whatever kind of damage they want to do. So it could be a lot worse. And so that could happen, but then be the other, you know, some of the other AI nightmare scenarios, like the one that Mythos brings to life, you know, you got a self-replicating AI that is a super hacker. It jumps from data center to data center, gathering, you know, commandeering computer power, getting stronger as it goes, whatever one's, I don't know, takes out the satellite infrastructure, who knows? That is, that's kind of, you know, a virus is a metaphor for that. Again, it's a self-replicating peril that makes relations among nations non-zero some. It doesn't matter where this thing starts off, it is a threat to your nation if it does start off. So you're going to have to coordinate policies with other nations, because you need more insight into what's going on in those nations. Uh-huh. Okay. What do you think of the most legitimate white pills from the techno optimists, then? Let's look at the other side of the fence. Oh, wait, remind me of what white pills mean. I mean, I know blue and red, but what are, I, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're not. And cooler. Yeah. Yeah. Techno optimists. What is the, what's the bull case? What's the pro case? How can this thing go right? What are the most likely ways that this goes right? Uh, I think I just, I'm sorry, I wish I could see it going right in a laissez-faire environment. We just let it go and let the market system deal with it. I just don't think that's going to happen. It's easy to point to wonderful things it could do. And we've heard them cure disease. Um, it could, it could, you know, one thing I, uh, this is not what the techno optimists get into, but, but I referred earlier to like cultivating cognitive empathy, getting better to understanding other people's points of view, maybe getting more mindful generally. You can have an AI that helps you with that. But the natural tendency, the market will be to produce the kind that doesn't. I mean, we've already seen that if, if companies, you know, optimize for engagement, you may get sick of anti-KIs to say, yeah, you're right. They're wrong. Like in this argument with your spouse, you're right. They're wrong. So that will tend to happen. But it can, AI can be a wonderful and a, a literally enlightening companion. Okay. If, if we want that, but you have to make a point to one it. You don't think that this is just going to find its way there naturally. Like if you just let the sort of capitalist meritocratic, it will find its way optimizing function without any shaping from us and without any predisposition from a better coordinated world. It's not just going to arrive there. I think of enough people send signals to the market. Market's a very efficient and wondrous things. You know, they really are. What does that look like sending signals practically? It means, for example, you and, and I, and enough other people to get the attention of people who are not necessarily the people making the foundation models or the frontier model. It could wind up being people who take an open weights model and open source model. And they kind of fine tune it to be this thing that interrogates you critically along certain lines. Right? Like, okay, you say, you say you hate this person. You say you find this country threatening. Let's just like, uh, or you, you say you think they're looking at it this way. Let's just play devil's advocate. It's, you know, it's, it's almost, um, like doing steelmaning, uh, automatically in some cases, but, but it, it depends on enough people. You know, there are a lot of things in life that they're good for you, but hard to do. Working out every day. Good for you, but hard to do sometimes. That's, that's why some people who can afford them, you know, have a personal trainer, right? They say, I'm going to, this person is going to expect me to show up in the gym, three days a week or five days a week or whatever. And once you've made that commitment, you just kind of have to do it. Or maybe you'll even show up at your house. But, but, you know, and, and it's kind of like that. I think it's going to be kind of like that and choosing your AI companion, right? Like, it feels good in the short run to have some, somebody will tell you or a machine that will tell you you're always right. And your, your adversary and rival and, and spouse is always wrong. But, you know, I want to be a little better than that. So, I think, you know, now, if the market signal is going to be strong enough for this to happen at scale, these signals may emerge from like movements. You know, could be, for example, religions will, will say to their congregants, hey, we recommend this model. Or we, you know, whatever. And then there's a demand for it. I'm not saying all those will be good. Depends on what, what group of religious people it is and, and what their values are. But you can imagine, you know, there are lots, there are lots of people right now engaged in the process of trying to make themselves, you know, generally better people. I mean, they, they meditate so that they'll be less volatile and, and, and work better with other people. I think we're going to have to go into this recognizing that for better or worse, these machines are probably going to be exerting pretty pervasive influence on people. And we need to think carefully about what kind of influence we want. What about the risk of AI-induced thinking atrophy, right? This, this role of AI systems in taking on critical thoughts, decision-making, connectedness, all of the things that typically humans really value inside of themselves. And as we start to outsource that to AI systems, our capacity to be able to do that diminishes. AI-induced thinking atrophy. You worried about that? Um, I mean, yes and no. I mean, you've heard the standard responses, right? Which is, I forget whether it was Plato or Socrates who supposedly said, the written word is bad because people would have to remember things. Yeah. The, uh, and there can be some of that. I mean, the other side of the coin is obviously, at least right now, the richness of intellectual exploration it permits, right? Like if you're interested in a subject, it's, it's almost like having like a leading expert there for you to interrogate. And for me, at least that's a much more efficient way to learn. Now, you have to be on guard for hallucinations and so on, but I think machines are getting better and you can develop kind of an ability to, uh, to, to know when to be suspicious. So that's great, but I think what we can be sure of is that if this proceeds in a reasonably smooth way, the pace of overall intellectual progress will benefit from the technology. That's certainly not the problem, but I think you're asking a good question as to what it's going to be like to be human. If, you know, well, for starters, there aren't many humans who can say, I'm really on the frontier. I'm the reason we're making progress. Right? Now, I will say, look, most humans don't say that now. And you shouldn't, you know, nobody should over extrapolate from whatever sub demographic they are. That's true, but I do think that everybody feels like they are breaking new ground, even if it's in their own life. I had Mark Manson on a couple of weeks ago, and he's got this great line, which is do hard shit, not because being hard makes it more meaningful. Sorry, not for the purpose of it being hard, but because it's hard, it will make it more meaningful that we associate a degree of meaning with struggle. And I mean, I'm sure that you have used chat GPT or something else to help you write at some point. I've got to get a bit of a research done. I need to write something really struggling to formulate this particular paragraph of this sentence or this idea, whatever. That sentence is just less satisfying than the one that you spent time working on. And I wonder whether snow plowing out of the way, all of the challenges or more of the challenges, actually, more of the challenges that humans face primarily into actually and then when robotics come online, perhaps physically as well, it's going to sap meaning out of the world for most people at small amounts. And we're in the middle of a meaning crisis already. People are already struggling with meaning. And if you make life easier, if you make thinking more outsourced, if you make difficulty harder to access, the only way to do it is to be a luddite, which means that you fall behind all of the other people. We're still in a meritocracy, right? So if you don't use it, you lose it. But if you don't lose it, if you don't use it, you also fall behind from it. It feels like a vicious situation to be in. Yeah. I haven't used AI in exactly that way with my own writing. I mean, a couple of times in my newsletter, I've said when I was just doing very short summaries of things, I just said, "Fold us closer." You know, your first draft was AI. But that's not really my writing. I'm just the editor with my own writing in the book. I haven't done quite that, but I have had. I mean, first of all, I've had conversations with Claude in particular, which is very good with language, about subtle linguistic issues, like asking questions, like usage questions and stuff. And it's just, it's almost mind blowing how good it is in that regard. But I have, you know, imagined the future enough that I have had moments of true despair. I mean, I said to some of the other day, I feel like I'm a blacksmith, a centrigo, you know, because I can see the writing on the wall. I mean, the, you know, I have a substack. And it's clear to me that the next wave is going to be, you know, you're going to see the success of a lot of substacks that are using AI probably more heavily than I'm going to be. But in any event, it's just so good that I can see the writing on the wall. 95% of people don't get enough fiber, which is why momentous built fiber plus because hitting your daily fiber target through food alone is actually kind of hard, even harder than the last toilet trip. Fiber isn't just a digestion thing. It's the foundation of your gut health, which drives how well you absorb nutrients, stable your energies, and how quickly you recover. If your gut isn't dialed, everything else you're doing is working at a fraction of its potential. Fiber plus is a three in one formula built to address digestion, gut barrier strength, and blood sugar stability all at once. That's why I plan to make my next big dump momentous. Best of all, they offer a 30 day money back guarantee, so you can buy it and try it for 29 days. And if you don't love it, they'll give you your money back. Plus, they ship internationally. Right now, you can get up to 35% of your first subscription and that 30 day money back guarantee by going to the link in the description below, or heading to livemomentus.com/modernwisdom using the code modernwisdom. A check out that's L-I-V-E-M-O-M-E-N-T-O-U-S.com/modernwisdom and modernwisdom. A check out. What are you most worried about? What do you think is going to take? Yeah, what do you think is going to be the highest risk? I just think doing what I've done my whole life, which is painstakingly generate writing that you hope will be enticing and clear and accurate and persuasive and so on, is going to be a less and less viable way to make a living. I think, you know, I do think for some time to come, well, I didn't know how long, but the people like me may still have a role as kind of validators. In other words, like, look, increasingly, you're going to look at a sub-stacker way to, I mean, you're going to go like, I don't know who, you know, how can I be sure that this person actually wrote it? I don't know them well enough to personally trust him. All you know is that they're vouching for the content. They're willing to have their name associated with this content. And so in a way, you know, it's a throwback to, you know, when I started out in journalism, the newsweeklies didn't have violins and the economist is, I think, still that way. So it's just like, you don't know who wrote the piece, but you know that the editor is and you know you've come to trust the editor. So the editor of a magazine like that is a person you trust, even though you know they didn't generate most of the writing, they're just vouching for it. It reflects their judgment about what's good. They're telling you that they think it's accurate and so on. I can see, I can see that role for somebody like me for five years, but, you know, it's really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Well, look, I, this is, you know, I, to get back to how we started this off, if people understand, you know, how these AIs are being created, how basically you just give them the data and they do the engineering to generate the parts of the human mind, or if you just pay attention to the improvement we've seen over the last two or three years, right? Yeah. What, what, what, what industries would you be most bullish on? Or if you were a young person today, what do you think would be a good career path to go down or a particular industry to go in? Well, you know, it's common to say manual labor robotics is a little behind. It's going to be a while before I'm calling a plumb a robot to fix my sink. I do think that certain kinds of human services are going to become almost more valuable because they're humans. And I think a good example is live music. I can well imagine that there will be more of a demand for, you know, for bands that play at small clubs in Brooklyn or whatever and make enough money to get by, you know, which would be in a way an improvement over the situation, way, since 30 years ago during, you know, the golden era of, of the record companies was a, was a winner take all market, you know, a few, a few people got super rich playing music. So I can imagine a world in which more people are actually making a living playing music. Comedians. Comedians. Good example. Live events. Nightclips. Yeah. And maybe look, yeah, live events generally. I can, I can, I can well imagine that. I myself have had the feeling, you know, because I've been so immersed in AI while writing this book of just like, you know, you're in New York, you're in a subway or somebody, you see some guy, you know, a busker trying to, trying to make a few bucks playing an instrument. They're really good. They're some really good. I just think God bless you, you know, it's like I, I just almost get emotional. So, you know, if you don't think it's going to get weird, I don't think you're paying attention. Do you think AI could make humanity more religious, rather than less? Well, that's a good question. You know, there've been, I write in the book about this guy who, he's a guy actually started what became Wimo, I think, the Google self-driving thing, seems live in Dowski, who was trying to start a religion that involved. Always always a great first line to a story. He was trying to start a religion and, hey, it worked out for Elrond Hubbard, Scientology, right? He made a good living. So, but no, but his argument was if we, if we have a respect to even worshipful attitude toward the AI, then it will treat us well in return once it's running the show. I don't think it's going to work that way. So, let's leave that one aside. I mean, it's a good question. You know, the other thing is there are a lot of kind of spiritually related mysteries in the universe. Like, what is consciousness? What is subjective experience? All I know for sure is, it's the thing that gives life meaning. If you imagine beings, if you imagine humans, like they look like humans, they do, the stuff humans do. The peas on me. Yeah, but there's on these is not like anything to be them. I would say like, well, blow them up. I don't care. There's no meaning to their lives anyway. There's nothing meaningful going on. If there's not subjective experience, there's not consciousness. And I love to have more insight into what that is. I don't know that AI can help us because it's the most stubborn mystery. I'm aware of almost. I'd love to, you know, there's so many mysteries that are suggestive of something weird and wondrous quantum physics for sure. I, you know, I can imagine getting a kind of, I mean, who knows whether there's a revelation that awaits, right? That is at one level, an intellectual revelation that explains stuff. But at another level is also, you know, gratifying in a spiritual way. Yeah, yeah. What's a, you mentioned, we've sort of circled around it a bunch, the idea that these machines are able to like pantomime intelligence, they're able to simulate knowing. But do you think that they know? Do they actually know what they're doing? I have a chapter on that. Actually, there's a famous thought experiment called the Chinese Room Thought Experiment by philosophers no longer live and named Sura and he argued that AI cannot have understanding. It cannot understand things. And there's a little ambiguity in his argument. What's the, can you remember the thought experiment? Yeah, it's so you're, there's a guy in a room. He doesn't speak Chinese, but he, you know, he gets these slips of paper. Let's imagine their questions in Chinese. And then he has a manual he consults to decide what to write, what Chinese, you know, ideographic script to put on the paper that he hands back out, you know, of the room in response. And to the people on the outside who speak Chinese, it seems like there's somebody in there who understands Chinese, okay. And what Suril says is, this guy is like a computer program because there's like a script that the program is following that, that, you know, the script, the, his little book that he consults to decide, oh, if you get this, you, you, you, you output that, that's like a computer program to Suril. And he says, well, we wouldn't say that anywhere in this room, there is actual understanding, right? So there's not understanding the computer. Now, Suril was writing before the, the, the deep learning revolution. He was imagining it a term, a, a computer program. So that's different. But I think there's a bigger problem with his argument. It has to do with him, the, the, the kind of the two senses in which he insisted that the computers don't really deal at a semantic level, a level of the meaning of words. I think I argue that we can now show that he was just flat out wrong about that. Now, there is some ambiguity in his about whether he meant, he kind of changed positions. But whether he, he, he had in mind the idea that to really understand something you need to have consciousness, there needs to be a subjective experience of understanding. Now, if he meant that, which in his classic paper, he doesn't really seem to mean, but if he meant that, then I would say, well, who knows? I mean, you know, no one person can say for sure that any other person is conscious, strictly speaking, right? I mean, I'm pretty sure you are, Chris, but 99.99% and, you know, my, my, my dogs, God rest their souls are up in the 90s for sure. But we, the whole distinctive feature about conscious, subjective experience, as you can never know for sure that anything else has it. So we can't rule out the possibility that AI has it. And I certainly don't rule out the possibility that it does or may in the future if it doesn't. Now, but in any event, my point is, if you want to say that consciousness is a prerequisite for understanding, no, there's, you're not willing to grant that something understands, unless you know, it's conscious, then I, I, I just, we can't really argue about whether AI understands because we don't, we don't know if it's conscious, but, you know, I come up with a kind of alternative way of looking at understanding, which is like, does is it processing information with mechanisms that are like functionally analogous to the mechanisms in our brain that are at work when we have the subjective experience of understanding mechanisms that, for example, represent the meaning of words. I would say to the extent that that's going on, I'm willing to say the computer is, is understanding things in a meaningful sense. And I think increasingly that's going to be what's going on. It doesn't have all of the elements of understanding that we have in our minds right now, but it has some, and I don't see any reason that it can't ultimately have all of them. What do you think's happening with the singularity debate at the moment? What have you, what have you learned around that? You know, because what was it, what was really interesting to me was I went through, I got whiplash from 2016 when I read Super Intelligence then 2017, 2018, I'm real worried there's going to be a fast takeoff scenario or computer brain interfaces and we're all going to be under the thumb. And then by the time you get to 2019, 2020, I'm also distracted by COVID, I suppose, but I'm like, AI isn't able to deliver on the threats that Nick was worried about when he wrote Super Intelligence. And then very quickly it comes back along. I'm like, okay, fuck, it's happening. It's happening. It's happening. Like the dude from the office who's going like, oh my god, it's happening. Everybody stay calm. And then we've now got to the stage where it seems to have flattened out again a little bit that we've asymptote it a little bit in terms of the models improving. I don't know of many people who think that LLMs are going to be the architecture that a Super Intelligence General AI is going to be like built on top of. It's more likely to be world models and other stuff. So what's happening with the singularity debate? I see a little more singularity going on than you do right now. I'd say in maybe a couple of senses. I mean, first of all, of course, the fundamental dynamic of the singularity is that the technological progress feeds into itself and accelerates the cycle. And of course, famously, Daria Omade of Anthropic has been very explicit about this. And so, as Altman, I think that especially with these coding agents, it's gotten to the point that the better the coding agents, the more they can use them to create the next models. So the dynamic seems more and more at work. It's just kind of in principle. They say that's what they're doing. And look, the coding models, these agents, I mean, remember a year ago, it's funny. I wrote the book, I had the chapter on agents, but it was just like a word. People, and then as the book, it's getting ready to finalize, I'm like, "Russian, you know, rushing to hell to stuff about like. " - It's actually happening. - It's actually happening. The agentic revolution has happened, you know, and is happening pretty fast. There's also this famous, are you up on the, what is it the, is it memory the group? No, damn it. The group that does, they do these evals where they measure how long it, how long it would take a human to do a job, a computer can do, okay? - Okay. - Actually programming tasks, but not only programming tasks. So, they say, "Okay, right now, the best large language model can do a task with like 80% success rate that it would take a person like a minute to do, or five seconds to do." And they've gone back, and they've done these studies with the large language models for the last, like, I don't know, four years or something, and what they found as of now more than a year ago, they found that these times that the task duration in human terms that an AI could do were doubling every seven months. Okay, that's exponential, okay? That's a, that's a, if you, if you don't plot it on a logarithmic y-axis, you just plot it like a regular graph, it just goes up and up and up and approaches the vertical. And then, it increasingly, as they kept doing the studies, it seemed like not only was it, it exponential, but the doubling time was getting shorter. - It's like it's like a Moore's law on steroids. - Even on steroids, and it's getting to the point right now where it's just hard to do the studies because of the length of the tasks, right? It's like you can only-- - Also, the amount of time it takes to test the AI. By the time you finish testing it, the AI is better, but you need to then do another model. It's like the next one. - Well, it's more like, you know, once it can do something that takes, I don't know what they're at now. It takes a human, I should look at the graph. - Two, 200,000 years to do or whatever. - Well, we're not up there yet, thank God, but even what you get into like eight, 10 hours, it's like, well, wait, what kind of task are we talking about now, right? I mean, it's almost beyond, I think that-- anyway, they are having trouble formulating the task and testing them in humans, but the point is, This trend has not subsided and you know, I know the book is kind of parallel to the there was a curtain There's a curve like that for the growth in human brain size starting like a couple million years ago and that was I hope I've got that right and you know a million to me the the That seems to correspond with the development of our certain amount of our linguistic hardware so that had a lot to do with language processing and And I would say the the way once you have language the evolutionary value of of manipulating it deftly grows and so it's a self-reinforcing kind of process but in any event they You know so there's that but the last thing I'd say about is superintelligence You know can it happen? I think first of all We probably will have more Non-trivial breakthroughs. I mean people often cite transformers and say well We have another of the so-called you know, I mean transformers with the TNGPT stands for all of these models use Transformers and people say well, we have another one of those and I would say well first of all even since then We've had chain of thought reasoning which was very big Mm-hmm, and we've had and that was only within you know a couple years ago We've had you know multi-modal training Which is training a single model on various along various sensory dimensions, you know audio video and and text and so on is really In a fairly early stage and that and that was not a thing when the transformer Came around so in a way we've had those two things We'll probably have more but you know even if we didn't I think In fact even if if we just halted training right now and didn't even create any new generations of models I think and you wait for the the applications to get refined and people to integrate them into their lives in the workplace I think breakneck advance would as a practical matter happen for a couple of years But but the other thing and I think this is really key is that You got to remember you know in a way there's already said thing is human super intelligence and what it is Is like collective brains, okay? Like there's nobody at Boeing who knows how to make an airliner but Boeing knows that you know the corporation collectively kind of knows how to make an airliner and It's it's the same way with big scientific breakthroughs are always more collaborative rather whether intergenerational or intergenerational even they might seem when we give an Nobel Prize to just one person so collective intelligence resulting from communication among individual human beings is really a lot of what human intellectual progress is about and these machines they can communicate with each other they can collaborate they're starting to do it They would be able to do it even if we didn't try to engineer it and make them better at it, but we are trying to do that You know for purposes of scientific progress and so on so I think I don't think we need to worry about stagnation I mean that's a high on my list. I don't think anybody's worried about that Yeah, you might not believe me, but this is what peak sleep optimization looks like not talking about the nightgown It's just for sex appeal. I'm talking about my eight sleep the eight sleep pod five comes with a smart cover You throw in your mattress that actively cools our heats each side of the bed up to 20 degrees And now they've added the world's first temperature regulating duvet and pillowcase So you've got 360 degree coverage for deep uninterrupted rest. It's like being Walt Disney without the cryogenic chamber And the racism best of all their autopilot feature Learns your sleep patterns and makes adjustments to improve your sleep in real time It even detects when you're snoring and lifts your head a few inches to help you breathe better That's why eight sleep has been clinically proven to add up to one hour of quality sleep per night They have a 30 day sleep trial so you can buy it and sleep on it for 29 nights. If you don't like it, they will give you your money back Plus they ship internationally right now you can get up to $350 off the pod five by going to the link in the description below I'm heading to eight sleep dot com slash modern wisdom and using the code modern wisdom a checkout That's e i g h t sleep dot com slash modern wisdom and modern wisdom Check out yeah, who was a Edward Frank Fredkin? Who's that? So my first book and it's funny because I Now have I mean three of the six books. I've written have the word god or gods in the title I don't know what that means but the and but the other thing is that book like this one has a visual reference to the famous Sistine chapel thing where the hand of god is reaching out to I assume it's a hand of Adam um and Both of these jackets have that in different in very different ways, but ed Fredkin that book was called three scientists And their gods in my first book So this is like I started writing it up a couple years after I interviewed Jeffrey Hinton I was writing a column called the information age at that point for The sciences magazine which like so many periodicals I've written for no longer exists but um the So the book was it was information was a thing running through it in various ways like there was a there was a profile of E.O. Wilson who studied ant colonies and the way they they processed information but ed Fredkin Was this who died? Maybe a year ago or so was this guide MIT fascinating guy Uh didn't didn't go to college and wound up as a tenured professor at MIT He was a computer scientist he had this interesting theory of digital physics which in retrospect Was kind of about us being in a simulation and in fact I you know we talked about that um But he for a time was at MIT head of What was it affect the AI lab? I forget there were various names at one point. I think it was project Mac maybe and something else but the uh He At the time when I was interviewing him on his this island he owned in the carabane He was apparently the model for the character this professor in the movie war games With Matthew Broderick if people remember that that went from the early 80s Uh, I think the professor in that was very worried about nuclear war like ed and I think owned an island even I think that was based on Fredkin anyway Ed was saying to me like when he had been at MIT Well first of all when I said to him like what's the meaning of life? And he said to me this is in the 80s he said oh it's the create artificial intelligence, you know, that's the next stage in the evolution of intelligence And he explained to me that when he was at MIT he tried to start this initiative this international AI lab He said because he knew that if this became a subject of international competition we were in trouble This was during the Cold War so he wanted to get uh us Soviet collaboration On uh on a like a single lab Where AI would be developed for the good of humankind and he said to me, you know, and I failed and now it's too late Um, but he you know, he for saw a lot of things. I will say Uh, encouragingly he had a pretty sunny view of superintelligence. He did think we would get superintelligence He said first of all he said you know when AI first emerges it'll be like the human mind really good at things laughably bad at other things. Well he's right about that He said but eventually you know, it'll be this incredibly intelligent thing and it'll it'll be nice to us We'll just be like you know ants ants to it. We won't it won't you know won't have any interest in you know or like squirrels to it It won't have any interest in disrupting our lives. It won't need to and look I think You ask earlier. I don't think I ever answered like what's what's the bull case for the acceleration is I mean first of all I think It's going to be disruptive in the short term and any event in ways we should pay attention to but as for long-term non-duemer outcomes I think it's entirely plausible that it will turn into a form of intelligence that uh treats us well Maybe because it's just morally enlightened you know, I you know in a certain sense In the relevant sense from our point of view Or maybe because it'll just be so powerful. It'll be I mean it's it may you know what maybe that's more likely if it's sentient because it'll say like well We're sentient we think that's a good thing these guys are sentient and of course we can kill them but You know, it's good to be in our subjective. It's why you know, you know, just the way you and I would not Piddlelessly kill a dog, right? If we were convinced it wasn't like anything to be a dog As Thomas Nagel phrased you know the question of consciousness in his in his essay. What is it like to be a bat? If we were convinced that dogs didn't have subjective experience, we'd probably think yeah I don't you know, whatever who cares, but You know we even though we evolved as these self-interested and sometimes ruthless creatures If it doesn't cost us to keep something alive that we think is capable of subjective experience we'll do it and and I that can well happen I am not predicting The Yudkowski scenario It's just that I can't I can't get the probability of it down to a level so low that I don't think it's worth worrying about I'm gonna take that as a white pill even though you didn't know what that meant was on the discussion Yeah, that's hopeful my first white pill your first of a white pill I popped your white pill cherry. Thank you for that Chris. Now, and felt so good. You're welcome. Robert Wright ladies and gentlemen, dude, you rule. I love all of your work. Everyone should go and read the moral animal. It's over 30 years old now and still just hold it's so good. It's so fantastic. And you've got your new one as well. Where should people go to check out everything else that you've got going on? Well, I have a newsletter called non-zero on sub-sac podcast called non-zero on Twitter. I am at Robert writer that's WRIGHTER kind of a pun. And that's about some of it, the books of God tests. And let's let's focus. I am going to open AI's campus and HQ next week. So I'll see if I can find out any any any super secret inside to that. Do. But please report back to all of us. I shall indeed. Robert, appreciate you man. Until the next time. Thank you. Catch you later on. Bye everyone. books.