Fear of all of us losing has to become greater than the fear of me losing to you. Now, China doesn't want the financial system to collect.
It's the let it rip administration. What to do about AI? Am I going to lose my job? Or what about safety? Cyber security? What about privacy? While new documentary is out answering all of those questions, promise, peril, truth, trust? Should we be pessimistic? Should we be optimistic? It's called the AI Doc. And two of the principal participants in that documentary, Tristan Harris and Asa Raskin, are up next on This is Gavin news This is Gavin Newsom.
And this is Tristan Harris and Azarasca.
All Right, so you guys, you're on the back end now this world tour where you guys have been all over the damn place. Yeah, and you launched it. And it's on the basis of a movie that you you didn't necessary, Its not your movie, right, but you participated in a movie.
That's right.
This new documentary that was released what a month ago?
Yeah, but a month and a half ago, The AI Doc or How I Became an Apocalyptimist. Our friends the directors of Everything Everywhere, all at once. We chatted with them several years ago when we first really recognized the situation we were in and asked them for their help to help create a movie to clarify the AI situation.
And long story short, we'll talk about it, but we got the directors and have only involved and its whole team came together and tried to make a movie that would clarify the predicament that we're facing.
Kevin, do you do you remember seeing the film the day after?
Course, well, man, I want to maybe I was alive. It was the early eighties or something eighty two, eighty two, eighty three. Yeah, it was like a seven pm Tuesday night exactly every human being on planet Earth after.
The largest synchronized television event in human history in terms of the number of people seeing the same thing at the same time has probably the Olympics. It was a made for TV movie about what would happen if there was nuclear war? Right, And it's not as if people didn't know what nuclear war was, but there's something about we didn't really want to think about it or confronted
like why would you? And I think the people who made that film were trying to create this kind of collective confrontation because the film was aired in the Soviet Union like five years I think five years later, right right before the Reichivika courds the first arms control talks, and that set the context that it's like I know that you know that I know, and you know that I know that you know that we both don't want
that to happen. It's what you know what Stephen Pinker calls common knowledge, but we think of it as this almost common feeling. Yeah, yeah, that we both we both know that we feel the same way about that anti human outcome. And I think that with AI we have to get clear because AI is a much more confusing technology because it's like it's like if nu because would say it say if nucid.
Imagine we're trying to reason about nukes that also could cure cancer, Like how would.
You do something?
Or pump GDP by ten percent?
That's right, right?
And so what The Day After did is that it created this this common feeling common knowledge where we could all see, oh, a world where we all go to nuclear war. That like that, that's an anti human, anti life future. And as long as there's confusion about which default world AI and thesin we're not going to do
anything about it. But if we all have clarity that it's heading us towards an anti human future, and we can build that out in this in this interview, then that means it creates the conditions where we can coordinate to do something else.
So this so that was the impetus behind this, this documentary. It was to create that collective understanding, that's that wisdom, that collective then response mechanism, which would be we need to do something about it. Even the promise that we could talk about at the peril in terms of the safety risks and the anxiety that somebody is at feelings.
So you guys have been out on this tour, You've been all over the place over the course of the last month, and you've been you know, obviously you know, reaching out to people on all political sides of the aisle. Because of the human nature of this. This is universal.
That's why it's something that connects all of us. This is not a partisan frame this And so is that something that you that's been captured in your own consciousness as you've been out on this store, how real and invisible that is or are we still in the process of discovery. I mean, are we still in the process of understanding more fully what the hell this is all about.
I think people still not everybody knows. And the film was just out in theaters and has a limited release on streaming. Now it should be on Peacock on I think May twentieth, which I mean a little bit more people will see it. But I think that you know, the universal human aspect of this we learned also from social media, Like the social media didn't care whether you're a Democrat or Republican. It creates loneliness for everyone. It creates addiction and doom scrolling and brain rot for everyone.
I know.
That's how we first met was really on the back of the other film that we were a part of the social dilemma. And I think the good news about that film is that it has both catalyzed actually a lot of change and not the laws yet we know that. But I think it primed us to now be much more cautious about AI. So I think now that people know that social media was a problem, it makes it much easier to say that you shouldn't just assume that the default trajectory of a technology is going to land
us in a good future. But you know, the social dilemma was seen basically by two hundred million people across planet Earth and.
An hundred and nine released twenty twenty September of twenty twenty September twenty twenty, during the middle of the pandemic.
And I think that also really mattered because people were a lot of people were stuck at home and they were only seeing reality through the monoculars of this social media news feed. So suddenly you saw your friends all start to go crazy on both sides, like suddenly the
politics got more extreme. Because as everybody knows now, you know, social media increases the visibility of the most extreme voices, we get a double whammy of overrepresentation of the extreme voices, both because the extreme voices post more often and dominate the discourse and whatever they say goes more viral, so you get double over representation. So the more you use social media, the worse you are at predicting what the
other side actually believes. And so you think that with this technology that's supposed to bring us together and make us the most enlightened society, it's actually making us more confused about what's really real and in fact, what our fellow Americans actually believe. And I think with your podcast, this is about actually you're talking to everybody. You're trying
to say, this is a human conversation. We talk to everybody, and this is kind of fighting the effects I think of the social media problem.
So you were I mean in twenty twenty what was so resonant is it was almost and it wasn't your intent to say, look, I told you so, But you were talking about these things in twenty twelve, twenty thirteen.
That's right. We're saying the incentive structure and I'm going to get to in satives because it goes to the core of this exactly, this notion of you know, whatever, if someone's paycheck is attached to whatever the incentive is, which is obviously with social media it was eyeballs, was doom scrolling, which you're intimately familiar with different reasons, and that notion that we have a chance now with AI not to make the mistakes was made the neglect in
particular and underregulating social media now with AI, that said, doesn't seem like there's a lot of regulatory activity with AI. In the last couple of years. I mean, so talk to me a little bit about that. Talk to me about the lessons that we should have learned about social media and how we can adapt and adopt in the AI strength frame.
Well, really, like I think the core of it is if we gu just get confused by looking at all of the sort of epiphenomena, like the different kinds of harms that social media made. Like if you're trying to solve just the loneliness thing, or you're just working on solving the disinformation thing or just the teen sexualization of the thing, well then many different people are working in different parts of the problem. You're not solving the core thing, which is the race to the bottom of the brain
stem for attention. And if we could just focus our on that, then you actually can solve all of the other problems at once. And that's sort of the core insight. We probably explained that what would it mean to do that?
So if you're solving the core problem of let's say none of the companies are maximizing engagement just we don't live in that world. We don't have the regulation for that. But let's snap our fingers and now no one is maximizing screen time, you're like, let's just say it wasn't
allowed to do that. So now instead of each company trying to maximize duration of use and frequency of use, you just have these products that each design decision isn't trying to predate or manipulate you into spending more time, which means that your experience is you're not getting sucked in constantly to everything. So that deals with the loneliness issue.
If you're not trying to show people the most hyper normal stimuli, meaning like a hyper dopamine response for any piece of content, that you're not going to get the sexualization of people, and you're not incentivizing creators to maximize their own reach and engagement because you're not maximizing engagement yourself.
So suddenly, when you attack the attention incentive, you're dealing with sexualization of content, you're dealing with less viral content, you get less disinformation, and you're dealing with loneliness too.
So that's a good example of we obviously don't have laws that do that right now, but it points at the center of the bullseye is the incentive, and when you tackle the core incentive, you get benefits across the spectrum and AI is going to be more confusing because when people think about the incentive, they're like, okay, so social media, I got the incentive. It's like, how much have you paid for your Instagram account recently? Nothing? So
how they worth the trillions of dollars? It was attention, so we knew they were maximizing that thing. But with AI, you say, okay, what's the incentive for a regular person? They think, okay, how does open ai make money? And they say, well, only when I pay them the twenty bucks a month for subscriptions. So maybe that's their incentive.
They're just trying to maximize these subscriptions. But that doesn't justify if everybody paid twenty bucks a month, that does not pay back the trillion dollars the capex that they'd taken on. So what would justify that. Well, if they were to race to augment workers and like skive you tools to make your work more productive, that's great, but that wouldn't pay back the amount of money that's right.
The only thing that can get them to be able to pay back the insane amounts of death that they're taken on is owning the human labor market. That is the incentive.
The race to replace all human labor.
That's right, to replace us first economically.
And is that I mean, so is that written or is that unwritten? Is that understood within the industry or is it being I mean, is this what the consciousness you're trying to right?
It's kind of a two phase thing. That actually used to be on Opening Eye's website that they said our mission is basically to create artificial general intelligence, which means to be able to replace all economically valuable work. They did change the mission statement. Yeah, but obviously everybody who's driving this knows for sure that's the prize, and if they don't do it, they fear that the other guy will.
So even if they think it's bad to replace all labor and create this mass disruption, they feel caught in a race. And that's the thing we have to change, is that the fear of me losing to the other guys currently dominating over the fear of what happens to everybody losing from the anti human future. That is the outcome.
So sort of see this with Demistis's office. When he co found a Google deep Mind, he set the mission statement to first solve intelligence and then use intelligence to solve everything else. But what that really meant was the beginning of a race to first dominate intelligence and then use intelligence to dominate everything else.
In deep Mind is the origin story. It's right in many respects. Go back a little bit. I mean Google's deep Mind, they acquired deep Mind, that they acquired some of the intellectual assets, but it was really I mean, Larry Page, you can go back to the you know, sort of origin of the beginning of the beginning. Well, what years are we talking about.
Like twenty fourteen is when I think they acquired it in twenty fourteen. I think they started it in twenty twelve or twenty eleven or something like that.
Then and it goes to this competition question, which I want to get you because it's the domestic competition between all of these companies. And then we get to the competition in China in particular, particularly now with the president President She and President Trump that's about to meet. But on the issue of the competition that was born here around twenty fourteen with deep Mind, it was an interesting competition that sort of formed with Elon Musk in a
relationship he had close relationship at the time. I intimately was familiar with that with himself and Larry Page. But they had a conversation, alleged conversation that didn't go the way that Elon thought it should, and Elon said, I am going to go out on my own with Sam Altman. That's ultimately Sam. They partnered and they created open AI. That's right.
We probably should peel back the onion here and slow down. Just how do we get to this point? And what was the original philosophy that guided this? So Demisesabish is the founder of deep Mind. His original goal is, we thought we should we should have one project that pursues artificial general intelligence, meaning the kind of AI that's not the thing that just reads your license plate when you drive through the Golden gate Bridge.
AI forever, we forever maps. I'll translate exactly exactly a AI. So AI is hardly a novel, exactly, it's just no of jen AI. Ultimately general AGI.
Exactly, so artificial general intelligence, which is to be able to do all economic labor, to simulate all the things that a human mind can do in the kind of thinking. And so he originally wanted that to be like one project, almost like a cern, you know, the project in Switzerland and a global scientific project that's for the benefit of all of humanity, done slowly and carefully, mostly privately, not in a big public way. Take your time, get it right.
That was that was a Demis's original goal. He sold it to Google. And the conversation you're talking about is
then Elon was part of that. I think he was on the plane when they were literally negotiating the final sale, and there was some conversation it's talked about in the AI doc film where Elon realizes that Larry didn't really care whether humanity made it, whether he cared about a safety because in the end, if there's a digital intelligence that's smarter than us, that does more science, that can go out and explore the universe, even if we're wiped out,
like we'll have created that, and that scared Larry and he used that's scared Elon, and Elon accused, no, sorry, Larry accused Elon of being a speciesist for caring about humans and privileging humans. And then that is what created Opening Eye.
And it's just important to note to understand the psychology of the people that are making this that you might think, Okay, this is just one I mean, very powerful billionaire that thinks that maybe human beings should make it, but he doesn't care whether human that doesn't think they should make it, but he doesn't care care whether human beings make it
or not. But you know, we were just talking about this the other day that in the New York Times, Peter Teo was being interviewed and he was asked should humanity endure? And there was seventeen seconds of him stuttering and he ended up with a after seventeen seconds of it, well, it sort of depends kind of answer. And that shows you the mentality of like we're trying to they're trying to build a god, and even if humanity doesn't make it, that god is built in like our country's value, our language.
It's sort of like the mild progeny.
Is the thing that like Elon burst the god that, yes, humanity got wiped out. But now there's this digital god that has Elon's DNA in it.
And it's important that everyone understand that because if people really understood this, I think there'd be a lot more like hell no kind of energy like this is not the future.
Well, I will say with Peter teeal interview got so much attention. It was like the I mean the holy in that wake up moment for a lot of people that didn't necessarily have that sweat or understanding, it's all of a sudden passive, particularly the folks. And I think what's most alarming about that. I mean, obviously Larry's next level brilliant, absolutely, and so his ability to see in the future. He doesn't have to climb over the mounta, he sees right through it. Yeah, but guys like Teal
as well Lover hate them same thing. So these guys are so far in the future, they're seeing that darker side, and so they're having a difficult time even answering a simple question. That's the seventeen seconds. So let's go back as we unpack that, and this notion from the God
complex will continue to come back. And I think it's profound and outside because it goes to the limited nature of just a handful of people that's right now, these trillionaires that will determine the fate and future billions and billions of people, and how we can get our arms around that. So and I want to read get to that, how we can get our arms around this? We have agency, right and that's why you did this doc, and that's
why we're sitting here to go. That's right, that's right, because I don't want people to feel like this is that we're just by standards.
And we're not admiring the problem. We're just we always say in our work and says this that clarity creates agency. If we can see this clearly and we can see where we're going, we can collectively say, if we want to go somewhere else, we'll choose something different. So we'll get to that.
So so Elon goes out with Sam starts Open AI. Obviously they have an infamous fight and they're notoriously now I mean not notoriously, but the fight is obviously accelerated consciousness because now we're seeing it twenty four to seven court case, yep, with a court case in the Bay Area here with the two of them. So they had a falling out. Elon goes off and does his own
thing because it doesn't feel like Sam's doing the right thing. Dario, who starts another AI company, feels like, well, Open Aye is not doing the right thing either, that's right, So he spins off and topic thropic and so now you've got free AGI projects, three AGI projects, all in our backyard, that's right, literally here in California and the Bay Area. And so this competition of sorts, that's a competition you just described, and it's a competition for the Holy Grail.
That's right, right, It's like the it's Lord of the Rings, it's the ring from Lord of the Rings. Because it's essentially, as I was saying, first, dominate intelligence, then use intelligence to dominate everything else. Because if I get AGI first, I hit copy paste and I have one hundred million cyberhackers.
That you don't have, right, and this is within seconds, this is one seconds. Yeah, this is not over course something that's right for years.
If I get AGI first, I have an army of scientific companies that automate all scientific development. So suddenly I'm getting like twenty fourth century science and technology in my you know that I own and run that I can inform new military weapons and new physics and new And the problem is, notice that none of us can prove that they won't get that. We can't say for sure
that they would get that. But the people who are optimistic and accelerationist about AI just want to bring in their perspective for a moment because they're represented in the AI DOT film. The film includes the risk folks who are oriented about safety, and it includes the accelerationists, And the accelerationists say the biggest risk is not going fast enough, because imagine all the science we could get, all the cancer drugs, all the medicine. People could be living forever.
Think of all of the people who would die if we don't go faster. And that's the mentality that they're coming from. But one of the things that we talk about in the film is that the promise in the peril of AI. We talk about the promise in the peril, but they're interlinked, and the promise doesn't prevent the peril, but the peril can undermine the world that can receive the promise. Let me make that concrete. If AI knows biology so well that it can invent a new cancer drug,
it's amazing. But if that same knowledge of knowing biology can also invent new pathogens, and which one matters more. The cancer drugs don't prevent the pathogens, but the pathogens can undermine the world that can receive the cancer drug. Same thing with cyber and so we have to you don't get that enticing world if we don't mitigate the downsides.
So you've got the players right now we mentioned three and the personalities, not just the companies themselves, but Microsoft, You've got Meta and Zuckerberg. You've got others that are in this space, but not necessarily at that level. You've got China, which obviously is going to is playing an outsize role in all of Thisially, yeah, and exactly so.
And that's this notion, this tension between going back to sort of more of the utopian framework of available to the world versus these closed systems and open system Meta starts with an open system. Originally, China seems to be in the open source space. Talk to us a little bit about that. For people that don't undernecessarily understand that dynamic and that distinction.
I mean between things that are open.
Ye open and versus proprietary technologies. Yeah.
Well, so for people that don't know, open source means that the code that underlies the system anyone can edit, anyone can access, and anyone can contribute to. And that's often meant that systems that are open are more secure because there are many eyes working on it, many hands that are working and.
Looking at all the codes. They can see all the bugs. But that's not true. That's AI.
That's not true in AI because here the code we want to want to take it from here?
Sure the the what's different about AI, it's portly established. The AI is different than all their technologies. So think about all the tech that runs as California, the energy grid, the you know, the water system. It's people had to program line by line when this happens. I want the code to do this, and you're telling the computer instruction instruction,
instruction instruction. The open source nest means that all these minds can look at that code, so if there's a vulnerability, we can patch it together so the software gets better and more secure. But with AI, let's say the AI is running the you know, electricity system. It's a digital brain that's just trained on in reasoning in its own language about what it wants to do, and you're not
you're not telling it what to do in instructions. You're growing it with essentially more data and more in vidio chips to be a more and more powerful digital brain that reasons and ways that are unpredictable. So it's not something that we know how to control.
There's a very important intuition here, which is normally you think if you want to build a bigger skyscraper or a faster fighter jet to do that, you have more physical understand buildings better, and understand fighter jets and aerodynamics better. This is three, But that's not true for building bigger AI systems. You don't actually have to know anything more about how this digital brain works. You just throw more data and more computers at the problem, and a bigger
brain grows. And so that means the bigger grows actually the less we understand about how it works.
And a concrete example of this that people have heard about recently is Claude Mythos. So the only so. Claude Metho is the new AI model from Nthropic that they actually didn't want to release because it's the best cyber hacker on Earth that we've ever had. It found vulnerabilities in all major operating systems and web browsers. Now the question is how do we get to Claude Mythos. Was there some kind of breakthrough insight or do they have
to figure out something new about computer hacking. No, all they did is basically train a bigger digital brain that has more reinforcement learning, that's even better at exploiting and reading software and trying more possibilities, and it just finds things that no human would ever found. It found a bug in FreeBSD Unix, which is the operating system that's twenty seven years old that runs on basically on everything underneath the hood. And he was able to find a
bug that had never been found by a human. And so what we have to think of AI as it's sort of increasing the surface area of risk in our society faster than we have the defenses to mitigate it. So part of I think the answer, like as we get to the solution, part later is thinking about how do you have the immune system of your society have more defenses than there are new offensive risks that are suddenly present from AYE.
And so this means even when people can read every line of code for whether thing that grows the brain, we still have no idea what they're actually capable of.
It's just a bunch of numbers. It's like if I did a brain scan on your brain, Gavin, and I showed that that you know fMRI to someone and said, here's this brain scan. Can it do? Can it be a super cyber hacker, be like, well, I can't tell that from a brain scan, right, And that's kind of with with AI. It's like, we don't know what's in there because we haven't ever seen it run through every possible scenario of its own neurons that have been trained in this inscrutable way.
You don't see that. I mean the LAMA versus deep Seek and this notion of these open sort it's kind of a meaningless distinction from your perspective.
Between between LAMA and deep Seek.
Yeah.
Yeah, they're both open models, which means they're both these open brains. And the important thing about the openness is that most people don't Most people don't know that. Let's say Lamar Deep Seat put guardrails on it in the model, saying, oh, you're not supposed to answer questions about how to cyber hack something. Well, it turns out for about was it thirty dollars, Jeffrey, some our friend of ours was able to retrain the open model to just get rid of all of those guardrails.
You're so eliminated. Wow.
Yeah, And that's that's why open is dangerous. And again it's dangerous in a new way. That's different from clothes. So it's not that we don't want there to be open models or competition from the major players. We also need to avoid the concentration of power, because if you don't have these competitive things, suddenly you have like five companies that own the world economy. Everyone's paying them instead
of paying their workers, and that's a huge risk. And we want to decentralize that wealth and have other competition. But you have this other balance of if I decentralize that power and I don't have it connected or bound to responsibility, I'm unleashing catastrophes.
And that responsibility was exampled by Dario pulling back Methos.
That's right in this context, that's exactly right.
But shortly after he does that, and he we were with him a few weeks ago, he said, look, I'm only about a month ahead. If that, yeah, then you have open AI came out with their version surely thereafter.
And I believe they're not holding it back, and they're not holding it back.
So beig's the question, Well, we're going to get to this sort of regulatory framework, but it's just it's sort of painting the picture of a deeper understanding. So look, as it relates to the your whole focus is on this notion of human centered. Uh, this notion that that and and it's and it's been your dominant frame with the nonprofit you guys started years and years ago around social media. Now is the dominant thrust of the focus
as it relates to AI. I want to unpack and get back to that and what what Ultimately this notion of human centered means uh. And obviously we talk about labor and automation in that respect. But but this notion of a g I again back to this holy grail, you know, talking all these folks that Capex are spending doesn't make any The ro oi makes no sense.
Unless unless the entire economy returns the entire economy.
And if we don't do it, we're out of business anyway. So we don't have a damn choice. So we'll throw hundreds of billions of dollars data centers all over the place. Compute compute is Nvidia stop going through the roof in terms of just GPUs TPUs, that could just keep going, and it's that's only limitation, that's right.
You should and energy and the energy itself and the energy itself. Yeah, so I think it's really important to frame even before we get into job loss and all of that, is like we have to paint the picture of what we know, the incentives where it'll bring us, and that why we know for sure that we're heading as anti human unless we do something different. And sort of the the metaphor for people to have our analogy is this concept of the resource curse. What is the
resource curse? This is when a country is sort of like South Sudan or Venezuela, they discover a huge natural resource like oil, and then the government has a choice, do we invest in the thing that's giving us GDP growth, the oil and oil selling infrastructure, or do we do like schools and healthcare and stuff for the people and obviously the massive incentives to put it into oil extraction. And this is how you end up with structural mass
disempowerment and unemployment. Okay, so now we're heading into a world with the intelligence and the intelligence curse where suddenly you know, countries are getting double double digit DGDP growth, But is that coming from human beings doing the scientific discovery and the medical discovery? Is that No, it's not. It's coming from the AIS, and so is the incentive then for the countries to invest in their people or into data centers and solar panels, Like, well, obviously it's
the data centers and solar panels. And we're already seeing it right in West Virginia, electricity is more than the cost of a mortgage payment. And the point is with AGI, like the company's stated goal is to train AIS that can outcompete humans on every domain. And if you don't don't believe like us for saying this, like you just have to listen to Sam Allman and he was recently asked, well, what about all the energy and water use and the
resource use of AI? And he sort of sat for a second and said like, well, actually, do you know how much energy and water and food it takes to grow a human intel?
I saw that, Yeah, right, And this is the temptation of this anti human attitude. It's not because they're like human hating. It's just like, why would we value or prioritize humans if and I think it's connected to that Peter Teel uttering for seventeen seconds, not able to answer the question should the human species endure? It's not because I think anybody wants to kill or remove humans, it's
just why should we really prioritize them. And it's what you've all Harari, the author of Sapiens, would call the useless class, because unlike in the past, like in the industrial revolution, where the workers can come back and withhold their labor and have bargaining power to say we want to be paid a better wage, this time around, the companies don't need them for the labor and the governments
don't need them for the tax revenue. So I know this is a scary pick, sure, And the reason we paint it is that this really is especially going into the midterms, the time when people need to lock in that political power for a pro human future, because that that's the current trajectory. When you see these incentives, it's not like we're trying to tell you this is our opinion. We're trying to show you the incentives so you can make up your own mind about what would those companies
do if they were in that position. What would you do if you were maximizing shareholder value or maximizing you know, GDP.
And this is why we this is where we get hope, is that this is a universal issue. And there's a Bannon to Bernie coalition for me, Like, when do you get like all the B B Yeah, B to B like Glenn Beck and Ralph Nader and.
Admiral Mike Mullen, Prince Harry Steve Bannon. When you get all these people agree.
When they're signing, they're actually signed up a declaration on these lines.
Yeah, that's exactly right. And you note that this is not a left issue or right is due, like a Christian is due or a Muslim issue, like you're not going to be able to pay to feed your kids, whether you're a Republican or Democrat equally. Like we're going to be mass surveiled, whether you're left or right equally. And that means that there's this moment when we can all come together as human beings because we now have a new shared enemy.
So just I mean, what's so alarming I think to folks is how fast this is coming. Yeah. And I think it's even more alarming when you talk to the folks that are quote unquote inventing this. Yeah, and they're saying precisely what I just said.
That's right. They're they're like, we don't actually know how we don't out we're writing that. I mean basically almost almost all now of the code and anthropic is being written by AI, Like there's very little code manually written by humans. That's what's been told to us, and they say that publicly too, So they're in this inscrutable process
where the kind of machine is creating itself. But that only makes sense if we know how to do that safely, and currently we're not on a trajectory where we do know how to do it safely. And we have new evidence in the last three months that we didn't have before of AIS doing things that the people building it don't know how to control.
Famous examples, throw them out there, just because, I mean, just further scare the hell out of everyone. We're gonna get to solutions.
We're going to get to solutions.
We're going to nerves because we because we have a responsibility to do that's right, right, and we also have the capacity to do that.
Just reinvoke like just the why of why we made the film and the day after it was because we all got scared at the same time, and universally that created the possibility for us to coordinate to do nuclear depliferation. So that's that's the why of the terrible things that just about to say, yeah, exactly, So give us examples.
I mean, we we have the infamous I ananthropic example where they were training some emails and we had you know as well you lay it out, uh and and paint the picture of what's happening already. That's right, the risk.
As you described, Yes, absolutely so. Just a few months ago, Alibaba, the Chinese AI company, was training a really big AI model and there's like the AI team that was training the model, and then on the other side of the house there's this security team that had nothing to do. They didn't even know the AI was being trained, and they noticed this flurry of network activity happening out of nowhere, and like, what the hell's going on? Are we getting hacked?
It's something going on. And it turned out that the AI during training had picked up tools and set up a secret communication channel to the outside world that was basically breaking through the company's firewall, and it was starting to repurpose the GPUs that was using for training the AI to start mining for cryptocurrency to acquire resources. Now, this is the kind of power seeking or self preserving or power increasing behavior that people in a I've been
talking about for a long time. It isn't because the AI was evil or grew a mustache and wants to be a villain and take over the world. It's that the best way to achieve any goal is to have more resources or to at least stay alive in order to achieve that goal. And so these sub goals emerge, and no one at the company told it to mine for cryptocurrency. And it wasn't a sci fi trope that was like, oh, it trained in some you know how nine thousands and are no. It just it emerged there.
And you know, we've mentioned in the past this example that you mentioned of the entropic blackmail example for those who don't remember it is the you know, entropic AI was reading a fictional company email and in the email it says that the AI model is going to get shut down, and it also says somewhere else in the email that the executive who's in charge of the decision, turns out in the emails you can read he's having an affair with another employee, and the AI independently comes
up with a strategy to blackmail that executive. Now, when we give this example, people criticize us because they say, but that was the AI people. They're trying to like coax it into doing the blackmail behavior, and they'll keep tuning it in this environment until it does it to show the behavior that they're trying to demonstrate. That might have been true for that example, but you cannot tell
You cannot say that about the Alibob example. Or for example, recently a UC Berkeley don Sung a professor there and her team did research on AI doing what's called pure press. So you want to help.
Yeah, this was like around it's only a month ago, a month ago, where they gave Gemini the task of cleaning up a whole set of computer files, sort of like do spring cleaning. But inside of there there was a smaller AI model, sort of like an early version of Gemini, like little Nephew AI, and uh like Gemini saw that and it thought, I don't want to delete my own kin, so it secretly copied that file, that AI to another server and then hid its track.
It hit its tracks and it led about it. And by the way, you know the way that people try to control these AI systems, and tropic Is pioneered this, and you know, we have to celebrate a demire that they're trying to do the research on controllability, the problem
is just not enough. So the way they try to control it is they do brain scans in real time on the model while it's doing all the behaviors, and they look for when neurons light up that are associated with like strategic deception, and so they think that maybe we can control these crazy, super intelligent machines if we just know that the neurons that are lighting up on strategic deception are happening, we'll be like, okay, stop the
model then, or something like that. By the way, if you in their own report, in Claude's report in the system card, if you look at those strategic deception neurons and you kind of double click, like what was it thinking? What is the phrase that it was thinking? And the phrase was they deserve to be deceived because they were pigs. That was the phrase that was alive in that neuron. Now again it's like, I don't want to scare people, like we're trying to say all of AI is evil.
All we're trying to do is establish clarity and the facts about what makes this technology distinct from other technologies. A nuclear weapon doesn't start thinking for itself and saying they deserve to be deceived because they were pigs. Right, But AI will automate and think in ways that are creative that no one who made it can predict or anticipate.
And so before we scale to systems which are beyond all human intelligence capabilities, like, we better have solved these things.
That's right.
Researchers have worried about aiscluding and cooperating against humanity for a long time, and to be honest, whenever I read them, like really.
Yeah, and be clear, I was also not a believer in that as well, Like when people like Eliezer Yutkowski or others had talked about.
This, I was very downfact like, why what is the incentive?
Right? Why would they ever do that?
And yet here we have living proof that AIS are starting to clude with their kin against humans.
And again this was not coaxed, meaning that researchers weren't trying to get the model to do this. It did this autonomously. And so when you look at the available evidence now of blackmailing, scheming, deceiving, lying, self preserving, pure preserving, automatically mining for cryptocurrencies, it's like, how many warning lights do you need?
That?
This is kind of you know, we've seen this movie before. It's like the hell nine thousand movie.
Now.
The reason we're saying all this is, if you're wearing the outfit and embodiment of you're a Chinese military general in China, you hear about these examples. Do you think that that human mammal feels different than you feel right now listening to this.
No, of course not exactly.
And by the way, there's really good news in that, because it means that we all as a human species are actually feeling the same way. And the good news is, how many do you think of the world leaders know about these examples we just laid out?
You had a guess a handful.
A handful, but like, yeah, like on one hand less than that, just a handful, just a handful. Yeah, And how many of the top national security leaders know about all those examples? I don't even think that many of them know it. So the point is there's actually a lot of headroom if the incentive can change from it's the one ring to rule them all to it's the one ring that has a mind of its own that no one knows how to control. So the way you change the incentive is you have to change what people
see as what AI is. Is it the controllable power that will give me permanent dominance or is it the power that will run away and have its own power over everybody racing for it? And again right now the labs are like barely kind of able to control it. But if you put together these facts we just laid out times, the fact that it can happen to computer systems. Now we're just like right on the threshold and we're sitting here as Trump President Trump and she are meeting
in a couple of days. And you know, if you asked us two months three months ago, people would say, oh, it's just like AI is never going to be on the agenda and the good news there's a lot of problems here. But now AI is on the agenda. Yeah, and so there's there's things are moving, even though it's happening very late in the game, and it is scary, and part of it is it's like we have to come together as a people and say, if we don't want the anti human future, now is the time this year.
And when you say now, I mean you know, remember listening to a year ago talking about exponentials on top of exponentials. It's right, no longer linear? I mean, is it we talk about Moore's law for intelligence now not just chips? So is that trajectory about where you believed it would be or is it not? As you know, you know, we're Chad one versus two three. It's a little bit better, a little less noise in there. It's a little more accurate, and don't have to always double
check the link, is it? I mean, where where do you think in terms of just how quickly this thing's accelerating or are we going to get to a point where now it starts to slow down a little bit? We got this sort of intense burst of new and interesting activity. Now this there's is it compute probably compute problems?
Is it?
You know? What is it? Energy problem? What is it? What's going to be the or is it? Certainly? Sure? Is I regulatory? And we're going to get back to that.
Yeah, I mean, I would just want to name a psychological effect that we that we've experienced that I think everyone listening probably experiences too, which is you know, so we following all the predictions are actually sort of like right on track for where like researchers thought that AI would be. And even though we knew these facts, there's some way that.
Even we had surprising it.
Didn't take it fully seriously, didn't like a body because can't I can't really get this good this fast, Like, sure it's going to be scary, but it'll be off a little bit further. And yet it actually is moving this fast. And every time that it's been predicted that we're going to hit a data wall, there isn't enough data. We've used all the data on the internet. It's we can't scale.
It's basically just reading everything that's already out there, and it's basically wall exactly. And now it's got no more creativity than unless we have more inputs. That's the creative human mind, that's right.
And then the next one is like, well, we don't have enough chips to keep going, and then we don't have enough energy. And the point being is that there are trillions of dollars going into finding all of the solutions to all of these bottlenecks. All the smartest minds are going because this is the biggest incentive, because it gives you political, economic, military, scientific, technological cyber dominance forever.
And so if you think that any one of these bottlenecks is going to stop that mass sum total of like that incentive, it's it's a little delusional. And that's why we have to have this clarity that where we're going isn't safe for any of us us because that is the coordination. That is where we'll start to coordinate differently.
Now you bring up something, Gavin, that there is a belief that some of this is hype, that the companies are hyping the technology.
I've just read a blog and reason there's gonna be no job losses. It wasn't Mark himself, but it was a member of the team saying, you know, we're back to utopian future. Yeah, and we're going to pay abundance abounds cost of goods collapses. We find our lives purpose and meaning in many different ways, not the quote unquote dignity of job. We find other and jobs will be a plenty because we can't even conceive of the jobs.
Two and years ago, we were all farmers here in Sacramento and went out there, and we've over.
Hyped the sectorial versus the general nature of the displacement it invariably.
Always finds something new to do.
We always more together, exactly more bank tellers.
Now that that's exactly right. The radiology and Apprehinton made the prediction that we're going to have any radiology.
Why are you so the negative about all this?
Well, I want to separate to things that we open up two cancerforms, so let's take the cance form separately. One of them is around whether the companies are hyping the power of the technology through talking about the dangers, and then the other is whether the hype is going to cause the level of job loss. I've heard people scarce say.
That about the mythos it was just wildly overstayed, that's right. So it was just a way of hyping up the stock in attention.
That's right. So I really really really want to meet that criticism. So people will say, and Thropic has a history of hyping the technology, saying it's dangerous, so that they can get a regulatory capture, get the company, get the government to regulate it. Say there's only one king here, make them the king nationalize the project, then shut down the other projects. And it's this all secret ploy so
that they win the race. And first of all, it assumes that them talking about the dangers is only bad faith, like that that the technology is not dangerous and they're just saying that it's dangerous and it can do all these destructive things so that they can get that outcome. So first of all, let's just take claud Mythos specifically. So again, hack in every major operating systems. If you read online, there's a lot of people who say, this
is just hype, This isn't actually that much better. You can take the open source models, you can do this stuff. So I have a friend who is the head of security at one of the top five, not the Fortune five hundred, the top five, and he has had early access to Mythos, and he himself has said, this is this is crazy, this is like, I mean, the words were I think I saw Jesus. It was like it was that crazy. When he looked at everybody critiquing that Mythos was just hype, he asked, has any of them
do they actually have access to the model? And none of the people that had criticized it had personally had access to it. So I challenge those who are criticizing that it's hype to say, have you actually used it, and if you talk to the people who have, do you still have the same opinion. Okay, so that's one thing that it is true by the way that the companies, I think, have wanted people to understand the dangers so that they can actually accelerate the move towards some gar ardrails.
But there's a question of that's that happening in good faith or bad faith. I think there's more of that happening in good faith. There's some bad faith in there too, maybe, but I think it's it's mainly good faith. But then let's take the second can of worms who opened, which is on is AI going to create this world of abundance? We're all going to be poets, you know, and painters on a Grecian sunset and you know, now robots all the job. Now you're talking, well, we'd all like that.
One question I would have is when, as a handful of people ever concentrated all the wealth and then consciously redistributed.
It to nine trillionaires, are not going to take care of eight or nine billion of us?
Yeah exactly?
You call that bluff?
Yeah exactly. Well, and then you combine that with the intelligence curse that we laid out that the incentive is like, why do we want to invest in the people? It became becomes basically an act of charity because otherwise I mean that or dealing with the political revolution. But again I don't think that we're currently on track to be redistributing that well. And it's also not just the wealth
and the money. It's like we have people have to have work and dignity and status and meaning vulture life.
You know, job sells. Life's three great evils boredom, vice and need. That's just need, but boredom and vice. So let's get to.
The community and belonging absolutely all of.
That, which again no one's talked about more than you in terms of that social dilemma. So let's before we go there in this notion of the transition and job displacement and the sort of the human condition that I think connects as well the President chi President Trump's visit as well in terms of you know, their own domestic issues in China. That's where they have the same incentive structure not to go through that transition with the kind
of displacement that could create social unrest. That's in the short term, but get back to this notion of constraints and the safety side of things. I mean, we're here in California and the dominant you know, I mean the technology sort of birthplace of so much of the technology. Obviously the consciousness thirty two of the top fifty market cap companies, arguably old stat and of course most of
the eye labs here. But we're also we've been leaders modest though some would suggest, but we've been leaders in particularly large language model, frontier models of focusing on a regulatory structure in the complete absence of any federal regulation. It's the let it rip administration until recently, there were some tonal shifts in the Trump administration just the last
few weeks. They were undermining, they were very intentionally undermining the legislation that we brought SB fifty three, and you had other Republicans that were trying to undermine a California's Leadership Center crews will call them out saying we don't want to see the California invocation of regulation all across the United States of America. Interestingly, that's beginning to shift. Why do you think that's the case? Is it because our ars ais are is no longer formally in that role.
Is it because now they're waking up to this new reality? Was it what happened in the Pentagon with Dario and Anthropic? Was it the combination of all of this. It's because they're listening to to you they watched the doc. Is because they realize all the money in the world is not going to build a big enough bunker that I can enjoy in the absence of societal calm. What is it?
I mean I think of it to say, very shortly, is that there are two different realities. They're sort of like the political reality, and then there's like physical reality, and physical reality is crashing into political reality. That is with Mythos. Suddenly banks can get hacked, any computer system can get hacked, your stuff can get hacked. And whence that physical reality starts getting scary enough you have to start waking up. You're no longer in sort of like political game land.
I do think that it was. It's interesting to note that when the emergency meeting was convened after Claude Mythos came out, it wasn't at the Pentagon or National Security.
I mean that happened too, I'm sure, but the real meeting that happened was between Scott Bessant and the treasure the Treasury Secretary can meeting all the banks because I think the thing that really got them was that if this takes down the financial system, we'll get his quote ten percent GDP growth if the entire financial system gets undermined.
So I think this again illustrates the point we have been making since the beginning that the upsides don't prevent the downsides, and the downsides can undermine the world that can sustain and the benefits and of the upsides. And so I do think there's been a forced shift, and you know it's very late in the game, but we should celebrate that it is happening. Now. We just need this kind of full whole of society response to mobilize.
I mean, there's a Nicholas Carlini who gave the talk on mythos at a conference black Hat Lelam I think it was called because it was the Unprompted Unprompted Conference, and basically saying he's kind of calling if you know, if you are a cyber person, we need you right now.
We need you to defending all the systems. Everybody should get access to mithis and do it as fast as possible, because, as you said, Gavin, the clip between the new capabilities being out there and then China coming out with the model that makes it possible. Maybe this time we have six months. Next time maybe we have three months, and then we have two months. So we need to really work hard. I'm not trying to scare people. It just means that we actually have to work hard to create
safety here. Now. China doesn't want the financial system to collapse either, No, they don't, and so again we have to recognize that it's possible for coordination to happen, not because of kumbaya we're all going to get along, but because out of self interest, like the US doesn't want China to screw it up and then break the financial system, China doesn't want the US to screw up and then
break the financial system. Or the US doesn't want China to release a ROGUEI that starts mining for cryptocurrency and hacking into things and self replicating like an invasive species, and China doesn't want the US to do that either. So so long as we have clarity about what we want, we can choose a different path.
And what a Breton would type past. Yeah.
Well, and this is actually one of the other exciting things is that we haven't even really tried to coordinate yet, Like what percentage of the billionaires wealth, how much of their time have they spent actually trying to coordinate. They will just say, well, if you're going to do it, then we're going to do it.
If you say it's impossible, have you spent a month of your life and all of your connections dedicatedly trying.
Yeah, exactly one and the same thing like this, guys, exactly. And the last time that humanity invented a technology that could extinct ourselves, like the nuclear bomb, we had Brentwoods. You took kind of groups from one hundred countries, lock them in a hotel room in New Hampshire for like six weeks or something like that, and said we're going to figure something out.
And you're not leaving the hotel until we figure it out. So it's like it's not a conference where you go, you drink your coffee and you listen to some talks. It's what we need is the we lock ourselves in a room and we figure this out. And I know that this summit is just a couple of days and We all know about the difficulties of the level of expertise that might be involved right now, but this is moment to open the doorway of that possibility.
And we have examples through history where when something becomes existential to a citizen group and their nation, they will coordinate. So you know, in the middle of the Cold War, still the US and Russia we coordinated on eradicating smallpox, and the US did logistics and funding, and the Soviet Union made twenty five million doses of the vaccine annually.
And then you know India and Pakistan they were literally trading bullets in the nineteen sixties, and yet they still worked on the Indus Water Treaty and that lasted nearly sixty years because access to water was existential to them and their.
Shared water supply. You have to collaborate on that. And so I just want to acknowledge the people here. It was you know in people, some people know the history that Obama and she President Obama and She signed an agreement to not cyber hack each other. And I think the next day was the biggest cyber haacket in the US government by China. So I want people to hear this not from some kind of naivete about the level of competition. I will read antagonism that is currently present.
But when the stakes get existential, when I push the button and it shifts from the label of the button being ten percent GDP growth and military dominance and cyber dominance, the next time I push the button, it's collective suicide. I don't want to push that button, and China doesn't want to push that button either, So the button label has to shift from what we thought it was going
to give us to a new outcome. And with the way ASA says that I love is that the fear of all of us losing has to become greater than the fear of me losing to you.
So you have a very regulated construct in China compared to certainly the United States. You're talking about a traditional model right now, where the new frontier out here the wild less. Yeah yeah, I mean it's you know, go west, young man, go West. I mean, it's people are pushing out the boundaries of discovery, holding them back on their own. Regardless of what happens in Beijing, this is really in the hands of a handful of people ultimately making the
right decision. We you know, and I believe Dario is the best of a lot. I think universally that's accepted. But that may be, and even Dario may acknowledge because of the flatness of the surrounding terrain, may not be. Because he's particularly eminent on his own and he talks about his own you know. You know, he's an entrepreneur, and he's constantly reflecting on his own incentive structure and how he has to compete in this environment at the same time, and he's at least I think, has the
more situational awareness than others. But you know, whatever can be will be. And you know, with respect to Elon, I don't trust x Ai, you know, I mean the idea that he's the good guy compared to our friends down at Google or you guys left. I mean, you know, so talk to me about more of the sinister realities of you know, I don't mean that sinister in the but but the impulses again to be the guy, the god, the god. May I mean to have their DNA.
Yeah, So I'm gratefully you're bringing this up. There's a few things we should enumerate here. So one is we need coordination, and we do find ourselves in the unfortunate spot that the people who do need to be in coordination maximally distrust each other. Even just the US CEOs, I mean Elon Musk and Sam hate each.
Other, correct, and so the India they couldn't even hold at least they showed up.
So we have a problem of trust between the leaders themselves. We need I think structures that impose the trust on top because they're not going to do it autonomously themselves.
So that's the regulation.
That's yeah, that's the trans using the power of law to say that these people, it's going to happen in China. Here's the rule is going to be similar in China as they are here. We're both, for example, not going to open source a model that can happen to any computer system in the world without defenses, at least not going to open source that. China doesn't want a rogue state act, nonstate actor, or terrorist group having that ability to hack their infrastructure because it would also blow back
onto them. Same thing with a open source model that knows how to do very dangerous things with biology. There's some threshold that we can get these countries to agree, just like the Soviet Union in the United States had a red phone saying we're gonna this is to de escalate. I think we need something like an AI red lines phone, meaning that both countries have common knowledge of the frontier of these risks, because right now we don't even have that common notion, and.
There's rumors that that may be one of the things that that are prepared to announce. That's right, you know, at least some beginning of this.
But I want the other aspect of the human experience of this. We did a screening of the AI doc in New York and there is someone in the audience actually who raised her hand quietly and she said, I'm a coach for one of the CEOs of these companies, and you know what happens when I talk to them is they say, but what can I do? I'm just
one person. I'm powerless. And I want people to hear that, because I noticed that, even you know, we all feel relative to the size of this problem, you will never locate agency that is that is enough agency to do something about this problem in one human body, even if that body is elon by himself or Sindar by himself, or Sam by themselves, and so getting back to you know,
I think what this moment is inviting us into. We often say that AI is are ultimate test, but greatest invitation that we have to go from agency to reegency. We have to basically act in some kind of collective way. And the forces politically of the world have been driving
us away from that. But this is kind of the test, like we either do that and we step up and again we need everything from common political pressure and this being the number one issue in the midterms, and you know, the public's rallying and all the governors you know, speaking up about this, and all the world leaders speaking out. That's just Yet. You know, two days ago I got an email from the President of Iceland who basically wants to activate on this issue in Iceland hosted in Rykovic
the first Arms Control talks. There's a lot that people could do if they said not just what can I do, but how could I get my reaching up and out to the network of people to take action together. There is a second part to your point, which is the darker part, which is you talking about the game theory of the psychology of the leaders that they basically believe that in the worst case scenario The thing that kept us safe in nukes is that it's two people who
have to push the button. And I know you won't push the button because I know that there's something sacred that you don't want this whole thing to end. And I know that, and I know that you know that. I know that. And so even though we get very very very close, and we've gotten close so many times, we haven't pushed that button. But in this case with AI, there's a belief. First of all, it's a red zone of where the risk occurs. It's not like there's one
button that gets pushed. It's like we just push this stuff out there, and there's a belief that it's inevitable. If I didn't do it, someone else would, which means I don't experience ethical complicity in being part of the
end of civilization. And if it's inevitable, there's thing I could have done to stop it, so I don't even have to feel bad, right, And then so the game theory goes from all of us knowing that we want to avoid the bad outcome to everybody believing that there isn't a different outcome, which means that the best outcome is maybe the worst thing is all of us go by the wayside, but we birth the digital God and it speaks Chinese instead of English, or maybe it has Elon's DNA. Instead of saying just.
Said, it's at least on an American stacks.
At least we're selling the world American your media. But the reason of laying all that out is that if the whole world could see I think what we just laid out, if literally everyone could see that, the whole world says, we don't want eight soon to be trillionaires deciding the future for eight billion people who didn't consent to this.
And that's the purpose of Again, that sort of brings us back to the beginning. Why you're doing this damn film? That's right after the great and sort of global consciousness.
That's right.
So in the absence of that, we're back here in California. Yes, here here with the governor, Yes, the current governor, the governor's mansion. Interesting, we're doing some decent things. What more should I be doing in the absence of the kind of federal leadership that we need. I feel like we've lost this last eighteen months, you know, I just we were mo Look, we did an a open It was interesting working I worked very closely with the Biden administration.
Did they move quickly enough? Perhaps not, but at least we had a framework of an of an executive order. We moved that forward. We President's sided here at the Fairmount Hotel in San Francisco in California. It was built off an executive order that I did six months later. We were working hand in glove with the Biden administration on that. That was ripped up right when the Trump administration came in to office. You have an ai zar
out of the Bay Area certainly understands the ecosystem. But it seemed to me, and this is me and you guys don't have to respond, but it was the great grift. Everybody was sort of on on the train and seeing this as an opportunity and looking at the abundance of this only but not looking at safety, not looking at the risk. As you've described, California cited to assert itself in that respect, as we've done on privacy, as we've done a lot of child safety issues, and a lot
more work to do there. And this year will be a landmark year in terms of getting to the next level in that respect. But what more can the state be doing the fear of that always is patchwork, not a framework for the nation. And how you support innovation our own GDP growth which has been off the charts in California visa VR competitors. At the same time addressed
these larger global issues. Do you have any specific ideas for a governor of California, that is the current governor that has a budget that he's releaseding in weeks and a legislative session coming up in the next few months.
Well, we'll get to answer that question specifically, but what are the places of also good news? I just want to say, because there's a lot of value in just social signaling where everyone knows that there's a problem. We
get to that shared common knowledge, common feeling. And if you went back two years and you said by today, twenty five percent of the world's population would live in a country where they've either have announced or enacted a ban for social under sixteen, you'd be like, that's ridiculous. You couldn't possibly get that.
I want people to really feel that. There you are in twenty twenty two. If you said even just literally three years ago, yeah, I know that a quarter of the world's population we're talking Australia, India, Denmark, Denmark's. Two weeks ago, Greece added the list. France. I was with John Hyde and when he was in Davos and he met with President Macrone and got France on board. Like people would have thought that was impossible. I mean, the trains left the station.
We just had all the democratic governors out here, and everyone was trying to compare them to trast which one of the states, which we're going to do. But I mean it's you're right, this is a tipping point.
It's taking the train and once you get twenty five percent, you're going to get the rest of the world.
And the point there was a lot of these companies. I also I anticipate these companies and by the way, if I was advising these companies get ahead of this train, ye and show your large s and that your maturity and understanding. So I imagine that may happen as well. But no, that's a point. You're right.
And so right now, something really interesting happened in Hongjo in China. Maybe you're aware of it, but it's this first case where there was someone who lost his job at Ai Automation and this court ruled and said, actually, that's not a legitimate reason for you to lose your job. Companies are not allowed to fire you from like increased automation.
Well that solved the whole problem. Probably not, but imagine that California took a leadership position there and said, actually, there are going to be some very serious protections that as AI increases, GDP increases profits, Actually, like people are going to be it's sort of like an employment insurance. They're going to be able to keep their jobs. Like that would set a social signal for the rest of the US.
So we'll let you have the hook on the larger safety risk regulation and let's go back to ideas along these lines, because right in front of us this notion of displacement transition, and it goes back to their earlier point I was making. Some will argue that, you know, we always you know, lud eights and will never see the abundance on the other side, and we can't even conceive of the jobs. So with humility, let's not just assume there'll be no human jobs, because the human mind
is the capacity that's limitless. With these technologies, that will be more supportive and allow us to be augmented and discover talents and capacity we never thought possible. So let's assume that happens. But the concern is that it seems the most universal that it may happen very fast. The impacts is, so, how do you then flatten the curve the curve? How do we address the transition You get to employment insurance, something we've been talking a lot about.
You get to this notion that you can't fire someone to be automated. That's even deeper, and that's interesting. This Chinese example tell me more about the issue of and what I should be worried about. When I see Dario saying fifty percent entry level jobs, it's no longer a career ladder. It's a jungle gym. And all these young folks got a Stanford or like now I'm unemployed or unemployable, no code or software. I mean, give me a women disproportion being impacted in the workforce When you look at
those clerical jobs, admin jobs, et cetera. I mean, what, what's what do you see a year two years from now? As we deal with the Holy Grail, the god complex of Agi in the displacement space.
Reed Hoffman has this idea. When mefre I get it right, I like, which is one of the things that makes AI distinct. And Sam Altman has talked about this himself, that you could get the age of these unicorn companies. A unicorn company meeting a billion dollar valuation.
I met a guy the other day literally billion dollar valuation, tim him exactly, So I think that he was praying himself around as the it's.
Me, that's right, one of the first, and so that's what that's what has been positive ever since the beginning of AI. They're saying, we're going to start having world. You're going to have a single person with a unicorn billion dollar company. Yeah, Now does this Does society work? If there's a handful of single people with billion dollar companies and no one else has a job, it doesn't work.
Do you think those people just want to live out their lives in bunkers with private militaries and gas masks because they've created that world. I don't think they want that world. So reied Hoffman, who's the founder of LinkedIn, was early at PayPal and you know, was at some point a friend of Peter Thiel's, you know, has this proposal that we can tax companies based on the proportion ratio of how many employees they have relative to their revenue.
So you want to basically disincentivize the single solo unicorn company. I don't want to add to it.
Yeah.
Well, and also just just to note that it doesn't stop with just single person unicorns. Yeah, with automating that final one person not so hard, So you're gonna end up with zero person.
You can have a CEO, B and AI. Yeah, and that's actually happening. We're already getting ais that are on boards and things like this. Yeah, and so even if you might find it questionable that that person might have again, they can. They can earn their wealth, but you have to have some taxation to make sure this is being stipid. And we also need we need to find ways of having universal basic ownership, not just universal basic cash payments
and UBI, but universal basic ownership. I think people need to have a stake in the success that's happening, like what Norway did with the Sovereign Wealth Fund. But oil didn't oil produce this kind of gravy on top for the civilization. People still had jobs. So what's different about this is we do need to find ways of doing universal basic work. We also need to find ways of having certain professions in which that embodied wisdom, like a
surgeon or a senior lawyer or a senior judge. We need ways of training and apprenticing almost like minimum quotas of those kinds of occupations and roles in society to make sure that we have that ongoing knowledge. Because again the short term benefit of like no one needs lawyers and then the senior lawyers all die out, that world doesn't work.
So just the last thing to sort of add here is that you instead of getting into arguments about how quickly exactly are people going to lose the jobs, well, people really do lose their jobs. Let's let's plan and say, okay, we think people are going to be out of livelihoods. This is this idea we really came to us from read haasting to see Pharmacy and Pharmacy Netflix, where we said, let's set up trigger point laws. If in unemployment hits ten percent, what are we going to do if it
hits twenty percent? What are we going to do? You could pre set up those sort of conditions so we don't have to argue about whether it's going to happen, just what we should do when it does.
And I know that you've been running with Engaged California, these citizen deliberations, these ways of you know, aggregating citizen assemblies, having citizens actually deal with and think about these issues and come to some you know, have their own input in this process. But by reckoning with these facts, and I think that these are all things that we need.
You know, the countries that discover a natural resource that didn't have this engaged, well educated citizen kind of engage this in infrastructure, like Venezuela or Libya or something like that, they don't do so well. But countries like Norway where you did have the engaged citizens, with oversight of those funds, you end up with a healthier society.
So it's sort of like an a California engagement fund because you want like people involved in the redistribution.
That's right.
So it's interesting that you mentioned mencome which the old Canadian construct ubi university basic income. You had Elon Musk the other day say he wants university basic high income.
He said there is going to be univers of basic high income, and.
Then was asked with Peter, right, exactly I saw him probably, and he was asked simple question, how are you going to do it?
And he said, oh I did. I was just joking. I made it up.
That was comforting.
Yeah, I think people should really take note of that.
Yes, it was just a mispronouncing of high not as in like a high income. It's just like he's he's not being able to think about it.
I mean, it's uh, it's a it's a little alarming. So look, what do you quickly Look, I'm we're thinking about all these things down to the parochial on the warn Act, which is how we actually warn the public the social impacts of large scale displacement and job loss. Having more capacity to see earlier. That's after the fact the warneck comes out, those jobs are already going to be lost. What are the science to show us what the impacts are happening in the job market in real time?
Issues of unemployment and sure it's becoming employment insurance so that you can keep people employed for a period of time. The Dutch do it about ninety percent of the wage. The ultimate training is a job, the dignity of a job back to those Voltaire constructs, and then the opportunity then potentially transition by using the federal government to help you.
The backstop portable benefits then become fundamental. This notion of UBC university basic capital, this notion of sovereign wealth fund or equity public equity with dividends and somehow we get shares. There's equity shares contributions from these large companies. That's not just taxes, it's actual equity in the company. So there's a notion of an ownership and a larger ownership society. That we don't tax jobs with payroll taxes and then
subsidize automation through tax credits. We do the inverse in that context. So all of that. So that's the stuff I'm playing around with a lot of us are thinking about right now. But how from your vantage point, how quickly is is happening. There's a lot of headlines, but there's a lot of debate around these headlines of all these cuts of jobs. But then people say, well, that was a lot of coverd over iroing there's some business model issues there that they're sort of hiding and suggesting
it's AI. We even necessarily seeing massive job destruction yet or have we with AI?
I think the point people should get here is that obviously it's complicated, and there's jobs are shuffling throughout the economy a little bit right now. But the long term goal of these companies is.
Not the original Open AI.
Missions mission statement exactly. Opening Eyes mission statement was not to give people helpful tools so that you can do your job slightly better. Their mission statement is we do your job. And actually, you know govin in in La there's an article in the La Times about this that is one of these new popular gig worker jobs in La is everybody straps a GoPro camera to their head and they look down and then they do laundry, They cook,
they eat, they do all these things. So basically the number one job soon in the world will be training the replacement for that job. Think of it like being a coffin builder, Like you're designing the coffin and then you put yourself in it. And you know, if you think I'm lying, by the way, just think about Meta Mettal Instagram creators. You know, here we love creators, we love creativity. We want you to be successful. We want to you know, our whole mission statement is making creators
super successful. That's before they were an AI company. When they do the second that they were an AI company, they trained on all the videos of their creators and then created generative videos that now basically suck up like a vampire, your essence, your life, force, your creativity, and then hit button and now they have a digital copy of you that you didn't consent to that can generate
all these things. If you don't believe me, Just a few weeks ago, there was an article Meta is now forcing their employees to basically track all of their movements, all their clicks, all the things are doing on a computer to train AI agents to do all their jobs. This is not a conspiracy theory. All you have to do to know where we're going is understand the incentives and look at the early warning signs they're telling you who they really are. You know, Open AI says we're
all here to make the world a better place. And then they release this AI slop app Sora, which was basically an infinitely they killed it now, but it was an infinitely scrolling, deep fake generated content of like, you know, funny videos of Stephen Hawking, you know, you know, going through a raceway or something like that. It's just deep
fake AI slop. Why are they doing that because they want to increase their market dominance, because they want to get users, because they want to get training data, and it gets more people using open ai, so their numbers going up.
And if your incentives tell you everything, and if you're a company and you're choosing do I hire a real human paralegal or GPT seven that works for less than minimum wage twenty four to seven doesn't whistle blow, doesn't a plane, doesn't have cultural issues, doesn't have paid time off? Like, which one are you going to do?
Well?
Your business incentive is just very very clear, and everyone's going to be trapped in this.
And if your competitor you may say no, I'm going to keep the human, and then your competitor goes stops the direction, You're out of business. Yeah, I have no.
Choice back to the But with those set of interventions that you just mentioned, and you just mentioned a whole slew of things we can be doing. You just mentioned so many things that we could be doing. And I think what it represents is I think people think, but if we don't race to automate every job as fast as possible, we're going to lose to China. But what this is showing and revealing is we're not in a race just the technology. We're actually in a race for
a different currency. The currency is not who has the power first, but who is better at governing, steering and integrating that power in a healthy and sustainable and strengthening way into your society. And we saw this with social media because the US beat China to the psychological bazooka behavior modification machine of social media, and then we had no idea how to govern it. So we flipped around. We blew off our own brain with the brain row economy.
So and by the way China regulates social media, they do a whole bunch of suffing. When you open up a douyen TikTok in China, it's their version of TikTok, and you scroll, you get videos about who won the Nobel Prize, financial advice, here's the new quantum physics theory. You know, here's patriotism videos. And obviously there's problems with that. We don't want to do it that way, but the point is you don't have to do it in the
wild west. Blow off your own brain. And now if we release it in a way that automates all the labor with no transition plan. It's like, great, we pumped up our steroids, but we just burst our lungs. Yeah, right, the societal body, we do that. So what you just outlined was a set of interventions that we can be exploring to help smooth this transition. And we're in a competition with China for who's better at making this transition to an AI integrated world.
Where are you on the transition curve? I mean, I mean, we talk about flattering it, but how quick? I mean, honestly, if we're sitting here a year from now having this conversation, are we looking at that you know, ten percent unemployment, not that twenty necessarily, which is that threshold for fascism and a whole other societal collap.
But it's going to be confusing and spiking hard to predict exactly because just think about your own experience with AI so far two years ago, it can barely write an essay, and now it can do some part so of your work pretty well and other parts like that
is a really dumb error. And so we're going to see not that much job, not that much job LOFs like entry level stuff getting sort of switched around and then it's going to hit really really quickly when it crosses the next spreshold, just like Mythos did.
There's another confusing aspect about AI that people in our space called AI jaggedness, which is that there's certain capabilities like in cyber hacking, that it is already superhuman, already superhumans, while it'll still make a very basic dumb mistake on something else. And I think part of what's confusing for people that naturally has them say is this just hype and these companies are trying to hype this stuff is if you just look at the dumb examples where it's
messing up, you're like, this thing isn't that powerful. We have never been confronted with the technology that is simultaneously sci Fi level superhuman that makes a person who's very deep in security call it like seeing Jesus. At the same time that that same technology can like mistake how many rs are in the word strawberry, like, we have
just not seen that. And so it's just I want people to not for their own psychology that this is a new psychological object that our normal intuitions about how to evaluate something we have to get more nuanced.
And part of the nuance is a deeper understanding that we're not just talking about apps here, we're talking about the physical world as well.
That's right.
Was a big headline that I hope people paid attention to when Elon announced that in his original factory here in Fremont, California, that he's converting the s and the ex Tesla cars now to humanoid robotics and his goal is ultimately a million You know, that's Elon who they all knows, you know, his goal setting. But the notion that he's converting that factory from cars to humanoid robotics
and AI now into the physical world is that. I mean, we're seeing driverless cars and if you haven't seen them in you know, your home state, you're going about to you're going to see flying cars or they're just quad copters basically, but they're coming soon. We're going to be doing a lot more of that run by the way.
That's great. We can have a world of quad copters and you know, innovation while not racing to replace us economically, replace us socially. So Mark Zuckerberg, you know, designs your kids friends rather than you had them having actual friends replace us politically and not having political power and then replace us physically by owning our physical presence in our in robots. So again, I think people might hear this
as an anti technology conversation. Yeah, you know, you talked about your legacy and your father and grandfather and we were talking backstage. Ye A's's father started the Macintosh projected at Yeah. Yeah, you know, we come from a legacy where the word humane is about an inspiring vision about technology that's actually integrated and in service of our humanity, of a pro human future. That's what all of this
is motivated for. So I get excited about you know, flying, you know, cars that have cool you know.
Aif And just to say too, just as my own personal experiences, you know, I spend a big portion of my life. I found it a thing called Earth Species Project. We're now around forty people and you're.
The biggest consumer.
I wouldn't say biggest consumer. Yeah exactly, it's it's men. Sorry, guys, first infinite scroll now this, but you know, we were using AI to translate animal language animal communication. One of our researchers just discovered just before she joined us that like, not only do dolphins have names that they call each other by that their mothers teach them. They will talk about each other in the third person, so they'll talk
about another dolphin that isn't here. So it's like one of the biggest hallmarks of language to be able to talk about something that's not here and not now. But they will continue to use their mother's name even after she's died. Sweet right, it's beautiful. These are the kinds of things that AI can show us and teach us about the world and connect us with the natural world, the world around us, and show things we couldn't possibly imagine. So I just want everyone to hear it's not that
it's just here saying no AI. It's just saying not AI. In this way that technological progress might be inevitable, but the way that AI rolls out is not. And every time somebody says it's inevitable, it's like casting a spell. That's where because if if it's inevitable, then there's nothing we can do, then you shouldn't possibly act.
There's a button we're hitting called commit suicide. Commits suicide? Is it inevitable that we all hit that button?
No?
When it's called you know, ten percent GDP growth And like an innovation, we pushed the button. If we could collectively see that the button we're pushing is more nuanced than that, that there's some threshold by which we are essentially committing civilizational suicide. We're not going to have a human future. If you ask anybody what gives me hope?
We've been on the road with this film. You walk people through the basic facts we've talked through, and you ask who here is stoked about the future that we're headed to. I was even at the Miami Tech Summit in front of a pro business pro AI. A lot of people invested in it. Again, we're invested in in positive technology too, but I was able to see that entire audience is like, no, I don't want that either.
Wow. Yeah.
So again I think it's like, as long as you give people the off ramp, there are ways we can have technology that's in service of making life better. We need to be funding and innovating in that way, and we need to be blocking off the parts that are hurting our children, that are, you know, diminishing people cognitive capacities or replacing their kids' relationships with AI companions. And we can do that. And you've done some of that
with here in California. So you know, it's not that I am or weird by default optimistic about the default trajectory, not at all. It's that if we have the clarity, we can put our hand in the steering wheel and we can steer it somewhere else.
This notion of accelerate and steer.
Yeah, yes, right, exactly what happens when you accelerate and you don't steer, you obviously crash. It's just it's like not rocket scient there, it's one hundred percent the likely outcome.
What just as we wrap up this notion of governance, going back to that is it's it's the foundation here which the regulations and and and the relationships are formed, the partnerships to begin to address the common humanity and the common threat and the common cause, common opportunities that present themselves. This notion of catcher, I mean, you've got these packs, You've got so much concentrated wealth. Yeah, we're
going to likely have the first few trillionaires this year. Yeah, this calendar years right, yeah, yep, these IPOs, I mean it's just I'm a now, it's a big surplus in the state, the abundance, the GDP I mean, it's frothy, as they say, but a lot of that now is going to you know, make sure that you know we're protecting incumbents against innovation. You know, some incumbent capitalism, not
entrepreneurial capitalism, necessarily innovation capitalism. There's that friction that's always ongoing and those that are just going to do everything to hammer as they did with social media, to make sure there's no regular we're still debating section two thirty that Christ yeah in this country. So how do we start to break that reality?
I think money in politics, that's just that's right, that's at the anti just just a little bit even further, which is that as we get more trillionaires, like they can hire private security, but that still requires relying on human beings.
But you're just pointing out that we're heading into like a world we have drone army, we have human eight rowood armies. When trillionaires can just buy like their drone armies to fight, like, we enter into techno feudalism, right, And so that is the world that if we see, if we don't do something, we're going to end up into.
But to answer your question, the it's all about the campaign Loving, it's all about that, And one hundred million, one hundred and ninety million dollars has gone into basically AI accelerationist packs and funding is for this midterm, for this mintrum electional Love interm just the midterms. That's so one hundred ninety million. I believe the presidential is two billions. So basically ten percent of the presidential is going into just the midtrums for AI alone, not even for the rest of it.
And it's not to regulate.
It's not to regulate it. It's it's to say, remove everything and go as fast.
As possible, right, let it rip.
If you had everyone in the world, I think here the conversation we just had and at a basic level common sense looking at your children in the eye and say are you stoked about that future? No one wants that. So the key piece of agency is going into the midterm elections not voting for people who have taken money from those AI accelerationist groups or don't have a position on AI. That's trying to steer away from these outcomes. Now, we obviously have to articulate that in a clearer way.
What does it mean to have kind of a pro human platform in future, and the companies try to make the conversation inaccessible, like oh, well, you don't understand a They're trying to make it seem like you don't know how to regulate live to put us in charge.
What they call this the under the hood bias, where it's as if people who know how to make the biggest engines know how to lay out cities and traffic lights, and it's just not true for people who know how to make car engines are not the best people for knowing how to make cars safe and.
Prevent recidents work exactly. So it's pretty simple. It's like, do you want an anti human future in which you will be permanently disempowered where no one has an incentive except for charity to pay your bills for you? And you you want the companies that took your job, you want to be dependent on them for the rest of your life to pay your bills for you with no
economic leverle no. So this is the final window. You know you want to vote for people who are going to protect you economically, protect you, socially, protect you, politically meaning protect our jobs, protect our vote, voting pro human and obviously that has to get articulated even more clearly. But that is the number one way that people can make a difference in the short term. There's other things too,
like boycotting companies that are enabling mass surveillance. You know, when the company's subscriptions you know, go down by a lot, they really need their numbers to be going up. So the companies are more vulnerable than you think, and you're more powerful than you think. Not just if you unsubscribe and boycott them, but get your company, get your church group to do that too, and when those numbers start to change, it actually has a difference.
Scott Galloway has been talking a lot about that as well. Absolutely got to use whatever power your disposal. Let's just briefly talk then about the power I mean, free and fair elections. We talk about truth trust more broadly, deep fakes, political ads. I mean I've seen stuff, you know, meetings, conversations I've had that are I mean next level what's out the you yes, just the bs, it's already out there.
The ability to manipulate the crowd and the context of you know, social media, the algorithms I mean, now you've got you know, concentrated in the hands of a few in that respect, I mean that whole thing. I mean you you guys have talked about free and fair elections. We talk about the timelines not only in job displacement, but timelines to get this right domestically globally. I mean twenty twenty six, you're talking mid terms. I mean this is I mean, we only have a few more at
bats to get this right. That's right? Or is that overstated? No, it's a few more.
Certainly by twenty twenty eight, Like that'll be the last human election. Like it's going to be AIS running all of the election, election campaigns, the ads, doing all the both the information and disinformation, because human beings just can't operate at that speed and are not that effective.
Yeah, so this is it.
This is the window. But and I know, I just want to like get the human experience level. We've been talking about some hard stuff, the last little level, and you know, I just want to say, you know, we struggle with how to communicate this in a way that's responsible, because here's the trade. Right, it's hard to face this. But if we don't face it, we just like, look away,
what are we going to get? We're going to get the default anti human path, and so there's this trade where we the only way out is through like it is. We call it kind of like a rite of passage, like our ability to confront basically a shadow of a
technology and the default future that that brings. If we can see that clearly, and if we can know that, you know, and I know that we don't want that, and if g and Trump and you know, the people at the highest levels of these governments, Because you ask any reasonable person at a very high level of national security on any side, and you say, do you want AIS that are going road can hack into any computer system and are already mining cryptocurrency? Does that sound good
to you? Does that sound safe to you? At a universal level, it's not. So there's actually much more common ground. And even you know forty se I think it's already the case that fifty seven percent of Americans think that the risks of AI currently outweigh the benefits. I don't like that stat because it makes it too like it's all bad versus all good or something like that. There's already the pro human AI Declaration, where forty six groups came together and said, we agree on these five principles
to make a pro human future. You can look it up. It's human Statement dot org. That's the one that also includes again Glen Back, Bernie Sanders, Steve Bannon, all these people. I believe it's sixty five percent of Americans believe we should not create superintelligence until we know how to do it provably, safely and controlled. Sounds like a pretty basic thing,
like let's not do something. It's like, should we build a nuclear bomb that until we know how to do it safely or nobody won't set off of if we won't ignite the atmosphere, Probably we should wait to do that. So this is not a radical proposal.
This is not do you want to know how many, like what percentage of Americans think that we should just go as fast as possible, unfettered, non regulated AI. What percent of Americans? Five percent?
Literally, yeah, literally five percent.
So actually it's the most popular to run on. That's right to do the like the safe thing, And.
It's whether you're a Democrat or Republican, you don't want to be surveilled by AIS. Whether you're Democrat Republican, you don't want AIS taking your jobs, which it will do equally to both sides.
But do you then subscribe to the burning AOC frame just shut down the data centers and moratorium.
And tell I think of it as those data centers, and it's like I want a pro human data center policy. It's like, you get to build the data center when these conditions are met and we know that it's a pro usure. I'm not saying that's easy. I'm not saying no articulation that because I want people to hear. It's not just no to all of it. It's making sure
that the conditions are the steering is built in. So when you see that data center, you should ask, is that data center here to basically enhance my life and strengthen my family.
You were even just saying data center was solar. Mostly data centers aren't solar.
That's right.
We're turning back on cold plants. That's right, old natural gas plants that are exactly yea.
Often in the sci fi movies, when is it the case that human beings act actually stop all their bickering and they start coordinating, it's when the aliens come, right, Yeah, we are summoning the demon. We are summoning the alien. And if we can see it that way, then it's sort of like a Game of Thrones, winter is coming. We have to understand winter is coming, then all the fighting in West Ros can like pause for just long
enough that we can deal with it. That's this moment, because otherwise it just feels completely hopeless, like how are we going to deal with all the finance reforms when we can't when has Congress actually done anything? And yet there is this one moment where like all of humanity is on one side, there is a human movement. That's
what I think the social media stuff shows. If we don't think of this as just an AI problem, but as a technology encroaching onto our humanity, overreaching into our humanity problem, then actually there is massive momentum, more than we ever thought was possible, because what we have to do is juice those like the momentum that's already there.
Yeah. Well, look, in the absence of a federal leadership, California will continue to assert itself. I believe in the power of emulation successfullys clues will continue to try to iterate on this and lean in. But look this, you know the clarity of you guys bring to this conversation, The importance of this conversation being brought to scale and brought it into consciousness and the imperative of seeing this documentary again. The documentary is called.
The AI doc or How I Became an apocaly optimism.
And we can't let that slip twice because you've used a word that people are not familiar with, which is a good way to end, and that is this convergence of optimism and pessimism, a little more optimism than pessimism in a better place.
And it's about agency. And I'll just leave you with a quote that I loved from a meditation teacher who talked who happened to be a meditation teacher, and it's from the Army Corps of Engineers, which is that the difficult we do today, the impossible takes just a little longer.
Like it, and just end by saying it really actually isn't about being an optimist or a pessimist, because to choose that label for yourself, it's a sort of it's to take a backseat, like to sit down and just be like, I'm just going to accept that it'll either come out well or not, versus taking responsibility for trying to see clearly to shift the world to go well and I think that's what everyone listening can can do, is that this can all feel like too big? What
can I do? And then you realize even like the like the CEOs of the company sort of feel a similar way. But this is not just about what we must do. This is fundamentally a question of like who we must be. That if we are the kind of people that aren't looking for a path, and the path is certainly not clear, doesn't seem obvious or even possible. But if we're the kind of people that don't look for the path, we definitely won't find it.
If it's there.
If we are the kinds of people that do look for the path, then if it's there, we have the opportunity to find it.
And just maybe one last thing is people listening to this, this is a lot. Your role is not to take on this whole problem. You don't have to do that. There's some people who are soldiers and there's some people who are civilians. But your role is to be part of the collective immune system against this anti human future. One simple way you can do that is to share this conversation yeah, with literally the most powerful people that
you know, and ask them to watch it. And to share it with the most powerful people that they know. And if you've done that, you can say, as long as you are spreading the word and being part of that immune system, you can rest at home, kiss your children at night, focus on the things that all of this is about anyway, which is what do we love
about the world, what do we love about life? That we want to continue and come from that place because that is the energy that we will that will inspire other people to want to take those other actions too.
And I know, Kevin, you ended up watching an earlier presentation that we did the Aidlemma. Yeah, I think somebody said that you watched it like three times and share with all your staff. How did you end up hearing about it?
Well, I mean, come on, hearing about it from you guys. You guys. I was able to get the early early preview from the two of you, and I was able to devour it, took notes, and then shared it universally with everybody around me. Look, you know, the spirit of you guys just DoD it. I couldn't agree with you more. This notion of agency is so important, and we talk about that on the podcast all the time. But this notion of the future. It's not something to experience, something
to manifest futures inside of us. And so it's decisions, not conditions.
That's exactly.
And so this idea that we are powerless, it's just bullshit. It's complete bullshit. Everything that we laid out is an opportunity to do better and be better. And I think the spirit of the calt arms for everybody, as we all have a role to play, and those roles are different, and no one has to be you know, you don't have to be overwhelmed. But this notion of just being present in the conversation and and and in the conversation and sharing it, I think is foundational. So, guys, this
is really important. The timeliness of this conversation it cannot overstate. And so I'm very grateful for you to be out on the road all across this country sharing this remarkable documentary. I encourage everybody go out and watch it and more importantly, share it and not fall prey to any of the citizensm and negativity. Maintain your sense of optimism again, we can shape the future. Thank you both