You know, I think hopefully we can have an outcome that is half similar
to the n Bank's culture books, which is I think probably the best enbitioning
of a semi utopian uh AI future. And I think the best we can
do is it's definitely gonna happen, so and it's happening fast, so that
I think that really we just want to want to try to steer it in
as positive a direction as possible, to try to do whatever we can to
increase the probability of a great future. For this, I think the way
in which sort of an AI or an a g I is created is very
important. You kind of do kind of like grow grow an a g I.
It's it's almost like like raising a kid, but that's like a super
genius, like godlike intelligence kid, and it matters kind of like how you
raise the kid. You know. One of the things I think that's incredibly
important for AI safety is to have a maximum sort of truth seeking and curious
AI. So I thought a lot about AI safety, and my ultimate conclusion
is that the best way to achieve AI safety is to just just just grow
the AI and again into you know, in terms of the foundation buddle and
the fine tuning to be really truthful, like like don't don't force it to
lie, Like even if the truth is unpleasant, it's very important don't make
the AI lie. In fact, the you know, the sort of one
of the we really the core the core plot premise of two thousand, you
know, two thousand and one in Spaced Odyssey was things went wrong when they
forced the AI to lie, you know, like the the the a I
was not allowed, uh, let the crew know about the monolith that they
were going to see, but it was also had to take the crew to
the monolith. And so the conclusion of the AI was to kill the crew
and take their bodies to the monolith. And so the lesson there being,
uh, don't force an AI to to lie or do things that are axiomatically
incompatible, like to do two things that are actually mutually impossible. So you
know, that's what we're trying to do with with x AI and and Bronck
is to say, like, look, we wanted to have a maximually truthful
AI, even if what it says is not politically correct. If you wanted
to focus on being as active, if you're getting you're getting a round of
applause from the audience on on on those comments here. Uh, you know,
I saw your tweet the other day. I had I had Ray Kurzweil
and Jeffrey Hinton on stage with me yesterday, as well as Mogadot and then
Eric Schmidt and a number of individuals, and I saw your tweet about Yeah,
Ray was generally correct ahead of many people. But we're likely to have
call AGI what you will have AGI next year and then by twenty twenty nine,
having AI equally intelligent to the entire human race. Speak to that speed,
because that is insane. Yeah, So, I mean I have to
give credit to Ray Criswell and being actually remarkably accurate in his predictions. So
and in fact, if anything like, I think he was perhaps but conservative
in his predictions. So, I mean, if you look at the amount
of AI compute and the talent that the sort of human talent that is going
into AI, and the amount of compute that's going into AI, it's,
you know, at this point, it's it's appears to be increasing by a
factor of ten the AI compute, the dedicated AI compute, it appears to
be growing by a factor of ten every six months. You know, like
so it's like like leasically close to I'd say it almost like a one hundred
x improvement per year at least for the next few years. And AI compute
coming online, and it seems like probably a lot of the data centers,
maybe most of the data centers that currently do kind of conventional compute will transition
to AI compute. So it's it's something a good time to be in video
obviously. It's like, you know, and you're gonna also give credit to
to Jensen and the video team for kind of seeing this coming and making what
at least currently is the best AI hardware out there. So so so when
you have that that level of compute growth and it's it's sort of muzzful on
steroids next level, you know, in terms of how much computer is coming
online, then you're you're just gonna have acceleration that is unprecedented that In fact,
I've never seen any technology grow as fast as as AI. And I've
seen a lot, you know, I've seen things fast, but I've never
seen anything this fast. But you know, like I said, I think
the most likely outcome is a positive one, and you know, I think
in that positive scenario, there's still challenges of like, well, how do
we as humans still have relevance? You know, how do we find?
How do how do we find? But I mean I think that's sort of
a high class problem to say, like, well, look, the computers
are so good at doing everything, and and and like I said, I
thought your book was pretty accurate in terms of the future being being one of
abundance, where essentially goods and services will be available in such quantity that that
really they will be available to everyone. Like basically, if you want something,
you could just have it essentially because if you've got AI and robotics,
the cost of goods and services is almost nothing. So you know, if
if if you think of like what is an economy, and economy is basically
a number of people times average productivity per person at the point in which you
have say advanced robotics, and this, you know, this tells us developing
optimists. We were obviously without cars, which are really robots on on four
wheels, and the you know, with the the latest version of full self
driving, which is AI end to end photons in and controls out, it
really is it's really fully AI at this point, and it looks like a
car, but it's really a robot on on wheels and uh, and then
you add the humoroid robots in there, there's there's really no limit to what
the economic output, no, no meaningful limit to what the economic output would
be. So you know, looking on the bright side, the we are
headed for a future of abundance that I think that's the most likely outcome.
And I think the only scarcity will that that exists will be scarcity that we
just decide to create artificially. Like let's say we just decide that there's a
unique work of art or something. Okay, well it's just you're just it's
just artificial scarcity. But but any kind of goods and services I think will
be extremely abundant. Well when when, when things are changing rapidly, the
ability to predict the future I think is, uh, it becomes a lot
harder because of the rate of change is so great. But I think some
things are fairly obvious to predict, which is that we'll have AI or HI
that's at a level that it can really do almost any cognitive I think really
not almost really any cognitive task. That's just a question of when one could
debate, is it you know, smarter than any human at the end of
next year or is it two years or three years, But it's not more
than five years, that's for sure. So yeah, and I give prediction
on predictions. Predictions I'm sort of saying, giving predictions of the fiftieth percentile
of probability. So not not not like it will definitely happen, but if
you say, what if you ask me, like, what's the fiftieth percentile
where it's like the you know, you're kind of over under is kind of
even that, that's where I why why I think it's probably at the next
year before AI can do better than any individual human could do. And then
but there's a it's a it's a much higher bar to say, well,
is this well than you know, human intelligence selectively, But if the rate
of change continues that that's why I think probably twenty twenty nine or maybe twenty
thirty is where digital intelligence will probably exceed all human intelligence combined. And and
then I think it's always help us to look at these like fundamental ratios,
you know, sort of physics first principles approached to looking at things and and
and probabilistic. Yeah, so yeah, it's probablistic. So the yeah,
so if you look at the ratio of digital to biological compute, so like
like you know all of say, all of the higher level cognitive If you
sum up the higher level cognitive capacity of humans and then what is the and
think of that as the compute, then well and then compare that to what
what is the digital compute, and the rate in which this is growing is
just buggles the mind. So that's why I think it's you know, I
think twenty twenty nine or twenty thirty or thereabouts is is it's not a that's
I think a reasonable timeframe for where you'd expect the cumulative digital compute to probably
exceed the cumulative biological compute of higher level brain functions