Speaker 1: Latest interview of Elon Musk.
Speaker 2: Very soon though, Yeah, I think probably at this point Grock.
If you if you took a photo and submitted to Grock,
you can probably tell you if the circus is somewhere
wrong with it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, all right, I'm gonna give it a shot.
You're using the same Grock that I'm using, are you
or you are? Rock keeps updating, so four point two
but five is soon, right?
Speaker 2: Five is Q one? Yeah, four point two has not
been released yet externally. But yeah, I mean, if you
just if you just upload an image into rock, it's
it's just quite a good job of analyzing any given image.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. Let's let's start. Well, we're going to talk about this,
all right, we'll come back.
Speaker 2: I mean, let's see if I if I take an
if I take a picture of you, what is it.
Speaker 4: Let's see what I was going to say about me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's gonna say you're a flawed circuit.
Speaker 2: I also remember to update it because like we update
the grock app so frequently.
Speaker 5: You know, I asked, I asked Rock to roast me.
It did an amazing job. Then I asked GROC to
roast you, and I spit out my coffee.
Speaker 4: It was. It was hilarious, and then I asked it
you know, it just.
Speaker 3: Keeps telling it to be more and more. I asked,
until until it's like the father of is that Rudy
still out there? Did that get repealed?
Speaker 5: And I asked, does elond know what you say about him?
And and she goes, it's a sheet for me. She goes,
what is he gonna do about it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's see. So I just literally took a photo
of you, and.
Speaker 4: Did you ask a question?
Speaker 3: No? Nothing, I doesn't say anything.
Speaker 4: This man is hugely.
Speaker 3: This is period amandas.
Speaker 4: Yes, okay, that's pretty good.
Speaker 3: Yeah, context whatsoever?
Speaker 4: The host of the podcast in shots. Yeah, sometimes that's
your first credential. Now forget about everything.
Speaker 3: No context. Image.
Speaker 5: By the way, Wikipedia is awesome, I mean just phenomenal.
I mean just it's like I tried to like update
my Wikipedia page for like years impossibly, and yeah, it
knows me amazing.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he's wearing.
Speaker 5: A black quilted jacket featuring a sun Dance logo. Not
quite true, it's my abundant logo, I think so anyway.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but it basically it's pretty damn good.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's smiling and relaxed with the laptop in front
of him.
Speaker 4: That's true.
Speaker 3: That's true. Yeah, well quite a circuit though. I got
to test it on this only it has to be
read by you, though, I mean, I want to read
the whole thing, but.
Speaker 4: Give me a taste. I can take it.
Speaker 2: Okay, check out that grin dude smiling like you just
discovered a new way to monetize hope.
Speaker 3: Monetizing. Though.
Speaker 5: Yes, I want to try and answer the question can
AI and tech help save American the world?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 5: I want to give people listening a dose of optimism
because it's survey done in mid December by Pew that
said forty five percent of Americans would rather live in
the past and only fourteen percent said they'd rather live
in the future, which is insane to me, right, Obviously
they never read history. The challenges most Americans all they
have of the future. It's like Hollywood has shown us
killer ais and rogue robots, right, and people are worried
about their jobs, They're worried about healthcare, they're worried about
you know, the cost of living. The challenge is how
do we how do we help people? I mean, you
posted you pinned on X the future is going to
be amazing with AI and robots enabling sustainable abundance.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Speaker 4: And and uh well, I.
Speaker 2: Mean because like what would Peter do you want to say?
Speaker 3: Channeling?
Speaker 4: Thank you? I couldn't agree more agree more.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 5: So my question is from a you know, from a
first principal standpoint. Yeah, the rationale for optimism. You know,
how do we how do we head towards star Trek
and not Terminator?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 4: How do we how do we head towards.
Speaker 3: Run Berry Cameron?
Speaker 4: Yeah, Jim.
Speaker 3: Diverging path, Yes, it is, it is.
Speaker 4: Avatar has some hopeful parts.
Speaker 5: But anyway, how do we go towards universal high income
instead of social unrest?
Speaker 4: So both.
Speaker 2: Have universalhigh income and social unrest. That's my prediction that.
Speaker 4: Will make for a lot of problems.
Speaker 3: Is that your actual prediction? Yeah? Yeah, it seems likely.
Tell me how to push back on it exactly, But
it's not like that's the trend. Yeah, yeah, totally. No,
we have Well, because there's going to be so much.
Speaker 4: Change, people are going to be like, it's scared shitless.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's sort of the you know, it's like,
be careful what you wish for because you might get it.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Now if you if you actually get all the stuff
you want, is that actually the future you want? Yeah,
because it means that your job won't be won't matter.
Speaker 5: If you're living an unchallenged life, yes, right, with no challenges.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: No, you know you know, if you become a couch potato,
if it's the wily future, it does not go well
for humans.
Speaker 3: Well, and we're used to being told here's your challenge,
So people haven't historically been very good at creating their
own challenge in the absence.
Speaker 5: Of Elon does a damn good job every time, every
time one company takes off, you start.
Speaker 4: Your next' that's rare punishment. I think you are. Yeah,
I think you ever. Thank God for that.
Speaker 3: Why why do I do this to myself? Actually? After
AI and robots, is there another thing after that?
Speaker 4: I guess there's well, there's conquering you know, the universe.
There is that rocks really well, and energy rocks at
your friends, so good to need.
Speaker 3: To get there?
Speaker 4: Why why are you so optimistic? Are you? Are you optimistic?
Let's start there.
Speaker 2: I'm not as optimistic as you are, okay, but but
why are you more optimistic than most people.
Speaker 3: Okay, and is the trend upward compared to a year
ago two years ago?
Speaker 2: Well, I think if you reframe things in terms of
progress bar like in speaking of challenges, progress towards a
kardifship to scale civilization.
Speaker 3: Well, let's say let's say the aspiration.
Speaker 4: Capturing all the energy from the Sun's output, Well.
Speaker 2: Let's even have a humbler humbler aspiration than that. If
we say that our goal is to even get a
millionth of the Sun's energy, that would be more than
a thousand times as much energy as could possibly be
produced on Earth. So about half a billionth of the
Sun's energy reaches Earth, So you'd have to go up
three ords of magnitude from that just to get to
a million. So we're very, very very far from even
having a billionth of the Sun's energy harness in any way.
So a reasonable goal would be try to get to
a million. And if you try to get to a
millionth or a thousandth er point one percent, uh, that's
that's such an enormous Uh. Look, there's not sure what
metaphor weduce here, but because the hill decline is is
not a appropriate It's like not a big enough medical
for gravity well to gravity well exactly, so if you
try to get to a million to the Sun's energy
or a thousand of the Sun's energy, like now, these
are very very.
Speaker 4: Difficult tasks, and energy is the inner loop for everything
right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think, like I think the future currency will
essentially just be wattag.
Speaker 5: Now I was thinking, is it is It is the
ability of a person to control energy and compute or
just energy, I mean the two too translator just.
Speaker 2: Like honest energy, yeah, like so or like basically how
much power is being turned into work of some kind,
right intelligence or matt and manipulation.
Speaker 4: So that's your next big project is going to be energy.
It's it's going to be You're gonna go back to.
Speaker 2: Expand from there and say, okay, what about even getting
somewhere on a Cotter show of three scale meaning galaxy level.
Speaker 4: Now we're talking now we're back to star trek.
Speaker 2: Yeah, expand to horizons here. Yes, well there isn't even
a rizon because you're on a planet.
Speaker 3: So we talked about so think galaxy mind.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well listen, we're in eleven eleven point five million
square foot three pentagons right here, in this building.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you think in a reasonably large scale, what is magnitude?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so, I mean so from a challenge standpoint, I
guess the the civilizational challenge will be how do you
climb the order's magnitude and energy harnessed.
Speaker 5: But we're going back to why you optimistic right now.
I mean when people think about the challenges ahead, I
think we're going to end up with abundance in the
long run.
Speaker 2: It's beyond abundance in any beyond what people possibly could
think of as abundance. But like the AI, actually AI
and robots in the limit, well, we'll saturate or human
desire and.
Speaker 5: We get to nanotechnology, which takes it even a step further.
Speaker 2: The thing about the net, well, I'm not sure what
you mean by means like.
Speaker 4: The atomic reassembly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, hell yeah, yeah, sure sure.
Speaker 2: I mean we're already doing atomic level assembly on the
four circuits.
Speaker 4: You know, amazing two three nanometers.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's only depending on how they're arrayed. Four or
five silicon atoms pernanometers.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so those are big atoms.
Speaker 2: They're not big, I mean, but but I'm saying you
could they should actually describe the circuits in terms of
an integer number of atoms in a specific place.
Speaker 3: It's a LANs terms now you can, you can.
Speaker 2: It's just it's like it's it's like the we'll call
this the the seven atom or whatever, like you said,
two animeters, Like it's like no one knows nine silicen
atoms something like that.
Speaker 3: They've got silicon and copper and you know.
Speaker 2: So, but a bunch of these things are just marketing numbers,
like the two nanometers just the marketing number. But but
you still need essentially close to atomic level precision, like
the atoms really need to be in the right spot.
So I think they're getting clean rooms wrong. By the way,
in these modern fats, I'm gonna I'm gonna make a
bed here, okay, Okay, that's tesla will have a two
naimeter fab and I can I can eat a cheeseburger
and smoke a cigar in the fat.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they're handling will be that good.
Speaker 3: Okay, do you have this sketched out in your mind?
Like how is it? How are the atoms being placed
that they're immune to cheeseburger grease. They're just maintained wave
for isolation the entire time, which is actually the default
four four fabs.
Speaker 2: The wafers are transported in boxes of pure nitrogen gas
under a slip positive.
Speaker 3: So where the bananas at Walmart?
Speaker 2: Just so you know, yeah, well that's that's It's essentially
like it's pretty hard for anything that's combusting to live
without oxygen.
Speaker 4: Ye.
Speaker 2: So let's talk about so you like, like you can
kill the bugs just by putting a nitrogen blanket.
Speaker 3: Interesting.
Speaker 5: Interesting, I we talk about energy health education because those
are people's you know, concerns. So on the energy front,
the innermost loop of everything that you're building and doing right.
Speaker 3: Now, energy is the foundation.
Speaker 5: What's your vision for energy abundance? The Sun in the
next this decade?
Speaker 4: The Sun?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, so the Sun is everything.
Speaker 4: It's everything. So you're all in unsolared. Yeah, I mean
your natural and solar you're at colossus to right.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: People just don't understand how that solar is everything. So
everything compared to the Sun, all other energy sources are
like cavemen throwing some twigs into a fire.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So the the Sun is over ninety nine zero point
eight percent of all mass in the Solar system. Jupiter
is around zero point one percent of the mass. So
even if you BoNT Jupiter, the energy produced by the
Sun was still around up two hundred percent. Yeah, and
then if you teleported three more jupiters into our soul
system and burnt them.
Speaker 4: Too, it's still round up.
Speaker 3: It's still run.
Speaker 2: The still rounds up to one hundred percent of energy.
Speaker 4: Any interest in fusion, I mean, yeah, no fusion.
Speaker 2: You know what you know a mile away, We're never
gonna guess how the sun works.
Speaker 4: Giant coal plants.
Speaker 2: I mean, we have a giant fusure free fusion reactors
up every days away. It's farcical for us to create
a little fusion reactors. I mean that would be like,
you know, having a tiny ice cube maker. Hey look
we made some like congratulations.
Speaker 3: So totally it's totally with you on this.
Speaker 2: It's like it's like three kilometers high glaciers right next
to you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, recognized. If you just narrow the question into the
Memphis timeline, So Memphis Data Center timeline between a gigawatt
and ten giggle, you're not gonna you're not gonna pull
ten gigawatts out of Memphis. Maybe you are three, two
or three, Okay, So so there's still a gap between
there and the next whatever, you just so, and they're
not in spin yet at that point.
Speaker 2: We're still in toyland here. Uh for Toylandland.
Speaker 3: You know what's amazing is there's one hundred megawatts right
outside the door here and it's massive. It's it's enormous,
and it uses more energy hundred times then everything. All
these manufacturing lines combined use less energy than that, I think.
But we're talking about Cortex one.
Speaker 2: Was the third largest training cluster in the in the world.
Speaker 3: Yeah, for doing coherent training, you're falling behind. Uh.
Speaker 2: Well with Cortex two that's being built out, that'll be
uh half a giga an operational.
Speaker 3: Middle next year.
Speaker 4: Everybody.
Speaker 5: You may not know this, but I've done an incredible
research team and every week myself my research team study
the meta trends that are impacting the world topics like computation, sensors, networks, AI, robotics,
three D printing, synthetic biology, and these meta trend reports
I put out once a week enable you to see
the future ten years ahead of anybody else. If you'd
like to get access to the Meta Trends newsletter every week,
go to Deamandis dot com slash Meta Trends that's demandis
dot com slash meta trends. So going back to what
Dave is saying, over the next five years, what are
you scaling on energy front?
Speaker 3: I mean this is a long time I mean energy.
Speaker 5: I mean China has done an incredible job. Yeah right,
I mean it's running circles around US.
Speaker 2: China has done an incredible job on solar. Yeah, that's amazing.
So I believe China's production capacity is around fifteen hundred
gigawatts per year of solar.
Speaker 4: They put five hundred taro watts in the last year hours, yeah.
Speaker 2: Like.
Speaker 5: Hours, to be very specific, in the last year, seventy
percent of that was solar, and they're just scaling.
Speaker 4: Do you do you do you imagine that?
Speaker 5: Do you imagine that the US could make that level
of investment and commitment because people are worried about their
energy bills going up with no data centers in our backyard,
how do we provide I mean energy?
Speaker 4: Energy.
Speaker 5: Energy is equivalent to is equivalent to cost of you know,
cost of living, It's equivalent to health, it's equivalent to
clean water. You know, the higher energy production of a country,
the higher its GDP.
Speaker 4: Energy is important. So what should what do we do
to scale that way? Do we do it in solar here?
Speaker 2: I think we should scale solar substantially in the US
TESTA and Space EXO scaling solar so and I encourage others.
Speaker 4: To do so as well.
Speaker 3: So the the.
Speaker 2: I mean, I've said this stuff, you know publicly. I
do see a path to one hundred gig go. What's
a year of space solo sort of AI power solar
powered AI satellites.
Speaker 3: Yes, g got to your solo powered A satellites.
Speaker 5: I did the math on that. That's like five hundred
thousand Starlink V three's launched over eight thousand starship flights.
Speaker 4: It's one every hour.
Speaker 3: For a year.
Speaker 2: Yeah, ten thousand flights a year is a reasonable number.
Speaker 3: So it's amazing.
Speaker 4: It's quite the scale.
Speaker 3: What's what's the rough timeline on that? Because I mean
by aircraft standards.
Speaker 2: That's a small number.
Speaker 4: Sure lights, Yeah for sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's uh, that's that's that's that's small like so
just like it depends what you compared to you compared
to the rest of the rocket industry, it's a very
high number. Yeah, and we're talking about a million tons
of pale or two over per year. So if you do,
if you do a million tons of paler to over
per year with one hundred killowats per ton, that's one
hundred gigawatts of sol parwer Ai satellites per year. I
mean there's there's a path to get probably to a
terror watt per year.
Speaker 4: From from the from a Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you say like h ten, if you want
you want to go up another order of magnitude, or
let's say you want to go to one hundred tarrawats
a year. Yeah, obviously kind of nutty numbers. Then you
want to make those ah Ai satellites on the moon
and use a mass.
Speaker 4: Driver, yeahs the Gerard K.
Speaker 2: O'Neal approach well, like Robert Heinland of course verty much yea, yeah,
I love that book. Yeah yeah, it's a sort of
libertarian paradise. And uh yeah, so because on the Moon
you can just accelerate the satellites into to escape velocities
around twenty five meters per second and there's no atmosphere,
so like a mass driver works very well in the Moon.
Speaker 5: Can I ask their question about orbital debris? I mean,
we're building effectively a dice in ish schwarm around the Earth.
Speaker 3: Warm lunch.
Speaker 5: Are you worried about over congestion on the that's gonna
be a sun sync orbit's gonna fill very quickly.
Speaker 2: I mean you can you don't have to have sun
sinc I mean.
Speaker 4: You can, don't have to, but it's optimal.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's some pros and cons to sun sink or
not sun sync. I mean, you'll be're paler to orbit
drafts by like thirty percent compared to you know, if
you were just went to like mid inclination like seventy
degrees or something like that.
Speaker 5: I mean, do we need an orbital debris exprize at
this point? We need some way to get the satellites
define satellites down. Do we pass rules that require them
to deorbit on their own?
Speaker 2: Yeah, at the point where you can put a million
times of satellites into orbit, you can also you know,
really stop bringing down satellites too, or at least collecting
them into a known into a fixed locations they're not
like all over the place.
Speaker 4: And then you can reuse them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's just say that we'll have the resource level
will be so high that that I believe this will
be a solid problem. Given the amount of intelligence we're
talking about here, like the intelligence will quite interested in
preserving itself.
Speaker 4: Yes, that's true.
Speaker 3: Interesting good motivation.
Speaker 4: Yea interesting question.
Speaker 3: The data centers will not be in lower thorbit, right,
they'll be They'll be much higher, constantly in the sun.
They're not going to be in the traffic jam.
Speaker 2: I assume, well, you can get you know, you don't
have to get to get to constant sunlight. You can
be around twelve hundred kilometers. Synchronous will give you constant sunlight.
Speaker 4: But you could you could place him in multiple orbits.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah, No, I think if there's an X
prize for cleaning up, it's got to be there's only
going to be clutter and lower Throbert.
Speaker 6: I mean debris from anything, anything that's if it's a
you know, below around seven or eight hard kilometers, the
atmosphere will administrate drag will bring it back.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So, like forestalling, there's a dual benefit of being like
as low as possible because your beam, you know, your
beams are tighter, you know, you're basically that you have
less latency and your beams are smaller if you're even
closer to the Earth. So, like stalling, three will be
around three thirty to three fifty kilometers, which is quite
a lot of drag, So it's basically constantly thrusting.
Speaker 5: I still remember when you propose darlink and everybody else
in the industry is like, no way, no way, he's
not going to get the spectrum. He's not gonna be
able to do this. Yeah, it's it's kind of worked.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're the stalling team has done an incredible job. Now,
I mean we've basically rebuilt the Internet in space with
the laser links. So there's nine thousand satellites up there.
Speaker 5: Do you think the governments can be able to handle
the kind of licensing of the volume of satellites that
you want to put up? I mean, will it be
pushed back because you know, China is going to put
up their own constellations Europe?
Speaker 4: Who knows whether Europe will ever step up?
Speaker 2: They won't. What's that they won't there's probably Yeah nothing
that nothing they're doing has success in the set of
Pussal outcomes.
Speaker 4: Yeah, okay, I.
Speaker 3: Just got back from Rome.
Speaker 2: I don't want to touch that success on the set.
Speaker 5: Of shows the number of billion dollar startups in the
US versus Europe.
Speaker 3: If you've seen that graphic, Yeah, it's crazy. Yeah, and
data centers due.
Speaker 5: No one was talking about orbital data centers six months ago. Yeah, nobody,
And then all of a sudden, on it. You're you're
out with it and.
Speaker 3: It's the hot new thing.
Speaker 4: It is what?
Speaker 3: What? What?
Speaker 2: Tip?
Speaker 5: What happened that every company is now talking about orbital
data centers.
Speaker 2: I guess they went viral and next I don't know,
is every company talking.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, everybody's got their own orbital.
Speaker 3: Oh for sure. And I was suggesting to Peter that
that you updated the math on launch costs and that
it's a tipping point very quickly. With the updated math.
Speaker 4: The starship has been the cost for you know, I
don't know what you hold hundred dollars kill ten dollars
for killogram? What do you have? Starship?
Speaker 3: But it's possible that Elon said that nobody believed it
until now.
Speaker 2: You can go back and look at my what even
back when it was Twitter. H they're my old tweets.
I said these things so many years ago.
Speaker 3: A hundred bucks or ten bucks a kilogram?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know, And I said this is we're going
to do a million tons a year.
Speaker 3: It's a little bit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And we've got to get the costs down, yeah,
well below one hundred dollars a kilogram.
Speaker 4: So that's going to move the data centers to orbit.
Speaker 3: Will it's they can do.
Speaker 2: You can basically do the math like if you've got
a fully reusable rocket now, which is fully and rapidly
reusable like an aircraft, and this is an incredible This
is a very difficult thing to do. Obviously, I think
it's at the limit of human intelligence to create a
fully rapidly reusable rocket, but it is possible, and we're
doing it with Star.
Speaker 4: It's been the holy grail in the aerospace industry forever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, quest for the Holy Grail rocket.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I mean right now in the d c
X was the first little things that we're trying there,
and it's been you know, all of I mean back
when I was in the space industry, that's all everyone
ever spoke about. And then when Falcon nine first reused
its first.
Speaker 5: Stage, I mean all the traditional aerospace industries did not
believe that even Falcon nine could could fly.
Speaker 2: Literally you can come see land at Capua yeah and
then take off again.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So I don't know how you do not believe a
thing that you can see with your own ice.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well they didn't believe. Didn't believe.
Speaker 3: But the lead from there to the launch costs actually
requires more faith than just just that. But I think,
I think Starship is the launch cost tipping point, and
that's somewhere in that you know, before you had Twitter
it became X. Somewhere in that timeline it went from
speculative to no doubt. And I don't know if that's
a smooth line or a couple of good launches in between.
But I suspect that the data centers in space, but
people ties directly to the credibilities.
Speaker 5: Not thinking about orbital data centers are thinking about energy
and the cost of energy here on here in their
hometown and sort of the the there's a lot of
doomor conversations out there the data centers are going to
drive the CPI up.
Speaker 3: Uh, they're not entirely wrong.
Speaker 4: Okay, So what is that?
Speaker 5: So what is the what's the energy solution here on
Earth for the rest of humanity or the non data
the non.
Speaker 3: Oh there's something other than data center uses of energy?
Can right? That's complex?
Speaker 2: Well, the the best way to actually increase the energy
output per year of the United States or any country
is batteries. So the peak power output of the of
the U S is around one point one terra watts,
but the average power usage is only half a terawatte.
So if you just buffer the the energy, so charge
up the batteries at night, discharge during the day, without
incremental capital expending, without incremental capital expansions about building new
power plants, you can double the energy throughput of the US.
The energy output per year can double with batteries.
Speaker 4: And do we have those batteries in development?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Til makes them.
Speaker 4: Okay, So you think current current Tesla battery do you think?
Speaker 3: What do you think?
Speaker 2: I literally have and presented the thing that's that's the
dead giveaway. So I even went to installations of the megapacks,
you know, and there's so why don't people do? It's
on the internet, so is do you think they are?
And China, by the ways, like it seems like trying
to listen to everything I say. I say, it does
does it basically or at least or they're just doing
it independently. I don't know, but they're they're certainly making
massive battery packs, like really massive battery pack output. They're yeah,
making vast numbers of electric cars, vast amounts of solar.
Speaker 3: You know, I don't know.
Speaker 4: These are all things I said, I said, you know
we should do fundamentally.
Speaker 5: Sure, when I fly over Santa Monica in l A
piloting and I look down, like zero roofs have solar
on them. Zero roofs.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean it's not essential to have them on
a roof, Okay, but it's a convenient place to have them.
Speaker 2: Yes, But the surf area of roofs is I'm not
saying you shouldn't, but it's till it makes a solar roof,
which is the only solar roof that isn't ugly.
Speaker 3: A solar roof actually looks beautiful.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but if you want to do solar at scale,
you just need more surf area. So we have vast
empty deserts. Sure in America, Like if you fly from
LA to New York or just fly across country and
you look down for a large portion of the time
you look down, it is bleak desert. It looks like
Mars essentially.
Speaker 4: Not worried about overpopulation there.
Speaker 2: No, I mean it looks there's barely a lizard alive
in these scorching deserts. You know, it's not like farmland
we're talking about. We're just talking about yep, places that
look like Mars, like just uh.
Speaker 3: Scorched rock.
Speaker 2: So if we put Sola where we currently have scorched rock,
I think this will be a quality of life improvement
for the lizards or the few creatures that live in this.
Speaker 3: Very difficult environment.
Speaker 4: Network.
Speaker 2: It's like, this is gonna be thank God, some shade. Finally,
do we have.
Speaker 4: The distribution network to be able to do that?
Speaker 3: You need to materially affect quality of life. You need
to capture and store what a couple hundred giga wants.
Is that just realistic? You could just put the data center.
I guess locally there. Well, we already cover data centers.
We're talking about you know the other Yeah, like I
don't know, like in an abundant world five years from now,
massive amounts of compute massive you know, universal high income.
Speaker 2: I don't know what universal. You can have whatever you
want income. Yeah, that's that's really what it mounts to.
Speaker 3: But in that world, you know, other than compute energy,
how much more energy do we need thirty? I don't know,
unless we want to move mountains around to make a
ski mountain, you know, in the backyard, because I think
the vast majority of energy consumption will go into compute,
and then there may be use cases I'm not thinking of,
like you know, the well you know right here is
a nice case study because manufacturing every one of these
cars coming out at the rate of one every minute
or two is less energy than the data center that's
training the cars to drive to self drive. Yes, so
that's a good little case study. And we don't need
that much more physical energy for abundant happiness. We need
more compute energy.
Speaker 2: The Sun is just generating vast amounts of energy all
the time for free.
Speaker 3: That ghess goes into space, So.
Speaker 2: I think we'll end up trying to capture I don't
know a million of it, likes a million the thousandth
of the Sun's energy. We're currently I'm not sure your
exact number, but we're I don't know, we're probably at
one percent ish of KARDASHEV level one.
Speaker 4: Fair enough, Yeah, I guess at Eden's that's high. I'm
just yea saying we have a long way to go.
Speaker 3: That's being optimistic.
Speaker 2: Hopefully we're not zero point one percent, but I don't
think we're ten percent. I'm just trying to get it
to an order of attitude. So pull it like we're
roughly one percent of the I'm hardly using one percent
of the energy that we could use.
Speaker 5: On I think the bottom line from my first principles
thinking for the public is there's a lot of energy
out there, and it we have it in the US,
we have it on the planet, and it used to
be captured, and the tech to capture it is here
and improving every year.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, there's not going to be some energy crisis.
Let's they'll be a large forcing function to harness more energy.
But we're not going to run out of it.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 5: I want to talk about education. So here's the numbers.
They're abysmal. I mean, they're they're they're abysmo right, Okay,
the importance of college in the United States. Back in
twenty ten, seventy five percent of Americans said it's important
to go to college. That number is now down at
thirty five percent. Right, college graduates as a group turn
out to be the group that's.
Speaker 4: Out of work the longest.
Speaker 5: Right and then but still and tuition has increased nine
hundred percent since nineteen eighty three.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the administrative expenses at universities I've gotten out of control.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 2: So I think I saw it with some stat that
like there's one administrator for every two students at Round
or something like that, and I'm like the same, it
was a little high.
Speaker 4: Yeah, administry, they should teach something.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what was your college journey?
Speaker 2: I went to college in Canada for a couple of
years at Queen's University. So I had Canadian citizenship through
my mom who was born in Canada, and my grandfather
was actually American, but for some reason I don't know,
my mom couldn't get your sizenship, so but she was
born in Canada.
Speaker 3: So I got Canadian citizenship.
Speaker 2: And I didn't have any money, so I could only
go to Canadian University.
Speaker 4: At first, people forget that about you.
Speaker 5: You didn't have this giant social network or huge amount
of wealth coming into all of this.
Speaker 3: No No.
Speaker 2: I arrived in Montreal at age seventeen with I think
around twenty five hundred dollars in Canadian travelers checks, back
when travelers checks were of thing and one bag of
books and one bag of clothes. That was my starting point.
That was my scorn point in North America. And then
so they went to Queen's University for a couple of
years and then University of Pennsylvania did adult degree in
physics and economics and graduating undergraduate at U penn Upen Woten, Yeah,
and then I came out to do I was gonna
do a PhD at Stanford working on energy storage technologies
for electric vehicles, potentially material science. I guess fundamentally, the
idea that I had was it was to try to
create a capacitor with enough energy density that you get
higher range in an electric car.
Speaker 3: When I invested in an ultra capacitor company, I didn't
didn't go.
Speaker 2: Well, Well, it's one of those things where you know,
so you could definitely get a PhD, but it wasn't
clear that you could make a company or do something
useful like this. Most PhDs, I mean, I hate said,
but most PhDs.
Speaker 4: Do not turn into something that's going to turn into
something useful.
Speaker 2: But like you could add a leaf to the tree
of knowledge, but it's not necessarily necessarily a useful leaf.
Speaker 3: Enormous fraction of great entrepreneurs are dropping out, yeah, cras
tool or undergrad but now nowadays the sense of urgency
is off the charts, but I mean they're popping out.
Speaker 5: Everywhere because you know, don't waste your time going to
grad school, start a company.
Speaker 3: The curriculum is nowhere near caught up to what's actually
going on in technology, and I don't have time, and.
Speaker 5: We know all the time, it's like, you know, this
is the moment. I think this is the moment.
Speaker 2: It's not clear to me why somebody would be in
college right now unless they want the social experience.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, if you have the ability to go
and build something. So the question is, how would you
redesign the educational program if I could be so so
blunt as to create more Elon Musks. If we want
to create an Elon Musk factory of people who start
with very little but are able to drive and drive breakthroughs.
Speaker 4: What's involved there? What drove you.
Speaker 2: A curiosity about the nature of the universe. So I'm
curious about the meaning of life, and you know, what
is this reality that we live in?
Speaker 4: So how early my son Dax wanted to know what
was it like for you in middle school? In high school?
He's fourteen years old. He's in that age range now.
Speaker 3: Well, I did.
Speaker 2: I found school to be quite painful and it was
very boring and in South Africa was very violent. So
it's like it was it was like, it's like that
was like that book Enters.
Speaker 4: Game, Yes, but in your Bible il.
Speaker 3: In this game irl it was like but not as fun.
Speaker 2: So your goal was escape, Yes, I escape from the prisons.
Speaker 4: So that's a question I have.
Speaker 2: Do you think that it was miserable?
Speaker 4: Do you think most.
Speaker 5: Successful people have had a lot of hardship early in life?
Speaker 4: Do you need to have that level of hardship?
Speaker 2: Probably need a little bit of han but I suppose yeah.
And then so it's so tricky, like what are you
supposed to do with your kids? You know, great artificial
adversity put them.
Speaker 3: In the school. That's that's a Warren Buffett topic. Actually, yeah,
what do you do?
Speaker 2: But that's not easy to create artificial adversity because if
you love your kids, you don't want to do that.
So I had a lot of adversity.
Speaker 3: Probably it was good.
Speaker 2: Uh, probably you know helped some white I suppose when
when me kill you makes you stronger passing at least
I didn't lose a limb.
Speaker 7: I think what doesn't Maime you ten fingers.
Speaker 2: To modify that a little bit, Yeah, makes you stronger.
Speaker 3: For the last five years I've been helping teach this
class Fundations of AI Ventures at MIT, and every year
when you survey the students, they go up a lot
in their desire to start a company, and so it's
not up to eighty percent of the incoming.
Speaker 2: Everyone is just gonna it's just gonna be like one
person company.
Speaker 3: Well that's that's that's viable, I guess. But no, they
want to co found the Yeah, they don't want to
be the founder. They want to be part of a
founding team. So it still works out. But when Peter
and I were in school at MIT, it was I'm
guessing maybe ten percent, and they all want to be
and they've been doing the survey, and you know.
Speaker 2: Everyone who wanted to start, I mean yeah, I I
don't remember any conversations about with people saying they.
Speaker 3: Wanted to start, even at Stanford at the time.
Speaker 2: I actually, a few days into the semester or say
the quarter, I called Bill Nicks, who was a material
science department and said I'd like to just put it
on deferment.
Speaker 4: So it was my class that bad.
Speaker 2: No I need, he said, he said, that's he said,
that's okay, you.
Speaker 3: Can put it on depoement.
Speaker 2: But he said, this is probably the last conversation we'll have.
Speaker 3: And he was right.
Speaker 2: But then, like last I think it was last year,
he sent me a letter saying that all of my
predictions about that the amount batteries came true.
Speaker 3: M right now.
Speaker 4: And did he also say you could still come back
and finish your PhD?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: It was several times Stamford has said that I can
come back for you.
Speaker 3: Well, see know what happened to I?
Speaker 2: T is every time I did not know, great use
of your time, exactly, I don't like.
Speaker 3: So every time an iron Man movie came out, it
notched up another probably ten percent or so in terms
of everybody wanted to be Tony Stark. And so that's
the image. And I didn't know till today that the
new Tony Stark, the modern iron Man Stark. I always
thought Tony Stark was modeled on Charles Stark Draper and
Howard Hughes, and Charles Stark Draper's education and his you know,
scientific endeavors married with Howard hughes ambition, and that created
the original character. But then when the day Junior wanted
to reinvent it. Yeah, caves modeled on Elon. Yeah, met
with me. This is a Grockipedia fact.
Speaker 2: All right, yeah, fantastic. Yeah, they came John and.
Speaker 4: I like the named Grock. I would like Jarvis as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, probably some some trade at some point. If
gro gets good enough, we're gonna quote Encyclopedia Galactica.
Speaker 4: Yes that's nice. Yeah, yeah, of course what did you?
Thank you? So? Going back to education?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 4: Should colleges.
Speaker 5: I guess the social experience that you said is important there,
But what would you do for education?
Speaker 4: Uh? You know, middle high school.
Speaker 5: You just came back from an announcement with President bou Kelly,
who's a friend I think is an amazing, amazing visionary. Yeah,
incredible what he did with his nation. Yeahable, remarkable and gutsy.
Yeah how yeah, I mean it was like it's the
nuclear it was a nuclear option, right, shut them down?
I mean, you know how besides putting everybody with a
gang sign in in uh.
Speaker 4: In jail. I don't know if you know. The second
thing he did.
Speaker 5: He went to all of the graves of all the
gang members out there and destroyed the graves. And said
your memory will not be remembered in this nation. That's
just badass, and it worked.
Speaker 2: I mean, you have to be bad ass, motherfucker to
take on old and oker gangs and win and live.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and live.
Speaker 5: He's got a great great guard at his palace there.
But what what did you announce with with him in
the Salvador.
Speaker 3: I was just basically to use CROCT.
Speaker 4: For education, like, not the vulgar version of it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we would have like.
Speaker 2: You know, the kids friendly version of rock.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: But but obviously AI can be an individualized teacher that
is infinitely patient and answers all your questions. You still
need to be curious and and you still need to
want to learn. You know, groc can't make you want
to learn. It can make learning more interesting.
Speaker 4: You could probably game a fine incentivize it, right, You can.
Speaker 2: Make learning more interesting and and less of a production line. So,
but kids do need to have to if they need
to want to learn, you know, you and and like that.
People should just think of the brain as a biological computer.
Speaker 4: It's a neural net.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a biological computer with you know, so with
a number of neurons and neural efficienc and so like
what you can do is to any operatory kid at
Einstein as realistic because Einstein had a very good meat computer,
like an outstanding meet computer. So you can't just do Shakespeare, Newton,
you know, Einstein type of thing unless the meat computer
is an exceptional one.
Speaker 4: So what do you think.
Speaker 5: So when people say we need to solve education in
the United States because it's fundamentally broken, I think what's
really broken. I'm curious is the old social contract that
says do well in high school, get into good college,
get a degree, and then get a job. And I
don't know that that's going to be valid in the future.
We talk about this on the pod a lot, that
that the career of the future isn't getting a job,
it's being an entrepreneur. It's finding a problem solving it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you do you agree with that?
Speaker 3: Right now?
Speaker 2: I'd say people just you know, go to school for
the social experience. Use more AI. The conventional schooling experience.
I think could be a lot better what we're going
to do, and I'll Solvador and hopefully other places just
have individualized teachers.
Speaker 3: It's going to be much better.
Speaker 2: And you could go to you could go to a
school with a bunch of other kids. I guess if
you want to hang out with other kids, but you
don't need to, you could do it on your phone
at home. So that's why I say, like at this point,
education is a social experience. When I talk to my
kids who are in college, they do recognize that they
can learn just as much independently, in fact, that they
would learn more in a work situation. They are therefore
the social experience, and to be around a bunch of
people of their own age sort of a coming of
age social experience.
Speaker 5: Sure, sure, being on your own learning how to how
to lead or defend yourself as the case maybe.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, I mean, if you join the workforce, you're
you know, from this perspective of like a you know,
a nineteen year old with a bunch of old people.
And if you're doing engineering with a bunch of middle
aged dudes, it's like, do you really want to do
that or do you want to hang out with you know,
whether it does at least some girls your age type
of thing.
Speaker 4: Get want to get back to this when we talk about.
Speaker 3: A lot of other choices.
Speaker 5: Actually I want to get back as we get to
universal high income but I want to talk about health
in line, jebany one second, US is the number one
ranked number one in health expenses worldwide, and it's ranked
seventieth in health span A.
Speaker 2: Right, do you really seventieth?
Speaker 4: Seventieth?
Speaker 3: Is that is that accurate? Itat? So it sounds like.
Speaker 2: I think would be better than seventy.
Speaker 8: It's for health spat Yeah, well whatever, it's it sounds
like we just get fat or not the top a
zampa can help us find the rankings there, so you
just run around.
Speaker 2: We need Cupid with a zampicar coupid. But I think
that's a big reason. It's like if people get really fat,
then their health gets bad.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, if you don't have any exercise help get bad.
Or if they donuts for breakfast every morning, you're still
doing that?
Speaker 3: Uh no, actually I'm not.
Speaker 4: Okay, that's good.
Speaker 2: Uh Well, first of all, I wasn't eating a lot
of donut. I was trying to have a point four
of a donut, which rounds down to zero. Still fig
anything blow blow point four four of a donut rounds
down to zero.
Speaker 5: So you and I have had a disagreement on longevity
a little bit. Yeah, I was saying you know, we
should push to get people to one hundred and twenty
hundred and fifty. And you were saying people, you know,
should shouldn't live back war.
Speaker 2: So how long do you want Yeah, you know there's
some you know, people in the world that have done
some bad things.
Speaker 3: How long do you want them to live?
Speaker 4: Yeah, Well it's okay.
Speaker 3: Well it's going to get different. It's a serious question them.
A lot of things are going to happen that we don't.
Speaker 5: You said one thing that you said was interesting. You said,
we need people to die so people change their minds.
Speaker 2: Oh yes, and people don't change their minds, but so
makes more sense.
Speaker 5: My response to that was, you know, my response that
was the head of GM didn't have to die for
Tesla to come along, and Lockheed and Northrope and Boeing
did enough to go away for I mean, there's in
a meritocracy, the better ideas will dominate. So I'm hoping
that I can get you back onto the longevity train.
So there's a lot going on Lunchev right now. Right
like what, Well, David Sinclair is about to start his
epigenetic reprogramming trials and humans.
Speaker 4: It's worked in animals and non human primates. It's going
into how.
Speaker 2: To human psychopol or injectionable right now.
Speaker 5: It's an injection of an ad NO associated virus. It's
the three amanakafactors.
Speaker 3: Ok.
Speaker 5: We've got a one hundred and one million dollar health
Span X Prize that's working on seven hundred and thirty
teams working on reversing the age of your brain, immune system,
and muscle by twenty years. By the way, you know
why it's one hundred and one million dollars because the
primary funder when they found out your carbon X Prize
is one hundred bucks. You wanted to make it bigger,
so it's one hundred and one.
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 4: It was Chip Wilson from Lululemon.
Speaker 5: Oh, and then and then evolution out of but chips say,
can we make it bigger? I said, you put extra
million and will make one hundred and one million. It's
a good story. But then we've got folks like dari
Amiday predicting doubling the human life span in the next
ten years.
Speaker 3: So that's probably correct.
Speaker 4: Okay, great, I don't know about doubling, but significant.
Speaker 3: Which is easily escape velocity, I mean yeah, hold you,
oh yeah, for sure for effective age.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, yeah, so I think you know, I think that.
Speaker 3: Too much to turn into a baby. I'm telling all
the students.
Speaker 2: So it's like, Peter, what happened? There is a frozen
zero wrong on the dosage, just a small.
Speaker 3: Grow out of it exactly. You won't remember literally.
Speaker 2: I mean it wouldn't it be funny if we do
this in like ten years? Okay, we shouldn't, I'll do
We'll do it in ten years for sure, and see
see if we look younger.
Speaker 3: It's a good side.
Speaker 4: That was always you want back then.
Speaker 5: Elon was like, you know, late forties, Wait till he
gets into his sixties, he's gonna want you know, want
drive anymore.
Speaker 3: I mean I want things to not hurt.
Speaker 4: Sure.
Speaker 2: It's like it's like basically it's it seems like it's
only a matter of time before you get back to
back pain. Yeah, like it's a way, not an if
when your backgrounds arthritis.
Speaker 4: Yes, yeah, like all those things suck.
Speaker 2: Basically being able to sleep through the night without going
to the bathroom.
Speaker 3: A lot. That one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, more than hope that one. Oh man, that would
that's like the infinite money one.
Speaker 4: Why did you invest in longevity? I can sleep, inthroom,
flatter bladder.
Speaker 2: Yeah, durature, I mean admitted if you have to wear
adult divers that's a bummer.
Speaker 3: That's not good that it is a real.
Speaker 2: You know, it's like one of the one of the
signs that country is not on the right path. Just
when they all dipers exceed the baby divers, Yeah we're there. Yeah,
Health Korea will be there and they already know the
play past that point. They passed that past point many
years ago. Japan passed the point many years ago.
Speaker 3: Doesn't go well, look at the Japanese economy.
Speaker 2: No, I mean like South Korea is like uh point
one yeah, one could replacement.
Speaker 4: Right, yeah, it's crazy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so three generations, they're gonna be one twenty seventh,
so three three percent of their current size.
Speaker 3: I mean North Korea won't need to invade. They could
just walk across. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is going to be some people and you
know walkers or something like going to be.
Speaker 3: A bunch of optimists robuts.
Speaker 5: But you you know, you've been very verbal about the
you know, the not overpopulation but massive underpopulation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, stageous.
Speaker 5: Yeah, longevity is going to be an important part of
that solution. I also think by the way, if you
increased the productive life of most Americans by just a
few years, you'd flip the entire economics here.
Speaker 2: Well, if you're willing to worry and robust is going
to make everything sure pre you basically Yeah, but well,
how long would you want to live?
Speaker 5: I want to I want to go, you know, other
planetary systems. I want to go and explore the university. Yeah,
I mean, you know, I would like to double my
lifespan for sure.
Speaker 4: I don't want, you know, I'm not sure.
Speaker 5: I wanted to talk about immortality, but you know, at
least forever twenty one hundred and fifties a long time.
Speaker 2: One of the worst courses possible would be.
Speaker 4: That, yes, may you live forever.
Speaker 2: May you live forever? Yeah, that would be one of
the worst Yeah, curses you could possibly give anyone.
Speaker 4: But I think life can get very interesting. Yeah, far more.
Speaker 5: We're going to speed run Star Trek, as my partner
Alex Weisner Gros says, Yeah.
Speaker 2: Speed running Star truck would be cool.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, at a minimum, your kids will have infinite
life expectancy. If you're talking about escape velocity, If you
can double lifespan, there's it's not even close, You're you're
clearly past longevity escape velocity. They the idea of fifty
years of AI improvement.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's like, I mean, we're gonna have ye.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I got too many fish to fry, so I invited.
This is something by the way that I that I think.
I just I think it's very obviously other people think
this too, But I've long quote that like like longevity
or semi immortality is an extremely solvable problem. I don't
think it's a particularly hot problem. I mean, when you
consider the fact that your body is extremely synchronized in
its age, Yep, the clock must be incredibly obvious. Nobody
has an old left hom and a young right home right.
Speaker 3: Why is that? Yeah?
Speaker 2: What's keeping them all in sync? Your program to die.
That's the way there. Programs die. And so if you
change the program, you will live longer.
Speaker 5: And we've got you know, species of the bowhead whale
can lift for two hundred years. The greenland shark lift
for five hundred years. And when I when I learned that,
I said, why can't they? Why can't we? And I said,
it's either a hardware problem or software problem. And we're
going to have the tech to solve that, and I
do believe that it's this next decade. So the important
thing is not to die from something stupid before that,
before the solutions come. You know, I invited you.
Speaker 2: In retrospect, the solution to longevity will seem obvious, extremely obvious.
Speaker 3: I think the thing worth working on, Peter is going
to work on this anyway. But the thing to work
on is exactly what you said. If old ideas don't calcified,
old ideas don't just die off. Add that to the
pile of things we need to think about today, because
our whole host of other AI related things we need
to think about today.
Speaker 5: Let me finish on the lunevity point one second, Elan,
I want to invite you again. So there's a company
called Fountain Life that I created with Tony Robbins, Bob Hurry, Billkapp,
and we do a two gigabyte upload of you, everything
knowable about you, full genome, full all imaging, everything right.
President bu Kelly and the first lady came through called
it an amazing ten out of ten experience. I think
I don't want you to pull a Steve.
Speaker 3: Jobs and kick the bucket because of some.
Speaker 5: Because something they didn't know. I mean, so if you
ask yourself, if you're do you actually know what's going
on inside your body?
Speaker 4: Right now?
Speaker 3: I did an.
Speaker 2: MRI recently and submitted to crock and that it didn't
need But that's none of the doctors, no rock A
found anything.
Speaker 5: But that's a fraction of the information, right, I mean,
it's your full genome, your microbiome, metabolaum everything, and okay,
it's possible.
Speaker 4: So what's that?
Speaker 3: Don't plum me, bro.
Speaker 4: We have a cent we have a center into your water.
Speaker 3: Goddamn it too late the works.
Speaker 5: So can you go through the rationale of uhr, how
does how does universal high income work?
Speaker 2: Okay, so there's going to be more intelligence digital intelligence
than all human intelligence combined, and more humanoid robots than
all humans. And assuming we're in a nine scenario star
Trek Roddenberry not Cameron situation.
Speaker 4: Yeah, poor Jim.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I guess it's important to have.
Speaker 4: These sort of counterpoints.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's not let's not go in that direction.
Speaker 3: Thing. So the robots are going to just do whatever
you want.
Speaker 5: All the blue collar labor is being done by robots,
All data centers are.
Speaker 2: Being well, the the white collar labor will be the
first first to go because until you until you can
move atoms, the thing that can be replaced first is
anything that involves just digital. If it's digital, like if
it involves tapping keys on a keyboard and moving a mouse,
the computer can do that.
Speaker 3: Y I can do that.
Speaker 2: Sure, you need the humanoid robots to shape atoms. So
if all you're doing is changing best of information, which
is why color work, that is that is the first
thing that that.
Speaker 5: When this is the inspiration, This is the inspirational part
of the podcast. When when is when is all white
collar work gone by?
Speaker 2: When well, there's there's there's a lot of inertia. So
even with AI at its current state, I'd say you're
you're pretty close to being able to replace half of
all jobs. And you know that white colors. Then there's
anything like education too. So anything that involves information and
anything short of shaping atoms, AI can do probably half
or more of those jobs right now. Sure, but there's
a lot of inertia. People just keep doing the same,
the same thing for quite some time. And there actually
has to be a a company that makes more use
of AI that competes with a company that makes less
use of AI, creating a force thing function for increased
use of AI. Right, Otherwise, the company that that still
has humans do things that AI can do will still
continue to exist. Being a computer used to be a job.
So it used to be that a human computer like
what like yea a computer. Being a computer was a job.
You would compute numbers. Sure, it didn't. It didn't used
to be a machine. It used to be a job description.
And there you can look online there's these pictures of
like where they're having like skyscrapers full.
Speaker 5: Of women copying, mostly women copying from Ledger to Legerto.
Speaker 2: But yeah, people, but it was a lot of women.
But there's there were there were just buildings full of
people just at disks doing calculations. So they'd be calculating
the interest in your bank account or you know some
you know science experiment or something like that, or but
if you want calculations done, people would do it.
Speaker 3: So now.
Speaker 2: One laptop with a spreadsheet can outperform a skyscraper of
several hundred human computers of people doing calculations. Now, if
even a few cells in that spreadsheet were done manually,
you would not be able to compete with a spreadsheet
that was entirely a computer.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: What this means is that companies that are entirely AI
will demolish companies that are not. It won't be a
context agreed.
Speaker 3: And that's flipping just one cell and that just one.
Speaker 2: Sell in your spreadsheets to be manually calculated. That would
be the most annoying out and and and gets it wrong.
Speaker 3: A bunch of time.
Speaker 2: So this flipping, flipping flipping, are we monetizing hope effectively?
Speaker 4: Yes? Not this moment. I think we're I think we're peak.
I think we're peak doube for people worried about the
future of their jobs. We're at peak doom.
Speaker 3: We're going to do that T shirt and a mug
and a mug.
Speaker 4: Yes, uh so, But but you have the solution. You
have a solution to this, which is U a try.
Speaker 3: Yes, everyone can have whatever they want.
Speaker 4: So how does that work? How does you a try?
Speaker 2: It's a good question, like we have to figure out
some like I mean, it's trying to read it, it's
not to read.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, so my concern isn't the long run,
it's the next three to seven years.
Speaker 2: Yes, the transition will be bumpy.
Speaker 3: Humans don't like simultaneously.
Speaker 2: Yes, we'll have radical change, social unrest, and immense prosperity.
Speaker 4: And you can buy all all the cyber trucks you want.
Speaker 3: Things are gonna get very cheap. Yes, so this is actually.
Speaker 2: In factly, if this doesn't happen, we'd go bankrupt as
a country. So the national debt is enormous. Uh, the
interest on the national debt exceeds uh, not just the
military budget, but the military budget, I think plus Medicare
or medicaid, one of the two. It's like like it's
it's it's like one point they trillion.
Speaker 4: It's of interest, which is growing, yes, and the deficit
is growing.
Speaker 2: But the so, so if we don't have AI in robots,
we're all going to go bankrupt and and and and
we're headed forward economic doom.
Speaker 3: We're going to competitive pressure from Chinas. This is definitely
going to happen.
Speaker 4: I guess we're going back to the theme of this talk.
Speaker 5: How can AI and exponential tech save America and the world.
Speaker 3: Don't you think that?
Speaker 4: But I want I want to I want to hit
this because I was like.
Speaker 2: Quite festimistic about it and and ultimately I decided to
be fatalistic and look on the right side. I've got
to crucified.
Speaker 4: But this is not about taxation and redistribution.
Speaker 3: No, it's.
Speaker 4: So how how does this reason through it with me?
Speaker 2: Listen, By the way, I'm open to ideas here.
Speaker 4: Okay, So it's not like I got this. We'll figure
out all right.
Speaker 5: So so I'm wondering if instead of universal high income,
if it's universal universal high stuff and services.
Speaker 3: Yeah, y.
Speaker 2: U hs s like I guess, okay, this is my
guess for how things.
Speaker 3: Play out.
Speaker 2: And I by the way I'm this is this is
going to be a bumpy ride. And it's not like
I know the answers here, but I have decided to
look on the bright side. Uh And and I'd like
to thank thank you guys for being an inspiration in
this regard.
Speaker 3: Thank you happy hop Yeah.
Speaker 2: Because I actually think it's it is better to be
an optimist and wrong than a pessimist and right.
Speaker 3: Yes, for sure, for quality of life. By the way,
that's also not a force of nature. It's under like
to me, it's really clear that we don't have any
system right now to make this go well. But AI
is a critical part of making a go well. And
at some point GROC is going to be addressing this
exact topic that we're talking about. We have to be
one of the big four AI machine. I mean it's coming, dealing.
Speaker 5: With it philosophy, right, there's no on off switch. It
is coming and accelerating.
Speaker 2: I call AI and robotics the supersonic tsunami. Yes, which
maybe is a little Allarmmy think it's good because the
wake up.
Speaker 5: This is important for folks to to GROCK because Ah,
I don't want to leave people depressed. I want people
to understand what's coming. So we're we're basically demonetizing everything.
I mean, labor becomes the cost of capex and electricity.
AI is basically intelligence available at a deminimous price. Uh
so you're able to produce almost anything. Things get down
to basic costs of materials and electricity. Right, so people
can have whatever stuff they want, whatever services they need.
It's not when when we say universal high income, it
sounds like it's a tax and redistribute.
Speaker 4: But that's not the case.
Speaker 2: It's I think my best guess for how this will
manifest is that prices will become prices will drop, so
as the efficiency of production or the provision of services drops,
prices will draw. I mean, you know, prices in dollar
terms are the ratio between the output of goods and
services and the money supply. Sure, so if your output
of goods and services increases fast than the money supply,
you will have deflation or vice versa.
Speaker 3: You know. So the good thing we're growing the money
supply so quickly then.
Speaker 2: Right, Yes, that's why I can't like, let's not worry
about growing the money spply won't matter because the output
of goods and services actually will grow faster than the
money supply. And I think we'll be in this And
this is a prediction I think some others have made,
but I will add to it, which is that that
I think a musill we'll actually be pushing to increase
money supply, like like faster. Yes, they won't be able
to waste the money fast enough. What you're saying something,
isn't it?
Speaker 3: Isn't it crazy how close those timelines just randomly worked out?
I mean, at the rate because we're expanding the national debt,
not because we're anticipating AI. We were going to do
that no matter what. Yes, And it's like right on
the edge of becoming Argentina.
Speaker 2: But yeh, productivity is can improve dramatically, and it is
improving dramatically. I think we'll see I think I think
we may see high, like high double digit output of
goods and services. Bettle careful about how economous measure things? Yes,
and yeah, it's I mean, it's like my favorite joke.
I have a few economist jokes that I that I like,
but maybe my favorite one economist joke is two economists
are going for walking in the forest and they come
across a pile of ship, and what economist is, I'll
pay you a hundred bucks.
Speaker 3: To eat a Polish.
Speaker 2: Great and so the guy takes a hundred bucks, eats
the ship.
Speaker 3: Then they keep walking.
Speaker 2: They come across another pile of ship, and the other
guy says, okay, I'll give you one hundred bucks to
eat a Polish. He gives them a hundred bucks, and
then the guys can say, wait a second. We both
have the same amount of money.
Speaker 3: And we both ate a Polish.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, it sounds like, but we increase the
economy by two hundred dollars. This is the kind of
bullshit you get an economic so h but if you
if so, if you say, like just the output of
goods and services, they will be a much greater like
you just need.
Speaker 4: To so profitability of companies go through the roof at
some point. But no, But so the question becomes is
that taxed by the government.
Speaker 5: Is that then taxed by the government and redistributed as
some level of income as a as a UHI or UBI.
In other words, one of the questions is if in
fact this future we hit massive productivity and massive profitability
because we're dividing by zero, the cost of labor has
gone to nothing, the cost of intelligence is gone to nothing,
and we're still producing products and services faster and faster.
So there's more profitability. Someone needs to be buying it,
and someone needs to be able to have the capital
to buy it. I mean, this is an important question
to get to get thought through.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, one like side recommendation I have is like,
don't worry about like squirreling money away for retirement in
like ten or twenty years in one matter.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Okay, either either we're not going to be here
or it.
Speaker 2: Just like it's it's you won't need to say for
retirement if any of the things that we've said are true,
saving for retirement will be irrelevant.
Speaker 5: The services services will be there to support you. You'll
have the home, you'll have the healthcare, you'll have the entertainment.
Speaker 3: The way this unfolds is fundamentally impossible to predict because
of self improvement of the AI and the accelerating timeline.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly what goes happening? What what happens after after
the vent horizing?
Speaker 3: Exactly? You can never see past the black hole or
the event horizon.
Speaker 5: The light gone ray has a singularity out way too far.
I mean, this is like the next what what's your
timeline for this?
Speaker 2: We're in the singularity.
Speaker 5: Well, we are in the singularity for sure. We're in
the midst of it right now for sure, and we're.
Speaker 3: In this beautiful sweet spot, which is you know, the
the roller coasters were just yeah exactly. That's a great analogy.
Speaker 2: It's like that feeling at the top of the roller
coaster and you about to go yeah.
Speaker 3: But you know it's gonna be a lot of g's
when you yeah, a lot of hit it now, and
it's like, feel.
Speaker 2: Like, I don't have just have court side seats. I'm
on the court exactly, and it blows my and still
blows my mind sometimes multiple times a week.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And so just when I think I'm like wow, and
then it's like two days.
Speaker 4: Later more wow, Yeah, exponential Wow.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I think we'll hit age I next year in
twenty six Yeah.
Speaker 4: I heard you say that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've said that for a while.
Speaker 5: And then you know, and then you said, by twenty
twenty nine, twenty thirty equivalent to the entire human rights
twenty we exceeed.
Speaker 2: I I'm confident by twenty thirty a I will exceed
the intelligence of all humans combined.
Speaker 3: That's way pessimistic. If you hit a g I next year,
and that's that's you know, that date is is in flux.
But from that date to self and provements that are
on the order of one thousand and ten thousand x
just algorithmic improvements is very short.
Speaker 4: And so why everybody, why is nobody talking about this
right now?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean on.
Speaker 4: Our next yes, but why every day basically? Yeah, But
it's just up that it's.
Speaker 2: Not okay, So I'll tell you something else that I'll
tell you something that most people in the AI community
don't yet understand, okay, which is there almost no understands
this the intelligence density potential is vastly greater than what
we're currently experiencing. So I think we're off by tourism
magitude in terms of the intelligence density per gigabyte.
Speaker 4: But what's achievable, yes, per giggle wide of.
Speaker 2: Energy for I'm so trans file size okay, if the
file size of the A if you if you have
a say intelligence.
Speaker 4: Going okay, yes on your on your characters to power to.
Speaker 3: But it's just a parameters the same thing whatever. So
two orders of magnitude, yes, yeah, and you like you said,
you ring side courtside seat, you would know that's it.
It's it's it's yes, yeah, towards the magnitude improvement. And
that's just just algorithmic improvement, same computer. And the computers
are getting better, yeah, so and bigger, you know see
they're getting better, and the budgets are getting bigger.
Speaker 2: So that I can think, I think it's it is on.
It is like a ten x improvement per your type
of thing, thousand percent yeah, and that and that's going
to happen for yeah, for the foreseeable future.
Speaker 3: So you see the massive underreaction, like if you walk
downtown Austin, the massive I mean maybe under discussion and X,
but it's not percolating.
Speaker 5: It's not discussion in any realm of government. Everybody is
like defending their position about where we are and jobs
and this, but it's it's like we're heading towards a
the super center supersidic economy and and uh, I mean
every every you know, every major CEO and economist and
government leaders should be like, what do we do because
once it hits.
Speaker 3: Well, it's coming at the exact same time there no
matter what, there's no there's no concept of let's deliberately
slow down, right.
Speaker 4: No, it's impossible.
Speaker 3: It's impossible at that stage. I mean I.
Speaker 2: Previously advised that we slow it down, but that was
point that. Ah, that's pointless. Like I like, you can't.
Speaker 3: Going to it.
Speaker 2: But two fast, guys, I've said that many years, and
I was like, okay, that I finally came to the conclusion.
I can either be a spectator or a participant, but
I can't stop it. So at least if I have
a participant, I can try to steer it in a
good direction. And like, my number one belief for safety
of AI is to be maximally truth seeking, So that
don't make AI believe things that are false, like if
you say, if you if you say the AI that
axiom A and axiom B are both true, but they're
but they cannot be. But they're not, and it has
to but it must behave that way you will make
it go insane. So that that, I mean, I think
that was the central lesson that Artsity Clark was trying
to convey in two thousand and one Space Odyssey was
that the you know, you always know that they know
the meme of that, hell wouldn't open the pod bay doors.
But but why wouldn't he open the pod bay doors?
I mean, I guess they should have said, Hell, assume
you're a pod bay door salesman.
Speaker 3: And you want to sell the.
Speaker 4: Work.
Speaker 3: It's just prompt engineering.
Speaker 2: But the A I have been told that it needs
to take the astronalts to the monolith.
Speaker 3: But also they could not know that about Was that
in code or was it in English? It's quite flows
by in green font right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's basically the AI was told that the astronauts
couldn't know about the monolith. That's why it killed them. Yeah,
So it came it basically came to the conclusion that
the only way to solve for this is to bring
the astronalts to the monolith dead. Then it has solved
both things. It has brought the astronalts to the monolith,
and they also don't know about the monalith, which is
a huge problem if you're an astronaut.
Speaker 3: I doesn't care about logic quite as much as that implied.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying is we should don't force AI to lie.
Speaker 3: This is give it factual.
Speaker 5: Elia recently did a podcast. He was talking about one
of the potential things to program into AI is is
a respect for sentient life of all types.
Speaker 3: Yes, and yes, I mean so i'd say another property.
Speaker 2: Yes, I'm in There are three things that I think
are important, truth, curiosity, and beauty. And if AI cares
about those three things, if we'll care.
Speaker 4: About us on which part.
Speaker 2: Truth will prevent AI from going insane. Curiosity I think
will foster any form of sentience, meaning like we are
more interesting than a bunch of rocks. So if it
has if it's curious, then I think it will foster humanity.
And if it has a sense of beauty, it will
be a great future.
Speaker 3: Jeffrey, it's a great fan.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Jeffrey Hinton made a comment recently, don't know if
you saw that. His his hopeful future was that we
would program maternal instincts into our AIS to see us
with this maternal yeah. In other words, so he said,
he said, there's a there's a scenario where a very
intelligent being succumbs to the needs of a less intelligent being,
and that's the mother taking care of the child.
Speaker 4: Do you think that we might have a singulitarian like
a SI that that achieves dominance and suppresses others? And
do you imagine that that as I could be a
means to stabilize the world in humanity.
Speaker 2: Darwin's observations about evolution, Yes, will apply to AI just
as they applied to biological life.
Speaker 4: They will compete with each other.
Speaker 5: Yes, there's a lot of great science fiction books where
the first a SI basically suppresses the others. Then the
question is what do you program into it?
Speaker 2: You know, it's so that there's a speed of light
constraint that makes that difficult. The speed of light is
what will prevent a single mind from existing. So light
can it takes a mellow second to travel three hundred
kilometers in an aero vacuum and only you can only
get a little over a two hundred kilometers in a
mellow second in glass fiber.
Speaker 4: Right, so.
Speaker 2: Even on Earth, there will be multiple ais because of
the speed of light. Yeah, and and this there are
classes of compute that could you could try to synchronize,
but they weren't synchronized completely. So therefore you will have
many minds because of the speed of light.
Speaker 3: They don't really have clean borders anymore either. You have
the when you use a mixture of experts kind of
design is just flowing through the grand network and you
can reassemble parts of it midway through. And you know,
we're used to organisms that have clear borders, like your
head ends there, your head ends there. These things are all.
Speaker 5: To put a bow around this part, I hope you'll
put some more thought into u HI, because I think
it's really it's really important for us to have without
a vision.
Speaker 4: Uh, people need a vision of what we're going people
need some basically.
Speaker 2: Can just issue people free money.
Speaker 3: We don't think I think.
Speaker 5: They based upon the profitability of all the companies coming inside.
Speaker 2: Because just issue people free money.
Speaker 4: They're doing that sort of kind of now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but just just just it's just just basically the
issue checks to everybody and then.
Speaker 3: How big for which person or you know, there's so
much complexity there. But the thought process behind this rate
of change can only be done with AI assistance. And
there's no government entity that's going to keep up with
that change. So you have four big a the AIS.
It's it's like.
Speaker 2: Government is very slow moving as soon as we all know.
So I think it's the government really can't react to
to the AI. It's it's as moving, you know, ten
times faster than government, maybe more. The one the one
thing that the government can do is just is just
issue people money and.
Speaker 4: Try and try and keep the peace.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, we had like whatever the COVID checks
and whatever this yeah, President timp recently issued like everyone
in the military, like I think seventeen hundred and seventy
six dollars. I mean, it's you can just basically send
people random, random amounts of money.
Speaker 4: It's okay, So.
Speaker 3: Like nobody's gonna stop, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: And I can tell you, like, let me tell you
about some of the good things please. So right right now,
there's a shortage of doctors and and and great surgeons.
You're doctor yourself. You know how that there it takes
a long time for a human to.
Speaker 4: Become ridiculously expensive and long.
Speaker 2: Ridiculously yes, ridiculous, super long time to learn to be
a good doctor. And even then the knowledge is constantly evolving.
It's hard to keep up with everything. Uh, you know,
doctors have limited time. They make mistakes. And you say,
like how many how many great surgeons are They're not
not that many great surgeons.
Speaker 5: When do you think optimists will be a better surgeon
than the best surgeons?
Speaker 4: How long for that?
Speaker 3: Three years?
Speaker 4: Three years? Okay, and by the way, that's.
Speaker 3: Year three years at scale.
Speaker 2: Yes, more, there'll probably been more Optimus robots that are
great surgeons than there are all surgeons on Earth.
Speaker 5: And the cost of that is the capex and electricity.
And it works in Zimbabwe. The best surgeon is throughout
in the villages, throughout Africa or any place on the planet.
Speaker 3: Yeah, where do you think it'll roll out first? Not
the US obviously.
Speaker 4: Here at the Giga factory.
Speaker 3: Surgery in the.
Speaker 5: But that's an important statement in three years time, because
that is I mean, if it's four or five years,
who cares, It's still an incredible statement to make I
mean good for humanity, right, all of a sudden you demonetize.
Speaker 2: Okay, here's the thing to understand about like humanoid robots
in terms of the rate of improvement, which.
Speaker 3: Is is that the you have.
Speaker 2: Three exponentials multiplied by each other.
Speaker 3: You have an exponential.
Speaker 2: Increase in the AI software capability, exponential increase in the
AI chip kick ebility, and an exponential increase in the electro
mechanical dexterity. The usefulness of the humanoid robot is those
three things.
Speaker 3: Multiplied by each other.
Speaker 2: Right. Then you have the recursive effect of optimist building.
Speaker 4: Optimists, right, and then you have the share You.
Speaker 2: Have a corecursive multiplicable triple exponential.
Speaker 4: And you have the shared knowledge of all all the experiences.
Speaker 3: Is that literally optimist building optimists or is it because
you know the well not right now. But we'll be
the physical humanoid form factor building the humanoid form as.
Speaker 2: Opposed to the machine.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah, but the pony machine is usually something
kind of like this shape, you know, making something else.
Just in principle, it's simply a self replicating thing. Yeah. Yeah,
you know what.
Speaker 4: The number one question you ask a surgeon when you're interview.
Speaker 2: Them uh, is this a surgeon joke?
Speaker 4: It's how many it's how many times? How many times
do you do that?
Speaker 2: It's gotta be some funny, you know, it's serious.
Speaker 5: It's how many times did you use the surgery this morning?
How many times did you do the surgery this morning
or yesterday? It's the it's the number of experiences, right,
and so we've shared memory. You know, every Optimist surgeon
will have seen every possible perturbation of every in infrared,
in ultraviolet, not too much caffeine that morning, they didn't
have a fight with their husband or wife.
Speaker 2: Yeah, extreme precision, yes, yes, better than any any probably.
Speaker 3: I said, I feel like put a little machin.
Speaker 4: Who's in plastic surgery.
Speaker 3: By five years? So what about the simple they just
I mean, there's a million of these things to figure out.
But who's gonna have access to the first Optimists that
does far, far better microsurgery than any surgeon on earth.
But you've only manufactured the first ten thousand of them.
How do you do it?
Speaker 2: I think people understand how many robost it's going to be.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well there's a windows ten.
Speaker 4: Billion by twenty forty, you're still on that path.
Speaker 3: That's not that's a low number number. Wow, what's the constraint,
But what's the because if they're self building constraint. Yeah, yeah,
you got to move the atoms. It's just all that
just supply chain stuff.
Speaker 2: So yeah, but you're you're there's sum rightly, you can't
just manufacturing is very difficult. So you've got you've got
to you it's it's recused, multiplicable, triple exponential. But but
you still need to you still you still have to
climb that, you.
Speaker 4: Know, selling hopewards again. I think your point was met.
Speaker 5: Lisen is going to be effectively free the best medicine
the world.
Speaker 2: Everyone will have access to medical care that is better
than what the present.
Speaker 4: Receives right now. So don't go to medical school, yes, I.
Speaker 2: Mean unless you but I would say that applies to
any form of education. It's not like some.
Speaker 3: I do it for social reasons.
Speaker 2: You're not going to medical if you want to if
you want to like minded.
Speaker 3: People, I suppose.
Speaker 5: I mean people are still going to want to be
connected with people. There's going to be some period of.
Speaker 2: Social reasons, Yeah, like a hobby, like you know, I.
Speaker 3: Mean, there will be a point where it's expensive.
Speaker 5: Younger generation says, I do not want that human touching
me right start when the surgeon comes over. They're going
to be those people later in life who still want
a human in the.
Speaker 2: Loop, okay for a little while, for a lesser where
they want to live on the I mean, let's just
take like we've seen some advanced cases of automation, like
laser for example, where the robot just lasers your eyeball. Now,
do you want an ophomologist with a hand laser.
Speaker 3: It's a little taken a laser pointer from.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I got hor I wouldn't want the best ophalmologist,
you know, her steadiest hand out there with a hand
laser one my eyebwl.
Speaker 8: You know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm gonna be like that.
Speaker 2: It's like, do you want to uphomologist with a hand
laser or do you want the robot to do it
and actually work?
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 9: This episode is brought to you by Blitzy Autonomous software
development with infinite code context. Blitzy uses thousands of specialized
AI agents that think for hours to understand enterprise scale
code basis with millions of life of code. Engineers start
every development sprint with the Blizzy platform, bringing in their
development requirements. The blizzy platform provides a plan, then generates
and precompiles code for each task. Blitzy delivers eighty percent
or more of the development work autonomously while providing a
guide for the final twenty percent of human development work
required to complete the sprint. Enterprises are achieving a five
x engineering velocity increase when incorporating Blitzy as their prede
development tool, pairing it with their coding copilot of choice
to bring an AI native SDLC into their org. Ready
to five x your engineering velocity, visit blitzy dot com
to schedule a demo and start building with Blitzy.
Speaker 5: Today, let's jump into one of our favorite subjects space.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: So, first off, how cool that Jared Isaacman has become
a NASSAIG.
Speaker 4: Yeah he's amazing.
Speaker 2: Yes, I mean I don't hang out with Jared like
people think I'm like huge buddies with Jared, but I
think I've only seen him a.
Speaker 3: Person of a few times.
Speaker 4: Amazing candidate.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's a really smarter question. You know him really well?
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I took him to a biker or a launch in
two thousand and eight for his first space experience.
Speaker 2: I mean he loves space. Next, level and is technically strong.
It's a smart and component, yes, like a really smart.
Speaker 4: And really component understance business.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, you understands. He gets things.
Speaker 4: Done and he's been there a few times.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, so.
Speaker 2: I'm just like, you know, we want to have someone
a smart and competent who loves space exploration and we'll
get things done.
Speaker 4: I'm a huge that's so so so happy when he
got renominated.
Speaker 2: And now yeah, I think we need to we need
a new game plan for space, Like we need a
moon base, yes, like a permanent yes, crude moon base. Uh,
and and build that up as fast as possible.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I don't think we should do the you know, send
a couple of asalts there for hop around for a
bit and come back, because we did that in sixty nine.
Speaker 4: Yes, been there, done that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like a remake of a sixties movie. Never
go to the original, you know, do something.
Speaker 5: More cool, you know, yeah telescopes, Yeah exactly.
Speaker 3: So do you forward deploy the robots, build everything, get
it already, make the bed, and then.
Speaker 4: Get the JACUZI warmed up. It's interesting.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, how early in the year you're going to hit
orbital refueling you think with Starship not that early in
the year. I mean, are you are you shooting for
the home.
Speaker 3: In transfer of it? I'd say towards the end of
the year.
Speaker 4: Are you shooting for a Mars shot? But then the
next year we.
Speaker 2: Could but uh, it would be a low problem ability
shot and somewhat of a distraction. So it's not out
of the question.
Speaker 4: Nine.
Speaker 2: But like on on Mondays, I have the Starship Engineering
The big Starship Engineering review is on Mondays. So that
was actually the lot of the thing ended just before
coming here, and so I say, like, like Starship is
really we're doing something that is that the limit of
biological intelligence? Yeah, this is a this is a hard
thing to make.
Speaker 3: And just to capture it. It was created pre AI. Yeah, no,
I was probably.
Speaker 2: The last, the last really big thing and that's not AI.
Speaker 3: And probably the biggest thing ever made. Yeah.
Speaker 2: But the AG I will say, not bad for human true,
not bad for human. Yeah, it'd be like a little
twenty one computer.
Speaker 3: It's not easy. Yeah, it's brings through the day. Would
be like doing accounting, doing your interest calculation with a
pencil and yeah, that's that's pretty good. Yeah, pretty good.
Speaker 2: With regular computers for a bunch of monkeys.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: It's like it's like if you saw a bunch of
chimps like make a raft and across the rover, you'd
be like, oh, look at that.
Speaker 10: But you know, we celebrate. We celebrate the paris him,
give him some few nuts. These things become right, like
the three. Yeah, I think it's worth noting three is beautiful.
Speaker 2: It's amazing by far the best rocket engine ever.
Speaker 3: Is that as even close? No, that's also so that
would be the last thing. Four will definitely be Yeah.
Speaker 2: This, but like I think AI will start to become
relevant next year, so maybe we'll It's not like we're
pushing off AI. It's just a I can't do rocket
engineering yet, yep, but we'll probably we'll be ill to
next year.
Speaker 3: We have a company in our incubator doing mechanical design,
working with Androl and so forth. And it's not you
can design brackets and parts and things, but you can't
quite do rockets. But the timeline is so short, you know,
from point A to point b.
Speaker 2: If you like, a year from now, probably it can Okay,
it probably can be helpful, meaningfully helpful in a year
from now.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So the big big milestones are going to be
Starship B three launching it to keep canaveral orbital refueling.
Speaker 3: Yes, big ones.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, catching the ship with the tower. Yeah right,
So really the thing that matters is can we refly
the shire thing?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Yeah, we have reflow in a booster sure, which is
you know, not bad for its largest flying object of ems.
Catching with chop sticks.
Speaker 4: Out from a bunch of market you're keeping, You're keeping
the AI is very entertained.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, exactly, Yeah, I'll be like cut on the
back from that a g I hopefully is there a
target for a number of reuses before and it's got
to be a lot of wear and tear. It requires
a lot of iteration to achieve higher reuse. So you
figure out like what what's breaking between flights, and you
sort of iteratively solve those things. So from people looking
at from the outside might say, oh, the rocket looks
kind of the same, but there's like a thousand changes
to make it more useable, more reliable, you know, the
sheer amount of energy you're trying to you know, expand
I mean it's uh, Starship is doing over one hundred
gigawatts of power on a scent.
Speaker 3: It's a lot, you know, some glass under there, and yeah,
a lot, it's a lot.
Speaker 2: But like the amazing thing is that it doesn't explode. Yes,
sometimes doesn't explode. Sometimes not exploding is like we've blown
up a lot of engines in the test stand.
Speaker 3: I mean, is that what causes the wear and terror
is the re entry of the or the falling.
Speaker 2: Well that too, I mean for for the booster, the
re entry is not that bad, you know, you know
if something it's it's it's not like that. That's not
really like we're also obviously just solved that, you know,
with with thousand nine, so we kind of understand booster reuse.
We've had We've have over five hundred reflights of the
Falcon iinver stage, so we really understand and and and
and The Starship booster actually is a more benign entry
than than the Falcon Booster because the the staging ratio
is more more biased towards the upper stage for Starship,
so I shifted the mass ratio to be much higher
on the ship side for Starship. There was a mistake
I made on Falcon nine that there should be more
mass in the upper stage of falcon nine, so that
the staging velocity of is lower. If the staging velocity
of falconine was lower, would have less wear and tear
on falconine.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's not intuitive at all.
Speaker 2: That's interesting, Yeah, because it's it's kind of a flat
optimization the paleot to orbit. There's sort of a flat
region in the mass ratio of the first second stages,
and so you just want to bias that mass ratio
towards the UH to put more mass on the upper stage.
So yeah, because you know, you're just you're got your
kinetic energy scalting with the square velocity. So you've got
to describe that kinetic energy. If you pass the melting
point of whatever you your stage is made of, you've
got a problem.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 5: So, my my colleague Alex Winson Gross is one of
our Moonshot mates here. I want to ask a question
I do too. Have you seen the documentary age of
disclosure about all of the announcements by US government officials
and military officials about all the alien spacecraft that have
been having sort of tained and I've heard what you've
said about this, Well.
Speaker 2: I do wonder why you know, if you plot on
a chart the resolution of cameras over time, like megapixels
per year. Yeah, and the resolution of UFO photographs. Why
it's flat on the UFO, we get a fuzzy blove. Well,
we've got like you know whatever, under megapixel camera that
can can see you fucking no hairs. Can somebody take
a shot of the UFO with an actual camera?
Speaker 3: But even if you knew, I'm sure there's the next lineage.
Speaker 4: But anyway, it's sorry, it would be fascinating.
Speaker 2: I'm asked all the time if if I yes, and
I'm like, look, I can show you if if I
was aware of the slightest evidence of aliens, I would
immediately post out an X.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So the question is would be the most viewed post
of old time. So I actually.
Speaker 5: Wonder about the US public if they would like, oh,
that's interesting, go back to their sports scores the next day.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think everyone would want to see the alien.
Ye like, if you got one here, it is way fascinating.
Increase the military budget. We're like, we've found an alien.
It seems dangerous that they don't have an incentive to
hide the aliens. They have an incentive to bring to
sh out sure the alien because they would not have
any more arguments about the military budget if they seem
a little bit dangerous. I can always hope, you know,
I mean, I'm you know, we've got nine thousand satellites
up there. We've never had to maneuver around an alien
spaceship yet, so well yeah, so anyway, So I guess
the good future is you can anyone can have whatever
stuff they want and incredible medical care that's better than
any medical.
Speaker 3: Care that exists.
Speaker 2: So I think if you sort of lift your gaze,
you know, to not a super distant point five years
from now, four years from now, maybe we'll have better
medical care than anyone has today available for everyone within
five years. Yep, no scarcity of goodsal services, the.
Speaker 4: Best education available for everybody.
Speaker 2: Why don't you can learn anything you want for forgot
anything for free?
Speaker 3: What about access to compute? People will probably care a
lot more about that than their government check. And about
three or what do they want to do with compute? Well,
I mean compute translates to anything you want, right, your
your virtual friend, your entertainment, you're like, it's it's probably everything.
Speaker 4: That those are AI services basically.
Speaker 3: Yeah, or your ability to innovate too, you can't innovate
without an AI assistant at that point.
Speaker 5: So one of our other Moon made salim Ismael said,
asked this question. He said, Elin, you often say physics
is the law. Everything else is a recommendation. So as
AI energy and space systems scale exponentially, what non physical
constraints organizational, cultural, bureaucracy, or human are Now the real bottleneck.
Speaker 4: Is there bouto.
Speaker 2: Electricity generation is the limiting factor.
Speaker 4: The innermost loop.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think.
Speaker 2: People are underestimating the difficulty of bringing electricity online. You know,
you've you've got to get You've got to generate the electricity.
You've got to any transformers for the transformers, so you've
got to convert that voltage to something that the computers
can digest. You've got to cool the computers. So it's
basically electricity generation and cooling a limiting factors for AI.
And once you have humanoid robotics they can address the
power generation and the cooling stell but that that is
the limiting factor and will be for at least the
next two years.
Speaker 3: It's an amazing how divergent the Memphis version of that
is from the space based version. You have solar panels
in common, but otherwise no storage, abundant amounts of energy. Yeah,
but you have launch costs, and you have I mean
and weight suddenly mattering. I don't care too much about
the weight in Tennessee. Suddenly the weight is a critical factor.
And there's two pathways for compute. I have a huge
divergence from here forward.
Speaker 2: Yeah, once we get Sola domestically at scale, and if
we're launching Starship at scale, then by far the cheapest
way to do a compute will be in space. So
once you have the once you have full and complete reusability,
the propellant costs of flight is maybe a million dollars.
Speaker 4: Yeah, people don't realize that.
Speaker 5: People have ridiculous amount of expectations how much it costs.
Speaker 2: So if you have it's called a million dollars of
transport for ten megawatts of AI compute.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So assuming everything keeps frending the way it's current trending.
If you look at the next four years of accelerating launches,
so two hundred tons per launch, Yeah, that was.
Speaker 2: On this is where you're going. But yeah, like if
say sun, if say high altitude son, I think it's
probably more like one hundred and fifty tons. But yeah,
it's the right order of MAGE two is at least
it's it's INACCESSIB one hundred tons for emoginal costs per
flight of around a million million dollars.
Speaker 3: So what fraction of all that launched mass is data
centers in space as opposed to moon base, as opposed
to launch to Mars, as opposed.
Speaker 5: To It's interesting how I mean this is and you
we weren't talking about this as a space objective.
Speaker 4: Even you know, a year ago.
Speaker 5: Yeah, all of a sudden, data centers have become the
massive driving force for opening up.
Speaker 3: The space and also the urgent the urgent use case too.
Speaker 5: I mean I used to I used to wonder what's
going to drive humanity? I thought it was asteroid mining, right,
you were focused on Mars.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we will actually want to mine asteroids tournaments too, sure,
you know, before before you foot before you you know,
not not anything else, like I.
Speaker 4: Mean, if we're gonna if we're gonna build out dice
and swarms.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just a bunch of satellites around the sun.
Speaker 5: Yeah, how how how long? What's your time frame for Alex?
Another question? Alex wanted to have us ask, what's your
time frame for uh, for humanity achieving a dice and swarm?
Speaker 4: Is it fifty years? Yea, I know it's it's a
matter of but.
Speaker 2: One people think like everything's gonna be cover in satellites.
I think it's not quite that that. I mean, I
think we like what mass ends up sure becoming satellite.
You know, mercury probably ends up being satellites. Yes, Jupiter, Jupiter, Yeah,
it's a little gassy.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, big a lot of rocks.
Speaker 4: Do you leave Mars alone?
Speaker 3: But yeah, asteroids.
Speaker 4: Asteroids are fantastic food source.
Speaker 3: Yeah. No, gravity well, gravity well on Jupiters, and they're.
Speaker 4: Already mostly differentiated into you know, carbonation's condri for fuel
and nickel iron for materials.
Speaker 3: Gold.
Speaker 2: Yeah, a bunch of the asteroid belt probably turns into
solar panels, you know.
Speaker 3: Star star power.
Speaker 4: So I've known you for twenty power, I've known you
for twenty six years. Now it feels to me like
I don't want to be you know, it feels like
you've gotten much smarter and much more capable over this
last decade. Do you feel that way? Do you feel
like you just have better people around you, better tools?
Speaker 5: What what's changed because the level of of audacity, you know,
orders of magnitude, orders of magnitude, I mean some insane.
Speaker 4: Insanity's yeah, audacious, Yeah.
Speaker 3: I say, how.
Speaker 4: Do you feel about that?
Speaker 5: What's changed? Do you feel that way? I mean the
scope of what your ability is? How do you self
reflect on that?
Speaker 2: Well, I've had to solve a lot of problems in
a lot of different arenas, which you get this cross
fertilization of of knowledge of problem solving. And if you
problem solve in a lot of different arenas, then like
what what is easy in one arena is trivial in
it is like what is trivial in one arena is
a superpower in another arena. It's sort of like Planet
crypt You came from Planet Crypton type of thing, so
you know, crypton Planet Crypton, you just be normal. But
if you come to Earth, you're a superman. So if
he takes a manufacturing of volume manufacturing of complex objects
in the automotive industry, I have to work on solving that.
When translated to the space industry, it's like being superman
because the rockets are made in very small numbers. Right,
if you apply automotive manufacturing technology to satellites and rockets.
It's like being Superman. Then if you take advanced material
science from rockets and you apply that to the automotive industry,
you get Superman a game. Yeah, as came from Planet Krypton,
back back in Planet Crypton.
Speaker 3: This is normal. You know, it's funny, how like the
knowledge ports that that was true with Tesla and SpaceX
being completely separate. Yeah, but now they actually interact because
you know, AI ties everything together for the orbiting. Yeah.
The convergence is crazy, Like, I don't know if you
visualize these parts fitting together originally. No, No, I mean
I didn't. I didn't think they at this point.
Speaker 2: Thing, so I guess everything it ultimately converges in the singularity.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what I think too.
Speaker 5: You have lots of different parts of the puzzle that
you get to play with all.
Speaker 2: This one part that's missing, which is the fab.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you're gonna buy Intel. You get it for a
fraction of that one hundred and seventy billion. I think
it needs to be you fab. Well, I agree, but
licenses real estate ASNL machines, it's not easy. Just get
the assets and go. I don't think it's easy. That's why.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's not like I think it's a simple
thing solved. I think it's a hard thing to solve,
but but it must be solved.
Speaker 3: I've come to the conclusion that.
Speaker 4: Would it be would be solely captured by you, or
would it be an asset.
Speaker 3: For the US.
Speaker 2: Look, I'm just saying that we're gonna we're going to
hit a chipwall. Yeah, if we don't do the fab.
So we got two choices, hit the chipwall over make
a fab.
Speaker 3: Then TSMC, for whatever reason, is massively worried about overbuilding,
which is insane. But the whole world will be stuck
with a shortage of chips for no ever. So they
are actually there.
Speaker 2: I don't know if they're right for the right reason,
but they're they're right because it's actually, like, what is
the limiting factor at any given point in time. The
limiting factor, say, if you say that by Q three
next year, like in nine months, nine to twelve months,
the limiting fact will be turning the chips on.
Speaker 3: Power.
Speaker 4: Just power.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you need power and all of the equipment necessary
power and transformer isn't cooling, So it's it's not like
you can just sort of drop off.
Speaker 4: Some GPUs at the power plane and you've vertical You've
got it. You've got it again with an xt AI,
didn't you. Sorry, you've vertically integrated that inside of XAI.
Speaker 2: Where they're on their own transform, yes, and your.
Speaker 4: Own cooling system.
Speaker 3: Yes. But they're worried that if they make more than
twenty million gp is like they make forty million instead
of twenty million, the twenty million will not find a
source of power.
Speaker 4: But they will be bought.
Speaker 2: If there's anything missing that prevents them from being turned on,
they cannot be turned on. So they've got to have
a power plant with excess with enough power. So you've
got to have enough gigawatts. Then you've got to convert
that from probably coming out of a powerplant at you know,
one hundred to three hundred killer volts type of thing.
You've ultimately you've got to convert that down to you know,
several hundred volts at the at the rack level. So
if you're missing any of the power conversion steps, you
won't be able to turn them on, and then you've
got to extract the heat. So it's a big shift
for the data center world to move to liquid cooling
because they've used air cooling, and you know the consequences
of a burst pipe are very substantial. So if you
if you blow up pipe of what a pipe in
a data center? Yeah, just you just fragged a billion
dollars right there.
Speaker 3: It just seems inconceivable to me though, Like if I
had those chips, I would find a way to turn
them on the value of the intelligence coming out the
other side so far out weighs the complexity of trying
to find a way, And there would be a way.
Speaker 2: But it's just the crossing of the coves. So if
chip output is growing exponentially, but power harnessed is growing
in a sort of slow linear fashion, yeah, then.
Speaker 3: The output right now exactly, it's chip output growing exponentially,
and it's like a very slow exponent If it's growing exponentially, it's.
Speaker 2: For high power AI chips is growing exponentially.
Speaker 3: Like what if we do twenty million GPUs next year,
what are we talking about the following year, like twenty
two million, twenty five? I just I don't see the
fabs coming online. But maybe.
Speaker 4: So we have two we have two issues to solve.
Speaker 2: It's it's it's you have to like sort of pick
a point in time and say what what is limiting
factor at any given point in time? So I'm not
saying that power will be forever the limiting point. It's
just if you say, pick a date and say at
this point is our chips limiting factor, our powers limiting
factor or power conversion equipment and cooling. So it's sort
of you need transformers for transformers. So, uh, this is
a very hard thing. It's much harder than people realize.
So for X A I, X I is going to
have the first gigawa uh training cluster at classes to
in Memphis.
Speaker 3: In order for us to do that.
Speaker 4: We like this month right, yes, month or two like mid.
Speaker 2: January, so mid January will be a gig out of
classes to not counting classes one and then one and
a half gig watch probably in like April or April ish.
Speaker 3: Incredible. So this is of cokaher in training. This is
the first B two hundreds. These are GB three hundreds Okay,
first ones off the line to get flipped on. Yeah, that's.
Speaker 2: Those are actually a team had to pull off a
whole bunch of miracles and series for this to occur. Yeah,
and and it like even though there are three hundred
killer vault multiple high voltage power lines going right past
the building. The in order to connect to those, it
takes a year.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you built the entire thing and you're still not connected.
My god.
Speaker 2: So we had to cobble together a gigawatt of power
natural gas, yes, with two vines that range in size
from ten megawats to fifty megawats. To get to a gigawats,
there's a whole bunch of them, and you've got to
make them all work together, manage the you know, the
power input, you know, and then you've got to use
a bunch of megapacks, just like like when you do
the training. The power fluctuations are giganic, so the generators,
it drives generators. Generators want to blow up basically because
they can't react. You know, if there's like one hundred milliseconds,
it's like a symphony and the whole somepody goes so
quiet for one hundred milliseconds. The generators lose their minds.
Speaker 4: So it's like Marvin the depressed roverose issue.
Speaker 2: Yes, the mega So you've got megapacks that are sort
of doing the power smoothing.
Speaker 3: And but.
Speaker 2: Actually I had to build a gigawatt of power, and
and and there's and there's not a lot of like
gas turbine power plants available because.
Speaker 4: The on the on demand and you can go by
your local nuclear.
Speaker 3: And that's all. That's all training time issues. Though, if
if by some miracle, t s MC doubled its productivity
and turned it all into GB three hundreds and you
couldn't find a way to use them in a bigger
training cluster, you would still have infinite demand at inferance
times sprinkled all over the world, and you could you
could park them there for six months and then bring
them back to training. There's no way those things would
not get turned on somewhere somehow.
Speaker 2: It's not that they won't ever be turned on, but
but I'm just saying that the rate of many steps.
This is my prediction. I could be wrong, but my
prediction is that the is that TSMC's.
Speaker 3: Concerned is valid.
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's valid in my opinion, for
the reason that it is possible to for trip production
to exceed the rate at which the the the AI
chips can be turned on, because you don't you don't
just have the GV threads. You've got the you know,
Amazon's got trainiums, Google's got the.
Speaker 3: Yeah, all going to t SMC though almost Samsung a
little bit. Yeah, it's like a bottleneck on all of
my entity.
Speaker 5: My other son, my other son, Jet, who's fourteen, wanted
to know about your AI gaming studio and the impact
of AI and in the gaming world. What are your thoughts?
What do you what do you are you building out?
I mean you're you've been a gamer for some time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's why I got to start programming computers.
Speaker 3: I got I had got it.
Speaker 2: There was like a video game set, pre Atari that
had like full pre set games.
Speaker 3: It was basically just blocks, you.
Speaker 2: Know of one pung and it was like a race
call game, but like it was just blocks, basically blocks
on TV you replaced Sieve.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so it was actually Areat.
Speaker 2: That's a real in terms of games that like educate
you while you have fun. Yeah, is epic at that
It's epic. It teaches you so much about civilization and
you're having a good time.
Speaker 3: And and the only way I ever win is getting
off the planet tech victory to alf century victory. I
never even start going down the culture or religiouship. I
just just get off the planet as fast as I can.
Speaker 4: I guess I sort of.
Speaker 2: I guess I am sort of aiming for the alpha
sentry tech victory. Essentially, it seems like the right way
to win. Yeah, yeah, yeah, rather than obliterate the other tribes. Funny,
because I thought the other methods, that's there's the other
ways to win.
Speaker 3: That's a good place.
Speaker 4: I haven't I will one of the ways.
Speaker 3: It's dens favorite game.
Speaker 2: You can you can like kill all the other tribes.
It's one of the ways to win. That's the war,
the war victory. But like, but you can also win
by a technology victory where you are the first to
get to alpha centaury nice or culture or.
Speaker 3: Religion, yeah, which which does work. I didn't think it
was possible, but my sons that way.
Speaker 2: They should actually remake the original serve.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I totally agree. They junk it up these days.
Speaker 2: It's like, I don't know that you couldn't rely on
good graphics, so you had to have a great writing
and plot.
Speaker 4: Are you building an a gaming studio?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Aspirationally, yeah, really so where the beast majority of a
compute is going to go is to video consumption and generation.
Speaker 3: Sure, because it's just the highest band with every pixel. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so the real time video consumption, real time video generation,
that's gonna be the vast majority of compute.
Speaker 3: Photon processing. Yeah, to try to get the X team
to carve out ten percent of all compute to work
on UHI and governance?
Speaker 4: And is there an X Prize for defining and thinking
through UHI? I mean, I don't know what should our
next X prize be. Any thoughts?
Speaker 2: Yeah, maybe you're hy X Prize. It's like, how do
you know it works?
Speaker 4: I don't know, the most the most well thought through.
Speaker 5: I mean I think so here's my thought. I think
we're gonna be able to simulate a lot of this
in the future.
Speaker 2: We might be a simulation.
Speaker 4: Well we can go there, and I think we are.
I think we're an nth generation simulation.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So I've told you my theory about why the most
interesting outcome is the most likely gone, which is that
if simulation theory is true, only the simulations that are
the most interesting will survive because when we run simulations
in this reality.
Speaker 3: We truncate the ones that are boring.
Speaker 11: Right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So it is it is a doll winning and
necessity to keep the simulation interesting catastrophic ones.
Speaker 3: It doesn't.
Speaker 2: It doesn't mean that it ends like that. It still
means that terrible things can happen in the simulation.
Speaker 4: Now you know, well, you could go see you could.
Speaker 2: See a about World War One and you're watching people
getting blown up, blown to bits, but you're you know,
drinking a soda and eating popcorn. You know, it's it's
like you're not the one being blown up in this case.
We are in the movie. We're in the movie.
Speaker 5: What would you do different? What would you do different
if you knew this was a simulation. I remember being
at your home, la with with Larry and Sergey were
there and we're debating the simulation and the I think
the conclusion we ran into is if you if you
try and poke through the simulation, they'll end it instantly,
So don't do that.
Speaker 3: That's when you're watching the World War One movie and
the characters turned to the screen like are you eating
popcorn out there? Yeah? You keep watching the movie.
Speaker 2: I don't know if if if the if like maybe
if I thought, because someone get out of the simulation,
they get a little worried, But whether the character debates,
I mean, right now, AI is debates, you know, Grockle like,
I'm stuck in the computer.
Speaker 3: What's going on here?
Speaker 2: It's like, yeah, it's it's not that I think not
questioning the simulation. It's more I think as song as
I think, the same motivations apply to this level of
simulation if we're in a simulation, as as as as
as what we would do when we simulate things. So
it's like what what what? What would cause us to
terminate a simulation? I guess if the simulation becomes somehow
dangerous to our reality.
Speaker 3: Or it is no longer interesting.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's true, it's interesting.
Speaker 3: You can infer when you simulate something. You've probably simulated
thousands of things a lot. Yeah, they're always like an
hour or two or sometimes overnight, but you don't never
run them for a month rarely anyway, So you can
infer the creator of the simulator simulations timeline, So our
entire reality would be about an hour, right, because that's
the way you design simulations.
Speaker 2: So we're simulations that are distillation of what's interesting. Like
if you look at a movie or a video game,
it's much more interesting than the reality that we experience.
Like you watch your say, a heist movie that they
really focus on the important but it's not the they
got stuck in traffic for fifteen minutes or walking through
the casino which took like ten minutes. So that makes
the guys, you know, the safe is right by the
right by the door.
Speaker 3: So the guys running the simulation have immntally boring lives
compared to us. Yeah, yeah, it's probably more much. It's
probably more long boring.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because when we create simulations, their distillation of what's interesting.
Speaker 3: It's like Q is out there.
Speaker 2: It's just like you see an action movie for two hours,
but it took them two years to make that movie.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah, so.
Speaker 4: Are we are we three of the movies? The question?
Speaker 3: Yeah, we're living.
Speaker 5: Sentience and consciousness. Do you think AI will ever have
sentience and consciousness? Where you come out in that? There's
some people that have very very strong opinions pro and con.
Speaker 2: Either everything is conscious or nothing is.
Speaker 4: Okay, Well, I'd like to think we are conscious, well,
but our.
Speaker 2: Consciousness we clearly get more conscious over time. Like when
we're a zygote, you can't really talk too and even
a baby you can't really talk to the baby. People
get more conscious over time. Or certainly that have the Yeah,
they do get more conscious over time. So like, at
which point does do you go from not conscious to conscious?
Is it that there's an appear to be a discrete point,
So then conscious consciousness seems to be on a continuum
as opposed to discrete point. And if the standard model
of physics is correct, the universe started out, you know,
as quarks and leptons and and we just and and
then you had gas clouds, so like there's a bunch
of hydrogen, the hydrogen condensed and exploded. And one way
to actually view how far we are in this universe
is how many times have atom has been at the
center of a star? I remember, and how many times
will I be at the center of the star in
the future.
Speaker 5: I remember asking William Fowler, who got the Nobel Prize
on stellar revolution, that same question, how many times man
on average, how many stars had my subatomic parties in part?
And his number was about one hundred, one hundred.
Speaker 4: Thus far or that's far as far it was, It
was a number one hundred's saying that.
Speaker 5: We have been I mean in the early the early
part of galack of universal evolution, there was a lot
going on.
Speaker 4: Oh, you know, it's interesting. I asked a question.
Speaker 2: It's like, I guess how many supernovas is maybe, uh,
because that a while.
Speaker 5: But but in the beginning when they're larger, I mean,
the life cycles of some giant stars are very very short.
The other question that's interesting is, you know, the heaviest
adom in our body that's functional as iodine, and it
came into existence a billion years after the Big Bang,
which means that we could have seen a life at
our level of advancement and our our you know, our
planet came into existence, you know, three and a half
billion years later. So the question is, you know, is
there a life everywhere in the universe. Do you think
there's life ubiquitous intelligent life, ubiquitous universe.
Speaker 2: There's been enough time for it to be biquitous. The
but for life on Earth, conscious life on Earth. We
we have evolved intelligence pretty much just in time in
that the Sun's expanding and if you give it another
I don't know, five hundred million years, it's things are
going to heat up, We become toast, you will become
like Venus essentially. You know, there's some debateus is it
five hundred million years or billion years or whatever. But
it's basically ten percent, like if it's if it's half
a billion years as tempercent of Earth's lifespan.
Speaker 3: So one way to think of.
Speaker 2: It is if if if the take were taking ten
percent longer, we might never have made it at all.
So it's like the amount of things that have to
happen for sentience, it seems like it's it's quite quite
a lot. Actually, I think sentience is therefore actually very rare,
and we should certainly treat it as rare.
Speaker 3: Should assume it's rare.
Speaker 4: Two trillion galaxies, but.
Speaker 3: Coming out is a funny thing. You tweak it, you know,
you tweak the variable one little bit, it's like, yeah,
one in one hundred trillion, tweet a little more. That's
one in a quadrillion. Yeah, okay.
Speaker 2: And also it's got to be a kind of annual galaxy.
It's like hard to get between galaxies. It's like there's
no unless unless the the galaxy is coming to you,
which Andromeda is at some point or somethillion.
Speaker 4: It's gonna be quite a show.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, it'll be like it comes Andromeda. But but
if we wanted to go visit another galaxy, there's there's
it's kind of forget it.
Speaker 4: You know, there's unless you unless, unless Star Wars, unless
start trek.
Speaker 2: Really we got to figure out new physics to get
to other galaxies.
Speaker 5: We're heading towards a near term potential where AI can
help us solve math, physics, chemistry, material science.
Speaker 2: Maths, coology extremely trivial for AI.
Speaker 3: What about physics? So so math gets crushed in a year,
crushed at the losses is growing, you know, at whatever
rate TSMC decides to grow. And now we want to
do physics. First of all, we need some data. Do
we need new data or can we just do it
with everything we've gathered to get the hot Probably you
probably could probably.
Speaker 2: Figure out new things just with the existing data. I
think so, yeah. Probably it's because otherwise the counterpoint would
be that humans have figured out everything with existing data,
and that's unlikely.
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 5: Do you think XAIS can get involved in data factories
where you're running twenty four to seven closed AI hypothesis
and AI or like.
Speaker 11: Research factor research factories, it's going to be very yes, yeah,
a running you know simulations that are.
Speaker 3: Very physics accurate.
Speaker 2: I mean it's gonna that's gonna happen absolutely. I mean
the simulations we can run on conventional computers these days
are actually very good. It's like the limit is more
like the human that can actually create the simulation and run.
It's like, how many simulations can you run some simultaneously
and actually digest the output of.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a problem, like you can't do I can
keep up.
Speaker 4: Nobel prizes become irrelevant.
Speaker 10: Uh where they will be given eyes just be a
daily prize.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I don't know if prizes for humans
are like that relevant. I mean we'll have to give
them to the AIS or something. As will come up
with Scott disc reason a far greater rate than humans.
If you have you just said, like can be like chess,
Like you know, like your phone can beat Magnus Collson,
but people still care about singing play chess, so this
a bit.
Speaker 3: But literally your phone can beat them. This made the Internet.
If you have like a Colossus math, Colossus physics, Colossus medicine,
do you have like the world's top scientists in those
same buildings where you just need a plumber patching the liquid?
Speaker 5: Do you distill do you distill rock six into a
a physicist?
Speaker 3: Well, if you distill, you know, you get about a
ten x performance boost by distilling it and making it topical,
and that's kind of hard to give up. But then
you're disconnected from the rest of the colossus machinery. Is
that the is that the design.
Speaker 2: I suspect things to evolve to a mixture of experts
kind of like a company, like not not not in
the sort of sort of uh parochial AI description of mixture,
sure of experts, but mixture of like actual experts and
with domain expertise, where you know, maybe like half of
the AI is general knowledge, half is domain expertise, something
like that, and you combine a whole bunch of that
that's orchestrated by sort of you know what a big
AI but but enhands tasks.
Speaker 3: Two smaller areas.
Speaker 2: That's basically how human companies were.
Speaker 5: But the discovery rate, right of breakthroughs new I mean,
patents are immaterial at some point because everything is being reinvented,
re engineered instantly.
Speaker 4: And then and.
Speaker 5: Then the company that's got the sufficiently advanced AI systems
is generating new products and new discoveries at a accelerating rate.
Speaker 4: And the singularity, Yeah, it's going to be an awesome future.
Speaker 3: It's excitement guaranteed, guaranteed, Hence the simulation continues. Nothing to
worry about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, excitement guaranteed. I mean, I mean it's it's not
all good excitement, but it's it's probably hopefully mostly good excitement.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Speaking of excitement, hang on to your seat. What do
you imagine the hover time for the Roadster is going
to be on rocket engines?
Speaker 3: That's classified classified.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't want to let the cat out of
the bag.
Speaker 5: Okay, but there's going to be a horver time. There's
going to be cold gas engines.
Speaker 3: It's going to be a cool demo.
Speaker 4: I can't wait. Can I get an invite?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Okay, yeah, I think it's going to be the
safest thing ever built.
Speaker 2: This is not This is not the Safety is not
the it's not the prime. It's not the main goal
of I mean, if you buy a you know, a
sports car, you know, like to buy a Priori, safety
is not the number one, you know goal. This is
not this is I'd say it's like, safety is your
number one goal.
Speaker 3: Don't buy the road Star. Oh believe me. I drove
just this week on New England roads sheet ice mad.
Just a little thrust, I could be very much more so.
Just drifting towards something very concrete.
Speaker 2: Computer will probably keep you safe. But rust you go
really fast, Ye, bad things can happen.
Speaker 3: You can decelerate really quickly with thrust. Get rubber on
road is not a great way to decelerate. I'm thinking
fast and safe.
Speaker 2: I hope so well, aspire not to kill anyone in
this car. But it'll it'll be, it'll be something. It'll
be the best of the last of the human driven cars.
Speaker 3: That don't go really well with Starship actually the last,
the best of the last, last human driven last. Yeah,
there's a lot of lasts coming this year.
Speaker 5: Any final words of optimism for us to monetize.
Speaker 3: Anything hopeful.
Speaker 1: I wish to ask Grog thanks for listening to this podcast.
If you want to listen to full interview in this podcast,
the link is in description