Speaker 1: Welcome to the quark side Quantum Physics podcast, an exploration
Speaker 1: of the fundamental structure of reality, where quantum laws govern matter, energy,
Speaker 1: and information. Here, uncertainty is a feature, not a flaw,
Speaker 1: and understanding begins at the smallest scales.
Speaker 2: So you know the mechanics of a Rubik's cube, right, Oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: frustrating little things. Right. Well, you start with order, solid,
Speaker 2: clean colors on every side exactly. But then you twist
Speaker 2: a few rows, maybe rotate a column, and suddenly you
Speaker 2: just have chaos with.
Speaker 3: The complete mess of colors.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're totally scrambled, and unless you know the specific
Speaker 2: sequence of algorithms to reverse those twists, you are basically
Speaker 2: stuck with permanent nonsense.
Speaker 3: Which is where most people just give up and put
Speaker 3: it on a shelf exactly.
Speaker 2: But it turns out that exact logic, that specific trajectory
Speaker 2: from order to chaos and back again, it has just
Speaker 2: become the secret key to unlocking some of the most
Speaker 2: mind bending mathematical equations in the universe.
Speaker 3: It really has. I mean, back in April of twenty
Speaker 3: twenty six, Rutger's physicist David she made this discovery in
Speaker 3: the realm of particle physics, and it fundamentally changes the
Speaker 3: scientific process is massive. Yeah, because he didn't just solve
Speaker 3: a huge computational problem. He did it by utilizing an
Speaker 3: artificial intelligence that operated not just as a simple software tool,
Speaker 3: but essentially as a tireless virtual graduate.
Speaker 2: Student, which is wild to think about.
Speaker 3: It is, and the implications are just staggering, not just
Speaker 3: for theoretical physics, but really for how human beings collaborate
Speaker 3: with machines to tackle overwhelmingly complex systems.
Speaker 2: So if you are listening to this right now and
Speaker 2: you have ever felt completely paralyzed by a chaotic.
Speaker 3: Problem, right like a sprawling broken project at work.
Speaker 2: Or logistical nightmare, or to just you know, a system
Speaker 2: that feels way too complex to fix, Well, the way
Speaker 2: scientists are now training AI to automatically unscramble that chaos
Speaker 2: is going to totally change how you approach problem solving entirely.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: But to understand the sheer genius of this solution, we
Speaker 2: have to look at the mess these physicists are trying
Speaker 2: to clean up. First, the messy map, right, Why are
Speaker 2: the mathematical equations of particle physics so incredibly convoluted to
Speaker 2: begin with?
Speaker 3: Well, it really stems from the reality of what particle
Speaker 3: physics is attempting to map out. I mean, we are
Speaker 3: talking about the fundamental building blocks of the universe.
Speaker 2: Here, right, They're really small stuff exactly.
Speaker 3: So when scientists study seb atomic particle collisions like the
Speaker 3: ones happening inside massive colliders where protons are smashed together
Speaker 3: at nearly the speed of light.
Speaker 2: Which is a crazy concept on its own totally.
Speaker 3: But when they do that, they have to account for
Speaker 3: an absurd number of interacting variables.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's unpack this a little, because I imagine the math
Speaker 2: gets pretty intense.
Speaker 3: Oh, the mathematical equations required to describe just a single
Speaker 3: one of these collisions are monstrous. You are looking at
Speaker 3: hundreds sometimes thousands, Yeah, of different mathematical terms.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 3: Yeah, integrals and variables just interacting with one another simultaneously.
Speaker 2: So it's basically like looking at a massive tangled ball
Speaker 2: of yarn.
Speaker 3: That is a perfect way to put it. Actually, Like all.
Speaker 2: The thread is technically there, the raw material exists, but
Speaker 2: to actually knit a sweater or do anything useful with it,
Speaker 2: you have to untangle it into a single straight line exactly.
Speaker 3: Just a massive intimidating wall of Greek letters and interacting numbers.
Speaker 3: But physics generally operates on the assumption that the fundamental
Speaker 3: laws of nature are elegant.
Speaker 2: Right, the universe shouldn't inherently look like a broken spreadsheet.
Speaker 3: Exactly, and that is the core belief driving this entire field.
Speaker 3: Physicists believe that underneath all of this apparent mathematical chaos
Speaker 3: there is simple, beautiful symmetry.
Speaker 2: So the complexity is just an illusion pretty much.
Speaker 3: The complexity we see on paper isn't necessarily the true
Speaker 3: underlying nature of the universe. It is just the clumsy,
Speaker 3: bloated way our current mathematical tools happen to describe it.
Speaker 2: Got it, So we're just bad at writing it down simply, right.
Speaker 3: So untangling these equations, simplifying them down to their most elegant,
Speaker 3: irreducible form, it's essential. And it isn't just an esthetic
Speaker 3: preference for neatness.
Speaker 2: Right, It's not just about making the chalkboard look.
Speaker 3: Pretty, No, it is a strict computational necessity.
Speaker 2: And I really want to dig into that computational side,
Speaker 2: because if we have supercomputers that can process trillions of
Speaker 2: operations a second, why does it even matter if an
Speaker 2: equation is a little bloated. You'd think they could just
Speaker 2: handle it, right, Yeah, can't the computer just brute force
Speaker 2: its way through the math, regardless of how messy it looks?
Speaker 3: Well? No, And it comes down to how computers handle
Speaker 3: memory allocation and microscopic rounding errors.
Speaker 2: Rounding errors.
Speaker 3: Yeah. See, when a supercomputer tries to calculate an overly
Speaker 3: complex equation with thousands of terms, it often has to add, subtract,
Speaker 3: or multiply massively large numbers directly against infinitesimally small numbers. Okay,
Speaker 3: And because silicon basically has finite memory, computers use something
Speaker 3: called floating point arithmetic to store these numbers, which means
Speaker 3: what exactly it means. If you have a number with
Speaker 3: fifty decimal places, the computer might just truncate it. It
Speaker 3: drops a decimal point at the very end, just to
Speaker 3: say space in its memory register.
Speaker 2: Wait, but dropping one tiny decimal point out of fifty
Speaker 2: seems completely harmless in isolation.
Speaker 3: In isolation, it is harmless, right, But particle physics simulations
Speaker 3: don't happen in isolation. You're running millions of these calculations sequentially.
Speaker 3: The output of one calculation becomes the input for the.
Speaker 2: Next Oh, I see where this is going.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so that microscopic rounding air from the drop decimal
Speaker 3: point carries over, then it gets multiplied, then it gets exponentiated.
Speaker 3: It's snowballs exactly within a fraction of a second. That
Speaker 3: tiny error cascades and compounds until your final answer is
Speaker 3: wildly inaccurate.
Speaker 2: Wow. So all that computing power is just generating extremely
Speaker 2: confident wrong answers pretty much.
Speaker 3: So by algebraically simplifying the equation first, you know, trinking
Speaker 3: it down to its absolute tightest form before you ever
Speaker 3: plug in the actual numbers, you drastically reduce the number
Speaker 3: of mathematical operations the computer has to perform.
Speaker 2: Which prevents those compounding errors, right.
Speaker 3: And saves massive amounts of computing power in the process.
Speaker 2: Okay, so the objective is clear. You have to simplify
Speaker 2: the math before the computer touches it. But algebraically reducing
Speaker 2: an equation with thousands of interacting terms by hand, I
Speaker 2: mean that would take a human researcher.
Speaker 3: A lifetime, easily a lifetime.
Speaker 2: And I imagine traditional AI models struggle with this too, right,
Speaker 2: Because we hear about language models writing essays and generating
Speaker 2: code all the time. But math requires absolute rigidity. You
Speaker 2: can't just guess the next symbol though, you definitely can't.
Speaker 2: So how did she actually get an AI to solve
Speaker 2: a problem that previous machine learning models couldn't crack.
Speaker 3: Here's where it gets really interesting. He looked at the
Speaker 3: mechanics of the Rubik's cube.
Speaker 2: Okay, back to the cube, right.
Speaker 3: Think about how a machine learning model is typically trained.
Speaker 3: You feed it a massive data set of problems and
Speaker 3: their corresponding solutions.
Speaker 2: All right, lots of examples.
Speaker 3: It studies the data, finds the patterns, and learns how
Speaker 3: to get from point A to point B. But in
Speaker 3: theoretical physics, you are dealing with unknown, unsolved equations.
Speaker 2: So there is no answer.
Speaker 3: Key exactly, You don't have a massive data set of
Speaker 3: solutions to train the aion because the humans haven't solved
Speaker 3: them yet either.
Speaker 2: Oh wow, so what do you do?
Speaker 3: Well? She realized that instead of trying to figure out
Speaker 3: how to untangle a complex equation, he could start with
Speaker 3: simple known equations and intentionally scramble them.
Speaker 2: Oh that is brilliant. He ran the algorithm in reverse. Yes, exactly,
Speaker 2: so he started with the perfectly solved cube. The simple
Speaker 2: equation and purposely applied complex mathematical operations to it, expanding terms,
Speaker 2: multiplying variables, substituting values until he created a massive, tangled mess.
Speaker 3: And crucially, as his team scrambled the equations, they recorded
Speaker 3: every single mathematical twist and turn. They mapped the exact
Speaker 3: trajectory from order to mathematical chaos.
Speaker 2: Because if you know exactly how you messed it up.
Speaker 3: You possess the exact instructions for how to clean it up.
Speaker 2: That's amazing, right, So.
Speaker 3: They generated thousands of these reverse engineered, highly scrambled equations
Speaker 3: and fed them into a machine learning system.
Speaker 2: So the AI is basically studying the map of how
Speaker 2: things get messy. It isn't trying to magically guess the
Speaker 2: final answer. It is actually learning to recognize the specific
Speaker 2: patterns of how mathematical operations compound on one another exactly.
Speaker 3: It learned the underlying moves needed to solve the mathematical puzzle,
Speaker 3: and the results were unprecedented.
Speaker 2: Really, how good was it when She's.
Speaker 3: Train system was given brand new, incredibly complex equations that
Speaker 3: it had never seen before, equations where the origin was
Speaker 3: entirely unknown. It achieved a nearly perfect simplification rate. Wait
Speaker 3: near perfect perfect. It looked at the chaos, recognized the
Speaker 3: hidden structural patterns, and elegantly twisted the math back into
Speaker 3: its simplest form. It completely crushed the capabilities of previous
Speaker 3: machine learning methods.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 3: And what's fascinating here is this proved that AI is
Speaker 3: becoming highly capable of symbolic reasoning.
Speaker 2: Symbolic reasoning, Okay, let's explore the mechanics of that, because
Speaker 2: it sounds fundamentally different from what the average person experiences
Speaker 2: when they ask an AI language model to like, draft
Speaker 2: an email or summarize an article.
Speaker 3: It is an entirely different paradigm. How so well, most
Speaker 3: AI today operates on probabilistic generation. It analyzes vast oceans
Speaker 3: of text and calculates the statistical probability of what word
Speaker 3: should logically follow the previous word.
Speaker 2: Right, it's basically autocomplete on steroids.
Speaker 3: Exactly, And it is incredibly convincing, and it feels like reasoning,
Speaker 3: but it is fundamentally a highly sophisticated probabilistic guessing game.
Speaker 3: It's fuzzy, but math isn't fuzzy, right, Symbolic reasoning is rigorous.
Speaker 3: It is the ability to manipulate abstract symbols. According to
Speaker 3: stripped unforgiving logical rules in algebra one misplaced minus sign
Speaker 3: renders the entire equation invalid totally. There's no room for
Speaker 3: probabilistic guessing.
Speaker 2: By mastering symbolic reasoning, the AI demonstrated a level of structural,
Speaker 2: step by step logic that mirrors the exact kind of
Speaker 2: mathematical thinking human scientists use to discover new physical laws.
Speaker 3: It's engaging in the actual mechanics of mathematical discovery exacts.
Speaker 3: But you know, unscrambling the math. There's only half of
Speaker 3: this story, right, because the AI didn't just operate quietly
Speaker 3: in the background as a calculator.
Speaker 2: No, not at all.
Speaker 3: The way she implemented this technology actually disrupted the entire
Speaker 3: traditional structure of a physics lab.
Speaker 2: It really did. I mean, think about the standard image
Speaker 2: of a research lab. You have a lead scientist directing
Speaker 2: a team of graduate students who do all the heavy lifting,
Speaker 2: right writing the testing scripts, generating the charts, organizing the data,
Speaker 2: the grunt work exactly.
Speaker 3: In this project, she utilized an agentic AI system called
Speaker 3: clog code to essentially replace that entire tier of manual
Speaker 3: scientific labor.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's break down what agentic actually means in this context,
Speaker 2: because a lot of people interact with AI by typing
Speaker 2: a prompt into a chat window, getting a response, and
Speaker 2: then typing another prompt, the.
Speaker 3: Very back and forth process.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but an agentic workflow operates differently under the hood, doesn't.
Speaker 3: It It does. An agentic AI has a degree of
Speaker 3: autonomy to execute tasks, assess the results, and iterate on
Speaker 3: its own without waiting for a human to constantly prompt it.
Speaker 2: So it's working independently.
Speaker 3: Under she's supervision. This system functioned exactly like a virtual
Speaker 3: graduate student. She would provide a high level directive. The
Speaker 3: AI would then open a terminal window on its own.
Speaker 2: Wait, it opens its own windows.
Speaker 3: Yes, you would write the Python code necessary to run
Speaker 3: the mathematical experiments. It would execute that code. If the
Speaker 3: code through an error, the AI would read its own
Speaker 3: stack trace, identify the bug, modify this, and run it again.
Speaker 2: That is insane, right.
Speaker 3: And once it successfully generated the raw data, it created
Speaker 3: the visual plots and graphs. It even helps write the
Speaker 3: final research paper.
Speaker 2: This sounds incredibly powerful, but I mean, anyone who has
Speaker 2: spent time working with advanced AI knows it is prone
Speaker 2: to hallucination.
Speaker 3: Oh absolutely, it.
Speaker 2: Can sound completely confident while generating total nonsense. So I
Speaker 2: have to imagine giving an AI the autonomy to write
Speaker 2: and test its own code in the realm of subatomic physics.
Speaker 2: Isn't exactly a flawless hands off process.
Speaker 3: No, it is far from flaws and sheese documentation of
Speaker 3: this process is highly transparent about the limitations.
Speaker 2: What kind of limitations?
Speaker 3: Well, while the AI was blisteringly fast, you know, writing, executing,
Speaker 3: and debugging code at a speed no human could ever match,
Speaker 3: and working around the clock, it was deeply flawed. It
Speaker 3: made significant errors.
Speaker 2: So it still messes up.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah. And the danger of an agentic workflow is
Speaker 3: that when the AI encounters a failure, it can sometimes
Speaker 3: stubbornly repeat the exact same flawed logic over and over again.
Speaker 2: It gets stuck.
Speaker 3: It gets stuck in a loop endlessly rewriting a piece
Speaker 3: of code that fundamentally misunderstands the physics involved.
Speaker 2: It's like managing a brilliant, hypercaffeinated intern who never sleeps,
Speaker 2: produces a mountain of work by six am, but occasionally
Speaker 2: staples all the reports completely upside down.
Speaker 3: Yes, that is exactly what it's like.
Speaker 2: And when you point out the mistake, the interurn confidently
Speaker 2: restaples them upside down again, exactly. So you absolutely still
Speaker 2: need the human manager in the room to intervene, break
Speaker 2: the loop and steer the project back to reality.
Speaker 3: The human element transitions from manual execution to intense, constant supervision.
Speaker 3: She had to rigorously monitor the AI's output, check its
Speaker 3: logical assumptions, and manually break those looping errors to keep
Speaker 3: the research on track.
Speaker 2: So the scientist isn't just sitting back with their feet
Speaker 2: on the desk.
Speaker 3: Not at all. The scientist doesn't step away from the work.
Speaker 3: The work simply transforms. Instead of spending hours typing out
Speaker 3: the syntax of a python's the scientist spends their time
Speaker 3: validating the architecture of the AI's approach.
Speaker 2: But even with the required babysitting and error correction, the
Speaker 2: sheer velocity of this hypercaffeinated virtual intern completely changes the
Speaker 2: output potential of a single researcher massively. If one scientist
Speaker 2: can now direct an automated system to do the manual
Speaker 2: labor of five graduate students in a fraction of the time,
Speaker 2: how does the academic world adapt this feels like an
Speaker 2: immediate paradigm shift.
Speaker 3: The academic community is recognizing that shift right now. If
Speaker 3: we connect this to the bigger picture. Jack Hughes, an
Speaker 3: astrophysicist and the chair of the Department of Physics and
Speaker 3: Astronomy at Rutgers, he observed She's project and essentially sounded
Speaker 3: an alarm bell for the broader scientific community.
Speaker 2: Really, what did he say?
Speaker 3: He pointed out an urgent necessity to fundamentally change how
Speaker 3: students in post docs are trained. Labs that embrace this
Speaker 3: collaborative agentic AI model are going to massively accelerate their
Speaker 3: rate of discovery. And the ones that don't, the traditional
Speaker 3: labs that refuse to adapt, to continue to rely on
Speaker 3: humans manually crunching numbers and writing testing scripts from scratch,
Speaker 3: they will simply be left in the dust.
Speaker 2: But how do you actually train the next generation for this?
Speaker 2: You can't just hand a PhD student and agentic AI
Speaker 2: and tell them to, you know, supervise it right, just
Speaker 2: figure it out. Yeah, there has to be a specific
Speaker 2: methodology or workflow for this kind of collaboration, and there is.
Speaker 3: She is actively pioneering that methodology with his own post docs,
Speaker 3: and he refers to this new academic concept as vibe
Speaker 3: coding and vibe research.
Speaker 2: Vibe coding.
Speaker 3: Yeah, vibe coding.
Speaker 2: That sounds incredibly informal for a theoretical physics lab. It
Speaker 2: sounds more like an esthetic than a rigorous scientific method.
Speaker 2: What does a vibe research workflow actually look like on
Speaker 2: a random Tuesday afternoon in the lab?
Speaker 3: Well, it describes the shift from focusing on syntax to
Speaker 3: focusing on semantics.
Speaker 2: Okay, meaning what in traditional.
Speaker 3: Coding or mathematical research, a scientist spends a massive percentage
Speaker 3: of their time in the weed You are hunting down
Speaker 3: a missing semicolon in a script, or manually configuring how
Speaker 3: data moves from one array to another.
Speaker 2: Right, deeply mechanical work.
Speaker 3: Exactly, But in a vibe coding workflow, the human operates
Speaker 3: at a much higher conceptual level. The human provides the intuition,
Speaker 3: the direction, the vibe of the research I see. You
Speaker 3: might look at a complex data set and tell the AI, Hey,
Speaker 3: the collision parameters in this specific decay channel look anomalous.
Speaker 3: Write a script to isolate and test for these specific
Speaker 3: mathematical symmetries, and.
Speaker 2: Then the AI just does it.
Speaker 3: The AI translates that high level concept into four hundred
Speaker 3: lines of executable code.
Speaker 2: So what does this all mean? It's basically the difference
Speaker 2: between being the head chef and being the line cook exactly.
Speaker 2: The head chef isn't spending four hours chopping onions. They
Speaker 2: are designing the flavor profile of the dish, tasting the components,
Speaker 2: and validating the output. Perfect analogy, the AI is the
Speaker 2: ultimate hyperfast line cook doing all the chopping. The human's
Speaker 2: primary job is entirely focused on validation, steering, and conceptual architecture.
Speaker 3: And that shift in labor brings up what David she
Speaker 3: calls the trillion dollar question regarding the future of scientific discovery.
Speaker 2: Ooh, the trillion dollar question.
Speaker 3: Wow?
Speaker 2: What is it?
Speaker 3: As these AI models rapidly improve here as they hallucinate
Speaker 3: less and stop stapling the reports upside down, where does
Speaker 3: this ultimately lead? Will AI eventually achieve total flawless autonomy
Speaker 3: and just conduct the science entirely on its own, or
Speaker 3: will it remain a collaborative tool that simply amplifies human capability.
Speaker 2: That is a massive question. Is the virtual graduate student
Speaker 2: becomes a virtual lead scientist. You really have to wonder
Speaker 2: what happens to the human researchers. Is there a genuine
Speaker 2: faction within the scientific community that believes human physicists are
Speaker 2: about to become obsolete?
Speaker 3: Oh, there's a very vocal faction that believes exactly that. Really, yes,
Speaker 3: they predict we are on the precipice of total automation
Speaker 3: in high level research. Their argument is that as agenic
Speaker 3: AI scale, we will essentially be able to spin up
Speaker 3: ten thousand Einsteins on a server farm.
Speaker 2: Ten thousand Einsteins. That is a wild phrase.
Speaker 3: It really is. But the idea is these artificial minds
Speaker 3: will work two hundred and forty seven without fatigue, ye,
Speaker 3: cracking the remaining mysteries of the universe at a speed
Speaker 3: humans can't even comprehend yours.
Speaker 2: Humans just watch.
Speaker 3: In their view, yeah, humans will become mere bystanders to
Speaker 3: the process of discovery.
Speaker 2: Ten thousand artificial Einstein's working in parallel is a wild
Speaker 2: concept to wrap your head around. But since she is
Speaker 2: actually in the trenches actively building and managing these systems,
Speaker 2: where does he fall on that debate? Does he think
Speaker 2: the head chef is about to be replaced by the
Speaker 2: automated kitchen.
Speaker 3: From his first hand experience, She strongly pushes back against
Speaker 3: the idea of human obsolescence.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's reassuring.
Speaker 3: He believes human judgment remains the essential, irreplaceable ingredient in
Speaker 3: the scientific method. Look, an AI can unscramble a massive
Speaker 3: mathematical equation faster than any human alive, but it lacks
Speaker 3: the context awareness to know which equations are actually worth unscrambling. Right,
Speaker 3: it doesn't know what matters exactly. It doesn't possess human curiosity.
Speaker 3: It doesn't understand the physical world outside of the mathematical
Speaker 3: representations it is fed.
Speaker 2: So it's just a really smart calculator.
Speaker 3: Right. It can execute logic flawlessly, but it cannot generate
Speaker 3: the initial spark of physical intuition that directs the logic
Speaker 3: in a meaningful direction.
Speaker 2: So the true skill of a scientist moving forward won't
Speaker 2: be rote memorization or manual calculation. The value of a
Speaker 2: human researcher will be entirely predicated on their ability to
Speaker 2: ask the right questions, to recognize anomalies that an AI
Speaker 2: might gloss over, and to brilliantly orchestrate these autonomous tools.
Speaker 3: This raises an important point. If society can successfully merge
Speaker 3: automated hyper fast symbolic logic with profound human intuition. We
Speaker 3: are likely entering an era of accelerated scientific discovery unlike
Speaker 3: anything in human history.
Speaker 2: It's incredible when you trace the trajectory of this entire concept,
Speaker 2: it's fascinating. It starts with the mechanics of a simple
Speaker 2: colorful puzzle toy. The logic of twisting and untwisting a
Speaker 2: Rubic's cube provides the blueprint to teach an AI how
Speaker 2: to unscramble the deepest, most chaotic equations of subatomic physics.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's quite the leap.
Speaker 2: And that single breakthrough serves as the catalyst for the
Speaker 2: era of vibe coding, fundamentally transforming the human scientist from
Speaker 2: a manual laborer into a visionary manager directing an army
Speaker 2: of virtual graduate students.
Speaker 3: The advites you to examine how you approach the complex,
Speaker 3: tangled systems in your own life and work to oh absolutely,
Speaker 3: when you are faced with a massive logistical problem or
Speaker 3: a chaotic project, are you still trying to manually unscramble
Speaker 3: the cue by yourself?
Speaker 2: Probably, if you're like most people.
Speaker 3: Right, But the methodology of the modern scientists suggests that
Speaker 3: the optimal path forward isn't to work harder at the
Speaker 3: manual twists and turns. It is to learn how to guide, validate,
Speaker 3: and collaborate with the tools that can recognize the hidden
Speaker 3: patterns for you.
Speaker 2: Because the chaotic equiation of your own industry might just
Speaker 2: require the right virtual partner to reveal the elegant symmetry
Speaker 2: underneath exactly. It leaves you with a lingering, provocative thought.
Speaker 2: If we can build an artificial intelligence capable of learning
Speaker 2: the hidden mathematical moves required to effortlessly unscramble the fundamental
Speaker 2: laws of the universe, what other seemingly impossible human problems
Speaker 2: are out there.
Speaker 3: That's a big question.
Speaker 2: Think about the logistical, medical, or societal systems we currently
Speaker 2: accept as permanent, unsolvable chaos. What if they aren't permanently
Speaker 2: broken at all. What if they are just highly complex
Speaker 2: puzzles waiting for the right tool to apply a few
Speaker 2: correct twists.
Speaker 3: It's definitely possible.
Speaker 2: Something to think about the next time you encounter a
Speaker 2: problem that feels hopelessly tangled.