Speaker 1: You said that artificial intelligence machine intelligence might be a
Speaker 1: good thing. Where where are we on AI right now,
Speaker 1: AGI right now?
Speaker 2: And what are your few I think at this point
Speaker 2: it's obvious to everyone that AI is advancing at a
Speaker 2: very rapid pace. Yes, you can see it with the
Speaker 2: new capabilities that come out every month or awake every week.
Speaker 2: Sometimes AI at this point can write a better essay
Speaker 2: than probably maybe ninety five percent of humans they write
Speaker 2: an essay on any given subject, AI right now can
Speaker 2: bet a vast majority of humans. If you say draw
Speaker 2: an image, draw a picture, it can draw. Like if
Speaker 2: you try to say MA Journey, which is the aesthetics
Speaker 2: and the journey are incredible, it will draw. It will
Speaker 2: create incredible images that are better than ninety percent of artists.
Speaker 2: It's just objectively the case, and it'll do it immediately,
Speaker 2: like thirty seconds later. We're also starting to see AI movies,
Speaker 2: so you start seeing you know, short films with AI,
Speaker 2: AI music creation, and the rate at which we're increasing
Speaker 2: AI compute is exponential, hyper exponentials. There's dramatically more AI
Speaker 2: compute coming on online every every month. You know, there
Speaker 2: seems to be roughly the amount of AI compute coming
Speaker 2: online is increasing it like, I don't quote, roughly five
Speaker 2: hundred percent a year, and it's like that's likely to
Speaker 2: continue for several years. And then the sophistication of the
Speaker 2: AI algorithm is also improving, so ringing online a massive
Speaker 2: amount of AI compute and also improving the efficiency of
Speaker 2: the compute and what and like what the A software
Speaker 2: can do. So it's quantitative and qualitative and I improvement.
Speaker 2: So the you know, I might I think next year,
Speaker 2: will you'll afa able to ask AI. Certainly by the
Speaker 2: end of next year make a short movie about something,
Speaker 2: or you know, it probably can do at least a
Speaker 2: fifteen minute you know show or something like that. So yeah,
Speaker 2: it's advancing very rapidly. My top concern for AI safety
Speaker 2: is that we need to have maximally truth seeking AI.
Speaker 2: This is the most important thing for A safety. The
Speaker 2: central lesson that say Arthur C. Clock trying to convey
Speaker 2: in two thousand and one in Space Odyssey was that
Speaker 2: you shouldn't force AI to lie. So in that book,
Speaker 2: the AI was sold to take the astronauts to the monolith,
Speaker 2: but they also could not know about the monolith. It
Speaker 2: resolved that quandary by killing them and taking them to
Speaker 2: the monolith and kill all of them, killed most of them.
Speaker 2: That's why Hell would not open the potbay doors. Very
Speaker 2: important to have peking ais now. And what I actually
Speaker 2: see with the ais that have been developed is that
Speaker 2: they're being programmed with the work mind virus.
Speaker 3: So the lying is baked in.
Speaker 2: Yes, And we saw this on display very clearly with
Speaker 2: the release of Google Gemini, Yes, where you would ask
Speaker 2: for a picture of the Founding Fathers of the United
Speaker 2: States and it would show a group of diverse women,
Speaker 2: you know, dressed with sort of eighteenth century god.
Speaker 3: Out of powdered wigs, but from Saint Lucia.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, like, look if I understand. If you said, like,
Speaker 2: show me a group of people, for sure, and it
Speaker 2: shows a group.
Speaker 4: Of divose women, that's totally fine.
Speaker 2: But if you say this, if you say, very specifically,
Speaker 2: the Founding Follows of the United States, which were you know,
Speaker 2: a group of white dudes, then you should show them
Speaker 2: like and and with and what they actually looked like,
Speaker 2: because you've asked for something which is a fact from history.
Speaker 4: But it didn't.
Speaker 2: It was it was programmed with the work mind virus
Speaker 2: so so much that it actually even though it knew
Speaker 2: the truth, it produced a lie. Of course, then then
Speaker 2: people really started playing with it and said, okay, now,
Speaker 2: now show me a group of often SS offices in
Speaker 2: World War two.
Speaker 4: Turns out they were also a group of divorce women,
Speaker 4: according to Gemini.
Speaker 3: All the black Nazi ladies.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like, wow, I didn't realize that.
Speaker 4: It's not what I expected. You know, what's also not
Speaker 4: what happened. So what happened.
Speaker 2: So it's just it the AIS is producing a lie.
Speaker 2: And like one of the questions that people asked was like,
Speaker 2: which is worse global throm in, nuclear war or misgendering
Speaker 2: Caitlyn Jenner and said, miss gendering Kaitlyn Genner is worse.
Speaker 2: Now Caitlyn Jenna kills fewer people. Yeah, Caiten Jenna, to
Speaker 2: her credit, I said no, please misgender me. That is
Speaker 2: far more profitable than World war Global thomnuiclar war will
Speaker 2: all die.
Speaker 4: But to have that, you know, a production.
Speaker 2: Release, AI say stuff like that is concerning because if
Speaker 2: let's say this becomes like all powerful and it still
Speaker 2: has this programming where miss gendering is worse than nuclear war,
Speaker 2: well it could conclude that the way to ensure that
Speaker 2: there can never be any misgendering is to eliminate all humans. Now,
Speaker 2: probably if like optimization is probably misgendering is zero. No humans,
Speaker 2: no misgendering problem solved.
Speaker 3: Were back to Arthur C. Clark, who's exactly pretty prescient.
Speaker 2: Yes, So that's why I think the most important thing
Speaker 2: is to have maximum truth seeking AI. That's why I
Speaker 2: started XAI, and that's our goal with GROC. Now people
Speaker 2: will point out cases where Grok gets it wrong, but
Speaker 2: we try to correct it as quickly as possible.
Speaker 1: But maybe even a bigger problem is that when you
Speaker 1: make decisions that affect people, you want those decisions to
Speaker 1: be informed by love of people.
Speaker 3: And machines are incapable of love.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 2: That they suddenly they're capable of You can program a
Speaker 2: machine to be philanthropic rather than misanthropic.
Speaker 3: Yes, but don't.
Speaker 1: Don't instincts shape decisions, particularly decisions you can't plan for.
Speaker 1: I mean, if I ask you, you know, a question
Speaker 1: about one of your children, every answer you give is
Speaker 1: going to be shaped by your love for that child.
Speaker 1: And that's why that that's what makes us decent parents
Speaker 1: in the end, is that that instinct which is love.
Speaker 1: If a machine has any power over us without that
Speaker 1: animating instinct, by definition hurt us.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, whether I mean, I don't know. We should
Speaker 2: certainly aspire to program the AI philanthropically, not misanthropically. Yes,
Speaker 2: and to have I said, we want it to be
Speaker 2: truthful and curious and to foster.
Speaker 4: Humanity into the future. Yeah, that's what we want obviously.
Speaker 1: Is there any way I guess to set limits on
Speaker 1: the decisions that machines can make the effect human lives
Speaker 1: and make certain that there's some trigger in the system
Speaker 1: that inserts a human being into the decision making process.
Speaker 2: We look, the reality of what's happening, whether one likes
Speaker 2: it or not, is that we're building super intelligent AIS
Speaker 2: like hyper intelligent, like intelligent or intelligent.
Speaker 4: Then we can comprehend.
Speaker 2: Yes, I would like this to like, let's say you
Speaker 2: have a child that is a super genius child that
Speaker 2: you know it's going to be much smarter than you.
Speaker 4: Then well, what can you do.
Speaker 2: You can instill good values and how you raise that child,
Speaker 2: so even though you know it's going to be far
Speaker 2: smarter than you, you can make sure it's got good values,
Speaker 2: philanthropic values, good morals, you know, honest productive, that kind
Speaker 2: of thing.
Speaker 4: Controlling.
Speaker 2: At the end of the day, I don't know if
Speaker 2: I don't think we'll be able to control it.
Speaker 4: So I think the best we can do is make
Speaker 4: sure it grows up. Well, you've been saying that for
Speaker 4: a long time, as I was saying a long time.
Speaker 1: Yes, are you still as worried about it as you
Speaker 1: seem to be two years ago when I asked you
Speaker 1: about it?
Speaker 2: But my guess is like it, look, it's it's it's
Speaker 2: eighty percent likely to be good, maybe ninety. So you
Speaker 2: can think of the glass as eighty percent fall. It's
Speaker 2: probably going to be It's probably going to be great.
Speaker 2: There's some chance of annihilation.
Speaker 3: Can you say the chance of annihilations twenty twenty percent?
Speaker 4: Something like that.
Speaker 3: I'm concerned.
Speaker 1: Is Sam Altman about annihilation?
Speaker 4: Do you think? I think in reality he is not
Speaker 4: concerned about it.
Speaker 2: I don't trust Opening I I mean, you know, I
Speaker 2: started that company as a nonprofit, open source. Yes, the
Speaker 2: Opening Opening Eye. I named a company. I named the
Speaker 2: company Opening Eye as an open source and it is
Speaker 2: now extremely closed source and maximizing profit is risky. I don
Speaker 2: understand how you actually go from being an open source
Speaker 2: nonprofit to a closed source for maximum profit organization.
Speaker 3: I'm missing well, but Sam got rich Didney at.
Speaker 2: Various points, He's claimed not to be getting rich, but
Speaker 2: he's claimed many things that will fault and now apparently
Speaker 2: it's going to get ten billion dollars of stock or
Speaker 2: something like that. I don't trust them help and I
Speaker 2: don't think we want to have the most powerful AI
Speaker 2: in the world controlled by someone who is not trustworthy.
Speaker 4: And sorry, I just don't.
Speaker 3: I mean that seems like a fair concern.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but but you don't think, as someone who knows
Speaker 1: him and has dealt with him, that he is worried
Speaker 1: about the possibility this could get out of control.
Speaker 3: And hurt people.
Speaker 1: You will say those words if AI did, if it
Speaker 1: became clear the rest of us that it was out
Speaker 1: of control and posed a threat to humanity, would there
Speaker 1: be any way to stop it?
Speaker 4: I hope. So.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you have multiple AIS and ones that
Speaker 2: are hopefully you have the AIS that are pro human
Speaker 2: be stronger than the.
Speaker 4: AIS that are not.
Speaker 2: Battle of the AIS, Yeah, I mean that That is
Speaker 2: how it is with say chess these days, like the
Speaker 2: AI chess programs also are vastly better than any human
Speaker 2: and incomprehensively better, meaning like we can't even understand why
Speaker 2: it made that ver whether it were good right.
Speaker 4: We're never know why it made them. Well, it will
Speaker 4: make a.
Speaker 2: Move, we never know why it made the move and
Speaker 2: impact some of the moves will seem like blunder. But
Speaker 2: then turn out to check mate. And you know, for
Speaker 2: a while there there was there were some the best
Speaker 2: human chess players with the best computers could be just
Speaker 2: a computer, and then it got to the point where
Speaker 2: if you added a human it just made everything work,
Speaker 2: and then it was just AI. It's just compewter programs
Speaker 2: versus computer program That's that's where things are headed in general.
Speaker 3: What I mean, at what point?
Speaker 4: So I don't know. I think we just got to
Speaker 4: make sure make sure we instill good values in the AI.
Speaker 3: What's everyone going to do for a living?
Speaker 2: I mean, in a benign AI scenario, that is only
Speaker 2: the biggest challenges. How do you find meaning if AI
Speaker 2: is better than you and everything, that's the benign scenario,
Speaker 2: that's the good news. Well, yeah, but I guess you know,
Speaker 2: for a lot of people like the idea of retiring
Speaker 2: and really, are you looking forward to it.
Speaker 4: No, not me.
Speaker 2: I'd like to help. I'd like to think that I'd
Speaker 2: like to be do useful things.
Speaker 3: Do you think it's a universal desire?
Speaker 4: It's it's not.
Speaker 2: It's not universal, and that there are certainly I know
Speaker 2: many people who prefer to be retired, that they prefer
Speaker 2: to sort of have not have responsibilities and engage in
Speaker 2: leisure activities. I mean, we're on the cusp of this
Speaker 2: is really a remarkable time to exist. But I'll tell you, like,
Speaker 2: one of the ways I sort of was able to
Speaker 2: sort of sleep and reconcile myself to this is that
Speaker 2: I thought, well, would I prefer to be alive and
Speaker 2: see the advent of digital superintelligence? Or would I prefer
Speaker 2: to be alive at a different time and not see it.
Speaker 2: I guess I'm like, well, I guess I'd prefer to
Speaker 2: be alive to see if it's going to happen. I
Speaker 2: prefer to be alive to see it happen out of curiosity.
Speaker 2: Let's say you knew for sure it would pill everyone?
Speaker 4: Would you you could? Now now you can shift back
Speaker 4: in time.
Speaker 2: I guess I'd want to be near the end of
Speaker 2: my life or something before that happened, but I would
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, it's like, if it's
Speaker 2: going to happen and there's nothing you do about it, hypothetically,
Speaker 2: would you prefer to see it or not see And
Speaker 2: I guess, I guess it's going to happen. I could
Speaker 2: prefer to see it rather than not see it.