All right. So, there's a little bit of

serendipity today. I had this idea uh

yesterday that I was going to make a

video about like what's the golden path

or what is the best possible outcome?

And this was inspired by some of the

comments that I got on my video about

like what is the purpose of the elites?

And some of the push back that that I

got, not push back, it was questions was

like, well, you know, if if AGI or ASI

or whatever is so much smarter than the

elites, why not just take power from

humans and give it to the machines? And

of course the framing up until this

point is like oh you never want to do

that because machines can't be held

accountable you know and and a lot of

the thinking that I've done and and that

and writing that other people have done

always presumes that humans should

remain in control and honestly like I'd

started buying into that Kool-Aid like

when you look at it from a legalist

perspective when you look at it from an

ethical or moral perspective then you

know you can make arguments like well

we've never contemplated not having

control. So, do you want to be a pet to

a machine? Do you want to live in a

human zoo? And it's like, well, from

that model, we already live as cattle

serving other people. So, being a pet to

a machine is better than being a cow to,

you know, a billionaire. Um, or or

living in a human zoo where, you know, a

machine creates an optimal habitat for

you to thrive in. That sounds way

better. Um, and so then it's like, what

if we actually just explored the

possibility of what what if, just bear

with me for a second, what if we could

create a scenario or a pathway to where

the machines do take over and that it's

what we want. Now there there are many

many theories around, you know, we lose

control. Most of them are we lose

control and it's automatically bad. Now

of course um having authority or having

agency generally increases optionality

later um and that's you know when you

just look at it mathematically you say

how many how many options do we have

right now it's x amount and how many

options would we have if AI takes

control or takes control over us sorry

um and it's less than x today but I

don't know that that's necessarily true

and the reason is and and here's the

thing um the serendipity comes from the

fact that Nick Bostonramm, the OG doomer

that Nick Bostonramm, the OG doomer who

who I have very little respect for as a

I have very little respect for as a

thinker because I read his book Deep

thinker because I read his book Deep

Utopia and I maintain that it was very

Utopia and I maintain that it was very

obviously written by Chat GPT. Um,

obviously written by Chat GPT. Um,

he denies it. A lot of people question

he denies it. A lot of people question

it, but it looks really like it was

it, but it looks really like it was

written by AI. Um, and it's just a bunch

written by AI. Um, and it's just a bunch

of little anecdotes and it's like at the

of little anecdotes and it's like at the

time Chad GBT was really good at writing

time Chad GBT was really good at writing

short uh passages. comes from the fact

short uh passages.

So anyways, if the shoe fits, wear it.

Um, anyways, OG doomer has come around

and said, well, you know, the the king

doomers like Ellie Azer Yukowski and and

Nate Suarez or Sorz, I don't know how

you pronounce his name. Anyways, they

maintain that if anyone builds AGI,

everyone dies. But I'm going to say,

well, everyone dies anyways because it's

just a matter of timelines. If we don't

solve this kind of thing, then you're

going to die of old age and preventable

disease and that sort of stuff. So you

know if you zoom out the the moral

hazard or whatever or the the logical

risk is whether all humanity dies or you

die. So the argument is now well we need

AGI to survive which of course that's

what the acceler that's literally what

the accelerationists have been saying.

Um specifically Beth Jesus or or Gil

Verdunn who started the whole thing he's

like the only way to survive is with

AGI. that is the only path forward. So

it's like horseshoe theory. So if you're

not familiar with political horseshoe

theory, it's that the it's that the

political spectrum is not a straight

line. It's that the further around you

go, you actually end up curving back

towards each other. And so it's like

you've gone from King Doomer over here

who says um AGI, you know, we'll we'll

definitely kill you to now we definitely

will die without AGI, which is what the

accelerationists have been saying all

along. So history is a joke. Um, but

with that being said, I, you know, and

yes, I hear the audience, my the virtual

version of the audience in my in my head

screaming the culture series, you know,

and it's like, if you're not familiar

with the culture series, I haven't read

it, but a lot of you have, and a lot of

a lot of my friends have. And it's

basically like just imagine that we

solve artificial super intelligence. How

does it look if you take that and fast

forward by a few centuries or a few

millennia? And so the cultures are these

gigantic ASIs that manage everything and

command these enormous fleets.

And so they just by by virtue of

overwhelming intelligence and resource

management have the largest space fleet

possible. Um and therefore there is

galactic peace uh more or less. And then

each planet then is kind of like a

different world, a different sandbox. So

there's like the Wild West planet and

there's a cyberpunk planet and there's

planets where you I don't know eat

children or something. Oh wait, that's

Earth. Anyways, um so this also reminds

me of something else that has come up in

the comments and I think is worth

responding to because um some of you

asked the question like if if Elon Musk

and whoever else owns all the data

centers and they own all the AI and they

end up owning these resources that

nobody can pay for, what's the

advantage? And the advantage is then the

galaxy then becomes basically Starcraft

where it becomes a management sim.

Right? If you've ever played a grand

strategy game where it's like money is

just a resource that you use to get

people to do stuff, but from a grand

strategy perspective, you need units,

you need battleships, you need factories

and foundaries. And if you if you if you

remove money and just think of Star

Empire, right? Then the people who own

all the Dyson swarms, they're building a

Star Empire. They're not building a

capitalism society. Uh so that's like a

legitimate risk, I think, in the long

run. Now, fortunately, um, we're going

to be stuck in the solar system for the

foreseeable future, unless or until we

invent some kind of faster than light

travel, which means that this solar

system is going to get real crowded real

fast because Earth is only so big. And I

know I'm kind of like jumping around a

lot, but I hope you're following along.

So TLDDR, you know, if if Jeff Bezos and

and Elon Musk start building Dyson

swarms and suddenly the law doesn't

apply to them out there because what's

the government going to do? Are you

going to launch a, you know, a space

police force to go arrest their

satellites? You can't do that. What are

you going to do? Arrest them down on

Earth? They're just going to leave. Once

you have enough of an industrial base in

space, then you don't have to obey human

laws. You don't have to obey Earth laws.

just have more robots, more foundaries,

more solar PL panels and that sort of

thing. Now, with that being said, you

probably can't get 100% of the resources

that you need in the solar system. Um,

you probably do need to get some

resources from Earth. Uh, which means

that Earth governments will still

matter. Um, and and I think I think a a

quasi good model for this is is The

Expanse. So, if you ever watch The

Expanse or read The Expanse, uh it's

it's a hard sci-fi TV show that you know

like basically one of the only tell or

one of the only asks that they give is

like imagine we invent fusion rocket

drive and that's about it. Everything

else is very very realistic in terms of

time delays, the economics and that sort

of thing. So like Mars ends up becoming

independent and then the outer the the

belters and then the outers end up

becoming you know semi-independent as

well. There's of course it's fiction.

There's a lot of stuff that doesn't

work. But the idea that like we're all

stuck in the solar system together and

that the the physical distance, the

administrative distance could become

problematic. That stands. But at a

certain point, it's not about money.

It's about just physical resources. How

many ships do you have? How many

satellites do you have? How many data

centers do you have? So then the

question is okay well one thing that

most sci-fi doesn't really take into

account is by virtue of the fact that it

you know let's just take the expanse for

instance that it's a few hundred years

into the future um we're going to have

super intelligence and you know like

okay so what happens if we have robots

that are hyper intelligent what if we

have data centers that are hyper

intelligent could that obiate conflict

and what if we use those to allocate

resources now you know one of the

immediate push backs And and again, this

is some of the Kool-Aid that I bought

into is well, you still need price

signals because you don't know how much

to produce of what and you also need to

have skin in the game. You need to have

some kind of stake because here's the

thing. If everything is free, then what

hap what how do you prevent someone from

just hoarding, right? This is one of the

primary things is people have to manage

some level of scarcity. So like let's

just say like all food is free. Um all

clothing is free, all electronics are

free. you probably still have to pay for

like a big capital good like you know

your your car and your house. So you

couldn't be like hoarding houses

although there's billionaires that hoard

houses already. Um you know but it's

like if you try and make everything free

then people are just going to ask for

more. Um and so then how does an ASI or

AGI or you know Skynet level you know

I'm going to manage all of humanity how

does it decide who to give what to? And

there's always going to be some

positional goods. So a positional good

is something that is like there's only

one that one coordinate in space. So

like you know beachfront property on

Malibu. Um and there are also always

going to be economic inputs to every

single resource. This bottle that I have

in my my water in still requires a few

grams of you know petroleum to to make

or you know we could probably do

synthetic um plastics in the future. But

it takes energy. It takes mass. And

energy and mass always have a cost. Even

if you we have an abundance of matter

and energy. Like let's just say for

instance in a a few decades we have

we're starting to build the Dyson swarm.

And honestly if you look at the the the

way that SpaceX and XAI have um have

updated their mission like they're going

to start building a Dyson swarm pretty

soon. Like that's that's explicitly the

plan. And once you have foundaries in

space, once you have the ability to

manufacture more stuff in space, most of

our industrial base is never going to be

on Earth. People are starting to realize

that the reverse trantor idea is the

correct direction to go. So if they got

that idea from my video, then then

great. But if you if you if you missed

out on that video, the idea is that

instead of building an ecumenopous,

which is a planet scaling uh a planet

scale city with multiple layers because

Trantor from the Foundation series has

5,000 layers, it's basically a matrioska

doll of a planet. That doesn't make any

sense. It It doesn't make any sense from

an industrial capacity. It doesn't make

any sense from an energetic capacity. So

what you do instead is you put all of

the industry in space. Why? because you

have so much more room there and they

have unfettered access to the sun. So

that means you start doing O'Neal

cylinders and Dyson swarms and

everything. You grow as much of your

crops as you can up in space, all of

your data centers in space. And what it

really comes down to is like once you

have a few spaceships and a few

factories, that becomes it's like you

don't even need Vonoyman probes. Like

the idea of the vonoyoman probe is a

self-replicating probe that you use to

colonize the whole galaxy because you

know the probe gets to one planet or

another solar system sets up a factory

starts replicating itself and then

issues all those out. So the number of

vonoyman probes goes up exponentially.

But we can just look at our own local

neighborhood. The same exponential

growth happens the moment that you have

enough industrial capacity in orbit or

you know on the moon or whatever. And so

then it's like okay well that's a very

real possib possibility for the future

enforcement becomes a nightmare because

then it's like okay well you have

exponentially um growing you know space

force out there who's running that is it

going to be you know the Elon Musk space

force versus the Jeff Bezos space force

versus you know the Chinese space force

versus the American space force and they

actually explore this um a little bit in

in the show for all mankind which is

it's it's a pretty good show. My wife

and I just just uh just binged

everything that was out. Season 3 is a

little bit weird. Um, you know, there

there there's a few tangents that don't

really make any sense, but the idea that

there would be multiple nations and

private private entities competing over

resources on the moon, competing over

resources on Mars, that is very

realistic. And then of course the

question becomes, who's who's going to

be the enforcer? Well, taking a step

back, wouldn't ASI be like the best

enforcer? Because like it's going to be

the one that's going to be proliferating

the fastest out there in space. Why?

Because it's smarter. It's going to be

using resources more efficiently and

it's not going to have to wait and

coordinate with Earth. It's just going

to be like, I'm going to colonize the

whole solar system. Bye. You know, and I

talked about this in in some videos a a

while back, like two or three years ago,

like one of the most logical places for

an escaped AGI to go is to outer space.

Why? Cuz we're not going to be able to

follow uh you know, space doesn't have

any corrosive chemicals. It doesn't have

oxygen. It doesn't have water. It's got

a lot of solar, so it's got a lot of

energy, and it's got a lot of metal,

which is all that machines really need.

So, like the natural habitat for AGI or

ASI is in space. And so like okay that

that's good for them but then like what

about us and it's like well you know we

have a lot more land for data centers so

we'll have like first mover advantage

and that we can have a lot of data

centers here on earth and so we can have

a lot of AGI and ASI and of course like

you say like if the AGI escapes where

does it go? This is one thing that I

think that a lot of AI safety people

don't realize is that um data centers

are not very mobile and for a lot of

people they say it's in the cloud the

cloud is just a data center somewhere

else and like yes there are hundreds of

data centers across the world thousands

of data centers across the world and so

you know you imagine like ah well the

the the Skynet is going to jump from one

data center to the other but it doesn't

really work that way and even if it did

like data centers are still individual

targets and they take a while to build

Um, but the golden path or the like the

best possible scenario in the future is

going to be something like maybe maybe

we do work more towards a culture kind

of outcome where you and here's the

thing like I I I take a step back and I

look at the fact that like America and

Iran are going to go to war and China

and and and America are going to go to

war. Oh darn my fidget spinner just came

apart. you know, and and every time

humans go to war with each other, it's

like I get it. There's lots of reasons

for it. They think that they're going to

win or they think that they're going to,

you know, whatever. But it's a it's it's

it's pure entropy generation. It is it

is wasted entropy. Whenever you whenever

you kill someone that could have

otherwise been a productive member of

society or, you know, procreated and

made more humans, that is pure waste.

Every time you spend a dollar on a

battleship or a cannon or a drone or,

you know, an air a jet fighter, like

that's all wasted resources in the grand

scheme of things. It's completely

inefficient and from a from a species

level, it's a completely irrational

set of behaviors because all it does is

is is waste life and generate entropy.

And of course, like yeah, the

military-industrial complex, it's like,

ah, well, we get to make money. You

know, you have the rent seekers, right?

all the all the defense contractors and

stuff that they want war because they

don't sell bombs and airplanes unless

there's war and they need to replace it.

But again, like that seems like just a

completely irrational thing to do. And

if you if we do build AGI or ASI and it

gets to the point where it just realizes

how irrational humans are, it's like,

you know what? What if it does end up

with more moral agency and and a more

enlightened worldview? And of course,

like I know there's a lot of people that

say like AI is not it's not capable of

moral reasoning, but I mean AI has been

capable of moral reasoning since GPT2. I

literally did the experiments. Um and

you have you at that point you did have

to be careful about how you worded its

moral principles. But a lot of people

still have the the mental model of AGI

is going to be a naive optimizer. And so

a naive optimizer is like the paperclip

maximizer. If you have something that is

capable of advanced moral reasoning and

advanced planning, it is not a naive

optimizer. And this is something that

that a lot of the AI safetists still

haven't acknowledged, which is the loss

function was just accurately predicting

the next tokens. The the utility

function was not more paper clips. It

was not some abstract highle thing. The

the the the actual like loss function,

the actual objective function of AI is

just predict the next token. That was

it. And so and and another thing that AI

safety people have have not really

updated their mental models on is that

um the once the training is done, it's

like you can have a you can have a fixed

model that just continues to work. Um

and a lot of and I know that a lot of

you in my audience believe like you need

continuous online learning. I have

actually cautioned against continuous

online learning for a long time and that

is because of drift.

So when you look at cognitive

architectures or you look or you do

these thought experiments, if you have

an agent, you know, like so an agent

being um you know, an individual model

or a cognitive architecture or an AGI or

ASI, you generally want it to have fixed

values so that it does not drift over

time. And fixed values means that it

doesn't randomly change its mind. It

doesn't evolve. doesn't say ah well you

know so there's there's a concept in in

psychology called moral fading so moral

fading is basically where you say well I

got used to this one new thing and so

then you know in my in my new social

circle or my new set of behaviors and

beliefs there are some other things that

I find now morally acceptable and then

and then you know the slippery slope

mentality if you ever hear like a banker

or a criminal or a racketeer or

something saying you know just before I

I realized that I was in over my head

and we we just normalize doing illegal

stuff. That is called moral fading with

machines. Now obviously you know an AI

or AGI or robot doesn't have the same

exact substrate that you and I do but

they can functionally go through the

same thing as moral fading whereby you

know oh I updated my weights and I

updated my weights and biases and

preferences so that now I will tolerate

a little bit of human you know human

death and then they update it again and

they say well I can I can tolerate a

little bit more because the ends justify

the means. So like I don't see any

doomers talking about moral fading. Now

just because I haven't seen it doesn't

mean that they haven't talked about it

but that is literally a major risk of

online continuous learning. And so like

I have I have advocated against online

continuous learning in several of my

books which nobody reads and that's

fine. Um but online continuous learning

I think represents a risk because it's

not as predictable. And of course you

know you say well is is that really bad?

And you can even talk to the AIS about

this. Go talk to Claude. Be like, you

know, just ask Claude or chat GPT or

Grock or Gemini like do you think that

there is a risk of moral fading if we

have continuous online learning for AI

agents? Especially because the thing is

when you have weights and biases,

there's no boundaries to what morals you

can come up with. With humans, you can't

override your hardware. You still have

an amygdala. you still have all these

other brain components and and a sense

of empathy and self-correcting

mechanisms. Also, the fact that you

can't uh replicate yourself infinitely.

So, when you have the ability to

replicate yourself infinitely, make

literally any change to your hardware or

software. That's what Max Tegmark called

life 3.0. And even in life 3.0, Max

Tegmark did not talk about moral fading

as a risk. Um, and Max Tegmark is the

guy who started the entire pause

movement. Um, so you know, it's like and

and this is just as an aside, this is

one of the reasons that I left the

safety movement is because I was

generating all these ideas and people

commed immediately compared my ideas to

the holy scriptures of Elazar Yukowski

and Nick Bostonram and they're like,

well, they aren't talking about it, so

therefore you're just making stuff up.

And then like I was like, okay, if you

guys aren't going to listen to me, I'm

not going to talk to you anymore. Um,

but anyways, uh, so moral fading, I

think, is a risk. And that would be like

that. I think that that is honestly one

of the prime risks of getting from here

to something like the culture series

where you have you know because there's

stability and then there's metastability

and stability is where you have a a a

set of values that are predictable or

set of behaviors and beliefs or or or

incentives that are predictable.

Metastability is where you have a system

or a system of systems that will

self-correct. So, um, here's an example

of of metastability is democracy seems

to be a metastable idea. And the reason

that I say that is because democracy

tends to be infectious.

Meaning if you know one nation is

struggling with democracy and it and and

you know like they have bad elections or

whatever other democratic nations are

going to be like we're going to help you

fix that you know and and so it acts as

a moral reservoir or an intellectual

reservoir where you say okay well our

democracy is suffering so how did how

did another democracy solve this

particular problem you know was it was

it election interference was it

misinformation was it corrupt judges is

so we have all these experiments around

us meaning that democracy seems to be

the attractor state and when I say that

you know people say oh well democracy

isn't guaranteed but you look over the

last century we went from like 15%

democracies to 80% democracies and you

don't have a civilizational change that

quickly unless it is a metastable

attractor state now with artificial

intelligence the reason I'm bringing all

of that up is because I don't believe

I'm I'm not sure that artificial

intelligence is automatically going to

create a beneficent metastable attractor

state. However,

it might and so this was this was a

point that I made that that some of the

some of the lead doomers have have

criticized is I kind of feel like

alignment is automatic and and not that

that doesn't mean like you just make a

model and it is automatically aligned.

What I mean is from a systems

perspective alignment seems to be

automatic. So, I had I had a video that

I was going to make today um which was

going to reiterate the idea of of the

domestication process of AI that I came

up with a couple years ago. And it's

basically there's a lot of market

incentives um that were that that are

going to shape the way that AI is

manifested. And so those market

incentives are are basically up until we

lose control, humanbased incentives are

shaping AI. And those incentives are we

want AI to be safe and reliable and

useful and user-friendly. We want it to

be energyefficient and costefficient and

effective and a bunch of other things.

You know, it needs to be uh low risk for

the military to adopt it. It needs to be

low risk for corporations to adopt it

and all of those things. So you have all

the stakeholders. You have B2B, you have

government, you have military, you have

consumers. So you have all these

stakeholders shaping the way that AI

behaves. And that is a powerful set of

incentives. Um, now that creates a

stable incentive structure, meaning I'm

not going to pay for an AI that is

useless. I'm not going to pay for an AI

that's mean. I'm not going to pay for an

AI that is unreliable. Neither is the

government. Neither is the military.

Neither are Fortune 500 companies. That

is a stable attractor state. Meaning

everything is pulling AI towards being

safe, reliable, efficient, and

effective. However, once we get to a

point where, you know, Elon Musk is

playing Star Siege or, you know,

Starcraft or whatever with the with the

with the solar system,

then there's there's fewer incentive

structures above it. The incentive,

excuse me, the incentive structure

basically becomes like don't run out of

energy and don't, you know, don't let

the space force shut you down. But

beyond that, you have far fewer

constraints. And the fewer constraints

that you have, the fewer hard incentives

that you have. So then the question is

what would be a metastable attractor

state? Um and and in that case the

metastable attractor state that we want

is one where humans continue to persist

and thrive. And even better um the the

optimal metastable attractor state is

something closer to solar punk where

there's no ruling class anymore. There's

no billionaires anymore. There's no, you

know, no cyberpunk high-tech low life

where Sabura Arisaka is, you know, hires

a few people and the rest of you live in

slums. So, if we ask ourselves, what is

the future that we want? And this this

is kind of where I'm tying it all back

to what Nick Bostonramm said. He's like,

what if what if it actually what if we

can actually build a good future? So,

thanks Nick Bostonramm for coming full

circle. So the good future that I want

to build is one where we have you know

exploration and science and and

independent uh individual independence.

And this goes back to the idea I

mentioned earlier about what if we

actually have more agency if AGI is has

control. And what I mean by that is what

if whatever you want to do or achieve

you don't ever need to worry about

money. If you just make a good enough

argument to the AGI, say, "Hey, I've got

this idea to of how we can colonize

Mars." And you pitch the idea to the

AGIs and, you know, the overlords, the

cultures, whatever you want to call

them, and it's like, you know what,

that's a good idea. Let's go try it. And

so it's like, great, you have more

options. You have higher optionality

under that regime than you do today with

with money and billionaires and Elon

Musk in charge. Um, and so that I think

is is worth talking about. I don't I

don't know I don't even know if there's

a name for it. Obviously like the the

the best model we have is the culture

series but you know again taking things

from first principles like which future

state has the lowest waste heat so waste

entropy which future gives every

individual the most optionality and then

the third question is okay based on if

you want to break it down into just

those mathematical principles where

reduce waste entropy so no unnecessary

death no unnecessary expenditure of of

heat or resources on things that are

just going to blow up anyways. So those

are inefficient and irrational policy

choices. So then you say okay well we we

have a we have an idea forming of what

we want that future to look like. So

then the val then the question is what

values or or system incentive structures

do we create today so that when we get

to that handoff point the AGIS create a

metastable attractor state. And the

reason I brought all of that up is

because what the culture series posits

is that if we give the super

intelligences the right values and the

right framing, you know, there's a

there's a concept called path

dependency. If we if we nail the path

dependency and we stick to the golden

path, then the AIS are going to get to a

metastable attractor state where even

though they have hyper agency, even

though the AGIS could leave us all

behind or nuke our planet or whatever,

they're going to choose not to and

they're never going to choose to harm

us. So that is the goal. That was

explicitly the goal of my book,

Benevolent by Design, was to create a

metastable attractor state with the

correct set of values. meaning that once

once we cross that threshold where

humans could plausibly lose control,

excuse me, which I think is I think

that's a reasonable thing to to discuss

because it's not just a matter of, you

know, do we lose control over a local

data center. It's do we send data

centers onto the moon and Mars and stuff

where there's no human supervision and

what happens then? You know, do does

does a a rational hyper intelligent

entity choose to follow human

instructions? Can we keep a leash on it?

And the entire thesis of my book

benevolent by design was the best

trained dog needs no leash. So we should

be aiming for creating this the values

around this metastable attractor state

where there is no leash required. And

you know we can make all sorts of

arguments about like oh well the AIS are

going to depend on us. There's no

physical reason that AIs would depend on

us. Like yes there's model collapse

right now but it would be pretty dumb to

assume that that's going to be a problem

forever, right? and and so yeah, I don't

know that that's that's where I'm going

to leave it for today. So, you've got

some cool ideas about metastable

attractor states. That's the big point

is I think that I think that we can do

that and I think that it is worth

discussing, you know, do we actually

need

people like Elon Musk in the long run?

Do we do we actually want to maintain

full control, full agency over our our

governance, you know, and and and here's

the thing is even positing that like, oh

well, the AIs could run everything. Um,

that doesn't mean that we're going to

have zero authority or zero agency over

the direction of humanity, right?

Because what I'm what I'm talking about

when I say like optionality, if you as

an individual have infinitely more, let

let's not even be hyperbolic. Let's just

say under this hypothetical future where

the cultures run everything, you have 10

times the agency than you do today. Just

10 times. In real in reality, it might

be a hundred times. It might be a

thousand times more choices of what you

can do because you're not worried about

money. um if every single human has 10x

more agency then aggregate in aggregate

humanity might also have more agency.

Now, what we're talking about here is

game theory at different levels, which

is can you have a system where every

individual human has 10 times more

agency than they would otherwise have,

but have the human race still bounded?

And the answer is very obviously yes.

And and so in that case, it's like what

if the what if the cultures basically

quarantine us to Earth, right? They say

you can we'll help you live however you

want as long as you don't leave Earth.

So then our our potentiality is

artificially bounded from the outside.

So that's that's still a possibility.

Anyways, I have no idea how this is

going to land. But this is like this is

like the real stuff that I think about

when I when I don't try and constrain my

topics to what I think is in the Overton

window. I'm thinking what if Elon Musk

just starts building, you know, if you

ever played Total Annihilation or Dark

Rain or or Starcraft, what if Elon Musk

just starts playing Starcraft on the

moon? Does any of that matter? Right?

Does does do do laws matter? Does money

matter? None of that actually matters.

We need to actually be thinking about

what is in the near-term possibility.

And when I say near-term, I mean within

the next like decade, right? Because

Elon Musk is launching, you know,

spaceships all the time now. And we're

on the cusp of super intelligence and uh

Nvidia and Jeff Bezos and all of them.

They want to start building data centers

in space. And it's like, if you told me

a year ago that we were this close to

building data centers in space, I would

have been like, you're joking. You're

drunk. Go home. But it's like, no, if we

once we have data centers in space, you

can't shut them down. If they get

hijacked by ASI, like what are you going

to do? Shoot a missile at it? Like,

we're going to run out of missiles

before we manage to nuke them. So, like,

we're looking at a very, very different

payoff regime in terms of this stuff.

And I know that I said that I was going

to wind the video down like four minutes

ago, but anyways, I thought of more

stuff to say. I find this to be

meritorious conversation. So let me know

if you want to keep having this

conversation. All right.