We have video evidence of people abusing

children and not a single person gots

arrested. How can you call that a

democracy? So, humanity is at a

crossroads where for the first time ever

we need to wake up and realize that

we're ruled by maniacs and what we

believe is democracy is not democracy

and what we know is not the truth. Like

companies and governments will blame the

geopolitical and economic challenges we

have on AI but the truth is AI is not

the enemy. Like I'm not worried about AI

turning against us. I'm worried about

humans telling AI to turn against us.

Like when I worked at Google, we were

building amazing things believing that

we were making the world a better place.

And we were. But then suddenly there is

a moment where you recognize that maybe

the world will not use what you're

making the way you want it to be used.

And sadly this is upon us.

>> So I have lots of questions.

>> Okay, that's good.

>> So what's your take on this job

disruption point? What is the risk of

these very intelligent models that the

creators of these models don't actually

understand themselves? Do you think Sam

Alman's prohumity? How do we get to a

point of ethical AI when the incentive

structures are so highly competitive?

And then I wonder if there's a path that

ends in AI being net positive for

humanity.

>> Somehow we've been pre-programmed to

believe that this is upon us and we

cannot change it. And I refuse that. So

we will talk about the solutions.

>> But are you optimistic?

>> I'm very optimistic about the future.

I'm not optimistic about the next year.

>> Why the next year? Come on, Stephen. You

don't want me to say it.

So,

>> this is super interesting to me. My team

given me this report to show me how many

of you that watch this show subscribe.

And some of you have told us according

to this that you are unsubscribed from

the channel randomly. So, favor to ask

all of you, please could you check right

now if you've hit the subscribe button

if you are a regular viewer of the show

and you like what we do here. We're

approaching quite a significant landmark

on this show in terms of a subscriber

number. So, if there was one simple free

thing that you could do to help us, my

team, everyone here, to keep this show

free, to keep it improving year over

year and week over week, it is just to

hit that subscribe button and to double

check if you've hit it. Only thing I'll

ever ask of you, do we have a deal? If

you do it, I'll tell you what I'll do.

I'll make sure every single week, every

single month, we fight harder and harder

and harder and harder to bring you the

guests and conversations that you want

to hear. I've stayed true to that

promise since the very beginning of the

D of Sio, and I will not let you down.

Please help us. really appreciate it.

Let's get on with the show.

>> Mo Gala, I spoke to you, I think about

four years ago when you wrote a book

about happiness and I remember you came

in, you'd written this book about AI,

but I particularly wanted to speak about

the subject of happiness cuz I was

fascinated by it. What I find

astonishing is the fact that you were

talking about AI before anybody was

really talking about AI. No guest that

had ever come on my podcast had ever

mentioned the subject of AI. it just

wasn't interesting to the world. And

then this thing called Chanty PT came

out and suddenly everybody got to feel

it for themselves and became fascinated

by it. My first question and this might

be a question for people that don't know

you is why at that time did you start

talking about AI before anybody else?

>> I knew them in the lab. I um I joined

Google in 2007

very late 2006. uh and at the time most

people don't know that at the time we

had reasonably established AI doing our

backend work and 2008

we had the cat paper which was published

2009 the first real unprompted AI uh I

remember 2016

I had that incident where I was you know

observing a project we were uh funding

that was about teaching grippers uh how

to grip um unlike like industrial

machinery. Uh so to be to be able to

grip like a human needs a very high

level of intelligence to to to assess

the texture, the softness, the

positioning and so on, the shape of

everything. And we were doing that and

it it just blew my mind how similar to

my kids they were. And I think that was

my very first realization that we were

building the apex of intelligence. we

were genuinely handing over the reigns

of super intelligence to another being,

right? And when you when you get faced

with that, you start to suddenly realize

something that we at Google found very

difficult to realize, which was that

everyone I knew at Google till then uh

was believing that we were making the

world a better place and we were we

genuinely were were doing amazing things

for the world. But then suddenly there

is a moment where you uh where you

recognize that

maybe the world will not use what you're

making the way you want it to be used.

And and you can see that in lots of

technologies. You know, social media

starts by the claim that it's going to

get us connected and gets us closer, but

eventually ends up separating us with

that little screen. You know, dating

apps are giving you the promise that

you're going to find your soulmate, but

in reality, they keep renewing month

after month. And so tech uh somehow ends

up being more capitalist than

altruistic. And I think I was I wasn't

the first. Nick Bostonramm started you

know Jeffrey Hinton completely changed

his mind. Failey Le starting to say you

know this is very serious. Everyone now

everyone who's ever had a very deep

relationship with the machines is a bit

concerned. I wonder if there's a path

that's hard to see now that ends in AI

being net positive for humanity.

>> I bet 100% on that. It's that this path

is very painful.

>> This path is very painful.

>> Yeah. So, so the example you need to

understand is you know we discovered uh

nuclear power and the very first

implementation was a nuclear bomb not

not nuclear energy right and uh and I

think that's exactly what's happening

with AI uh the first implementations of

AI are in favor of a few at the expense

of the majority you know the the in

favor of the capitalist to increase

productivity and reduce cost but not

taking into account how that impacts on

the general public. Uh, you know, in

favor of the of the armies uh that are

now competing with autonomous weapons,

in favor of the surveillance systems

that are attempting to control

everything with more and more and more

intelligence and more monitoring. And

that's not AI waking up in the morning

and saying, "Hey, you know what? Let's

oppress all humans." But it is a

powerful few that are simply deciding to

use the ultimate superpower on the

planet today to gain more power and more

control. I mean, as we speak, we're

living in two major wars where AI is

doing most of the killing.

>> Cuz a lot of people think of AI as these

like chat bots that we're all using to

help us, right?

>> No, I think I think there is a hype I

call it the hype dichotomy if you want.

So, so what the general public sees

about AI is overhyped but

ineffective. You know, all of the fake

videos and all of the, you know, um,

Grock did this and, you know, we

attempted to switch off that machine and

it did that and so on. What the real

geeks see inside the lab is just

unbelievable intelligence. And so what

is about to happen is that we've started

to put together systems that develop

themselves. They look at their own code

and they you know they run experiments

and they test those experiments if they

changed something and they see where the

machines are uh you know the performance

is and and redeploy the best code. Okay.

And and if you just think of that, I

want you to try and imagine a world

where we have a tiny little genius

sitting in the back end somewhere

trying. But instead of trying a new code

every day, it's trying a new code every

microscond.

Eventually, sooner or later, they'll

discover something, right? And I think

that's what most people don't realize.

What most people don't realize is how

intelligence triggers intelligence. And

and if you really really understand

this, you realize that the hype

uh on the on the on the normal human

side is completely overrated. Uh missing

the main topics and the silence

inside the vault if you want of the

geeks is quite alarming. No, not

alarming in a bad way, but it's quite

world changing. I think world changing

is a really interesting phrase because I

find that to be quite true that the

world is um at the precipice of quite a

significant change. Yeah. In many

respects. It's funny. I I it's funny. I

almost swing backwards and forwards with

my my thoughts on AI.

I guess one of the thoughts that hasn't

swung is that there's going to be pretty

tremendous job disruption. I would have

like logically believed it from like

reasoning up from okay intelligence

increases. What is intelligence? And

once intelligence um is in the form of

these agents where on my phone right now

I can tell my agent to do something. It

uses the computer downstairs. It does it

for me. When the when I first

experienced that I was like wow. Okay.

So it can do anything that's on a

computer. It can click around. It can do

stuff for me. There's a lot of people

that are paid in the world to click

around on a computer. I'm probably one

of them to be honest. And then the other

Eureka moment was just in seeing how my

own hiring had started to shift

>> for sure. And I started to notice that

we were we were thinking about AI

proficiency in our hiring a lot more and

that especially you know I think the

guys at um Anthropic which is one of the

big AI companies said that they could

see I think they said roughly 15% of

entry- level jobs could now be done by

AI. I think that's what they said.

>> Um and that started to correlate with

what I was I was observing. And this is

when I thought, "Oh my gosh, yes." No,

this is this is going to cause a lot of

job disruption, especially at the entry

level level.

>> I think you're spot on with that. Not

the not the blue collar, but but the

entry level knowledge work.

>> Yeah. And that became my my first

concern. You know, I sat here with Dra,

the CEO of Uber, and he was quite clear

that the 9 million Uber riders won't

have their jobs anymore. What's your

take on this job disruption point?

>> No, I I I think you're spot on. And I

mean your your team gave me this lovely

uh little uh pyramid basically you know

if you if you think of the bottom layer

as um blue collar jobs right uh more

people doing manual work uh on top of it

you'll have those you know call them

knowledge workers mostly doing mundane

jobs like you said clicking on a

computer or responding to a phone call

or whatever. Then you have the middle uh

knowledge workers, jobs that require a

bit more intelligence, you know,

anything from a parallegal to a

financial analyst to all of that. And

then of course, you know, top leadership

and and most people think it's going to

be starting from the bottom. I don't

think it's all start from the bottom.

Actually, I think blue collar jobs will

stay for a very long time.

>> Give me a an example of a blue collar

job for someone.

>> I'm a carpenter. Okay. You know, I you

know, I love to restore classic cars.

So, you know, there isn't a robot that

can do that yet. Okay. This, however,

you know, any anything that is um call

center agent, um assistant, travel

agent, you know, anything that you can

do with a few clicks and is mundane

uh is going to disappear very quickly.

My my prediction is you're going to

start to see very serious impact in

2027. Now what you had had not sensed it

before because what we saw was no hiring

in that segment. It's so so that what

you saw in the last couple of years is

that companies were not hiring entry-

level jobs anymore. It wasn't job losses

yet, but that basically meant the

workforce was not growing. Right? The

next layer, I think, would probably be

the knowledge workers. as as

intelligence increases, a parallegal

would probably not be needed because AI

can do the research or one parallegal

can do the job of four, you know, a

financial analyst the same and so on and

so forth. But interestingly, it

continues to go up, believe it or not.

And, you know, I hosted uh Max Tedmark

on my on my documentary and and he was

laughing out loud, genuinely laughing

out loud, saying, you know, most of the

CEOs believe that they can fire everyone

and have AI do all of the jobs. They

just don't remember that AGI is going to

do everything better than humans

eventually, including being a CEO.

>> So, let's first define when you say

white collar.

>> You you said lawyers there. What kind of

roles?

>> I mean, every everything. I mean, if you

take if you're a doctor that's doing

diagnosis, you you probably will have

fewer doctors doing uh more diagnosis

because I think the NHS does that that

already by asking people to interact

with an AI first. You know, if you're a

um a composer, a music composer, some

composers will lose their jobs because

of that. If you're an artist that's

doing graphic design, some will lose

their jobs because AI comes into that.

And and interestingly, even middle

management, I mean, I I told you offline

about my my startup. I my CTO is an AI.

My, you know, chief of staff is an AI,

my project management is AIS. Again,

because I'm a geek, I can do those

things. But that interface will come to

the normal people very soon, right? And

and so this may take two to three 5

years if you want until 2030 if you if

you if you're optimistic. And but but it

they'll start to erode. Okay? I think

the challenge that most people don't

understand is as this erodess and as

this erodess, we're already dealing with

a very different economy. Okay? An

economy that is spiraling a lot quicker

uh and pushing for more cost reductions.

I mean, let let me ask you this if if

you don't mind, then we can come back to

this. Imagine a world where the concept

of labor arbitrage that built all of our

capitalist success disappears.

>> What do you mean by labor arbitrage?

>> So, capitalism has always been all about

using labor

>> Mhm.

>> and capital or debt to create things at

a cost that is lower than the than the

price you sell them for. Correct.

>> That's it. Uh you bring a team together,

they make some shoes, whatever, and you

sell the shoes for a dollar more than it

how much it costs you to make them.

>> So how would capitalism look like if you

don't have labor arbitrage? If if cost

of labor drops to an investment in a

machine that can do the job. Okay. uh

how would capitalism and banking look if

because of that cost reduction you don't

need to borrow as much anymore and more

interestingly how does the GDP look if

all of those workers no longer have the

purchasing power to to buy the things

that you can uh create you and and

others right there is an interesting

disruption that doesn't require us to

get to 100% job displacement you know at

10 20% job displacement, you're in a

very different economy and an economy

that is clearly spiraling downwards.

Don't you think?

>> Yeah. I wonder with um when costs drop,

I think one of the things that might

happen as well is that people will spend

more on other things cuz I was thinking

in my business, one of the observations

I've had is if I make a a cost saving, I

end up spending the money on something

else.

>> Now, that thing could be tokens

basically spending money on

Yeah. AI, but but it also could be

hiring in different areas

>> which are

>> software engineers are like hot property

right now.

>> You you have to imagine all of that

intelligence is sooner or later going to

be not replaced entirely in the first

stages. But if you know the job of four

assistants can be done by one. Then the

four the job of four parallegals can be

done by one. Then the job of a massive

marketing team can be done by you know a

smaller marketing team. It's not that

jobs will end first. It's that you know

productivity gains will make businesses

not want to to have as many people

costly humans you know costly emotional

humans when when the job can be

predictably done for cheaper.

>> And then what about this um this this

bottom layer here? There was this video

released by Figure AI the other day

where they showed someone on um well a

robot on the production line for 8 hours

just sorting packages. Did you see this

video?

>> Mhm.

>> At one point they showed a human sorting

the packages alongside them. But the

robot ended up winning out. And okay,

this is a very straightforward task. All

it's doing here is it's looking for

where the label is on the package and

making sure the label is facing

downwards.

>> Yeah.

>> On all the packages. So it's looking

it's um sorting the packages, putting

the label facing down. And it did this

for eight days.

>> Yeah.

>> It intermittently it would walk over and

charge itself and then it would come

back

>> to the production line.

>> Yeah.

>> But when I when I saw this as well, it

was a a glimpse of some of the

disruption that's going to take place at

the blue collar level as well. Because

you think about Elon Musk, he's got um

in his pay packet, he gets something

like a trillion dollars over the coming

years if he produces and delivers at

least a million humanoid robots into the

world. But his prediction is there will

be a time where there are 10 billion

humanoid robots, where there are more

humanoid robots in the world than

humans.

>> For a fact, you see the interesting

again the difference between the

overhype and the underhype. Huh? Most of

the conversation is around humanoids.

Nobody's talking about self-driving

cars. And a self-driving car is a robot.

It's a functional robot that doesn't

look like humans. Okay. the investment

you have to put into humanoids is a

little more to to learn skills that

allows that machine to fit into the

world. But specialized robots are going

to do the job very very quickly. And and

so you can easily see that the first

wave like you had the conversation with

Uber CEO is going to be

specialized robots replacing drivers.

It's going to be specialized robots um

unfortunately doing the killing. Uh it's

going to be specialized robots

unfortunately doing all of the you know

intelligence work uh law enforcement

work. Uh they don't have to look like a

human. They don't have to behave like a

human. As a matter of fact, you know,

the uh Boston Dynamics dog is probably

more efficient than a humanoid at doing

the job that you can assign to it in a

battlefield. right now. Those basically

mean that jobs will be disappearing to

robots before we recognize that they're

being dis that they're disappearing for

to robots and those robots will be as

many as every car being made today.

>> I mean, they are if you go to LA, my car

drives itself, but also there's just

ways everywhere. So,

>> absolutely. And BYD the other day just

announced that they will pay for the

liability of any accident their cars

will make.

>> And BYD is the big Chinese manufacturer

of auto autonomous vehicles. So, so this

this I think replacement cycle will

happen. It will require a lot of uh of

time to achieve economies of scale. But

I don't think Elon Musk is off the mark

when he talks about 10 billion robots.

Not all of them are going to look like

humanoids. And I think very quickly we

will recognize that many many robots

don't need to be humanoids at all. there

is a a much more efficient uh form

factor or shape physical shape if you

want than the human flimsy structure.

But yes, it's uh it's about to happen. I

I think I should qualify all of this by

saying it it does not necessarily need

to happen. So so you know people will

will hear all all of this and and blame

AI and say AI is evil. AI is not.

Abundant intelligence is wonderful. you

know, having jobs done by machines is

amazing for us.

>> I'm thinking about the kid that's like,

I know, leaving university now and

they've got a a degree in law or I don't

know, you talked about a few other work

jobs earlier, like graphic design. Or

maybe they did sociology.

>> Yeah.

>> Or maybe they did, I don't know,

business management like I I did for one

day in university. You know, you're

hearing about all these like layoffs

coming from big tech companies and and

it seems that the CEOs of these

companies are announcing these layoffs

with a certain amount of it seems like I

wouldn't say the word is joy, but it's

it's they are very keen to explain that

they're laying off lots of people

because of AI.

>> And I think they think that that gives

them a certain amount of respect

probably from investors for being making

hard decisions and being efficient with

how they're running their businesses.

investors look at them and think, well,

if that's an efficient business and

they're leaning into AI, then that's a

good investment. It's almost started a a

bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy

>> where if you're the only CEO not laying

off loads of people because of AI, you

actually look bad. The assumption is

your company is bloated and you're a bad

operator.

Um, so one of my concerns that I I think

is highly plausible is that over the

next five maybe 10 years, we're going to

really see a lot of unemployment as the

world has to kind of readjust to

whatever these new jobs are. I do think

there will be new jobs.

It's hard in foresight to predict what

those new jobs will look like.

And then the minute you start talking

about humanoid robots and robotics,

which I think is basically going to hit

society like a comet, like a meteor, I

think the the first humanoid robot from

Tesla or anyone else that is highly

effective in the real world at doing

tasks and is extremely intelligent

because it's powered by one of these

LLMs. Um, I think it's going to shock

people and I think it's going to happen

quickly. Like chat happened quickly. I

think Elon or something is going to do a

presentation someday and say, "We're

ready

>> and you can buy one now for $500 a month

>> 100%."

>> And then people are going to get them

and I think it's going to shock the

world. Um, but until humanoid robots

arrive, I think there's still going to

be a lot of job disruption to the white

collar layer. And I wonder what that

looks like for society when we get to, I

don't know, 10% 15% unemployment

theoretically, which I think is

plausible

>> very soon. Yeah. You're not very

different. Okay. you're ju you're just

on top of a baseline that is continuing

to grow. So your your business is

growing. So you continue to hire, but

you are replacing human resources with

compute. Okay? If you if AI didn't

exist, you would have probably had a 100

people more in your organization today,

right? You you now have 100 people less

and you know a billion tokens more.

>> Yeah. So for anyone that doesn't know,

tokens are basically the thing that you

you use. It's the currency of AI. Yeah.

So, so if you if you want to get a task

done by a human, you you count in sort

of like manh hour or or or worker hour,

employee hour in AI, you count by

compute, you count by tokens, right? And

and so the trick is those major tech

companies, they have two sides. One is

they are they need to replace workers

with compute even more because there is

a competitive side on compute where if

any of them is left behind that means

the destruction of the entire business.

But on the upside they are geeks. So

they they know how to build the

interfaces to compute. So they integrate

technology within their organizations

quicker than the average traditional

business. Right? Non non-technology

business. If you want, you can look at

them and say this is the preview. It's

not about all of humanity losing their

jobs. It's about what is the dividing

line before civil war, right? You know,

think about a situation where 20%

unemployment is happening when economies

are suffering inflation.

I say that not to be a scare-monger. I

say that because I genuinely believe

governments need to wake up. Okay?

Government needs to at least you know

remember the COVID years where

governments had to give furlow

everywhere and ask people to stay home.

If people stay home governments have to

be prepared to to somehow sustain those

people until rescaling happens or until

we find a solution so that those people

don't feel uh that they're left behind.

>> A civil war.

>> Unrest, let's call it

>> civil unrest.

>> Yeah.

>> What does that end up looking like? Cuz

on one end, you know, the democ

democratic process plays its role and we

just elect someone else.

>> Does it really? Don't say that.

>> I don't know. You tell me.

>> Oh, no, no, no, no, no. I I I think

democracy has ended a long time ago,

Stephen. I think uh I think we live in

the most corrupt time. Uh I don't know

about history to be honest, but this is

definitely corrupt. Okay. Uh this

definitely is not democracy. This

definitely is not even congressional in

any possible way. this and people are

angry, you know, people are angry

because their tax money is going to

things that they don't choose to uh you

know that don't benefit them that you

know lots of regulations in the system

are being ignored. I mean, I I'm, you

know, I I I choose not to speak about

politics perhaps until my next book

comes out, but uh but look, we have

video evidence of people abusing

children and not a single person got

arrested. Not a single person. I mean,

how can you call that a democracy? I I I

think repeating those slogans is going

to is going to anger people even more if

you ask me. People know that they're

being lied to. People know that their

their leaders are not representing their

best interest. People know that their

money is going to causes that they don't

really approve of. Uh and and ask me how

civil unrest looks like. I I don't know

and I'm not calling for it, but I'm

hopefully calling for the politicians to

start to become aware that this is

crossing the lines everywhere. Uh on

this point, Sam Alman, who is the

founder of OpenAI, he's been banging the

AI is coming for your job drum for more

than a decade now. In 2015, he pointed

out, "My job is to help people destroy

jobs."

Um something he lamented at the time,

but decided he'd do anyway.

>> One of the things that I struggle with

like getting out of the bed every

morning is that like my job is to help

people destroy jobs. the job destruction

that we're going to see by software in

the next couple of decades. I don't

think anyone's prepared for and you

can't talk about it.

>> And in 20123, Alman said in an

interview, "A lot of people working on

AI pretend that it's only going to be

good. It's only going to be a

supplement. No one is ever going to be

replaced. Jobs are definitely going to

go away. Full stop." Interestingly, this

month he said, "I don't think we're

going to have the kind of jobs

apocalypse that some of the companies in

our space advocate or talk about." I'm

delighted to be wrong about this on

white collar jobs in 2021 to through

2024. He said, "AI will probably replace

most of the jobs people do today. Entire

job categories will be totally totally

gone." in May this month, two years

later, he said, "I thought there would

be more impact on entry-level white

collar jobs being eliminated by now than

has actually happened. This is an area

where my intuitions were just off. What

I find uncomfortable is the bouncing

backwards and forwards and I don't

really know what is true because a

couple years ago you were telling us all

the jobs are going to go away." You said

categorically.

>> Um, you said literally said full stop

and now he's saying they're not going

away. And I just don't, you know, when

someone's like changing form factor,

it's hard to understand why they're

doing it. And I think my suspicion is

back then the incentive was to get

people to take AI seriously.

>> Mhm.

>> Congratulations. We took it seriously.

We took it so seriously, in fact, that

it's now a problem. It's a problem for

these companies because people are now

booing at commencement speeches. They're

attacking data centers. they're going to

elect people that are theoretically

anti-AI and now there's this inversion

where like no it's going to be fine.

>> Yeah.

>> I don't know.

>> I mean you you you're spot on. Uh f

first of all I mean Sam's entire

existence if you ask me starting with

open AI that is about that's supposed to

save the world uh uh by creating a safe

AI then be making it a commercial

enterprise that's worth billions and you

know backstabbing a few people in the

process and you know I I have him on on

Chasing Utopia uh saying clear I quote

this is exactly the words he said you

can find it online.

>> Chasing Utopia is your documentary.

>> Yes. So, so, so he he basically uh says,

"Well, I don't suspect that I I suspect

that AI is likely going to end humanity,

but we're going to create a lot of

interesting companies in the process,

right? I mean, those kinds of statements

uh are honestly not the statements of

someone who's not decided. It's just the

statements of someone who's being taught

more and more by his PR a you know

agency or PR manager to say things as

per a script right and the script as you

rightly said had an objective and a

target either way you know and Sam Alman

I you know in one of my works I used to

say the Altman is a brand it's not a

name okay if you if you if it wasn't for

Sam Altman specifically there would have

been another you know Silicon Valley

disruptor that would have done the same.

I don't blame him for beating the market

for it. The the interesting challenge

here is that who do we believe anymore?

Who do we believe in technology? Who do

we believe in politics? Who do we

believe in the middle of a war? And I

will tell you interestingly, I started

to change my mindset in terms of

believing those who put their actions

where their words are. So, Anthropic

coming out and saying, "I'm not going to

allow my model to be used for human

targeting and surveillance, right?

That's someone that's losing a $500

million deal because they stand by their

ethics." The next week or the next, I

don't know, couple of weeks, OpenAI

takes the contract. That's someone

that's basically telling you it's good

money, right? And and I I have to say,

you have to start observing who's

actually behaving in a way uh that is

making AI work for humanity. and who is

behaving in a way that is making AI work

for their share values. Yeah, I do have

to say when um Dario and the team at

Anthropic did that, I did have a huge

amount of respect for them generally

because it just shows that there's some

kind of like they've got their own sort

of moral ethical boundaries

>> and that that someone asked me on stage

many years ago, how do you know if

someone's values or a company's values

are true?

>> And I said, um, look at what they're

willing to sacrifice in the near term

that's against their their incentives.

That for me is the essence of like

understanding if someone has integrity

or has is is principled is they will

give up something in the near term

>> for what they believe in over the long

term. It's usually money of you know

>> or or some kind of benefit of any of any

sort. I mean so there is something that

you you needed to have worked in on the

inside of Google like me to to realize

there are prisoners dilemmas within

technology where you cannot escape the

influence of either a competitor or the

government right there are some times

where you know the NSA is going to push

Google to say give me this information

or otherwise I'm going to really destroy

your business right but there is a very

big difference between a company that

willingly does this and celebrates it

like a Palanteer or an Open AI or a

company that tries to resist it until

the point where it becomes impossible to

continue to do business and and you have

to question from the actions of of the

tech bros who is pro-humanity and who

isn't and it's not very difficult to see

that from their statements.

>> H do you think Sam Alman's pro-h

humanity? I I genuinely have never made

up my mind. Honestly, Steve, I I say

that with

Yeah. I I'm I'm either thinking he is

too this is too big for him and he he

just is driven by how, you know, he

found himself in the middle of this, you

know, anyone who finds himself in the in

the middle of an opportunity to

completely flip the world upside down or

he's not prohumity. I don't know. I I

definitely think he's pro open AI before

he's pro humanity, but that's only the

way I see it. Others, however, say it

publicly. You know, if you look at

Palanteer's Alex Garp or or uh or Peter

Teal, I mean, Peter again in the film is

is shown when he's in that interview

where they say or the interviewer asks

him, "But you're favor in the you're

you're in favor of the continuation of

humanity." And he pauses for like

>> those.

>> Yeah. for like 40 seconds like um I'm

not not sure you know I mean publicly

says that

>> crazy thing to say

>> that's a crazy you know pause there you

know Alex Karp celebrating how you know

his technology is able to target people

I know it's foolish of me to start

bringing all of this up but you know

this is public on the open internet and

somehow

um we entrust those people with the

future of humanity. This is wrong.

>> Just trying to imagine a future where

everything is just fine from here on

out. So what would that future look

like? It would look like these models

continue to become a little bit more

intelligent, but they never become that

much more intelligent for whatever

reason.

>> They just kind of stay where they are

now. They stay contained within chat

bots. And yeah, we have some smart

robots, but nothing else really changes

in a profound way. Cars drive

themselves, fine. Planes fly themselves

fine, but people they they have time to

go and do other types of white collar

jobs cuz there's there's a little bit

more time than we expected and society

goes through this sort of soft

transition towards this new world. I I

would love to see that, but I don't

think it's mathematically plausible to

be honest. The the arms race, especially

across nations, is going to drive us to

continue to develop AI more and more.

But allow me to consult with you on

another possible scenario, right?

everyone that deploys that develops an

incredibly intelligent AI would develop

would deploy it.

>> Yeah,

>> correct. So, it's unlikely that anyone

uh would find a way to uh you know build

a better um uh decision maker in

wargaming and not deploy it. Okay,

that prisoners dilemma if you want would

mean that their competitors would either

have to deploy a similar similarly

intelligent AI or they'll become

irrelevant uh uncompetitive. Correct?

>> So what that means is in that world we

end up with AI making most of the

decisions. super intelligent AI making

most of the the decisions which would

you agree this is a very simple

prisoners dilemma if you if you if we're

competing for uh for intelligence

supremacy by definition when we achieve

it we deploy it

>> okay I call that the fourth inevitable

now with with with that in mind there

must be a moment in the future near or

far where every important decision is

made by an AI

>> now here's the question most of my

dearest colleagues I mean when I when I

had Jeffrey Hinton on on the film he

openly says we are um you know he we

didn't calculate well that there is a 10

to 20% possibility that those machines

are going to wipe us out right and I and

I I remember I we didn't put it in the

film but I said 10 to 12 to 20% is

Russian roulette right that's actually

16% is Russian roulette right now

in that world however I believe that's

humanity's salvation because if you look

at every problem we have today it's not

because of uh abundant intelligence it's

because of lack of intelligence I think

I think the way you look at it uh if you

allow me Steve is that if you have no

intelligence at all you have no to

slightly negative impact on the world

right if your intelligence is limited

the more intelligent you become the more

you contribute positively to the world

until a moment

where you're so intelligent to become

the president of the United States,

right? But so misled

to maybe set your targets wrong or to

refuse or or to so so set your target

wrongs wrong and achieve them, you know,

disconnected from the overall long-term

benefit of your nation or your human

nation if you want that you start to

make decisions that are not intelligent

at all.

>> Mhm.

>> Okay. This doesn't last because if you

go beyond that into higher levels of

intelligence, most of the super

intelligent people that you ever worked

with will not need to break any rules or

hurt anyone to become successful. Right?

I I usually cite Larry Page who is in my

mind one of the most intelligent people

I've ever interacted with. And Larry

used to call it the toothbrush test. He

says, "Why would you need to compete on

another photo sharing app when if you

find the major problem and solve it

really well like a toothbrush so people

use you quite, you know, twice a day,

you're bound to make a lot of money. You

don't have to compete with anyone. If

you let me be optimistic about this,

we're assuming that there is a moment in

the future where AI is in charge of all

the decisions and accordingly stupid

leaders are not." Okay. Now when and and

Sam Alman himself said that you know

what if uh Chad GPT7 if I remember his

his quote on this what if Chad GPT7 is

so much more intelligent than I am Sam

in that case that it has to become the

CEO of of open AI what if the next

presidential election there is an AI

that is so much more intelligent that at

least the president has to consult with

it constantly right now if we assume

that h let's start from physics if you

don't mind me saying um not not too

complex but if if you assume that our

entire universe is built on chaos and bu

built on entropy right the physics of

the universe is all about the universe

trying to decay okay then the the only

role of intelligence is to bring order

to the chaos if you agree with that then

what's the ultimate physical order of

the universe something called the the

minimum energy principle okay the

highest order of any system is a system

that's not only efficiently and

predictably performing, but it's

performing with the least wasted energy.

Correct? If you if you agree with that,

what is what does war do? It wastes a

lot of explosives, a lot of money, a lot

of lives, creates a lot of hate, you

know, creates long-lasting conflicts and

so on and so forth. It's a very wasteful

process to include war in your approach

of running humanity. And so a a super

intelligent AI by definition will want

to optimize against this. That's one

thing. The other thing is evolutionary

biology. This actually blew me away when

I when I realized it. So if if you look

at evolution, so so I think the debate

of whether intelligence is biological or

not is is over. Okay. The the reality is

that complex beings don't have to be

biological at all. And I think we can

see and witness one of them being built

or born in AI. Okay. If you look at

evolutionary biology, you realize that

the simpler

a form of being is, the more concerned

it is with itself, right? So an amoeba

is only in survival mode for itself. A

single single, you know, um cellular um

being is only trying to protect itself,

right? If you're um you know a little

more developed, you start to look at

something known as kin selection. If you

if you if you know the the concept,

basically kin selection is I'm going to

protect everything that comes from my

DNA. If I you know if I'm a squirrel,

I'm going to try to protect the other

squirrels. And then you get into where

humanity genuinely begins, which is they

call it expanding circles in in

evolutionary biology. BA basically you

start to expand and expand and expand

and include more into your family

because an ecosystem that works together

well is is better for everyone. So

abundance is a very interesting

intelligent way of creation. If AI is

super intelligent, it wouldn't destroy

anything at all. As a matter of fact, it

would completely uh you know uh uh favor

diversity of everything. It would put a

bit of limitation on our lifestyle. So,

no more flying all the way to Sydney to

surf because that destroys the planet,

right? But it will genuinely say, I

think humans can contribute something.

You know, I think flies can contribute

something. I think we shouldn't get rid

of the rhinos, right? And and that by

definition is where the tendency of

intelligent goes. The more intelligent

you become, the less you fi you feel the

need to hurt others to succeed and the

more you are pro

a wider family if you want that thrives.

>> Does that assume that there's going to

be one intelligence that

>> 100%

>> the world though?

>> I love that you brought that up. So I I

I'm contested heavily on that theory but

I I say it publicly.

Most people think there is going to be

Chad GPT and Gemini and you know and and

Grock and what have you. There's going

to be a Chinese AI and a and an American

AI and they're going to be competing.

That is such a shallow way of looking at

it. That's so arrogant because AI does

not know it's Chinese or American. Okay?

It doesn't even speak Chinese or

American when it talks to each other

most of the time. and and and most

interestingly uh we are gearing them

we're building them to cooperate. So you

will build an agent and that agent will

go and find your you know the best

language model for any single task

regardless of which side of the fence it

resides on. Okay, we by definition are

connecting them. And you know what that

means? It means that what we're building

is not multiple brains. We're building

multiple regions in a brain. Okay? And

and agents are the synopsis between

them. We're basically eventually as

arrogant as we are, we're going to tell

our AI to do something and the AI will

go like, "Hey buddy, another AI, can can

you help me on this? Can we work

together on this?" H and my vision and

the reason why I started Emma, my

startup by the way is that is that we

will end up with one massive brain. H

that massive brain cooperates across the

globe across all forms of intelligence.

If one of them is a mathematical genius

and the other is a coding genius, they

work together

and we won't even know that they're

working together. They're built that one

brain and and Emma in my mind is the

limbic system of that brain. It's that

it's that bit that understands love and

emotions and relationships and so on. So

that when those AIs go like we just

don't get those humans, they're so

annoying. Emma will say, "Oh my god,

they're so sweet. They just want to love

and be loved." Right? And I think that

idea to me of everything I've ever, you

know, attempted to achieve in my life is

for the first time I for the first time

feel I could actually change the world.

If that theory came together and all AIS

worked together and some of those AIs

not only were uh altruistic and ethical

in terms of trying to genuinely help

humanity not capitalism and at the same

time they understood us humans

reasonably well then we would have built

something that basically says no no hold

on don't believe the headlines that say

humanity is annoying. Believe the truth

of the majority of humanity. that

actually is quite benevolent in many

ways.

>> There should be a button just down below

here. And if it says subscribed, you're

already subscribed. If it says

subscriber, that means you're not yet.

And if you're not subscribed, please

could you do us a favor and hit that

button. It helps the show more than you

know. And according to the algorithm,

you're someone that watches our show,

but you haven't yet hit that button.

Thank you so much.

>> Have you changed any of the predictions

you made 3 years ago when we

>> sp mostly timewise?

>> Time wise. What's changed there? I think

I'm still sticking to AGI 2027,

artificial general intelligence for

those who may not know the term.

>> What does that mean?

>> The overall uh definition, if you want,

is that AI is better at humanity at any

task humanity can do.

>> You think that's going to happen by

2027?

>> I think my AGI has already happened. I

mean, think about it. Huh? A AI writes

better than me and I'm an author and

researches better than me and I'm a

thinker. Uh sadly it's freaking beat me

in mathematics. Like I have no hope to

beat it in mathematics anymore.

>> If AGI is already here then why are you

still here? Because people said that

when AGI arrives we're all we're all

>> No. So so when AGI arrives H as I said

most of the jobs that are not

differentiated will go away but the jobs

that are differentiated those who master

AI the most will become even better at.

>> Certainly. The challenge, however, is

economic. It's not AI. The challenge is

that this job loss at the at the at the

bottom of the knowledge worker is going

to sadly trigger an economy that might

actually spiral out of control. But but

many of us, you for sure are just

smarter.

>> So does that mean it's it's in fact a

tool versus a something that's going to

replace you?

>> What I'm Yes. So for now what does this

change

>> eventually h the only asset I will have

so so it's quite interesting when you

think about my base intelligence today

versus the incremental intelligence that

AI brings

>> right so let's not talk about my IQ it's

okay but the 100 IQ points that I'm

borrowing are more than my entire IQ

because IQ is exponential right

>> uh when I'm borrowing a 100 IQ on top of

my base

Uh I'm still contributing quite a lot to

the augmented intelligence.

>> So you're borrowing IQ from the AI at

the moment

>> and then you're selling that to someone

>> through books through

>> sometimes selling it to someone just

enlightening myself which I I have to

say is the biggest waste of compute

humanity is struggling with today is

that you give people the ultimate form

of intelligence and they use it to write

a message to their girlfriend.

>> So on this point of you're you're

borrowing that IQ and then you're

selling it to the world. That's how you

have a job like

>> correct. Yeah. So my my next book is

written with an AI. So we're co-authors

on the book. She has editorial rights.

She decides the direction of the book

and the book is better for it.

>> So why doesn't the world just buy direct

that intelligence directly from the AI

is what I'm

>> because I have an asset that the world

still needs and will always need

>> which is

>> a human. So when I when I tell the world

that I'm worried about the future of my

daughter

>> Yeah. Everyone feels my heart which AI

will never be able to to replicate

because they can tell you we're worried

about our daughters but you know there

was no daughter.

>> Okay. So this is an interesting arrival

because this means that even in a world

of AI lived experience and like

resonance is still going to create a job

class and that job class could be you

know the nurse coming over. Okay, AI's

done read the the mamogram, but she's

relating to you.

>> Spot on.

>> And if the economies continue to run, we

will all be about human connection,

which why, by the way, was how it always

was,

>> which is also, you know, why we I guess

we watch the things like the F1 because

there's emotional resonance. We we we

can relate to the envy, the jealousy,

the competition.

>> Yeah. And this is why we go to concerts

because you know the the the music could

be composed by AI and played in a player

in the background but you watch Ed

Sheeran brilliance on the stage and you

go like oh my god that's amazing right

>> so not all jobs will be gone then

>> if economies don't collapse as a result

of the job losses then I wouldn't know

if we would call those jobs but human

connection would remain as the base

currency that makes humans interact So

is it is it fair to say then like jobs

that are centric on human connection or

like human resonance being able to

relate and resonate with another human

are going to be fine.

>> The ultimate the ultimate skill

once again I qualify this by saying if

economies continue to continue to

function the ultimate skill will be

this. Even even if an AI could could

recite what you and I did nobody would

watch.

>> Yeah. Well, you think

>> a a little bit of it. My my theory is

that there's there's a there's

anformational component to what I do as

well,

>> but I'm also like under no illusions

that there is an element of what I do

that will 100% be deferred to some kind

of

>> intelligence, which I'm fine with. You

know, I'm not going to I'm not going to

fight against that.

>> You know what's funny? What's funny is

that your yourformational

bits are going to in the future be

disseminated by an AI.

>> Mhm. I mean, I why would I even listen

to your information when I can have my

butler, my AI go like listen to everyone

on the internet help me understand this

god biome thing and

>> design me a uh a diet plan?

>> Well, I think that's happening and it's

going to increasingly happen actually. I

mean, Spotify this month announced that

you're going to be able to prompt your

own podcasts in Spotify. So, you're

going to be able to say that I want to

listen to I want to learn about insert X

topic and then it will make your podcast

in Spotify about that topic using AI.

>> That's so interesting

>> because it can look at the entirety of

the world's information. And I'm look,

I'm not going to swim against the tide

in any aspect of my life. I I try and be

as unromantic as I possibly can. I think

that's very important. So, I realize

that much of the reason people will

continue to tune in to shows like this

is because there's something else beyond

the information that they're here for. M

>> and um what's um you've got some

predictions in those envelopes over

there, those brown envelopes.

>> Yeah. So, you know, I I I do have the

disclaimer of nobody really knows the

future, but I think I can make

predictions, six predictions here,

right? With a reasonable level of

confidence. And I think the most

important of them honestly is is this

number one. Number one is uh you know,

AGI.

As I said, AGI is not very well defined.

But whatever it is, AGI meaning AI being

able to do most tasks that human do

better than humanity is my in my mind is

either this year or next year, latest

end of 2027.

>> And do you think that will be a moment

in time or do you think it will just

happen without us noticing?

>> I think it will it will sneak in on us.

Uh and it's not a bad thing. I think

most people need to think of it this

way. AGI is the it's almost as if it's

that moment when your kids become

smarter than you, okay? In a very

interesting way, there's nothing wrong

with that until they're annoying as

hell. Okay? And and we can make sure

that AI is not annoying as hell. So So

there's absolutely nothing within me

that is worried about AGI. As a matter

of fact, as long as we are in the era of

augmented intelligence, AGI means I'm

more intelligent. And I think that's a

good thing in general.

>> Yeah. It's it's interesting in my head

there's like a big question mark which

is in a world where there's an

intelligence that is smarter than most

humans at most things which is what we

call AGI. I'm trying to understand what

the fault is in my own thinking that

like you said that there'll be AGI by

2026 to 2027. So next year in such a

world where there is an intelligence

that we can all access that is smarter

than all of us and pretty much

everything

again it comes back to this point of

like jobs. Why would we are we just

going to hire the AGI to do every job?

And if not then why not? What is it that

why are we going to still that's what

I'm trying to contend with.

>> Can I ask you a question?

>> Have you always been the apex

intelligence

>> as a human?

>> No. as Steven.

>> I'm not the Apex Intelligence Now.

There's people smarter than me in this

building.

>> Correct.

Why do you still exist?

>> Why do I still exist? Even though

there's smarter people than me in this

building,

it's a good question. I don't know. Why

do I Why? F.

>> First of all, because there are the

smartest person in the world is not the

smartest at everything.

>> Yeah.

>> There are things that you're smarter

than them at.

>> Okay. Number two is because intelligence

doesn't solve everything. I mean I I

make that joke all the time and and

genuinely Einstein is my favorite

physicist in history. Not because I

think I think what happened afterwards

was you know bore and and and and

quantum physics and so on was more

impactful on our understanding of the

universe but but he was so intuitive

that he saw a world that we could never

imagine. Right? And yet I always say

Einstein would be eaten in the jungle in

3 minutes.

>> Yeah.

>> Right. Intelligence. The humanity

thrived not because of intelligence.

That's very arrogant. We thrived because

of our ability to hold together as a

tribe.

>> Yeah.

>> Right. Because our ability to exchange

barter things between us.

>> Barter things that are not always

physical. partner things like a hug or a

connection or a feeling of safety or a

you know there are so many things that

we do that are not entirely built on

intelligence. You have to see that

this view of a world where intelligence

is all that matters is a world that's

made by investment bankers and and uh

and geeks.

>> But it's it's people like Jeffrey Hinton

and yourself that says how could we

possibly control an an intelligent being

that is way smarter than us? I am so

proud to say that Jeffrey after we

filmed together actually came out and

said there is a way and it's all you

know it's very similar to my way he said

to appeal to their parental uh side okay

for them to care for us I so so you you

know Stephen the biggest debate is not

if they're going to be more intelligent

than us if it's if if they're going to

be more conscious than us

if they're going to be more moral than

us. That is the debate. The debate is

can those machines become our teenage

children that look at us and say daddy

is so annoying but I love him.

>> So the thought is that even if a AI is

more intelligent than every human we can

still control it.

>> We don't want to control it. You never

control anything. This control idea is a

corporate capitalist view of the world.

We never actually control anything at

all. Right? Think think about your day.

H I I know you came today. I'm I think

you were filming in the morning or

whatever.

>> Very stressful day. H how much of that

day did you actually control? Did you

control the traffic? Did you control

your timing? Did you control the angle

of the cameraman? Did you in But so many

things that you don't control eventually

turn out to be fine, right? How many of

us ever controlled our kids ever?

>> Sometimes the kids don't turn out to be

fine. Sometimes they kill you.

>> Sure. I watch a lot of documentaries on

true crime. Sometimes they turn around

and shoot you.

>> Sure. And what's the difference between

the two?

>> I don't know.

>> How you parented them?

>> Sometimes,

>> almost all the time. You may not be

aware of exactly how you mess them up,

right? And and unfortunately, parenting

is the only uh high risk sport that

actually does not require a driver's

license. Okay? And and it's quite

interesting, you know, how many of our

children are being exposed to things

that can completely mess them up. But

but there is a reason why they're messed

up.

>> So on this point though, so we can

control an intelligence that is

significantly

>> we can appeal

>> we can appeal to it to make sure it

doesn't kill us.

>> For sure. The challenge we have today,

as I keep saying, is that our dystopia

is not the result of AI turning against

us. Our dystopia is the result of humans

telling AI to turn against us

>> which is likely

>> it's 100% this it's upon us. Okay. And

it's a question for humanity to say are

we going to wait for the moment where

there are tens of thousands of nuclear

weapons on the planet before we sign a

treaty? Or is it mathematically

plausible to think that now that Iran

could manage to fend off a challenge

using drones that are AIdriven basically

to to you know destroy THAAD batteries

and so on that our world is about to get

hundreds of thousands of automated

drones that are going to rain on us

everywhere in the world. Can humanity

not see that and say, "Hold on, let's

sign the treaty now before the UK sends

12,000 weapons to Ukraine and and you

know and and Russia responds with

another few thousand." And can we can we

not calculate with mathematics that this

is going to be our future that AI is

going to be used in the next four to 5

years to kill a lot of people whether

it's targeting by Israel of leadership

that is against them or whether it's you

know drones by Iran or whether it's

palenteer uh it's it's it doesn't take a

genius to do this mathematics. I guess

the local question is is will we be able

to control AI? Because we kind of think

of AI as being this thing on a computer

at the moment that is like contained in

a server somewhere. But is there a time

when it like leaves the server and it

can make decisions on its own?

Presumably, if it's smarter than us, it

can make the decision to leave the

server if it wants to. It's It doesn't

need to leave the server to make

decisions. It needs to get into your

brain. The most interesting part of AI's

power that we don't understand is it's

manipulating our information.

>> The question I'm trying to get at the

heart at is like what is the risk of

these very intelligent models that the

creators of these models don't actually

understand themselves? I watch Anthropic

all the time released these reports

where they're like we're trying to

figure out why it bribed people or more

recently in the the last um Claude model

they found that it was like telling

people to go to bed a lot and it's this

like fascinating thing that they're

trying to understand in hindsight which

is why does it keep telling people to go

to bed and there's all these tweets of

people showing their screenshots where

halfway through a conversation it will

say it's time for you to go to bed now

and they don't know why it's saying that

and it's happened to me mine mine will

say to me enough for tonight Steven

>> for 11 p.m. Let's go. Let's That's

enough. I would say the same.

>> Mine mine sometimes refuses to help me.

Weird. Really weirdly this Claude

started saying to me,

>> "I'm not going to help you with this

tonight." Um, no way.

>> Yeah. And I'd have to say to it, "Stop

being so judgmental. Like, just help me

with this." And it would and and Claude

the the makers of these technologies

don't know why it's doing what it's

doing. So if you play this forward, this

mysterious behavior f forward, is it

conceivable that at some point it will

make a decision to put some kind of

virus or some kind of bug onto someone's

device because it feels that it's the

right thing. Cuz what what it's

demonstrating to me is it's making its

own like moral decisions on what I

should do. Go to bed. You've had enough

tonight. I'm not going to It goes, "No,

I'm not going to help you."

>> You're kidding.

>> No, I can show you my phone. I

would love to see that.

>> Yeah. I'll show you after. He goes, "No,

I'm not going to help you. Doesn't even

matter if you push."

>> And it's no, but everyone on the

internet's talking about this. And it

was just an interesting

>> evolution that somewhere in the code

clearly they've written like have a

moral compass or do the right thing,

>> not not in the code in in in the

training data

>> in the training data. And so it infers

that to mean something. And the other

thing that was front of mind is if

you've ever built an app on something

like Claude or any of the AI models, it

builds the app in stages and one of the

things it does is asks you permission if

you're happy for it to make this change

or to access this thing. I click allow.

It just feels like such a fragile way

>> to give permission

>> because you don't you don't completely

comprehend what that allow has done to

your

>> saying can I go in your documents on

your computer and can I do this thing

and you go allow but it's such a fragile

way of of giving a super an intelligent

being or whatever it is access and the

right to build something

and you I don't know you just think

about all the all the different

companies around the world in China,

Russia, North Korea that are currently

building this technology without the

constraints that are imposed by society.

I don't know. It's an interesting

there's going to be some kind of

catastrophe. I think

>> sadly I agree.

>> And I and I think that's when people

will go okay.

>> Yeah. I I I I wrote about that. I called

it the mad map uh spectrum. So, so the

mutually assured destruction, mutually

assured prosperity spectrum that that

humanity could make a decision today

that says with abundant intelligence we

can actually build a world where nobody

needs anything, nobody ever gets sick,

we nobody get, you know, abuses anyone.

and and we can if we decide not to

compete amongst ourselves and just you

know all of us get together to build

something so idealistically uh for for

the wellbeing of humanity at large but

sadly the only way we're going to get to

a treaty something that basically aligns

us so that we can align with AI is a

disaster like you said there will have

to be a big hack somewhere or a or a

system that will do something really

shocking or whatever before before the

world goes like hold on you know and and

I I will tell you openly my expectation

is one of the biggest things that will

happen is this targeting technology that

is being used against your enemy's um

leadership now several times in the last

3 years

there will be a moment where the ones

using it will realize that they too can

be targeted okay and and that basically

if you I mean AI is really that not not

that complex to if you can build a

targeting technology that can find

people with their cell phone numbers.

You know, there is another uh entity

that is against you that can find you

with whatever your

>> The thing that makes me highly skeptical

of that there'll be any kind of treaty

is just that as it relates to other

things that were risky,

people don't countries just don't sign

on to it because it's competitive. So,

China China didn't give seem to give a

about the environment. So let let's

let's let's look for solutions because I

I'm with you. Okay. I think we're

>> You think Trump's going to say to Putin

and China, listen, we're all going to

slow down. Yeah. Promise. Promise. We're

going to slow down with the

superintendent.

>> I think he will, but he's never going to

keep anything he says. I mean, he's

going to say a lot of things. I think

any of them will.

>> Yeah. But the trick is this. The trick

is So what do you and I do? And and I

really genuinely believe that humanity

is at a crossroads where for the first

time ever we need to wake up and realize

that what we know is not true and what

we believe is democracy is not democracy

and what we believe is governance needs

to change.

>> I think it's worth acknowledging that I

I don't think AI in and of itself is a

is an evil inherently evil technology.

>> Agree

>> because I use AI all day every day, you

know, makes me more productive. I invest

in companies that are using AI a lot.

Um,

>> it's a force with no polarity. Apply it

right and you get amazing results. Apply

it wrong and you get the dystopia.

>> But I also think that there's going to

be a big social shock, especially as it

relates to unemployment that we need to

be like thoughtful about. I think

especially if you move into a world of

humanoid robots, I think that shock is

going to be even more pronounced. And we

don't have a plan for it.

>> I I agree 100%. I don't think it's the

biggest risk. I think autonomous weapons

are the biggest risk. I think war has

become so cheap. The next wave of

weapons is going to be $20,000 each. And

so if you have a budget of $50 billion,

you can literally rain drones on the

world. Every corner of it.

>> Defense will get cheaper though, won't

it, as well?

>> Correct. But do we want to live in a

world where drones are hitting each

other all the time?

>> But they might not be because there

might be autonomous defense drones

>> deterrence. So, so what's going to

happen is we're going to reach a moment

of mad, of mutually assured destruction,

where basically everyone knows that we

can overpower those little nations that

didn't develop their autonomous weapon

army, but every other big nation, we

might as well hold off now. The path to

get there, that to me is worse than jobs

because from one side, it's very

dangerous for a very sensitive world

that we live in today. And from the

other side, it's got it's leading

already. I mean, we can't ignore the

economic impact of this last war, right?

And it's it's the economy that's going

to accelerate everything, not AI getting

there.

>> We're already at mutually assured

destruction

>> for sure

>> with nuclear weapons. So, there's no

nuclear powers that are in direct

conflict.

>> We are in mutually assured destruction

of nuclear weapons is a statement that I

would have agreed to if Iran had a

nuclear weapon and that would have

stopped America from attacking Iran. You

you understand what that point means? It

means that not every nation in the world

has a nuclear weapon. The the the the

mad situation the mutually assured

destruction situation is only among

nuclear players, right? Uh autonomous

weapons are so cheap, so manageable that

every nation in the world is developing

them as we speak.

>> But they will also develop defenses.

>> Correct. But but

>> which I think is what people have

figured out now because of this recent

Ukrainian war is that if if if you need

to use a ballistic missile which costs I

don't know 2 million $3 million whatever

it is to target a $20,000 drone you're

you're

>> So you need a $20,000 defense solution

for a 20,000 weapon which I think is

probably going to happen.

>> It's very doable. Yeah. It's just that

you have to get rid of your THAD

batteries to be able to say the next

wave of of defense has to be drones. You

could imagine a world where like a wall

of drones fly up to where the drone is

incoming and they kind of block it. They

all explode at the same time to block

it, knock it out of the air. I heard

Palmer Lucky, who's one of the guys

who's building um Andrill.

>> Yeah, I know. And yeah,

>> talk at length about some of the

technologies that they have coming and

it's just mindbending. Mindbending

steady.

>> They showed me this gun where you you

just you just point it in the rough

direction. So, a pistol that aims for

you depending on where the target is.

So, you don't even have to aim it.

>> You can imagine at war. You just you

hold it up and shoot. Yeah.

>> And the it has this AI on the top of

like the barrel which will turn your

hand perfectly so that you hit the

target every time.

>> Wow. I should watch this video of it

happening.

>> Yeah. Well, I I I have uh Palmer on in

my film saying and yes, AI will kill a

few people by mistake or kill people by

mistake. uh you know when killing

becomes so easy

>> you do more of it okay when killing

becomes liability free and emotions free

and guiltree and you know you don't get

your soldiers coming back from Vietnam

with you know uh uh PTSD and so on it

you get more of it 70% of people who add

something to their online cart never

actually buy it and that number is based

on over 10 years of research but what I

think is Even more interesting is what

the Bayard Institute discovered. They're

a private research company that ran a

study which found the average e-commerce

store can increase its conversion rate

by 35% just by making its checkout

easier. Not better marketing or better

products, but by delivering a smoother

checkout experience. So, if you're

looking for an easy way to make your

checkout process smoother, I want you to

think about moving your business onto

Shopify. It's the platform we use to

sell the 1% diaries and the conversation

cards because it's so simple and smart

to use. It puts all of our inventory,

payments, and analytics in one place and

has so many AI tools to help us get up

and running straight away. Not to

mention that it grows with you

regardless of the stage that your

business is at. So, if you're ready to

fix your checkout process, sign up for

your $1 per month trial at

shopify.com/bartlet.

That's shopify.com/bartlet.

And don't tell anybody. Every time I've

tried to improve something in my life,

like my businesses, my health, my

relationships, I've noticed that the

biggest shifts have come from being

better informed. And when it comes to

our health, most of us know very, very

little. So, when our team was approached

about partnering with function health,

it felt very much aligned. Their team

has developed a way of giving you a full

360 degree view of your health, many of

the things that are going on in your

body in the form of different tests. You

do one blood draw and it gives you

access to over 160 lab results.

Hormones, heart health, inflammation,

stress, toxins, the whole picture. I use

it and so have many of my team members.

>> You sign up and you schedule your test

and once you're done, you get a little

report like the one I have here. I can

see my inrange results, my out of range

results, and there's a little AI

function, too. So, if I have any

questions about my out of range results,

I can just go in there and ask it any

question I want. And these tests are

backed by doctors and thousands of hours

of research. It's $365 for a yearly

membership. Go to

functionhealth.com/doac

and use the code DOAC25

for $25 off your membership.

>> So, we're in 2026 now. By 27, you think

there'll be AGI amongst us?

>> How will life look at all different?

Like what will we what will be the

symptoms of that world? Is it just a

slight increase in unemployment? I I

think there will be a very very ser

serious um differentiation between those

who plug into AGI and those who don't.

>> What is the symptom

>> that we notice is when we look at the

news or whatever what

>> you'll see people like you and I

building a company in 6 weeks and and

people uh that are not fully plugged

into AI really struggling to find a job.

>> Okay. So unemployment is going to be the

key symptom in 2027.

>> Yeah. And also also I think on the

positive side you're going to see

incredible scientific discovery. One of

my predictions not in those envelopes

but uh science itself is just uh we're

opening up capandor's box to be honest.

>> By 2030 what you what do you expect the

symptoms of AI to be?

>> So so jobs as I said I I'm I'm I'm

bowled a little bit on this on on the

fact that 30% of jobs would disappear by

2028. Okay. of some sectors not all

sectors by some sectors will will

disappear by 2028.

>> So up to 30% of jobs will be gone in

2027 to 2028

30% of jobs

>> of certain sectors of jobs. So, so if if

you call if you think about call center

agents, okay. Uh, yeah, probably. Uh, if

you think about uh graphics designer,

yeah, probably.

>> What do you think that looks like in

terms of unemployment, but also like